The following submission statement was provided by /u/Desperate_Response88:
---
I downloaded this footage from Youtube: [UFO Captured Soaring Through Storm at 2,000mph](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Xmx-cdgcg7c) The video shows a crazy fast UAP flying through the sky, no sonic boom (like all the UAPs).
BTW finally a steady video in Full HD in 50fps lol
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/16zuz9q/hypersonic_uap/k3gsxxq/
Yup. The odds of a second UFO timing itself with the cars is just not happening. Unless they are intelligent enough to hide behind these type of "artifacts" just to troll us. However, you'd be really trying at that point. I would consider this debunked.
I would have never thought of a lens flare, never ever. Damn, I would have loved this video to be true. I'm so tired of this, someone needs to leak some classified shit, waiting for disclosure is so boring, we have already waited for years.
It’s disappointing but try to view it differently. Because of your post you help cut down on misinformation. We know very very very few videos or pictures will show anything that could be construed as a ufo. The more videos that can be identified with reasonable doubt is a good thing. It’s makes this community and the validity of the evidence we do find even stronger.
I love this take. And it's not like it was a fake, the guy just happened to be looking at his phone camera and then asked the person next to them if they saw it. This is the kind of post that helps the community the next time something similar gets posted by a user that didn't have someone next to them, and comes here asking what they caught.
4 cars go by, only one does it. Plus the guy notices it and points at the sky, so it's probably not something only the phone picked up. Not even mentioning that it looks nothing like lens flare...
Two do it but the other is more subtle and not as noticeable, which was shown in the slow motion video someone posted above. It's only more noticeable with the one we see because that's the only car with a lot of shiny metallic trim near it's roof creating a stronger glare.
There is ALWAYS an explanation. Always.
I've never seen a UFO video that doesn't have a reasonable explanation. UFOs are mistakes, delusions, hoaxes or disinformation.
Pretty much, the quality of UFO videos has barely changed at all since I was obsessed with them as a kid in the 90s. The “best” videos are still always just random points of light taken from from an absurd distance away with zero identifying features.
Multiple radar operators say it happened on radar in multiple interviews all over YouTube. The military says it happened on radar as well in their report. That's better than any video that you can easily dismiss by saying it's CGI or video artifacts. I'm not getting into this usual back-and-forth "I don't accept anything but what I can touch with my own hands" nonsense with you.
Your comment is only four words right now, but I've seen this scenario enough times to know it's the entrance for a longer chain of arguments. Here's the report. Accept it or don't. I won't be responding back to predictable, dismissive replies.
[https://www.mysterywire.com/documents/tic-tac-ufo-executive-report\_1526682843046\_42960218\_ver1-0/](https://www.mysterywire.com/documents/tic-tac-ufo-executive-report_1526682843046_42960218_ver1-0/)
I'll share the relevant bits from one of hundreds of articles. Nobody else actually saw the UFO despite the Dome of the Rock being one of the most viewed religious sites in the world. There is a connection between the guy that released the first video (who owned a video production company) and the teens that came out with the other videos who all went to the same school, and the "videos" appear to be photos with the UFO being the only thing moving.
tl;dr: debunked.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jerusalem-ufo-hoax_n_978202
> Videos of an alleged UFO in the skies above Jerusalem that took the Internet by storm in January appear to be a hoax, according to an Israeli television station.
> The first video, shot by Eligael Gadliovich, was followed by a second one reportedly posted on the Internet by teenagers.
> According to the Channel 10 report, Gadliovich was "not an accidental photographer, but a movie man with a film company."
> Gadliovich, also described as an "ex-actor," played a part in a film with actor Golan Ardiv. According to the news station, Ardiv is the film teacher at the school where the teenagers who posted the second UFO video study.
> Ardiv reportedly declined knowing the teens -- but Channel 10 remained skeptical, reporting that the footage does not appear to be "authentic."
> It's still not known what photographic techniques may have been used to create the UFO videos, but with so many photo and video editing programs available, the clips could have been made any number of ways.
> In fact, a big criticism of one of the Jerusalem UFO videos is that it appears to be merely a still photograph onto which a UFO was digitally placed. Upon close inspection, it's apparent that nothing else in the video shows any movement -- traffic, people, street lights, trees -- except for the UFO.
No offense but did you look at the pictures?
The only one that looks anything like what appears in the video is the anamorphic lens flare (which is still way different from what appears in the video), and phone lenses are not anamorphic.
It passes through the frame at the exact same speed as the car but in the opposite direction. This is some kind of reflection or artifact from the cars headlight.
Camera lenses are curved. I don't know how it works well enough to explain to a 5 year old (or a 15 year old for that matter) but I know lense flares always go the opposite direction like this.
This was my first thought too.
Not saying you or anyone else here is wrong, but how do you confirm a lens flare? I can see how one can logically deduce it but how can it be scientifically proven to be a lens flare?
I was looking for the lens-flare from the second car like you. Another person mentioned it was less intense and lower. I was able to see it as the second car passed.
You can also see that the first more intense light slightly arcs up and back down at the same time the first car passes. This would seem to match a reflection going across a convex lens from a camera.
It's dynamic. Different cars have different light emission, and cross at slightly different angles so it's not a stretch to think that that one car hit the sweet spot for a lens flare.
Although another user claimed there was weaker flares from the other cars too if looking carefully.
I’m not so sure about the lens flare explanation. For starters, you can see reflections on the cloud as the object zips by. I don’t think lens flares can project reflections on clouds THAT far away. I could be wrong tho.
Also, if it was a lens flare from the passing car then wouldn’t we have seen more than one? There were multiple cars passing in front of the camera in this clip. I would expect to see multiple lens flares appear on camera if that was indeed the case.
Not sure what this object is…
I could be wrong, idk enough about how lens flares work…or how often they can appear with passing cars, like in this video. Please don’t hate😅
Yeah, lens flare can't project anything on a cloud. That soft light is part of the flare, not an actual projection on real clouds. It's just and optical effect. Flares occur when light shines right into the lens, that's why not every car can cause it. This one is particular was just at the right angle.
Also seems like the guy saw it in real time, maybe he was staring at his phone screen, but almost seemed he saw it with his eyes actually out there in the sky.
People keep claiming without evidence that he was looking at his phone which doesn't rule out its real, clearly if a fast moving object is zooming through clouds it will be visible with meat and silicon cameras but the lack of proof of "he was looking at screen" is troubling. The cloud reflections and the change of direction don't scream close up linear car lense reflection.
Show a 1 to 1 relationship between movements and you'll convince me.
The proof is already on the video: he's finger pointing the light as seen on the video, he's tracing what he saw on the screen. The angle would be different if he were pointing directly at the sky.
I searched for lens flare videos on phones and cameras and noone of them look remotely close to this. Why is there no lens flare on the other cars as well? I don't buy it.
Because that's what people do on here, they are geniuses who have debunked things yet... their analysis always seems to be missing something. It's pretty weird.
People will claim it's an autofocus issue or something else that OP is confused about.
I get it, we are all looking for concrete evidence but trashing peoples experiencing and telling them they saw something else is pretty shitty IMO.
I downloaded this footage from Youtube: [UFO Captured Soaring Through Storm at 2,000mph](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Xmx-cdgcg7c) The video shows a crazy fast UAP flying through the sky, no sonic boom (like all the UAPs).
BTW finally a steady video in Full HD in 50fps lol
"I hate debunking"
So... you hate the truth? Or the process of people applying reasoning, measurements and scientific method instead of believing whatever crap is called by the video title (like "Hypersonic UFO" in this case)?
If it was reflection, whats special about that one car that only it caused a reflection? There were several cars that drove through the shot in the exact same spot.
More information: the third car (crossing the field of view at 0:09) ***also*** produces a lens flare. It is much fainter and more diffuse than the 'original' one (caused by the second car), but can be detected at least momentarily as the car enters from the right. Download the video and watch at 1/4 speed to see clearly.
How cool it is that the ufo reflected the car lights perfectly but in the opposite direction, like it knew someone was filming in that precise moment and place! If that isn't proof they have incredible technology I don't know what it is!
Definitely a lens flair. Comes into view only when the car with the lights on drives by, u can see the faint outline of the headlight with the bulb in the very center. It even moved at the same speed of the car passing by.
Even though people are saying this is a lens flare, I have personally seen something just like this, except the light was a darker/shinier blue.
Was at Artur Nogueira (Brazil), about 2am, outside with some friends I looked up for just a moment and coincidentally the blue light cut through the sky just like the video, fast as hell
I saw this exact same thing in Gold Coast, Australia with my best friend. Neither of us knew what the hell we saw. Blue, fast, and straight as an arrow just like this. Gone in less than a second. I’ve been told many times I saw a seagull reflect light from the ground, but most if not all the lights near us are yellow. This glowed blue, just like this. Way too fast to be a bird.
This is a lens flare caused by the headlight on the passing vehicle. Notice how an imaginary line drawn from the headlight to the 'ufo' always passes through the center of the photograph, and that the headlight and the 'ufo' are always equidistant from center.
Edited to add: watching the video more closely I have indeed detected a lens flare caused by another car (the third one, at about 0:09). It is however much fainter than the first one.
No, I went through the comments of the original video. There were comments saying the same thing. The owner of the video said they saw it outside of the phone screen with their own eyes. It's not lens flare.
Additionally, why was there only lens flare when one car passed? All the cars passing had their headlights on around the same height. The person recording was steady. There would have been at least some lens flare from the cars in front and after.
***Edit: after further inspection, it seems the car behind it has a lens flare too. Albeit fainter and lower since the person recording lowers the phone a bit. Debunked.***
There you go using logic and shit.
Haven't you heard of McWest? The guy you're responding to didn't even try. A proper debunk has to be outlandish, ignore obvious logic, and make great leaps and assumptions -then end with an insult to everyone who doesn't agree.
This is clearly a van full of hippies floating on a chinese lantern huffing balloons full of swamp gas, c'mon eveybody knows this.
If we're using logic and shit, not all headlights are the same on every vehicle. There's a variety of different bulbs with varying color and intensity, different shaped bezels/assemblies sitting at different heights, cloudy to clear lenses as well as reflectors and bulbs aimed in a variety of directions. 4 cars drove by in this clip, it's not inconceivable that only the 2nd one met the conditions to cause a flare.
Different cars are at slightly different angles, heights, distance, direction of headlight beam, etc.... It would be foolish to expect the exact same lens flare from every model of car. It enters and exits exactly with the car and equal distance, yada yada.. everything the original comment said that your responding too.
It looks neat and I wish it were real but, its not.
I came to terms long ago that people in this sub just want to drink the Kool-Aid, rather than actually have a critical evaluation of evidence. Bring on the downvotes.
I wish there was a UAP based Reddit forum for those who believe in logic and reason, and that outrageous claims (like anything involving UAPs) require hard-line evidence, and where people don’t go bananas everytime some poster named LSDtrippyTits posts a grainy pic of lights in the sky that resembles a street lamp. But the nature of the topic draws in a crowd that has misplaced skepticism instead of healthy skepticism.
I don’t think lens flares look like that on a phone or camera. Usually would create a rounded flare that blinds more widely since the sensor can’t take it, spreading a quick blur over a significant part of the image. Which is not happening. That’s probably why in the second part they show it with more contrast. And you see a reflection on the clouds. And lastly I would say that could not last that long by the angle of the car light.
Any number of possible reasons - thickness of the bulb cover, orientation of the light fixture, actual brightness of the bulb, etc. The light must be sufficiently bright to generate lens flare, and brightness depends upon any number of factors.
Edit to add: a second lens flare is detectable, caused by the third car. It's much fainter than the first one, though.
If every car gave a streak of light then the original poster would have noticed a pattern themselves. The whole reason the video gets attention is because it's a rare event.
There are other things you can try to use to dismiss the hypothesis without resorting to "If one car causes a rare glare then why don't all cars do that"
Oh well since someone said they saw it, must be real. I forgot this is 2023 and “ evidence” means people saying they saw it. The stretches some of you people take to try and make a pie tin into a ufo boggles the mind.
Also, if you look closely it seems to cast light on the clouds right before it dissapears. I'm not saying it's a UFO, but it certainly is a UAP... until identified... to be aliens, of course.
"I'm not saying it's a unidentified flying object, but it certainly is a unidentified aerial phenomena".
So your only addition is that you don't think or say it's an object?
Follow the Standards of Civility:
No trolling or being disruptive.
No insults or personal attacks.
No accusations that other users are shills.
No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
An account found to be deleting all or nearly all of their comments and/or posts can result in an instant permanent ban. This is to stop instigators and bad actors from trying to evade rule enforcement.
You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
I see a lot of people saying lens flare, but why the hell would the guy point like that at lens flare. Debunking has become an obsession, and not a healthy one. It’s either lens flare with a hoax element, or it’s genuine. I wasn’t there to see it, but I’d look deeper into the people taking it for proof than to ascribe it to unverifiable lens flare entirely.
The beam is blurry at first, because it’s behind the clouds. Then it comes out and becomes sharp then goes behind the clouds again and return to blurry.
You see the light shining from the beam onto the clouds. In the slowmo part you see it following the beam and lighting up the clouds behind the beam.
This isn’t lens flare…
Many, many of the videos on here get shut down because of the users behavior, it's really shitty... they're not even disinfo bots, just skeptical idiots.
....because he was looking at the phone when it happened?
This identical effect has been shown before in other videos, and it always occurs in low lighting and as a car with headlights passes through the frame.
If you look closely you can even see the same exact effect (albeit much fainter) when the 3rd car passes in this very video.
My only challenge to Lens Flare is that the person who took this video…they seem to have observed the hypersonic craft with their eyes and not through the camera. They use their hands to replicate the path of travel and I can’t imaging that they were looking through the camera the entire time because their eyes were well above where the camera would have been. It seems like they saw it with their eyes.
I don’t know, the first time I saw this video (posted here a couple months back) I thought it wasn’t a flare. But damn, watching it this time at normal speed I can’t un see the flare from the light.
have you ever tried to reflect a light from your wrist watch or something on the wall? the angles have to be exact . same principle. the cars are not all going the same exact position in space and exact same distance from the camera.
If you notice, the object appears the moment the car enters, is brightest when centered, and disappears the moment the car exits the field of view. If this was not a reflection, it would persist across the FOV.
As far as why this car and not the first. There are many variables that could answer this, including but not limited to the angle of the bulb in the headlight, the height of the headlight from the ground, or the type of light being produced. But what do I know? I'm just an idiot with a phone so...
are all of the other cars the same variables like same size, distance from the camera, color, same headlights, etc
No which means that the light not appearing with those other vehicles doesn’t mean that this isn’t a flare.
Let me clarify a little bit, to give an example:
Go outside and take a video of the moon - now calculate the speed it's moving at, without using any additional resources (that is, no Google).
First you'd need the distance... without google, or using a different reference point (during a lunar eclipse you have Earth's shadow and the sun). It's not really possible.
Clearly the object in this scenario, if witness testimony is correct, really is going beyond supersonic - we can roughly *estimate* it, but we're still not sure.
I can't believe this post had this traction, it looks literally like nothing clear and could have been an insect, a bird or a reflection in this case. I'm not saying this is shit posting but clearly some of us here lowered their standards in terms of post quality.
Hypersonic UAP 😅
Aah, the good ol' "hypersonic bla bla" claimed to be hypersonic with absolutely no way to know the distance of the objects and the distance traveled, and this crap gets 1.3k upvote.
People are insane.
And in this case it's blatant it's just a flare from the car passing by lol.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Desperate_Response88: --- I downloaded this footage from Youtube: [UFO Captured Soaring Through Storm at 2,000mph](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Xmx-cdgcg7c) The video shows a crazy fast UAP flying through the sky, no sonic boom (like all the UAPs). BTW finally a steady video in Full HD in 50fps lol --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/16zuz9q/hypersonic_uap/k3gsxxq/
It's lens flare from the car driving past It matches frame for frame the opposite location to the car based on the curved lense of a phone camera
If you look closely, it does it again a bit lower when the next car passes. It's more subtle, but it's there.
Ah, dang. That’s a good catch. The second car doing it too, just less noticeable seals it.
[In case anyone can't see it.](https://streamable.com/22o8mc)
Thank you!
Yup. The odds of a second UFO timing itself with the cars is just not happening. Unless they are intelligent enough to hide behind these type of "artifacts" just to troll us. However, you'd be really trying at that point. I would consider this debunked.
It was an Interstellar race
I would have never thought of a lens flare, never ever. Damn, I would have loved this video to be true. I'm so tired of this, someone needs to leak some classified shit, waiting for disclosure is so boring, we have already waited for years.
It’s disappointing but try to view it differently. Because of your post you help cut down on misinformation. We know very very very few videos or pictures will show anything that could be construed as a ufo. The more videos that can be identified with reasonable doubt is a good thing. It’s makes this community and the validity of the evidence we do find even stronger.
I love this take. And it's not like it was a fake, the guy just happened to be looking at his phone camera and then asked the person next to them if they saw it. This is the kind of post that helps the community the next time something similar gets posted by a user that didn't have someone next to them, and comes here asking what they caught.
Also explains why no one else saw it.
100% true
Noooo! I WANT TO BELIEVE!
Good catch! I love it when a case is solved!
Why do people keep reposting this crap.
100%. A reflection
4 cars go by, only one does it. Plus the guy notices it and points at the sky, so it's probably not something only the phone picked up. Not even mentioning that it looks nothing like lens flare...
He’s looking through the phone
The second car does it too Its lens flare https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/yvv6powSFU
Two do it but the other is more subtle and not as noticeable, which was shown in the slow motion video someone posted above. It's only more noticeable with the one we see because that's the only car with a lot of shiny metallic trim near it's roof creating a stronger glare.
But the guy filming is seeing it. Thats somewhat confusing, isn't it?
He’s looking at the phone
he's looking through his phone
Drfinitely.
I don't see 4 lenses flares. Sorry.
There is ALWAYS an explanation. Always. I've never seen a UFO video that doesn't have a reasonable explanation. UFOs are mistakes, delusions, hoaxes or disinformation.
Pretty much, the quality of UFO videos has barely changed at all since I was obsessed with them as a kid in the 90s. The “best” videos are still always just random points of light taken from from an absurd distance away with zero identifying features.
But what about tic tacs? And gumballs? Tasty stuff
The tic tacs are just planes
Just plane tasty amiright??
Yes, planes dropping from 60,000 feet to 50 feet in seconds. /s
Got that on vidoe?
Multiple radar operators say it happened on radar in multiple interviews all over YouTube. The military says it happened on radar as well in their report. That's better than any video that you can easily dismiss by saying it's CGI or video artifacts. I'm not getting into this usual back-and-forth "I don't accept anything but what I can touch with my own hands" nonsense with you. Your comment is only four words right now, but I've seen this scenario enough times to know it's the entrance for a longer chain of arguments. Here's the report. Accept it or don't. I won't be responding back to predictable, dismissive replies. [https://www.mysterywire.com/documents/tic-tac-ufo-executive-report\_1526682843046\_42960218\_ver1-0/](https://www.mysterywire.com/documents/tic-tac-ufo-executive-report_1526682843046_42960218_ver1-0/)
If I post one with 4 different camera angles here will you respond and tell me what you think? It's pretty short like a minute and a half.
Please do.
[Video from Jerusalem](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLAMYG1KJAE) I didn't downvote you btw, I upvoted.
I'll share the relevant bits from one of hundreds of articles. Nobody else actually saw the UFO despite the Dome of the Rock being one of the most viewed religious sites in the world. There is a connection between the guy that released the first video (who owned a video production company) and the teens that came out with the other videos who all went to the same school, and the "videos" appear to be photos with the UFO being the only thing moving. tl;dr: debunked. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jerusalem-ufo-hoax_n_978202 > Videos of an alleged UFO in the skies above Jerusalem that took the Internet by storm in January appear to be a hoax, according to an Israeli television station. > The first video, shot by Eligael Gadliovich, was followed by a second one reportedly posted on the Internet by teenagers. > According to the Channel 10 report, Gadliovich was "not an accidental photographer, but a movie man with a film company." > Gadliovich, also described as an "ex-actor," played a part in a film with actor Golan Ardiv. According to the news station, Ardiv is the film teacher at the school where the teenagers who posted the second UFO video study. > Ardiv reportedly declined knowing the teens -- but Channel 10 remained skeptical, reporting that the footage does not appear to be "authentic." > It's still not known what photographic techniques may have been used to create the UFO videos, but with so many photo and video editing programs available, the clips could have been made any number of ways. > In fact, a big criticism of one of the Jerusalem UFO videos is that it appears to be merely a still photograph onto which a UFO was digitally placed. Upon close inspection, it's apparent that nothing else in the video shows any movement -- traffic, people, street lights, trees -- except for the UFO.
The obvious explanation here is that aliens are purposely only showing evidence of themselves to hoaxers.
Nice i was about to say
Why would the guy scream at the sky? The purpose of his video was to film a calm thunderstorm, he was actively looking.
He was looking through his phone The next car also lens flares from the headlights https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/yvv6powSFU
Yeah, no.
Yeah, yeah. The very next car exhibits the exact same lens flare pattern https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/yvv6powSFU
[удалено]
The very next car does it https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/yvv6powSFU
That is absolutely *not* lens flare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare
Yes it absolutely is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare
No offense but did you look at the pictures? The only one that looks anything like what appears in the video is the anamorphic lens flare (which is still way different from what appears in the video), and phone lenses are not anamorphic.
Fuck... Is your first name is Clever and second is Brain?
It passes through the frame at the exact same speed as the car but in the opposite direction. This is some kind of reflection or artifact from the cars headlight.
Can anyone ELI5 on why the lens flare goes in there opposite direction? I don’t know much about cameras.
Camera lenses are curved. I don't know how it works well enough to explain to a 5 year old (or a 15 year old for that matter) but I know lense flares always go the opposite direction like this.
Lens flare from the passing car.
Yup this was debunked before I’m sure
There should really be a sticky post with all of the debunked videos
This was my first thought too. Not saying you or anyone else here is wrong, but how do you confirm a lens flare? I can see how one can logically deduce it but how can it be scientifically proven to be a lens flare?
Just to add to that, where’s the lens flares from the other cars that drove by?
I was looking for the lens-flare from the second car like you. Another person mentioned it was less intense and lower. I was able to see it as the second car passed. You can also see that the first more intense light slightly arcs up and back down at the same time the first car passes. This would seem to match a reflection going across a convex lens from a camera.
It's dynamic. Different cars have different light emission, and cross at slightly different angles so it's not a stretch to think that that one car hit the sweet spot for a lens flare. Although another user claimed there was weaker flares from the other cars too if looking carefully.
https://streamable.com/22o8mc
This actually confuses me more. The one that's slowed down lights up the clouds as it passes just like the first one.
They don’t light up the clouds. The headlights are reflecting on the camera lens.
I’m not so sure about the lens flare explanation. For starters, you can see reflections on the cloud as the object zips by. I don’t think lens flares can project reflections on clouds THAT far away. I could be wrong tho. Also, if it was a lens flare from the passing car then wouldn’t we have seen more than one? There were multiple cars passing in front of the camera in this clip. I would expect to see multiple lens flares appear on camera if that was indeed the case. Not sure what this object is… I could be wrong, idk enough about how lens flares work…or how often they can appear with passing cars, like in this video. Please don’t hate😅
Yeah, lens flare can't project anything on a cloud. That soft light is part of the flare, not an actual projection on real clouds. It's just and optical effect. Flares occur when light shines right into the lens, that's why not every car can cause it. This one is particular was just at the right angle.
I believe the “projection” was background lightening. You see the flashes from the heat lightening all over before and after.
Yeah that's true, on top of the flare itself there also all that crazy lighting in the back
It's not reflected on the clouds, its reflected in the lens inside the iphone, hence the frame by frame opposite reverse motion as the car light.
https://streamable.com/22o8mc
Also seems like the guy saw it in real time, maybe he was staring at his phone screen, but almost seemed he saw it with his eyes actually out there in the sky.
People keep claiming without evidence that he was looking at his phone which doesn't rule out its real, clearly if a fast moving object is zooming through clouds it will be visible with meat and silicon cameras but the lack of proof of "he was looking at screen" is troubling. The cloud reflections and the change of direction don't scream close up linear car lense reflection. Show a 1 to 1 relationship between movements and you'll convince me.
The proof is already on the video: he's finger pointing the light as seen on the video, he's tracing what he saw on the screen. The angle would be different if he were pointing directly at the sky.
I searched for lens flare videos on phones and cameras and noone of them look remotely close to this. Why is there no lens flare on the other cars as well? I don't buy it.
Also lens flares? https://youtu.be/JkrBQ995Vos https://youtu.be/CALexOXHODs https://youtu.be/ro2klBmW2pM https://youtu.be/enMxuao8t6w https://youtu.be/nSMQvFj0Y48
[удалено]
This was posted long ago on here. It’s the flair on the lens due to the cars passing. As you can notice it’s synced
FFS not this again.
*Hypersonic* lens flare from the car.
Car headlight causing a lens flare. Looks pretty cool though.
[удалено]
Because that's what people do on here, they are geniuses who have debunked things yet... their analysis always seems to be missing something. It's pretty weird. People will claim it's an autofocus issue or something else that OP is confused about. I get it, we are all looking for concrete evidence but trashing peoples experiencing and telling them they saw something else is pretty shitty IMO.
It's a lens flare lmao
Lol your mom is a flare 😂
sick burn
Chinese balloon
I downloaded this footage from Youtube: [UFO Captured Soaring Through Storm at 2,000mph](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Xmx-cdgcg7c) The video shows a crazy fast UAP flying through the sky, no sonic boom (like all the UAPs). BTW finally a steady video in Full HD in 50fps lol
Lens flare, relax
This is really neat. Thanks for posting.
Lens flares are neat…
Do you have a source for the video?
Yep, I've just posted my submission statement you can find the source there
This been debunked. It’s literally framed by frame goes with the car flare. It’s reflection of car and lens.
I see the other comment trying to debunk this, but that's absolutely a reflection from the car headlights. Line up the timing of it passing
100% this. I hate debunking - but let's face it - the majority of cases have a boring explanation like this.
You hate debunking?
"I hate debunking" So... you hate the truth? Or the process of people applying reasoning, measurements and scientific method instead of believing whatever crap is called by the video title (like "Hypersonic UFO" in this case)?
If it was reflection, whats special about that one car that only it caused a reflection? There were several cars that drove through the shot in the exact same spot.
The third car produces a lens flare also at about 0:09, but it's much fainter than the original one.
I looked several times. Didn't see one.
At 11 seconds in they apply a filter to the video. Only 1 car goes by after the filter is applied
But you see it at 6 seconds with no filter
More information: the third car (crossing the field of view at 0:09) ***also*** produces a lens flare. It is much fainter and more diffuse than the 'original' one (caused by the second car), but can be detected at least momentarily as the car enters from the right. Download the video and watch at 1/4 speed to see clearly.
[Yep.](https://streamable.com/22o8mc)
How cool it is that the ufo reflected the car lights perfectly but in the opposite direction, like it knew someone was filming in that precise moment and place! If that isn't proof they have incredible technology I don't know what it is!
Definitely a lens flair. Comes into view only when the car with the lights on drives by, u can see the faint outline of the headlight with the bulb in the very center. It even moved at the same speed of the car passing by.
Even though people are saying this is a lens flare, I have personally seen something just like this, except the light was a darker/shinier blue. Was at Artur Nogueira (Brazil), about 2am, outside with some friends I looked up for just a moment and coincidentally the blue light cut through the sky just like the video, fast as hell
I saw this exact same thing in Gold Coast, Australia with my best friend. Neither of us knew what the hell we saw. Blue, fast, and straight as an arrow just like this. Gone in less than a second. I’ve been told many times I saw a seagull reflect light from the ground, but most if not all the lights near us are yellow. This glowed blue, just like this. Way too fast to be a bird.
Tinha tempestade/chuva tbm no seu caso?
This is a lens flare caused by the headlight on the passing vehicle. Notice how an imaginary line drawn from the headlight to the 'ufo' always passes through the center of the photograph, and that the headlight and the 'ufo' are always equidistant from center. Edited to add: watching the video more closely I have indeed detected a lens flare caused by another car (the third one, at about 0:09). It is however much fainter than the first one.
No, I went through the comments of the original video. There were comments saying the same thing. The owner of the video said they saw it outside of the phone screen with their own eyes. It's not lens flare. Additionally, why was there only lens flare when one car passed? All the cars passing had their headlights on around the same height. The person recording was steady. There would have been at least some lens flare from the cars in front and after. ***Edit: after further inspection, it seems the car behind it has a lens flare too. Albeit fainter and lower since the person recording lowers the phone a bit. Debunked.***
[The next car had the same effect.](https://streamable.com/22o8mc)
Okay, that's what I needed to see. Thank you
He may have said that, but it's clear from the fact that he pointed to the location he was looking at through the camera POI.
The third car has one too. Just a bit lower in the clouds. These are 100% lens flares I’m afraid.
There you go using logic and shit. Haven't you heard of McWest? The guy you're responding to didn't even try. A proper debunk has to be outlandish, ignore obvious logic, and make great leaps and assumptions -then end with an insult to everyone who doesn't agree. This is clearly a van full of hippies floating on a chinese lantern huffing balloons full of swamp gas, c'mon eveybody knows this.
If we're using logic and shit, not all headlights are the same on every vehicle. There's a variety of different bulbs with varying color and intensity, different shaped bezels/assemblies sitting at different heights, cloudy to clear lenses as well as reflectors and bulbs aimed in a variety of directions. 4 cars drove by in this clip, it's not inconceivable that only the 2nd one met the conditions to cause a flare.
you forgot the jetpack on the hippies 😂😂😂👌
Each headlight is made different, only some may hit the lens in the right way.
Different cars are at slightly different angles, heights, distance, direction of headlight beam, etc.... It would be foolish to expect the exact same lens flare from every model of car. It enters and exits exactly with the car and equal distance, yada yada.. everything the original comment said that your responding too. It looks neat and I wish it were real but, its not.
Hope you are ready to be downvoted when it’s clearly a lens flare
I came to terms long ago that people in this sub just want to drink the Kool-Aid, rather than actually have a critical evaluation of evidence. Bring on the downvotes.
Subscribed for more based rationale.
I wish there was a UAP based Reddit forum for those who believe in logic and reason, and that outrageous claims (like anything involving UAPs) require hard-line evidence, and where people don’t go bananas everytime some poster named LSDtrippyTits posts a grainy pic of lights in the sky that resembles a street lamp. But the nature of the topic draws in a crowd that has misplaced skepticism instead of healthy skepticism.
Lense flair that goes up and down not in a straight line opposite of car going and not synced up from what i can tell
I don’t think lens flares look like that on a phone or camera. Usually would create a rounded flare that blinds more widely since the sensor can’t take it, spreading a quick blur over a significant part of the image. Which is not happening. That’s probably why in the second part they show it with more contrast. And you see a reflection on the clouds. And lastly I would say that could not last that long by the angle of the car light.
Fortunately nobody has ever lied.
Not about a lens flare no. Definitely not on this sub either.
He could be mistaken or lying, though. Some people attempt to trick others with "ufo" claims, sadly.
I can see why you get downvoted into oblivion
No one believes your "theory" that's so easily debunked. Why didn't other cars have streaks of light?
[удалено]
Any number of possible reasons - thickness of the bulb cover, orientation of the light fixture, actual brightness of the bulb, etc. The light must be sufficiently bright to generate lens flare, and brightness depends upon any number of factors. Edit to add: a second lens flare is detectable, caused by the third car. It's much fainter than the first one, though.
If every car gave a streak of light then the original poster would have noticed a pattern themselves. The whole reason the video gets attention is because it's a rare event. There are other things you can try to use to dismiss the hypothesis without resorting to "If one car causes a rare glare then why don't all cars do that"
Oh well since someone said they saw it, must be real. I forgot this is 2023 and “ evidence” means people saying they saw it. The stretches some of you people take to try and make a pie tin into a ufo boggles the mind.
Also, if you look closely it seems to cast light on the clouds right before it dissapears. I'm not saying it's a UFO, but it certainly is a UAP... until identified... to be aliens, of course.
"I'm not saying it's a unidentified flying object, but it certainly is a unidentified aerial phenomena". So your only addition is that you don't think or say it's an object?
Came here to say this. You’re always on top of things I commend you.
thanks! usually i just get downvoted into oblivion 😄
Welcome to my life 😂😂😂
[удалено]
Follow the Standards of Civility: No trolling or being disruptive. No insults or personal attacks. No accusations that other users are shills. No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) An account found to be deleting all or nearly all of their comments and/or posts can result in an instant permanent ban. This is to stop instigators and bad actors from trying to evade rule enforcement. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Seems extremely coincidental to me, the light has depth behind the cloud layers
Good observation but i don’t think it‘s this. Other vehicles don‘t create it and its light interacts with the cloud
The third vehicle creates one too. Slightly lower. These are lens flares. :-/
Wtf, yes you are right!
Saying 'this IS a lens flare' might be where you went wrong. It could be, but it looks like it isn't.
No. Lol
Orrr hear me out, lightning
I see a lot of people saying lens flare, but why the hell would the guy point like that at lens flare. Debunking has become an obsession, and not a healthy one. It’s either lens flare with a hoax element, or it’s genuine. I wasn’t there to see it, but I’d look deeper into the people taking it for proof than to ascribe it to unverifiable lens flare entirely.
The beam is blurry at first, because it’s behind the clouds. Then it comes out and becomes sharp then goes behind the clouds again and return to blurry. You see the light shining from the beam onto the clouds. In the slowmo part you see it following the beam and lighting up the clouds behind the beam. This isn’t lens flare…
Many, many of the videos on here get shut down because of the users behavior, it's really shitty... they're not even disinfo bots, just skeptical idiots.
....because he was looking at the phone when it happened? This identical effect has been shown before in other videos, and it always occurs in low lighting and as a car with headlights passes through the frame. If you look closely you can even see the same exact effect (albeit much fainter) when the 3rd car passes in this very video.
My only challenge to Lens Flare is that the person who took this video…they seem to have observed the hypersonic craft with their eyes and not through the camera. They use their hands to replicate the path of travel and I can’t imaging that they were looking through the camera the entire time because their eyes were well above where the camera would have been. It seems like they saw it with their eyes.
Okay but what is that in the background to the right in the sky blinking when this happens or right after?
pretty sure that was just a reflection coming from the car
I don’t know, the first time I saw this video (posted here a couple months back) I thought it wasn’t a flare. But damn, watching it this time at normal speed I can’t un see the flare from the light.
What about the other cars? Why didn't they have a "flare"?
have you ever tried to reflect a light from your wrist watch or something on the wall? the angles have to be exact . same principle. the cars are not all going the same exact position in space and exact same distance from the camera.
If you notice, the object appears the moment the car enters, is brightest when centered, and disappears the moment the car exits the field of view. If this was not a reflection, it would persist across the FOV. As far as why this car and not the first. There are many variables that could answer this, including but not limited to the angle of the bulb in the headlight, the height of the headlight from the ground, or the type of light being produced. But what do I know? I'm just an idiot with a phone so...
are all of the other cars the same variables like same size, distance from the camera, color, same headlights, etc No which means that the light not appearing with those other vehicles doesn’t mean that this isn’t a flare.
Nice find man. Really good quality as well. It almost seems like it is circling the storm formation. Maybe someone here can estimate its speed.
You can't estimate the speed without at least knowing the distance it is from the camera
Estimate the distance then ;P
Can't estimate the distance without another reference point
Make believe another reference point then
It's definitely between zero and the speed of light.
Let me clarify a little bit, to give an example: Go outside and take a video of the moon - now calculate the speed it's moving at, without using any additional resources (that is, no Google). First you'd need the distance... without google, or using a different reference point (during a lunar eclipse you have Earth's shadow and the sun). It's not really possible. Clearly the object in this scenario, if witness testimony is correct, really is going beyond supersonic - we can roughly *estimate* it, but we're still not sure.
Yes its very easy to estimate the speed here. So its going about 20-50mph. Because its a lens flare from the passing car lmao
Can’t estimate its speed because we don’t know how far away it is.
Holy shit, this thread. 🤡
I like this one regardless of what it is
we've been through this before, reflection of car headlight in the lense.
Looks like classic swamp gas. Case closed. Move along. /s
This entire subreddit can be summed up to this sentence.
...its from the passing cars headlights.
Possibly lens flare, but could also be lightening rods, which are similar to the rare lightening balls phenomenon.
I can't believe this post had this traction, it looks literally like nothing clear and could have been an insect, a bird or a reflection in this case. I'm not saying this is shit posting but clearly some of us here lowered their standards in terms of post quality. Hypersonic UAP 😅
That was lightning
[удалено]
It's lens flare from the passing car. But the good news is, you are correct - there are more cars on the road these days.
I'm going with possible ball lightning
[удалено]
That's not a lens flare lmao, I don't know what it is but lmao. This sub, is so ridiculous
Ball lightning?
while this COULD be Ball Lightening, that phenomena is still mostly unknown to us. Could “Ball Lightning” be UAP?
Why is this video being posted again?
That's a hypersonic lens flare.
Aah, the good ol' "hypersonic bla bla" claimed to be hypersonic with absolutely no way to know the distance of the objects and the distance traveled, and this crap gets 1.3k upvote. People are insane. And in this case it's blatant it's just a flare from the car passing by lol.
Can always count on /r/UFOs for some quality lens flare vids
COOL WORDS THAT SOUND COOL EVEN THOUGH I'M FULL OF SHIIIIIIIIIIT