Credit to reddit user dhr2330 for finding this video.
A passenger aboard a commercial airliner captured this footage while traveling from Bogotá to Salento in Colombia, the video is very clear and crisp, what looks like your classic flying saucer is flying through the sky, I can’t determine the distance of the craft, or its size, but it is very clearly seen in the video, also I don’t know what is being said by those observing the strange object.
Edit:
A balloon is the most plausible answer unless further evidence warrants a different answer. Here is a video of common balloons in Colombia and how they might look from a commercial airliner.
Regardless of what it is, I’m not sure how you can state that you can judge the size of an object with no frame of reference. Without knowing the distance of the object from the plane, you’re just assuming the size based off of what you’re assuming what it is.
It’s easy to tell due to parallax of the scene. I don’t know about you, but I have eyes. The fact that it was moving across the screen as fast as it was in relation to the clouds behind it, means it was somewhat near the plane, and thus, small (relatively speaking). Therefore, it’s a balloon.
Cloud region data can be found here: https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/clouds/four-core-types-of-clouds
Which means it was <6500 ft in the air, due to that flat strata of the clouds in the video. This means that the plane was likely in descent for landing, which usually occurs at around 130mph to 160mph. Pretty slow, tbh.
So all of those things considered…it’s a fucking Mylar balloon. They are frequently metalized plastic due to the capability for helium to tunnel through most materials. Mylar balloons released in the air can travel approximately to an altitude of around 20,000 ft. Well above the altitude that the airplane was in.
Please, use some critical thinking every once in a while.
The person you initially responded to made no claims as to what it is. They even acknowledged that it could be a balloon. I commented to you because you made a condescending remark with nothing to back up your statement.
I appreciate the additional details in this comment, but there is no need to be demeaning with your comments.
You were the one who claimed that I had no frame of reference. I’ve got plenty of frame of reference, thanks. Demeanor wholly deserved.
I came across this video. Although it doesn’t look exactly the same as what is in the video, it does lend credence to the object in the video being a balloon.
How does parallax account for that these potentially travel faster than we expect?
Calling it a fact while missing key details, lmfao. Be more condescending while making an ass of yourself next time.
Listen, you have this thing called the internet. Here. I took the 2 seconds to look it up in Google, I’ll even provide you a link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax
Nobody has the time to personally educate you on things that you should have learned in middle school. Instead of asking questions you obviously don’t actually want the answer to, you save us some time and at least try to educate yourself.
You can lead a horse to water, but they are right, you sure can’t make it drink…
You’re right, now using your 2 seconds of google, pleas explain how parallax works when you don’t have references to size, distance or speeds? You’re assuming atleast one here.
I don’t need to educate myself, you clearly need the education, hence why your ignorance has been called out.
Look, no one can listen to you because this is all text based. Educate yourself nerd.
Parralax cannot account for the object’s movement in the video
You mean its distinct lack of movement? The object in the video is largely not moving in relation to the airspeed of the plane.
The object’s movement across the two dimensional video is not accounted for by parallax, which is a projection from 3D space into 2D space.
I am telling you that the model of an object stationary with the clouds, being projected onto this video via the moving point of view of the plane, does not produce the motion of this object’s image across the two dimensional plane of the video.
I grok what is supposedly happening in the parallax claim. What I am saying is that parallax does not account for the motion of the object in this video.
Based off of what…? Your assumptions on what it should be?
Parallax can’t work without a frame of reference and you’re assuming at least one of them.
The object if it’s a balloon should be essentially stationary with regard to the clouds. It is not. Despite whatever parallax effects this person is referring to, the object is not stationary with regard to the clouds, in the 3D space around the plane.