UFO filmed at Area 51-Finally conclusive video evidence

Well then if the sad guesses and misinformation spreading is indeed on hold, I will add some facts and evidence to

move the discussion forward, and respond to some valid gripes.

"Too far away to see anything useful..."

Yeah well sorry bout that, but you can only get -so- close to a Top Secret facility.

Fact is we are lucky we were able to get ANY footage at ALL of this project, far away or not!


However there IS useful information to be gained from the footage to the observant viewer.

By running enlarged frames next to the originals, you can see how they match.

When running normal speed, we see a white spheriod sometimes steady and sometimes glittering.

However when running in slow motion, we now see -

- The glittering is caused by rapid strobing

- The shape of the craft changing from frame to frame

- The colors of the craft changing from frame to frame


Now then, the detail of the image may not be as high resolution as we would like, but there IS a noticeable change

in shape AND color from frame to frame.

Several observant and sharp folk have come up with reasonable theories on what these changes are caused by and what

they represent.


Sorry also the quality of consumer grade VHS videocams back then were not up to today's standards, but again, were

we lucky to even have those available at that point.

Otherwise it would be 'pics or it didn't happen'.



That's why I welcomed being approached by three different processors at various times wanting to show what thier processes had revealed about the footage.




When Processor Deuem ran the above enlargement from the cammo dude photo, his results displayed this -




which illuminates energy fields not visable to the naked eye, but are 'visable' to the camera.

His process merely illuminates them into the visable range.


He and all processors here have standards libraries online showing objects with and without energy fields after processing.

Next I was approached by Processor Paulie of WTF productions who worked on my frames, and by boosting the brightness and gamma managed to illuminate the background scatter of the videotape, which gives a background reference point for the movements of the craft.






Now as to complaints about hand held cam and shaking, how about some tripod mounted footage -


Tripod -

Alien Craft Test Flight at Area 51





And to the complaints of no visable refernce points -


Welcome To Area 51




...Or better yet how about some Night Vision footage with stars for reference -


Night Vision footage of Area 51




I thought it would be worthwhile to stabilize the above footage using stars as reference points, so paulie and I went to work on it -


Stabilized Night Vision footage of Area 51





...and finally I present for you perusal, the video that started it all, the footage taken out in the desert in the same location by Bob Lazar, which coincedentally behaves and appears very similar to my own.


Bob's original home video




...with enlargements side by side -


Authenticated and Corroborated Video Footage of secret Advanced Alien Technology





So we have Sander, Deuem and Paulie all agreeing this is the best footage they have ever worked on, each with processes that go after different aspects, yet all reveal amazing results.

originally posted by: A51Watcher
"Too far away to see anything useful..."

Yeah well sorry bout that, but you can only get -so- close to a Top Secret facility.

Nobody is saying to get closer because obviously we can't, but there's a reason they keep people so far away; so we can't tell what they are doing.

When running normal speed, we see a white spheriod sometimes steady and sometimes glittering.

However when running in slow motion, we now see -

- The glittering is caused by rapid strobing

- The shape of the craft changing from frame to frame

- The colors of the craft changing from frame to frame

Now then, the detail of the image may not be as high resolution as we would like, but there IS a noticeable change

in shape AND color from frame to frame.

Several observant and sharp folk have come up with reasonable theories on what these changes are caused by and what they represent.

The most obvious thing to consider first is called terrestrial scintillation

Twinkling, or scintillation, is a generic term for variations in apparent brightness or position of a distant luminous object viewed through a medium.[1] If the object lies outside the Earth's atmosphere, as in the case of stars and planets, the phenomenon is termed astronomical scintillation; within the atmosphere, the phenomenon is termed terrestrial scintillation.[2] As one of the three principal factors governing astronomical seeing, atmospheric twinkling is defined as variations in illuminance only. In simple terms, twinkling of stars is caused by the passing of light through different layers of atmosphere. Twinkling does not cause images of planets to flicker.[3][4] Most scintillation effects are caused by anomalous refraction caused by small-scale fluctuations in air density usually related to temperature gradients.[5][6] Scintillation effects are always much more pronounced near the horizon than near the zenith (straight up).[7] Atmospheric twinkling is measured quantitatively using a scintillometer.[8] The effects of twinkling are reduced by using a larger receiver aperture. This effect is known as aperture averaging.

The further away something is, the more atmosphere the light must pass through for you to see it. Also Area 51 is in a desert region and deserts are famous for soaking up large amounts of heat in the day, then radiating that heat back in the night which causes more temperature fluctuations in the atmosphere than one might see over say a uniform forest where the sunlight mostly hits tree leaves and they aren't very massive so don't have much heat to radiate themselves like the ground in the desert does.

Astronomers have found ways to deal with these distortions. As that quote says, scintillation can be measured. I've seen no evidence in most of these comments or analyses or that the analysts even understand terrestrial scintillation. But to see what effect it can have take a look at this video of Jupiter, where Jupiter appears to be doing some of the things we see in Area 51 videos, like

- The glittering is caused not by by rapid strobing but by twinkling

- The shape of the Jupiter changing from frame to frame

- The colors of the Jupiter changing from frame to frame

Sound familiar? It's equally silly to conclude that video of Jupiter changing shape means Jupiter is changing shape, as to conclude that video of a distant craft changing shape means the distant craft is changing shape. Some things we don't understand, but scintillation is something we DO understand.
Jupitor Freaks Out and Almost Nobody Notices!

Sorry also the quality of consumer grade VHS videocams back then were not up to today's standards, but again, were

we lucky to even have those available at that point. Otherwise it would be 'pics or it didn't happen'.

Pics are better than no pics, but still pics this far away don't tell us much about unknown lights in the sky. Astronomers do have ways to reduce scintillation in their videos, but the typical consumer just isn't going to have those technologies available, for which I can't blame the consumer. However what i can blame the consumer and analysts of his video for, is not taking scintillation into account in the analyses, well maybe not the consumer, but definitely the guys who call themselves professional analysis and obviously are not. As I said earlier in the tread, "frame stacking" is one technique astronomers use to deal with remaining scintillation in their successive frames, but they are able to track the object reliably as they only need compensate for the Earth's motion which they are well equipped to do.

You could still apply frame stacking after stabilizing an image of an Area51 UFO, but it probably won't be quite as reliable if the object is moving erratically or if the image stabilization is based on the scintillated images, an issue astronomers don't have to deal with which will reduce the quality of the analysis.

Still though, stabilization and frame stacking is probably one of the best available analysis techniques for such videos as the dancing Jupiter or the Area 51 UFO, and yet it looks analysts have elected to stop at stabilization and instead of frame stacking, use far inferior and largely useless enhancement techniques.

When Processor Deuem ran the above enlargement from the cammo dude photo, his results displayed this -

which illuminates energy fields not visable to the naked eye, but are 'visable' to the camera. His process merely illuminates them into the visable range.

He and all processors here have standards libraries online showing objects with and without energy fields after processing.

Next I was approached by Processor Paulie of WTF productions

WTF spelled out is exactly what I said when I saw the image from Processor Deuem. How have the claimed "energy fields" been measured to correlate them with the imagery? This claim seems as silly as the guy who claimed to perform spectroscopic analysis of the Phoenix lights...that camera never recorded such information so you can't extract from the video what's not on it.

Those videos you posted are interesting, but they don't really tell me a lot. This one:

Stabilized Night Vision footage of Area 51

Could be a bird, bat or bug as they tend to show up a lot on night vision videos, often exhibiting changes in momentum that would be difficult for an aircraft to duplicate as we see in that video. But some of the others are apparently of genuinely unknown objects. Even with claimed "enhancements" they are still unknown. I'm not faulting anyone for this, but I am faulting people who claim to be experts who are obviously not, when they don't consider the most rudimentary things like scintillation or don't use frame stacking but use less effective attempts at enhancement.

By the way here is a technologically ancient example of how a UFO was identified with frame stacking (see the first three minutes of this video):

Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World - UFOs part 2

Modern frame stacking tech is obviously a lot better but the nice thing about that demonstration is that you get such a detailed view of how frame stacking works.

Glittering stars don't leave orbit and fly down below the mountain ridge line.

They also don't wink completely out then re- appear in the same spot.


re: heat waves rising to cause glittering - in the Nevada desert at the end of October there are no heat waves at midnight. It is below freezing.

re: bugs - there are no fireflys in Nevada, and no luminous bugs anywhere that can perform a dead hover, then instantly shoot off at incredible speed, then instantly come to a dead stop.

Also bugs are not capable of growing to 50 ft in diameter as they pass over head.



How about considering what the photographers who actually saw the objects say they were? - Large disc shaped craft with amazing maneuvers.

originally posted by: A51Watcher
Glittering stars don't leave orbit and fly down below the mountain ridge line.

They also don't wink completely out then re- appear in the same spot.

I never said they did. I said that scintillation can affect both astronomical as well as terrestrial objects. The only way to avoid scintillation effects entirely is to observe objects outside of Earth's atmosphere, which was part of the reason for putting the Hubble Space Telescope in orbit.

re: heat waves rising to cause glittering - in the Nevada desert at the end of October there are no heat waves at midnight. It is below freezing.

The ground in Nevada never gets to freezing at a certain depth and this heat radiates up when it's cold. In fact when it gets colder at night, the stored heat in the ground radiates up even faster. The greater the temperature differential, the faster the heat will transfer. So contrary to your implication that freezing atmospheric temperatures means no heat transfer, it can actually result in the opposite, meaning greater heat transfer from the ground.

re: bugs - there are no fireflys in Nevada, and no luminous bugs anywhere that can perform a dead hover, then instantly shoot off at incredible speed, then instantly come to a dead stop.

Also bugs are not capable of growing to 50 ft in diameter as they pass over head.

I'm referring only to the night vision video when I mention birds bats and bugs and I didn't say which it is but probably one of the three. They don't need to be luminous to show up on night vision, and there are plenty of bugs that can do what you said luminous bugs cannot. Don't assume the bug must be luminous in the visible spectrum to show up on night vision, it only needs to be luminous in the night vision spectrum which is a different spectrum that what we can see, which is why we can see things on a camera's night vision we can't ordinarily see without it.

How about considering what the photographers who actually saw the objects say they were? - Large disc shaped craft with amazing maneuvers.

I'm letting the photographic evidence they captured speak for itself, which is kind of the whole idea of "pics or it didn't happen". If you take pictures and then say "but that's not what it looked like", well that may be true as cameras and eyes perceive things differently, but we know that both systems of observation have their respective flaws and neither are particularly good at discerning shapes of extremely distant nocturnal lights.

Bug theory does not apply when they fly overhead at fairly close range and their true size is revealed.

That kinda ends the glittering planet theory as well.

I saw no evidence of scintillation anywhere visually, and with the range being between 2000 ft and 5 to 10 miles between myself and the objects most of the time, that stands to reason.

No visual evidence of heat transfer was seen either.

My footage does at times exhibit shimmering (variance in intensity) but also has segments where it actually strobes (complete on/off).

Scintillation, atmospheric perturbation, or heat waves do not produce actual strobing. (on/off)



The Jupiter freaks out footage you linked does indeed distort the image, but in a mode different than craft at Area 51. It also is not changing the colors.

However point taken that atmosphere can and does distort images if enough distance to cause atmospheric turbulence is introduced between the object and the viewer. Obviously Jupiter can not be said to be actually changing shape.

If there were no other options available, the same could be said for the shape changes in my footage even though they appear different.

The other option available I am considering is firstly any colors at all are the result of noble gasses in the air being excited in the same manner as a neon light.

A little digging around reveals that the colors displayed do match the color and shade of atmospheric (noble) gasses when excited with voltage in a discharge tube.

As to the shape change, I find atmospheric perturbation not likely due to the relatively short distance involved.

Instead I find gravity lensing a more likely culprit.

I could be wrong but so far it seems to fit the bill better than other theories.


In the case of VHS videocams one big difference between what the cam captures and what your eyes see and that is the LUX capability.

To the eye it was a clear starlit night, but yet no stars were captured on tape.

-Most- of the time these craft operate at the same brightness as stars, and as such do not show up on tape.

But when they DO finally start appearing on the tape, to the eye they are extremely bright, causing Joshua trees and Cactus to leave well defined shadows on the ground for a considerable range.

I saw no evidence of scintillation anywhere visually, and with the range being between 2000 ft and 5 to 10 miles between myself and the objects most of the time that is understandable.

No visual evidence of heat transfer either.

The relatively short distance precludes these in my mind.

I'm letting the photographic evidence they captured speak for itself, which is kind of the whole idea of "pics or it didn't happen". If you take pictures and then say "but that's not what it looked like", well that may be true as cameras and eyes perceive things differently, but we know that both systems of observation have their respective flaws and neither are particularly good at discerning shapes of extremely distant nocturnal lights.

Well for such crap technology, I say it DID do a pretty good job of capturing "what it looked like".

From the bright lights in Vegas to the dim view of the cammo dude driving past, I'd have to say it did a pretty decent job of faithfully capturing what everything looked like.

My main complaint is the poor LUX capability.


I'm willing to let the photographic evidence speak for itself as well.

If you or anyone else wants to interpret it differently than what it actually was, that's fine by me, and actually quite understandable really.

If it didn't happen to me and I was looking at someone else's story, not sure if I would believe it either.

There is no denying the whole affair is an outlandish story, but I can't help that either.

That's why I went to see for -myself-.


Outlandish or not, that's what happened and what I saw.

The high level of extremely advanced technology on display is what was the clincher for me.