The most popular UFO videos : The real stories behind them

This one still crops up from time to time and whilst it isn't a deliberate hoax, the explanation has been shown in detail of what actually occurred. Sadly, try as I might, I have been unable to track down the original documentary made by the BBC however, a cameraman using exactly the same camera this footage was taken with shows the lens artefact that caused the UFO and gives a demonstration of the very same effect. I understand that, outside of Blighty, many might not be even aware of the documentary so, I think it's worth posting it on this thread.


Concord and the UFO

originally posted by: funbox
a reply to: wmd_2008

no, see, reproducing is the key to uncovering any hoax with certainty, otherwise I wouldn't be asking

funbox

What he is claiming is IMPOSSIBLE with the equipment used so if its models filmed at night at a great distance or close ups of satellites I don't care

originally posted by: funbox
a reply to: wmd_2008

no, see, reproducing is the key to uncovering any hoax with certainty, otherwise I wouldn't be asking

funbox

Ahhh....so if a hoaxer never reveals their secret, that makes them magical?

Reproducing IS key but the thing to be asking is if the results can be reproduced with exactly the same technique. Not "How does he do that?".

What are we talking about? Emilio Escavez?

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

magical . since when have I mentioned magic , or are you projecting again ? ;D

far as im concerned , all of the stuff outlined by Isaac , is not a problem for me to do, I look at John's video's , 100's of them , and I think , why? money .. no , insanity? .. maybe, feeding the id , probably , how's the effect being achieved .... blank..

as someone into cgi , that angle for me is .. too much work to even bother

any ideas?

funbox

a reply to: wmd_2008

filmed at night at a great distance or close ups of satellites I

you could back this up with some comparisons , earth satellite's vs JLW satellite's , really convince me..

but its mere avoidance , how does he get the atmospheric boil effect if they're models.. and what of the zooms..

maybe him and his equipment are being trolled by a "teaser"...

funbox

originally posted by: funbox
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

magical . since when have I mentioned magic , or are you projecting again ? ;D

Projecting is a very normal thing to do...so yeah, of course I'm projecting.

far as im concerned , all of the stuff outlined by Isaac , is not a problem for me to do, I look at John's video's , 100's of them , and I think , why? money .. no , insanity? .. maybe, feeding the id , probably , how's the effect being achieved .... blank..

We could ask those questions about why people do anything really.

as someone into cgi , that angle for me is .. too much work to even bother

Yes, but wouldn't that be projecting?

any ideas?

Well lets see. I admit that I am not that familiar with the videos or cgi or camera equipment but just because we don't how something is done, doesn't make it anything. It sounds like the claim is that he is using standard equipment. Is anyone else able to produce the same results using his claimed methods? Or is it a secret? Any background on this?

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

We could ask those questions about why people do anything really.

and most people do , my points trying to find motivations or reasons for persisting in , although im favouring some kind of insanity, shall we bog this thread up about asking irrelevant questions about anyone or anything ?

Yes, but wouldn't that be projecting?

nope , it would be speaking from understanding cgi. i.e kicking the scope knocking the scope the motors vibrations .. all signatures , all visual patterns within the video's , in my opinion ,forget it

Well lets see. I admit that I am not that familiar with the videos or cgi or camera equipment but just because we don't how something is done, doesn't make it anything

maybe you should have a look into these area's, see I have a hard time with this being compositing, or added into the video after the video was shot, for the reasons ive previously mentioned. to much work , too many video's

It sounds like the claim is that he is using standard equipment. Is anyone else able to produce the same results using his claimed methods? Or is it a secret? Any background on this?

I've not seen any reproductions of these video's , try scouring this site on threads about it, you'll find in each one .. no methods , no reproductions , and lots of conjecture


funbox

Did somebody just get owned? The modern vernacular would seem to suggest that yes, somebody did.

a reply to: Jonjonj

is there such a thing , I thought it was all rental on borrowed time ?

* an irksome MFB surreptitiously removes one of Jonjonj's Ears* ,and exits through a portal*

funbox

Amazing threat and outstanding work!

I also have a question about one particular video. I think most people in here know it. Actually it's a comparison of several short clips and often titled as something like "Leaked KGB Alien footage":



Can't remember where but i sometimes reat, that it was made as part of some students final paper but there seems not much more info around. (Maybe i should dig deeper into ATS also )

Anyway...thanks for this and keep it up

originally posted by: FireMoon
This one still crops up from time to time and whilst it isn't a deliberate hoax, the explanation has been shown in detail of what actually occurred. Sadly, try as I might, I have been unable to track down the original documentary made by the BBC however, a cameraman using exactly the same camera this footage was taken with shows the lens artefact that caused the UFO and gives a demonstration of the very same effect.

Hi Firemoon,

I spent quite a bit of time on that video a while ago, particularly looking for the documentary which is mentioned in vague terms all over the Internet. A friend of mine ("uforadio" on ATS) found a found of one relevant documentary and uploaded a copy to Youtube for me, but I'm still looking for a second relevant documentary.

Once I find the second documentary (or give up looking for it), I'll post here or in a new thread.

For now, I may as well embed the documentary uforadio kindly uploaded for me.



In the documentary Uforadio kindly provided (which appears to be known as "UFO - The Untold Story" as well as by the even more generic title "UFO"), Alan Tanner states that the "UFO" was possibly "an internal reflection" caused by sunlight catching "the front element of the Astrovision periscope system" used to film the footage. This explanation is put forward in slightly tentative language with no duplication/reconstruction of the relevant effect.

The description I have read (on numerous websites, but apparently sourced from : www.ufologie.net...) refers specifically to an "image stablizer" having been presented as the cause of the "the effect of an apparent independant move of the reflection". Alan Tanner does not refer to an image stablizer in the documentary extract uforadio kindly provided.

Mmm.

I've been torn between looking for a more detailed analysis in a different documentary or simply writing off the reference to an image stablizer as an addition to the material in the documentary.

I put the Concorde video to one side until I'd watched some more UFO documentaries from the 1970s-1990s (particularly ones produced by the BBC and ITN), which is why my notes on the relevant video (Koi UFO Video 14) do not currently appear in this thread.

a reply to: IsaacKoi

I found an old CENAP article, concerning this case.

CENAP on Concorde UFO

In brief they refer to a TV-documentary, broughtcasted by the german tv-channel RTL II (not really known for scientific research by the way) at 17th of January in 1995.

In this film the whole CONCORDE movie was shown and the responsible cameraman Mr. Alan Tanner talked about the equipment he used. He explains it as some kind of internal reflection on the special lenses used in the system.

a reply to: IsaacKoi

dear Isaac,

you're thread is interesting and courious, but you choose very clear hoaxes, that you can say at first look or maybe second(few)...

can I ask a link to you're favorite footage never debunked?

originally posted by: matt1893
you're thread is interesting and courious, but you choose very clear hoaxes, that you can say at first look or maybe second(few)...

It may be clear to you (and many others) that each of these is a hoax, but they still get posted on Facebook and UFO discussion forums every single day - hence this thread devoted to what many people will consider (understandably) to be nonsense.

If we don't address the nonsense, it just continues to circulate.

a reply to: IsaacKoi

luckly i'm not on facebook

a reply to: IsaacKoi

wouldn't the correct word be subvergence ,nonsense doesn't cut the mustard to me..
the whole field seems to have been entrenched in the mire for so many decades, cgi and animation must have been a godsend to some, maybe it was part and parcel for its pursuit

funbox

This has always intriqued me.

originally posted by: Blackfinger
This has always intriqued me.

Awesome vid what the heck

Here's one apropo for this thread -


Adamski video method revealed


www.youtube.com...



Say WHUT??

RUT ROH!!

This is the greatest UFO beatdown of all time.

OF ALL TIME!

Thanks OP, you're a legend!