UFO nearly misses plane, incident recorded from plane 09/07/15 Netherlands

Here the "bird" is seen flying vertical along the wing of the plane.

In reply to Gortex, who wrote: "SO why did they bank toward it if they were trying to avoid it ?"


If the Lions Ground drawing of the path of the object is roughly correct, the object flew from right to left around the front of the plane and then circled back beneath the plane and ran down again along the right side in the opposite direction. It's likely that the information leading to the red-line drawing of the path around the front of the plane and then down the left side (at first) is based on what the 'second witness' seated in the front left of the plane reported. Obviously a more detailed report is needed.


Edited to link the post I was responding to.

If its not a bird, and its not a plane, ITS SUPERMAN!!

So the video seems pulled now. That must mean they are covering up… (eyes rolling emoticon). I checked eight whole pages to see if it reappeared. It was wasted time except for Phages remarks. So many stars for insulting one of the finest minds on ATS. For shame ATS. (It must be the lurking crowd).

Let me know the next time they see this one.

Why can't this be a high speed fixed wing drone ? This would make more sense than a bird and UFO ... At least that's what my logic suggests me.

originally posted by: intrptr
So the video seems pulled now. That must mean they are covering up… (eyes rolling emoticon). I checked eight whole pages to see if it reappeared. It was wasted time except for Phages remarks. So many stars for insulting one of the finest minds on ATS. For shame ATS. (It must be the lurking crowd).

Let me know the next time they see this one.

The sad thing is that people here WILL buy that video. I could name names...but i wont.

a reply to: and14263

Why do we have to?

I reviewed it closely. It isn't a bird.

a reply to: intrptr

It was wasted time except for Phages remarks. So many stars for insulting one of the finest minds on ATS. For shame ATS. (It must be the lurking crowd).

Sure it was.

So where were all the stars in favor of his comments, made by the resident elite old boys club?

Finest minds? I am sorry but having access to a lot of factual information doesn't make you a great thinker.

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: intrptr

So where were all the stars in favor of his comments, made by the resident elite old boys club?

More insult.

Finest minds? I am sorry but having access to a lot of factual information doesn't make you a great thinker.

You aren't sorry, either. Don't realize he was trying to establish credibility of the evidence as presented. Or you do and just had fun poking that with a stick. Like I said, eight pages of 'its not a blurd…'

a reply to: RogueWave

Here the "bird" is seen flying vertical along the wing of the plane

And you know that is the same object how ?
And why do you all ignore the fact that the object (Bird) passes beneath the wing meaning it is smaller that you assume.

The plane moving fast may make it seem like a bird was moving real fast.Kind of giving it an illusion.But not positive it is a bird.

a reply to: gortex

And you know that is the same object how ?

Wether it's the same object or not, a bird does not fly vertical like that.

And why do you all ignore the fact that the object (Bird) passes beneath the wing meaning it is smaller that you assume.

And why is that? My estimation was based on it being very close to the wing, wether it flies above or below or whatever doesn't change a thing. In fact, the lower or further away it is, the bigger it acually is.

a reply to: Lucidparadox

Can't view the video due to copyright clams

a reply to: intrptr

More insult.

More asking for it.

You aren't sorry, either.

You don't say. What an astute interpretation of a figure of speech......

Don't realize he was trying to establish credibility of the evidence as presented. Or you do and just had fun poking that with a stick. Like I said, eight pages of 'its not a blurd…'

I think I have backed up my claims that it isn't a bird, so what is the problem? 8 pages of people not agreeing with you and one of the finest minds on ATS?

Thy guy can do what he wants, like if he wants to act like a jerk he can, just like I can, and will, point out that he is acting like one.

a reply to: RogueWave

Your approximation had it close to the wing but the bird passes beneath the wing which means it is considerably closer than you estimated so of course it changes the estimated size of it.

a reply to: gortex

Your approximation had it close to the wing but the bird passes beneath the wing which means it is considerably closer than you estimated so of course it changes the estimated size of it.

What are you talking about? I estimated its size relevant to the winglet at the tip of the wing. It either passed near the winglet, or further away, which would only make it bigger.

originally posted by: Constance
If the Lions Ground drawing of the path of the object is roughly correct, the object flew from right to left around the front of the plane and then circled back beneath the plane and ran down again along the right side in the opposite direction. It's likely that the information leading to the red-line drawing of the path around the front of the plane and then down the left side (at first) is based on what the 'second witness' seated in the front left of the plane reported. Obviously a more detailed report is needed..

But Lions Ground drawing is surely not correct, since we can see the object in the first few frames so it can't be directly under the plane and when it gets back it's either very close to the tip of the wing or even further and lower.

There are a lot of IFs:
- IF the video is legitimate or cgi
- IF the 2 objects are the same object
- IF the maneuvre is due to it being spotted by the pilots

Being there no exemplar cgi failing (ie if it's fake, is decently faked and not a particularly hard one) let's assume for the sake of discussing that it's a legitimate sighting.

The dimensions of the object may well be small: if 4ft was an estimate based on the motion blurred object, we can safely take a 2.5ft lower constraint assuming the object was very close (about a wingspan).
If both events are the same object, it can't be a bird for obvious reasons and there is no way an optical illusion can explain forward movement with a fixed camera at 200+mph.
If they are not the same object, the second one can well be a bird, and the baffling one remains the first.

Speculating on its trajectory requires a bit much creativity.
The object in the first few frames is smaller and brighter, it may very well be quite farther, quite lower and quite fast. When it "gets back" it doesn't seem to be moving or do so very slowly, the plane speed is more than enough to justify it's apparent speed, and seems much darker thus closer (it's quite foggy).

Assuming that the pilots did turn in response to the sight, the object must have ascended to the plane height and showing up in the left side, but then moved on the right side. There seems no transversal speed when the object pass by so the object position and the maneuvre don't make much sense together unless there was some kind of panic.
We can also just assume that the turn was planned and the object didn't influence at all the trajectory, it could have just be seen after the turn was taken.

So in the end the intresting object is the first one. If it's not something thrown out of the engine I don't know what could explain that thing.
Imho either CGI or high tech

a reply to: Mastronaut


I agree with you analysis, except I am not sure about the extent of motion blur.

It's a hoax, debunked here:

www.ufosonearth.com...

"it´s a hoax, there is evidence of montage at the moment that the “UFO” comes out from behind the wing of the plane. The object should be visible between the space left by the “flap”, but instead this space is occupied by the actual background that is the terrain below, exposing the “mask” used to digitally cut the wing of the plane to add the UFO."

originally posted by: hknudzkknexnt
a reply to: Lucidparadox

Can't view the video due to copyright clams

Now, that's strange...