The Most Convincing UFO Footage I Have Seen.

Looks like a fuel jettison from a fighter aircraft. The clue to this is that RAF Upper Heyford, Oxfordshire is in close proximity to the sighting in Radford, Oxfordshire. The USAF started operating General Dynamics F-111E from Upper Heyford from September 1970. This is not to be confused with the fuel jettison party trick of the F-111 where the fuel dump is then ignited with the afterburners. The fuel dump would give rise to the start stop of the trail.

Not the first time that an RAF Upper Heyford F-111E dumping fuel has caused a UFO flap. From 1973.

The fuel dumping procedure gave rise to several UFO sightings that morning!

Operated by the 20th TFW at RAF Upper Heyford. Callsign 'Sewn 11'. Crewed by pilot Major Bob Kroos and WSO Captain Roger A Beck. The main body of the aircraft fell near in North Crawley, about three and a half miles east of Newport Pagnell in Buckinghamshire. An engine caught fire just after takeoff at 08:56, melted the rudder linkage so that the rudder froze hard over, and the crew ended up flying around in circles trying to get back to Upper Heyford. The fuel dumping procedure gave rise to several UFO sightings that morning! The crew abandoned the aircraft at 09:47 after Kroos lost control of the aircraft. The capsule came down in a farm at North Crawley in Buckinghamshire; the startled owner came out and plied the crew with brandy - which rather messed up the USAF's mandatory blood-alcohol test for all aircrews involved in accidents...

Aviation Safety Link

See following example of fighter aircraft dumping fuel. The aircraft are Indian Air Force Su-30s. Ignore the non-sense "chemtrail" labelling of the video.

See from 0:21 where the Su-30 pair turn on and off the fuel dump.



See close up of Su-30 dumping fuel at 1:37



When the Indian Air Force Su-30s arrived in the UK back in 2007 they caused a flap with their party piece fuel dump. They were arriving for an exercise at RAF Waddington. Footage filmed over Dover, England. Again ignore the ridiculous chemtrail title.

originally posted by: alldaylong
The reasons i find this footage compelling.

It was filmed by an experienced outdoor film crew, who must have witnessed aircraft flying overhead on numerous previous assignments. However they never felt the compulsion to film anything previously. This instance to them must have been out of the ordinary.

They must have witnessed more than they filmed. After observing what was going on, they then felt the need to turn the camera toward it.

Maybe it's the parts that weren't filmed that would give us a better clue to what it was.

That could be true but it doesn't make the film compelling. If the video just showed the film without the witness statements, it just appears to show some contrails.

What you seem to be saying is you find the witness statements compelling, but that doesn't equate to the title of the thread that the footage is "convincing", especially if they failed to film the most interesting parts of their observation.

Jim Oberg has documented many cases of witness misperceptions related to UFOs, so if you are placing a lot of weight on witness statements you might want to read up on those to put them in perspective.

originally posted by: tommyjo
When the Indian Air Force Su-30s arrived in the UK back in 2007 they caused a flap with their party piece fuel dump. They were arriving for an exercise at RAF Waddington. Footage filmed over Dover, England. Again ignore the ridiculous chemtrail title.

The "chemtrail" claim seems slightly less ridiculous with a fuel dump than with an ordinary contrail, but yes it could be a fuel dump, or contrails can get large too.

a reply to: schuyler



Very strange but kind of hard to quantify when its so far away. The Harrier is capable of hover but didn't enter operational service until 1980. I guess it does qualify as a UFO as its unidentified.

originally posted by: openminded2011
a reply to: schuyler



Very strange but kind of hard to quantify when its so far away. The Harrier is capable of hover but didn't enter operational service until 1980. I guess it does qualify as a UFO as its unidentified.

The Harrier entered service back in 1969.

The Harrier GR.1 made its first flight on 28 December 1967. It officially entered service with the RAF on 18 April 1969 when the Harrier Conversion Unit at RAF Wittering received its first aircraft.
Wikipedia

I believe ir was a version of the Sea Harrier for the Royal Navy that entered service in 1980.

a reply to: [post=21695774]alldaylong[/p

Loved it! Maybe "they" are the ones responsible for the chem-trails or vapor trails! I have often thought this might be a possibility. I have watched this BEFORE is was conspiracy as I was a jet freak as a kid and loved Psychics. I tried to tell others in the early 90's that those contrails were not normal. I wonder why no one will talk about aerosols vs water vapor in atmosphere by the mainstream. Anything that persists is not a vapor trail! Maybe this is how they war on lower lifeforms? By first controlling Governments through secrecy, by changing our DNA and environment slowly over time. Many abduction cases report Greys telling humans that one day we would all be the same. Just my thoughts among many!

Great post thanks!

I have seen it before, just a very obscure report from the early 70's.

originally posted by: humanoidlord
how i never saw that before?
s+f

originally posted by: data5091
I have never heard of or seen this video before. Very interesting for sure. This was way before cgi too.[/

The US military still had quite a presence in the UK in the 70's. And back then they had all sorts of aircraft around the world testing and what not, especially spy aircraft.

To me, it looked out of this world. And I hope it was some sort of caught on film alien craft.

But realistically, it could have been a fighter jet or something along those lines flying towards the crew and then performed a sharp right hand turn, which can leave quite a noticeable vapor trail in cooler climates, like the UK.

a reply to: strongfp

The problem i see with your theory is thus.

Would this not be a regular flight path for either U.S. or R.A.F. aircraft ?

If it was, then surely the farmer who's land they where on, and the same farmer who was included in the programme, would have told the film crew that what they had filmed was nothing out of the ordinary. To the farmer this would have been quite a regular occurrence.

Here in The U.K. the Aviation Authorities both civil and military are very strict on flight paths that can be used. I would say it would be the same for other countries also.

originally posted by: schuyler
Most convincing? What does it convince you of? What you have here is a "Daylight Disk" on the Hynek Scale, a step up from a "Nocturnal Light," the lowest point on the scale. Yes, it does have a contrail, which would suggest a jet engine or the equivalent. The cameraman says it was "too fast to follow," yet he followed it just fine. He says it "stopped suddenly," but you really can't see that in the video. There's no reason to disbelieve him, but that begs the question. What do you have here?

A light in the sky.

Yes, yes. you have the contrail, but what does that signify? A jet engine and a terrestrial origin.

Secret aircraft? Sure. Aliens from space? Ummm, no. It is a very convincing light in the sky, but that's as far as you can take it without invoking your imagination.

A Harrier aircraft can do exactly what did this craft so, earthly? I'm sure Lockheed Martin's high tech crafts can outdo this performance tomorrow so, let's think before assuming...

originally posted by: WUNK22
An object in upper atmosphere, meteorite? Burning up?

Or deorbiting space junk.

a reply to: tommyjo

That doesn't look at all like the original video.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: strongfp

The problem i see with your theory is thus.

Would this not be a regular flight path for either U.S. or R.A.F. aircraft ?

If it was, then surely the farmer who's land they where on, and the same farmer who was included in the programme, would have told the film crew that what they had filmed was nothing out of the ordinary.

What programme? Are you talking about the OP video? There was no farmer, that was the photographer and the production assistant who were interviewed.

You make some really strange objections/questions. One day I was in my yard in Ohio and military jets were buzzing the treetops. OK not quite that low, maybe 600 feet above the ground, so 500 feet above the treetops. I had been there for three years and had never seen anything like it, but just because it's unusual doesn't mean it's something other than military jets, so even if the farmer was in the video and said it was unusual, so what? I've observed military aircraft doing unusual things. It doesn't mean it's not military just because I've never seen them do it and those jets weren't in any air traffic corridor, they were conducting what looked like training exercises and maneuvers.

If it shows a fuel dump instead of a contrail such fuel dumps probably aren't routine.

As for the air corridors, I doubt there are many places in the UK where you can be so far from an air corridor that you can't see contrails off in the distance. They tend to be at a fairly high altitude and the UK just isn't large enough where the curvature of the Earth is going to block the visibility of contrails that high.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: alldaylong

watched the entire video
wow just wow at first its just a boring dot in the sky then it starts making a weird trail interesting the video is completely new to me
note:could be a plane

Im with you.

As presented, indistinguiable from an airplane.

I think you have to take into account that what the eyewitness's where saying was in fact true.

They claim:-

It was circular in shape.
It was spinning.
It came to a dead stop, accelerated and stopped again.
The rate of acceleration was extra ordinary.
Vapour trail was much thicker than an aircraft.

None of the above are characteristics of an aircraft.

You could post a video standing next to an alien ship, with a dozen grays and three Nordic ET's, get into the ship and fly off and then send everyone on ATS physical proof of your trip and someone here would STILL say "it's just a plane" or "meteor" or "flare!"

S&F for sharing something interesting. It's been a while!

originally posted by: alldaylong
I remember watching this on TV on the day it was filmed.

The Background

Back in October 1971, my local TV Station ATV where filming a news report in Oxfordshire on the subject of Farming.
Whilst filming, the film crew noticed an object in the sky. So they turned the cameras toward it.

The film crew describe the object as being a orange/ yellowish colour and circular in shape.
They describe the action that the object took and also the resulting vapour trail.

The enclosed link supplies both film footage of the object and comments made by the film crew to what they witnessed.

www.macearchive.org...

I appreciate your effort and believe that this object was likely "otherworldly" based on the witnesses. However, I find the film remarkably unimpressive. To me, it looks like a white dot at first (we can't even determine if it's moving), then we see a trail behind it -- still unimpressive. Finally, instead of zooming in on the object itself, the cameraman focuses on the trail! I mean, WHY? That just didn't make sense and why stop the filming at all?

Again, I'm not debunking it. It's pre-cgi but still isn't impressive at all, in my opinion. Still, it's an interesting story especially given the fact that a news crew and not private/individuals caught it on film.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: tommyjo

That doesn't look at all like the original video.

It does when you take into consideration poor film footage and lighting conditions.

The same applies to this footage from 2007. Note the aircraft reflecting light at the head of the two distinct trails? Notice that there are already 3 trails in the sky where one aircraft had stopped the fuel dump.



Watch the original full footage (Not the shortened You Tube Clip).

OP footage link

Aircraft out of focus and reflecting light moving away from the camera. Fuel dump on then off. Later footage shows the aircraft still travelling away from the camera with the trail still continuing. The short trail is still visible.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

What programme? Are you talking about the OP video? There was no farmer, that was the photographer and the production assistant who were interviewed.

Look at the video again. The farmer and his dog are walking down the field at 3.02.

You also said in an earlier thread that eyewitness accounts can be unreliable. However what we have here is a professional cameraman using a professional grade camera.

The cameraman witnessed what he saw through the lens of the camera. He described it as being orange/yellowish, disc shaped and spinning. He did not view those observations with the naked eye.

I've seen the ATV footage many times and sadly the story around it does not match the footage seen, this is possibly down to quality of footage, tech specs of camera (just a local area TV film camera) and the state the the footage got in to before being archived. What I don't see that is mentioned is the apparent speed mentioned by the crew, its pretty sedate and in accordance to a very small meteor shower burning up. The only bit that is 'nice' is the sudden trail that stops and 'seems' to restart although this could be a separate object on the same trajectory.

To be honest with all the latest meteor films its not even as amazing as them, definitely going for a small meteor(s) burn up.

The Montana film does interest me a lot more and always has, the speed as reference by the pylon and the other bits do give me the impression of something solid and navigating.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: alldaylong
The reasons i find this footage compelling.

It was filmed by an experienced outdoor film crew, who must have witnessed aircraft flying overhead on numerous previous assignments. However they never felt the compulsion to film anything previously. This instance to them must have been out of the ordinary.

They must have witnessed more than they filmed. After observing what was going on, they then felt the need to turn the camera toward it.

Maybe it's the parts that weren't filmed that would give us a better clue to what it was.

That could be true but it doesn't make the film compelling. If the video just showed the film without the witness statements, it just appears to show some contrails.

What you seem to be saying is you find the witness statements compelling, but that doesn't equate to the title of the thread that the footage is "convincing", especially if they failed to film the most interesting parts of their observation.

Jim Oberg has documented many cases of witness misperceptions related to UFOs, so if you are placing a lot of weight on witness statements you might want to read up on those to put them in perspective.

originally posted by: tommyjo
When the Indian Air Force Su-30s arrived in the UK back in 2007 they caused a flap with their party piece fuel dump. They were arriving for an exercise at RAF Waddington. Footage filmed over Dover, England. Again ignore the ridiculous chemtrail title.

The "chemtrail" claim seems slightly less ridiculous with a fuel dump than with an ordinary contrail, but yes it could be a fuel dump, or contrails can get large too.

While I don't disagree with you, I would caution against minimising witness testimony (per se) too much - after all, our legal systems imprison (or in some country's cases, execute) based on jury perceptions of the reliability of witnesses.

a reply to: Mclaneinc

tech specs of camera (just a local area TV film camera

ATV was a major player in the U.K. TV Industry. Headed by Sir Lew Grade.

I think you will find that the equipment they used was the best available at that time.

If it was a local community TV Station they i would maybe agree with you.

I.m going with space junk until I see more footage. Looks like space junk I have seen entering the armosphere with my own eyes, you only get trails once it is actually in the atmosphere so you could see the object before it strarts burning up.

Sadly like even most modern footage the potato cam quality doesn't help.
And well testimony?
Well every day we see people are willing to lie and decieve for 15 minutes of fame, that's been so since the begginning if time and will always be and if I had a dollar for every plastic bag that is a ghost or ufo but people still claim is a genuine other worldly thing.

But yeah saying "professional cameraman" is like saying cops are all honest because badges.
Media people are especially prone to make things up for exposure.

Not saying it is fake, or people are lying but my money is on something misidentified with a helping dose of atmospheric caused illusions and angles.
Sometimes we see what we want to see.

Need better proof before any of us can say either way. I honestly could not call this video compelling anything.