Tic Tac Looking UFO Filmed In Wichita Kansas Posted On June 16

Hummm from what your saying I'm about 500 miles to the south east of ya, I guess I need to look up more in the morning.

a reply to: Macenroe82

Hey....Macenroe82.... Its debunked.....

Its actually a spiderweb (at least some of the videos)

a reply to: Baablacksheep

You are are hilarious
Lets try to be optimistic.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Blue Shift
If it's fairly far away, then it's performing a slow/stopping maneuver without changing pitch, and would be pretty difficult for a conventional aircraft to accomplish.

I think the movement we see is the result of the camera moving, not the object. I don't have the time to confirm it now, but I think I saw the tree branches moving in relation to each other, meaning that there was a change in perspective, the result of a movement of the camera.

Very possible. That's why I thought it would be nice if I had the skills to stabilize the video, but rather than stabilize it on the object, stabilize it on the tree to see what the object is really doing. Some people in the thread suggested that it's bad CGI because the object "disappears" for a couple of frames during the movement. I think that might be a result of the camera movement, too, and a stabilization would help determine that, too.

originally posted by: Macenroe82
Very weird witnessing this after seeing the multitude of sightings reported over the past few days.

The "tic-tacs" with the darker line in the middle are airplanes.

a reply to: celltypespecific

Oh heck ya!
I didnt see that one.
Just the movement of the object in that video screams for further analysis.

originally posted by: mahatche
the part where it goes behind the tree looks like bad CGI.

You mean at 34 seconds in the video? That's the problem I see with it.

It's moving to the right, moving to the right, moving to the right, rather steadily.
At 31 seconds there's an unnatural looking movement but sometimes camera movement and image stabilization can play tricks like that, but here are screenshots at 33 seconds where it's moving ot the right still and going behind the branch. And it's supposedly behind the branch at 34 seconds where despite it being such a bright object, none of it filters between the branches. That might be possible though it doesn't seem likely given the spaces in the branches, but then the real problem is it doesn't keep moving to the right and come out the right side of that branch at 35 seconds like it should have if it was a real object with momentum.



Does anybody who think it's real want to explain that? Also her behavior with the camera seems like she doesn't even expect to see it come out the right side of that branch, she doesn't even wait for it to re-appear.

So you add up that conservation of momentum says it should re-appear to the right side of that branch and it doesn't, with the incongruent behavior of the photographer where she doesn't even seem to expect to see it re-appear from the right side of the branch, and it seems sloppy. But if anybody wants to explain how that happened if it's real, I'll listen.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So you add up that conservation of momentum says it should re-appear to the right side of that branch and it doesn't, with the incongruent behavior of the photographer where she doesn't even seem to expect to see it re-appear from the right side of the branch, and it seems sloppy. But if anybody wants to explain how that happened if it's real, I'll listen.

You're right, assuming that it didn't have some kind inertial mass reduction device in it.
patents.justia.com...

a reply to: celltypespecific

I've seen that exact same thing before out my window, water on a bit of web, I remember it startling me for a second, until I looked closer.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
You're right, assuming that it didn't have some kind inertial mass reduction device in it.
patents.justia.com...

Did you read your link?

These extremely high EM field intensity values emphasize the novelty of this concept, especially suited for the design of energy generation machinery with power output levels much higher than those currently achievable.

So then you could say maybe the aliens have that technology, so it's aliens, but then you'd have to believe it's just a huge coincidence that they happened to put the brakes on just so that it happened to stop behind one branch as seen from the view of one human.

Maybe none of that is impossible (even though it seems like a stretch), but none of that would explain why the photographer's behavior is so inconsistent with the video, not waiting for the object to re-appear like any normal person would do. So even if I accept the alien and coincidence stretched hypotheses, the photographer's behavior kills it.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for you input ARBITRAGEUR!!!
I was trying find you so that you can have an input on this thread!!!

Can you PLEASE comment on this:

a reply to: ManyMasks

Yeah its amazing how light and shadows can fool the mind...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
That might be possible though it doesn't seem likely given the spaces in the branches, but then the real problem is it doesn't keep moving to the right and come out the right side of that branch at 35 seconds like it should have if it was a real object with momentum.

The problem with that is that the position of the object in relation with the branches depends on the object's position and on the camera position, and I think the camera was moved when the object passed behind the branches.

It was certainly moved just before the object disappears behind the branches on the right, when the object appears to move sideways. I hope this slowed down version (2 fps) shows better what I am saying. Look at how the distance between the branches on the left and their relative positions change, showing that the camera was moving.



There are several things that make me thing of this being an aeroplane:
1 - the object appears to move in a way that is normal for an aeroplane;
2 - the area is obviously very active in aeroplane activity;
3 - the perspective of the object changes throughout the video, consistent with an aeroplane movement through the sky during the same amount of time;
4 - the movement and the light we see on the other planes are consistent with the reflex we see when the object gets near the tree branches;
5 - the apparent lack of wings may be a result of a very bright body and blue wings, I have see that happen before. Also, there's a slight darker line in the middle of the object where the wings of an aeroplane would join the body.

originally posted by: celltypespecific
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Can you PLEASE comment on this:

Chemtrail claims seem pretty ignorant in that case, those are contrails. The clouds are whitish, and the UFOs have a whitish appearance. The commentator wrongly assumes that they must have flown "behind the clouds" when you can't see them anymore, when it's probably more likely that there's just not enough contrast between the white objects and the white clouds for them to be seen even if they fly in front of the clouds, meaning they could be much closer to the camera than he thinks, and in that case not going 300 mph but much slower, probably birds or bugs. It's hard to tell since the video quality is so poor. Anyway lots of people post videos of birds and bugs where they misjudge the distance and birds and bugs are flying around all over the place so they are always a prime suspect for things like this.

originally posted by: ArMaP
It was certainly moved just before the object disappears behind the branches on the right, when the object appears to move sideways. I hope this slowed down version (2 fps) shows better what I am saying. Look at how the distance between the branches on the left and their relative positions change, showing that the camera was moving.

But the camera seems relatively stable from 33-34 seconds, then the object flies behind a branch, then the photographer doesn't wait for it to fly out from behind the branch, why not? That's what i don't understand. And then yes they move the camera when it doesn't re-appear on the right side of the branch. If it was an airplane it shouldn't be able to hide behind that branch when it was consistently moving to the right during the preceding time.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok thanks for your analysis!

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
If it was an airplane it shouldn't be able to hide behind that branch when it was consistently moving to the right during the preceding time.

I don't think that the time we do not see the object is enough to say that it should have appeared on the other side, a slight sideways camera movement would be enough to slow the relative motion of the object.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Did you read your link?

These extremely high EM field intensity values emphasize the novelty of this concept, especially suited for the design of energy generation machinery with power output levels much higher than those currently achievable.

So then you could say maybe the aliens have that technology, so it's aliens, but then you'd have to believe it's just a huge coincidence that they happened to put the brakes on just so that it happened to stop behind one branch as seen from the view of one human.

I agree. It's a hinky sighting and not a great video. And these pill-shaped flying objects are pretty much always conventional aircraft that are at a distance and angle where you can't make out the wings or tail.

As for us not currently having small generators that can crank out enough power for this kind of thing, that's one of the reasons the US Patent Office didn't immediately grant the patent. After reconsideration and new information received from the Navy, however, who said that it was not only possible but that there have been recent advancements that do make it possible, the patent was granted. Throw a lot of this recent news stuff together like Lockheed's compact fusion generator and room temperature superconductors, and it makes me wonder if maybe we do have some insanely powerful systems tucked away that only a few people know about.

I don't like to jump to my conclusions in either direction.

a reply to: ArMaP

Hi. Apologies, new here so no screenshots to post of the following. I have taken them from your 2 fps vid, but i can't seem to upload them into this reply (or see where i can upload to then 'insert an image from your library').

Between 00:16 and 00:25 the object passes behind the first branch. The branch is dark and well defined against the background. Between 00:20 and 00:22 the object seems to pass in front of the branch.

Possible signs of cgi not getting those frames correct or the brightness of the object 'drowning out' the dark branch / leaf at that point?

originally posted by: Diaspar
Hi. Apologies, new here so no screenshots to post of the following. I have taken them from your 2 fps vid, but i can't seem to upload them into this reply (or see where i can upload to then 'insert an image from your library').

Click here and see if you can upload the images.

Possible signs of cgi not getting those frames correct or the brightness of the object 'drowning out' the dark branch / leaf at that point?

I think it's the second, the brightness of the object "drowns" the thinner branches, that's a common occurrence in photos and videos.

a reply to: ArMaP

OK, Thanks. I see now where i can upload.