UFO Video: Nova Scotia, Canada: Exhaust Smoke, Invisible Craft

a reply to: JamesChessman

Im going to say i believe in aliens but this aint it i suggest maybe looking into my thread about the signal from Proxima Centauri


www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: JamesChessman

Im going to say i believe in aliens but this aint it i suggest maybe looking into my thread about the signal from Proxima Centauri


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks, that is a cool thread and a cool topic (the mysterious signal from space).

As for this thread's UFO case: I can understand that this is not a case which will count as definitive proof... although it also seems impossible for practically anything to count as definitive proof.

But I think this case is meaningful for showing about 8 minutes of video, of the same UFO.

So it's at least a well-documented sighting, whereas some UFO cases have as little as one photograph, for example (or none at all).

So I thought it was notable for its length of video... and it definitely can't catch the common criticism of many cases, where people complain about the lack of more photos, or lack of a longer video.


...

Plus, I thought the case has several anomalies that I've already mentioned. The craft itself would seem to be invisible, and / or seems to disappear.

The black-and-white exhaust plumes are weird... It looks like a vertical drop... It's only a short trail, whereas normal aircraft give a solid trail across the entire sky.

The exhaust seems to clump into bunches of exhaust, which doesn't really make any sense, and suggests a weird chemical make-up.

...

However, what can I say, about people insisting that it's definitely just a normal plane exhaust?

It seems obvious that it's not a normal contrail.

But it's not really something that anyone could argue and convince others, who start off as convinced, that a very strange exhaust trail, is not really strange...

Ultimately, I think the topic of UFO's and aliens (etc.) is just an important topic, in and of itself, and it deserves people's attention and contemplation. So that's why I make videos about it...

It's kind of besides the point, that apparently each case, will get a standard debunker explanation that a certain group of people will agree on, lol.

It's inevitable, I guess. Because even if a UFO case was absolutely crystal-clear, like Spielberg's Close Encounters movie, or the Independence Day movies: Then it would look too good, and be dismissed as CGI.

Whereas everything that's not quite so crystal-clear, gets dismissed as plane exhaust, or whatever else lol.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Thanks, I understand but I think the beginning of the video is especially clear that there are 2 separate exhaust plumes.

The white plume extends to various lengths, while the black plume remains small, and seemingly unchanging.

a reply to: JamesChessman

Why is the immediate response it's a UFO? The default will always be a prosaic explanation. Exhaust plumes coming off aircraft when it's on a horizontal path more or less away from the viewer. Gravity would pull that straight down if crashing.

A dark apprearing exhaust on one side isn't unheard off and is likely a shadow. It took me 5 minutes of searching:





Heres an explanation:
contrailscience.com...

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

He wants to believe so hes grasping at straws. Everyone knows its contrails i showed examples as well. He just doesnt want to believe its a plane and no amount of logic will change his mind.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

He wants to believe so hes grasping at straws. Everyone knows its contrails i showed examples as well. He just doesnt want to believe its a plane and no amount of logic will change his mind.

At least James Chessman is in good company this time, with General McInerney being fooled by a similar illusion. This video shows a plane and the general as presumed authority figure on aircraft with 35 years flying experience says it's not an aircraft, and he is absolutely sure of that. Yet, the general is absolutely wrong, so this is another example of someone claiming to be an "expert" fooled by a contrail illusion:


1:50 General McInerney "I am absolutely certain that is not an aircraft"

So if the general can be fooled, I guess we should cut James Chessman a little slack for being similarly fooled.

and no amount of logic will change his mind.

Agreed. Someone made this showing a moon UFO video was faked because the CGI artist forgot to keep his computer-generated atmospheric turbulence effect running after frame 855, so it's 100% proof it's fake.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
the turbulence is the final nail here and I don't think I need to waste more time.

Turbulence stops exactly at frame 855 in the video I've extracted from YouTube.

But that absolute proof means nothing to James Chessman.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: JamesChessman
You guys also can't definitely debunk the atmosphere distortion / turbulence, either.

So I challenged him to show any real video where the atmospheric turbulence suddenly comes to a sudden and complete halt like that, which of course is impossible, so of course he never did. Yet he never admitted it's proof of a CGI effect accidentally turned off prematurely (those are the last few seconds of the video). I gave up trying to convince him, I just let him believe what he wants.

McInerney should have been a little more open-minded though.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Nice post for Monday.
Its tough to be open minded and free from personal bias with our UFO's analysis.
"Dark Matter" which is a core belief of most modern physicists is a German term dunkel (kalt) materie - “dark (cold) material".
Why would they keep something like this "hidden" a retarded truther like me might ask?

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: JamesChessman

Why is the immediate response it's a UFO? The default will always be a prosaic explanation. Exhaust plumes coming off aircraft when it's on a horizontal path more or less away from the viewer. Gravity would pull that straight down if crashing.

A dark apprearing exhaust on one side isn't unheard off and is likely a shadow. It took me 5 minutes of searching:

Heres an explanation:
contrailscience.com...

Unfortunately, none of those photos look very similar to the UFO's strange exhaust trail and performance. Your photos show trails covering the whole sky, for example, whereas the UFO has only a very short trail. Etc.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

He wants to believe so hes grasping at straws. Everyone knows its contrails i showed examples as well. He just doesnt want to believe its a plane and no amount of logic will change his mind.

Lol well the fact remains that the UFO and its exhaust trails, don't resemble the photos you posted, and don't resemble the normal sight that you're arguing that it must be...

At least James Chessman is in good company this time, with General McInerney being fooled by a similar illusion. This video shows a plane and the general as presumed authority figure on aircraft with 35 years flying experience says it's not an aircraft, and he is absolutely sure of that. Yet, the general is absolutely wrong, so this is another example of someone claiming to be an "expert" fooled by a contrail illusion:



1:50 General McInerney "I am absolutely certain that is not an aircraft"

So if the general can be fooled...

Unfortunately, your video and your writing, don't prove that your own posted UFO was an airplane, either. I just watched the entire 5-minute clip that you posted.

Their featured UFO is unknown, the entire time. It's never established whether it's a plane (as you believe, apparently), as the main guest in the vid, is a 35-year pilot, who swears that it's absolutely NOT a plane.

Which leaves the 2nd-most-likely explanation that it's a missile, which the vid scoffs at the idea that there could possibly be a foreign submarine by our shores, shooting a missile into the sky, for no reason.

So with the military vet swearing it's not a plane, and with no one taking credit for the UFO as either a plane OR a missile:

The vid wraps up with one of the hosts making absurd suggestions that it was a toy rocket, from a bunch of teenagers on a boat, who just wanted to make a hoax UFO. Which is so absurd that the other hosts are mocking the idea immediately... as toys would not be expected to fly a few miles into the sky, and to produce a trail that looks like a legit plane or rocket. It's just obviously not how toys work.

...

So with all that, I'm wondering where / how you come away with the conclusion that your own UFO vid, is a plane? Because your vid gives the best argument that it's NOT a plane, with a 35-yr military vet establishing that.

Physically, a rocket would be the next best explanation, whether people want to argue about submarines or not, there's a strange exhaust trail there, and with military ruling out a plane, that would seem to establish that it's a rocket. Correct?

Otherwise, if not a rocket OR a plane, then your UFO appears to be a mystery. As the idea of toys isn't even a real idea.

So with your vid arguing against it being a plane, and more implying that it was a rocket or a mysterious object:

How did you conclude from your own vid, that it's a plane, when the US military swears that it's not?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Someone made this showing a moon UFO video was faked because the CGI artist forgot to keep his computer-generated atmospheric turbulence effect running after frame 855, so it's 100% proof it's fake.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
the turbulence is the final nail here and I don't think I need to waste more time.

Turbulence stops exactly at frame 855 in the video I've extracted from YouTube.


But that absolute proof means nothing to James Chessman.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: JamesChessman
You guys also can't definitely debunk the atmosphere distortion / turbulence, either.

So I challenged him to show any real video where the atmospheric turbulence suddenly comes to a sudden and complete halt like that, which of course is impossible, so of course he never did. Yet he never admitted it's proof of a CGI effect accidentally turned off prematurely (those are the last few seconds of the video). I gave up trying to convince him, I just let him believe what he wants.

McInerney should have been a little more open-minded though.

I'm actually glad that you posted that, because I've been thinking of making a video about that case.

And yeah, I don't trust that you or other ATS members have a crystal-clear grasp on the distortions of atmospheric heat dynamics / air displacement dynamics.

And plus, in your last post, you just posted a vid that you apparently dismiss the entire life experience of a 35-yr military veteran.

So that shows that you don't respect the authorities of any given field / topic, that you're discussing.

So, yep, I absolutely don't trust your arguments about atmospheric heat / air displacement distortions, nor do I trust your dismissal of professionals who spent their whole lives involved in your own topics, that you somehow dismiss their entire lifetime experience of...

Ok I just noticed that the YouTube video with the military pilot, has a debunker style description, and a link to a site about contrails.

So that would probably be why that vid was posted here, in this thread, in such a dismissive way. Because that's how it's presented on YouTube, with the link about contrails as its proof.

contrailscience.com...

Anyway it's all interesting but it's also not quite convincing either.

I think when all is said and done, we still have the unusual spectacle of that exhaust trail, which the 35-yr military pilot, swears is not from a plane. And which would therefore suggest that it was probably from a missile...

So in such cases, we're still left with a strange spectacle that is not quite 100% provable, what it was.

And also, if such strange-looking sightings are so absolutely normal, then there's still a question of why they look so unusual.

And why aren't such sights much more common...

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Ok I just noticed that the YouTube video with the military pilot, has a debunker style description, and a link to a site about contrails.

So that would probably be why that vid was posted here, in this thread, in such a dismissive way. Because that's how it's presented on YouTube, with the link about contrails as its proof.

contrailscience.com...

Anyway it's all interesting but it's also not quite convincing either. .

Not quite convincing? It's absolute proof! Even after seeing absolute proof, you're impossible to reason with just as with the moon UFO computer generated hoax.

I think when all is said and done, we still have the unusual spectacle of that exhaust trail, which the 35-yr military pilot, swears is not from a plane. And which would therefore suggest that it was probably from a missile...

So in such cases, we're still left with a strange spectacle that is not quite 100% provable, what it was.

The link you posted completely proves what it was. You either refuse to accept the proof because of your bias, or you didn't really study it and don't understand it. The link even shows they downloaded data from the air traffic control radar that was tracking Flight UPS902, and the images show that what was leaving that contrail exactly matches the position of flight UPS902! I don't know what more proof you could ask for. What would make you think a missile could account for that correlation? Your comment implies you aren't thinking, you aren't open-minded enough to accept proof that your bias is incorrect.

And also, if such strange-looking sightings are so absolutely normal, then there's still a question of why they look so unusual.

And why aren't such sights much more common...

That too is addressed at the link you posted. But, it's at the end and I doubt you read that far, you seem to have little comprehension of what is at the link you posted.

contrailscience.com...

The next day, Nov 9th 2010, Tom Carroll, a retired engineer from Rockwell’s Space Division took this photo of a similar contrail in the same spot in the sky. This does not happen every day, just when the weather was right. The Nov 8th contrail was particularly dramatic, and the news chopper just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

What's embarrassing for me is that I was initially fooled by the general's conviction that it wasn't a plane. I actually believed him because he was supposed to be an authority figure. But I guess this shows why "appeal to authority" can be considered a logical fallacy. Unlike you (so far), I was willing to review the evidence with an open mind, which convinced me that the air traffic control radar that was tracking Flight UPS902 showed the exact same positions as the object that was leaving the contrail, so it couldn't be anything else except Flight UPS902. You need to stop being so closed minded and accept solid evidence like this when presented. Open your mind.

originally posted by: Slichter
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Nice post for Monday.
Its tough to be open minded and free from personal bias with our UFO's analysis.
"Dark Matter" which is a core belief of most modern physicists is a German term dunkel (kalt) materie - “dark (cold) material".
Why would they keep something like this "hidden" a retarded truther like me might ask?

I'm not sure who you mean by "they", but with a little searching and reading from reputable sources (adding site:edu to your search can limit the search to university sources), you can find out what we do know, and what we don't know, about dark matter. There is an alternate hypothesis called MOND, but it has serious problems explaining observations in the bullet cluster, and also can't explain the large-scale structure of the universe like dark matter can.

Remember that in 1846, astronomers noted the orbit of Uranus suggested there must be another planet's gravity acting on it, a planet that had never been seen before. We aimed telescopes to the spot where the gravitational pull was coming from, and what did we find? The discovery of Neptune! So, there is that historical precedent for using gravity to imply the existence of something not yet seen, that was eventually discovered. If the same or a similar thing is happening with dark matter, it's taking us longer to find the source(s) of the gravitational perturbations. But they may be much further away than Neptune and have other features which make the sources difficult to find, like the popular idea that the source might be tiny particles much smaller than Neptune, that can't even be seen with a magnifying glass at close range, let alone with a telescope at light years away.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Not quite convincing? It's absolute proof! Even after seeing absolute proof, you're impossible to reason with just as with the moon UFO computer generated hoax.

Oh please, lol. We all know it's not "absolute proof."

It's a video of an unidentified object, with a military general swearing that it's not a plane, so that your vid ends up as mostly suggesting it's a missile.

So it's definitely not "absolute proof" of anything, and your vid says that it's a missile, much more than a plane, lol!!

And the link to a debunker style website about contrails, is interesting, but it's also not proof of anything.

Nor does it have any direct connection to anything, AFAIK, it's just a general debunker site about contrails lol

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: JamesChessman

It’s a regular jet making a regular contrail.

Really?
Really!
Then show us additional photos or videos of a regular jet making this type of exhaust, with links.
If you can't, then you are not truthful.


waiting....


waiting.....




crickets....

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: JamesChessman

Why is the immediate response it's a UFO? The default will always be a prosaic explanation. Exhaust plumes coming off aircraft when it's on a horizontal path more or less away from the viewer. Gravity would pull that straight down if crashing.

A dark apprearing exhaust on one side isn't unheard off and is likely a shadow. It took me 5 minutes of searching:

Heres an explanation:
contrailscience.com...

None of the above photos look anything like the OP's

a reply to: Arbitrageur

"They" would for example be the physicists involved in the Atomic bomb research which uncovered some huge misunderstandings of what we UFO enthusiasts call zero point energy. Still classified?

I remember back in the 60's when they put together cosmological background radiation maps and we discussed what might lie beyond the cosmological horizon from which we could never see any light due to the expanding universe.

The paradox with the spiral arms of the galaxies occurred over several hundred million years so its possible an expanding universe or even the changing of cosmological constants over that enormous length of time are responsible.

We've only been collecting the wider bandwidth of cosmological data beyond simple radio and visible spectrum for 100 years or so, and that produces a relatively static (UFO) image. There were some new external field effect observations reported recently that might be worth investigating.

a reply to: Violater1

I will make this easy for you anything you have seen in clouds can occur with contrails. In truth they are the same So i suggest you might want to try looking up once in a while especially near sunset. You can even end up with rainbows behind aircraft under the right conditions. Yes its rare when it happens the sun has to be in the right position and the air has to be able to make contrails.

Here is a 757 taken by another pilot looks similar especially if we were seeing it from the ground.

www.express.co.uk...

To put it simply the video is obviously a contrail but thats not surprising its happened before people misidentify a contrail. Heres one from texas people thought was a meteor.




If you can find the date and time you could track it like they did on this sighting

Location, time, context and archival backup of comparable events are the critical attributes of analysis.

All the jet contrail video and content available in a simple google search, and STILL, these people insist they are looking at a UFO, with associated diatribe that further exhibits their delusion and inability to logically think through their observation.

Honestly, I think some of them know they are wrong, yet they enjoy bolstering the controversy just because they can. Notable in so much other stupid behavior as of late.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Violater1

I will make this easy for you anything you have seen in clouds can occur with contrails. In truth they are the same So i suggest you might want to try looking up once in a while especially near sunset. You can even end up with rainbows behind aircraft under the right conditions. Yes its rare when it happens the sun has to be in the right position and the air has to be able to make contrails.

Here is a 757 taken by another pilot looks similar especially if we were seeing it from the ground.

www.express.co.uk...

To put it simply the video is obviously a contrail but thats not surprising its happened before people misidentify a contrail. Heres one from texas people thought was a meteor.

If you can find the date and time you could track it like they did on this sighting

OK, I'll bite. Track this object that flew over Nova Scotia. I didn't watch the TV show or view it on the net, but I'm sure the info is available.
I'll be interested in what you find.