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

originally posted by: Violater1
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.

In the video comments, someone already suggested to James Chessman to do just that. Not only did he not want to even try, but he also pointed out there is insufficient information available. See OP video comments for this discussion:

wilf609
2 days ago
@James Chessman Just a plane - why didn't you check Flightradar24, it would have shown you exactly what flight number, the type of plane and where it came from and where it was going to.

James Chessman
2 days ago
@wilf609 Lol well then why didn't you check it yourself, and post the info yourself, instead of telling me that I should have? Also we don't know exactly the date of the UFO.

We would need more than the date. We need the date, the time, the coordinates of the photographer, and the direction the camera was pointing from those coordinates.

I'm not sure about all the flightradar24 details, but I've looked up live flights on flightradar24 before. When I tried to look up past flights, I didn't have much luck. I don't know if you need a premium account to do that or if I just couldn't find the correct link. But there's no point in even trying without more details. It was pretty easy to find live flights on flightradar24, so it's best to look when you see the mystery contrail, to identify the aircraft making it in real time, which sort of sounds like what the comment by wilf609 was suggesting.

originally posted by: Slichter
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?

You're talking about the vacuum catastrophe I presume. When observations dont match theory (and they don't), that means there's a problem with the theory, and that's how it's classified, as an unsolved problem.

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.

If you want to start a thread on these subjects, do so. Otherwise it seems like you're hijacking this thread, since I don't see what that could possibly have to do with the aircraft contrails or the aliens if you want to believe that.

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.

I know about bandwidth collected in cosmology but have no idea what you're talking about here when you say "that produces a relatively static (UFO) image", but again if it doesn't apply to the topic of this thread, start a new thread instead of hijacking this one, please.

In the video comments, someone already suggested to James Chessman to do just that. Not only did he not want to even try, but he also pointed out there is insufficient information available.

^I think you're getting confused.

Let's recap:

1. We don't know the date of the UFO sighting, so there's no such thing as pinpointing the UFO as a specific plane flight.

2. I did ask for more info, on the first video's comments, so that's as much as anyone can do, re: pinpointing the UFO as a specific plane flight.

3. There was also no plane crash, or even a plane disaster, reported afterward. So it doesn't even really make sense, to try to match it up to a normal flight, since the UFO was obviously not a normal flight.

4. No one has claimed credit for the UFO, which would probably be the best explanation. So unless someone claims it as their own plane or whatever: Then we'll never get a clear answer, from any kind of authority, anyway.

5. We all know that there are planes everywhere, already. So it becomes a nonsensical concept to pinpoint a single plane to blame for a UFO. I mean, if you know that 100 planes flew over the same area, it just seems completely meaningless to blame plane number 73 out of 100. I mean, so what, lol. Whether you blame plane #73, or plane # 24... it's all just meaningless. We all know there are hundreds of planes everywhere, so it's nothing to just pick one and blame it for being a UFO.

a reply to: Chadwickus

The power of suggestion has its limits, this one doesn't even appear to have any puddle reflection artifacts.
OP doesn't try to tie this in with any other event such as the Sept 2nd 1998 Nova Scotia tragedy.
Swissair Flight 111 was known as the "UN shuttle".

originally posted by: Slichter
a reply to: Chadwickus

The power of suggestion has its limits, this one doesn't even appear to have any puddle reflection artifacts.
OP doesn't try to tie this in with any other event such as the Sept 2nd 1998 Nova Scotia tragedy.
Swissair Flight 111 was known as the "UN shuttle".

^I'm not clear about everything you mentioned...

But for clarity about the main UFO of this thread:

While the date is not mentioned, I'm guessing / assuming that the UFO sighting happened in late 2020 (and the original vid released late 2020).

The original vid seems to vaguely refer to it as happening recently (but not being specific about it).

And plus, there's no content online about it... which also suggests it happened quite recently.

It's at least relatively current times, because the original vid mentions social media blowing up...

And the later parts of the vid, seems to show a smartphone interface, which I'm admittedly not 100% clear of what it's showing. But seemingly a smartphone that recorded the video, then being used to play the vid, and zoom in on it, while simultaneously connected with social media that pops up a few times.

So it seems relatively safe to assume that the UFO sighting happened in late 2020 (unless we hear otherwise in the future).

a reply to: JamesChessman

The rectangle within a rectangle artifact in the original "2020 video" wasn't explained.
There was a rare Picasso aboard Flight 111 with three similar focal planes.
The 1963 version retained the influential characteristics from DaVinci's last supper only amplified.
In artistic terms it looked like Picasso was dumping fuel from his original 1934 flight.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I think what Violator was getting at, is that mainstream science already believes in things that we can't see. The biggest thing being the existence of dark matter. Which is believed to cover something like 90% of the universe, but we can't see it, so it just looks like darkness to us.

Yet it's indicated by our maths, and believed in by practically everyone.

So compared to believing in 90% of the universe filled with invisible substance:

It's really nothing to believe that a very strange-looking unidentified flying object, is probably just as strange as it looks.

Also I love the handle name:

a reply to: JamesChessman

Looks like a Faustian dilemma?

a reply to: Slichter

The rectangle within a rectangle artifact in the original "2020 video" wasn't explained.

^Right, I just think it probably is showing the smartphone interface, of the phone that recorded it... And then later, the phone is playing that vid, while the rectangle is just showing that it's zooming into that portion of the video.

That's what I believe the rectangles artifacts are showing.

However, I don't do this myself, with my phone. So it's just my interpretation of what the vid is probably showing.

And I also don't know what kind of social media is featured in the UFO video footage, during the later section of zooming in with rectangles. But there's definitely some kind of social media, popping up with photos and messages, a few times. And I guess this probably means that the UFO vid was being broadcast live via social media, at that time.

I don't love my phone enough to even want to know exactly what they're doing lol with social media and live broadcasts of video with zoom-in... I can barely get my phone to play YouTube half the time

originally posted by: Slichter
a reply to: JamesChessman

There was a rare Picasso aboard Flight 111 with three similar focal planes.
The 1963 version retained the influential characteristics from DaVinci's last supper only amplified.
In artistic terms it looked like Picasso was dumping fuel from his original 1934 flight.

^Thanks, I guess I'll need to Google this... I think you're describing a plane crash on purpose, to steal a valuable painting... which is certainly something that is possible, that someone would do that.

a reply to: JamesChessman

Neither Da Vinci's Last Supper nor the post 1998 expanding universe model are well explained.
Arbitrager feels we are going off topic with this, maybe more than one one fist/faust is desired?

originally posted by: Slichter
a reply to: JamesChessman

Looks like a Faustian dilemma?

Sorry, now you lost me, lol.

A Faustian dilemma = "a deal with the devil." Right?

So who are you saying did that, and about what?

Unless you're just referring to the Violator artwork, then yes it's awesome lol.

originally posted by: Slichter
a reply to: JamesChessman

Neither Da Vinci's Last Supper nor the post 1998 expanding universe model are well explained.
Arbitrager feels we are going off topic with this, maybe more than one one fist/faust is desired?

If you're asking, then I certainly don't mind your posts, and I appreciate them, actually.

However I'm also pretty lost regarding some of your posts, lol. But that's ok, you keep piquing my interest, anyway.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
5. We all know that there are planes everywhere, already. So it becomes a nonsensical concept to pinpoint a single plane to blame for a UFO.

If you don't know the date, time, location etc, it would be probably impossible to guess at the aircraft ID in a video like the OP shows.

But in the General McInerney video I posted, it was a big news event, so the news crew knew all the required information of date, time, location of their news helicopter, and the direction it was facing to take the video. Also, the event was recorded by other people from other angles, which even made it possible to calculate the distance to the aircraft making the contrail.

So, once you know the date, time, and location in the sky, you can ask air traffic control for their records of what was in the sky at that location at that time (unless you can find it on an online app like flightwise.com which is what was used to obtain ATC data for the video General McInerney commented on). To avoid mid-air collisions, air traffic control keeps a safety buffer around airborne aircraft so there should only be one plane in a given spot at any given time.

That is how the aircraft General McInerney said he was sure was not an aircraft was positively identified as flight UPS902. When they downloaded the UPS902 data for that day, this is the flight path it showed, and it includes the times of where in the flight path UPS902 was at different times:

contrailscience.com...


Using some photographs taken over a period of about 5 minutes of the alleged missile aka contrail, you can get the times from the photographs, and use Google Earth to compare the position of the aircraft in the photographs to the position of UPS902 that was downloaded from flightwise.com



At 5:19:04 the position of the UFO matches the air traffic radar recorded position of UPS902, and at 5:23:47, again the positions match. The photographer provided two other photos in-between, which are also on the same flight path and also match. So unless you have an alternate explanation for this analysis, it sure looks to me like it's possible to positively identify an aircraft.

Of course it's easiest to do it live in real time, because then you can see exactly what airplane is where on flightradar24. It's an informative app, you might want to try it.

So, it IS possible to compare a UFO to air traffic control records, which Mick West also did in the case of the Chile UFO which their government experts unsuccessfully tried to identify for years, yet with the exact dates, times and locations, it was possible to identify the exact aircraft responsible for the UFO recording.

At least in the above two cases I mentioned, all the details were provided or were available like date/time/location/direction of the video/photos, which really should be an absolute minimum standard requirement for spreading any photos or videos of UFOs. It's really not too much to ask, yet some people who think identification is impossible or don't really want to identify the UFO don't report this date/time/location information which might be used to ID the UFO.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well I would need to look further into each case before I could really decide what to think about each case.

If the 35-yr military general is wrong, about that trail being from a plane vs being from a missile etc.: then I think I'd be most curious why he was so wrong. And what does it look like normally, when a plane flies over that area, does it always look like a missile? Every single day, does it look like missiles are shooting out of the ocean? Etc.

Regardless, I hardly find it meaningful to point out a particular plane flight out of maybe 100 or 1,000 flights per day, and claim that the UFO must be this number flight, or that flight, etc. I mean, so what. It just seems so meaningless.

It might be more compelling if the plane company themselves, announced that the UFO was just one of their planes, which had a bit of mechanical problems on that day... but I suppose that they wouldn't want to announce that, even if it did happen.

...

Also I'm somewhat surprised that nobody suggested that the UFO was just a natural phenomenon, a small meteor that burned up, before it could reach the ground.

But maybe the UFO seems to be falling too slowly to blame it on a meteor...

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Regardless, I hardly find it meaningful to point out a particular plane flight out of maybe 100 or 1,000 flights per day, and claim that the UFO must be this number flight, or that flight, etc. I mean, so what. It just seems so meaningless.

If you don't want to know what the UFO is, and maybe you don't, then sure it's not only meaningless, it could be bad because once it's identified, it's no longer a UFO, and you want it to be a UFO, right?

Also I'm somewhat surprised that nobody suggested that the UFO was just a natural phenomenon, a small meteor that burned up, before it could reach the ground.

But maybe the UFO seems to be falling too slowly to blame it on a meteor...

Again let's use the General McInerney video to illustrate how contrail illusions can occur since that aircraft was positively identified. The general was fooled into thinking it was a missile going up, because that's the illusion, which initially fooled me too by the way, so I'm as vulnerable to illusion as the next person, we all are, plus I thought the General should know what he's talking about.

But, the plane was on approach to the airport for landing so not only was it not going up, but on approach to land, the plane is level, then descends a bit, then is level, then descends a bit more, depending on the instructions they get from ATC, but you can see the actual flight path in my previous post, which also indicates altitude. So, you might see a contrail that appears to be going up, or appears to be going down, which is actually level in reality, because of the illusions that happen in three dimensions.

Consider train tracks:

It looks like the tracks are getting wider, the closer to you they get. But, we all know that's an illusion so we assume the tracks are the same width despite the illusion that they get wider when they get closer.

But with the UFO general McInerney saw, it's a similar illusion where the space between the ground and the UFO seems to be getting bigger the closer it gets, just like the train tracks. But in reality, neither is getting bigger. So the UFO is not going up like the illusion shows, it's level. It is very human of us to be fooled by these optical illusions, there are books full of optical illusions that fool us. So don't feel too bad that you're fooled by some illusion in the OP video where you think you can tell if it's going up, down or level, when you really can't tell because of these types of illusions, unless you spend some time figuring them out, which obviously you have not done. Few people have.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

If you don't want to know what the UFO is, and maybe you don't, then sure it's not only meaningless, it could be bad because once it's identified, it's no longer a UFO, and you want it to be a UFO, right?

I do want it to be identified.

It's a separate matter whether I consider it meaningful to just pick out a random plane flight out of hundreds or thousands, and then assume that it's definitely the UFO.

For starters, if you do that, then you need to explain why that normal flight... doesn't always look so strange, on every other day.

So it just seems so meaningless to do that. It's flight 35, no it's flight 52, it's just meaningless lol.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Again let's use the General McInerney video to illustrate how contrail illusions can occur since that aircraft was positively identified. The general was fooled into thinking it was a missile going up, because that's the illusion, which initially fooled me too by the way, so I'm as vulnerable to illusion as the next person, we all are, plus I thought the General should know what he's talking about.

But, the plane was on approach to the airport for landing so not only was it not going up, but on approach to land, the plane is level, then descends a bit, then is level, then descends a bit more, depending on the instructions they get from ATC, but you can see the actual flight path in my previous post, which also indicates altitude. So, you might see a contrail that appears to be going up, or appears to be going down, which is actually level in reality, because of the illusions that happen in three dimensions.

Consider train tracks:


It looks like the tracks are getting wider, the closer to you they get. But, we all know that's an illusion so we assume the tracks are the same width despite the illusion that they get wider when they get closer.

But with the UFO general McInerney saw, it's a similar illusion where the space between the ground and the UFO seems to be getting bigger the closer it gets, just like the train tracks. But in reality, neither is getting bigger. So the UFO is not going up like the illusion shows, it's level. It is very human of us to be fooled by these optical illusions, there are books full of optical illusions that fool us. So don't feel too bad that you're fooled by some illusion in the OP video where you think you can tell if it's going up, down or level, when you really can't tell because of these types of illusions, unless you spend some time figuring them out, which obviously you have not done. Few people have.

I understand how perspective works.

The real question is why you are acting like the general is definitely wrong, and that his UFO was definitely a plane. Because the vid you posted is more suggestive that his UFO is a missile, and in that case, the general is correct (in his statements that it's not a plane).

You absolutely never proved that it's a plane, that you're acting like you did, lol.

Your linked website of contrails is just a general website, which obviously isn't proof of anything re: specific UFO cases, such as the general's missile-like UFO, or this thread's falling UFO.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Your linked website of contrails is just a general website, which obviously isn't proof of anything re: specific UFO cases, such as the general's missile-like UFO, or this thread's falling UFO.

The parent site contrail science discusses various contrails. But there's a specific link that specifically identifies the UFO General McInerney said was a missile, as flight UPS902. Already posted but you're slow on the uptake so I'm having to post this again hoping you will eventually get that you are wrong in saying the plane wasn't identified.

contrailscience.com...


Using some photographs taken over a period of about 5 minutes of the alleged missile aka contrail, you can get the times from the photographs, and use Google Earth to compare the position of the aircraft in the photographs to the position of UPS902 that was downloaded from flightwise.com



At 5:19:04 the position of the UFO matches the air traffic radar recorded position of UPS902, and at 5:23:47, again the positions match. The photographer provided two other photos in-between, which are also on the same flight path and also match. So unless you have an alternate explanation for this analysis, it sure looks to me like it's possible to positively identify an aircraft.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The parent site contrail science discusses various contrails. But there's a specific link that specifically identifies the UFO General McInerney said was a missile, as flight UPS902. Already posted but you're slow on the uptake so I'm having to post this again hoping you will eventually get that you are wrong in saying the plane wasn't identified.

Alright, the site does refer to the specific case with the general. So I was wrong in saying the site is only general information... although essentially it is general info, for the most part.

And I don't think it's 100% proof, that it was a plane, and not a missile, in that case.

I don't find it impossible that there was actually a missile or something else.

I don't think the plane company actually claimed it...

Nor do I think it looks like missiles everyday, so that there'd be hundreds or thousands of examples of the same thing, everyday, in that area...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Video can create real problems because our brains try to interpret what they see. Meaning it is very easy to fool us because optical illusions are especially easy on videos. We have a hard time determining distance in the sky especially if we dont know the size of the object. Our brain will try to make sense of it even if it doesnt have enough information to determine distance and size and motion.