UFO recorded on video by Fox Photographer

If it's a missile, it's an extremely big one, seemingly the length of the jets fuselage, by my estimation...

reply to post by hsur2112

---

You can go with calling it a bug all you want, apparently you didnt watch the video (2nd) link from OP. You know, made by professionals, (who make, view and edit video DAILY for a living with sophisticated equipment) and they clearly report the thing you call a bug passed behind the cloud cover. Now you can argue and dig up links all you want. But you are looking at garbage, compressed video. They were looking at HIGH QUALITY probably HIGH DEF images FRAME BY FRAME in the editing room. Sorry you lose.


[edit on 17-1-2008 by shug7272]

What makes you think the object is that big? I got the impression that the object is much smaller than the plane. If it were almost as big as the plane it would have been much more noticeable considering that the object is quite close to the plane.

I don't have to be an expert videographer to say it's just too hard to tell if it's passing behind or in front of the cloud. It looks more like the whole bug/rod thing to me.

reply to post by Leprekahn

---

One more time..

Exactly what I thought, this one is so debunkable. I mean you can even make out its wings.

reply to post by hsur2112

---

You are right I seen the same episode.

Sky fish anyone?

At first look, looked like a missile to me as well. Then came around.. looked again and it did look like a rod(bug). Still an interesting clip



-edit for splels

[edit on 18-1-2008 by the4bb4l4h]

delete post.

[edit on 18-1-2008 by 11one11]

I think anyone who says rods cannot be bugs shuld check out this page;

Rods: Fact or Fiction ?

It is definitely the rod phenomenon. Anybody who believes otherwise is either ignorant (not stupid; look up the difference) or just wants to believe too badly.

reply to post by Crakeur

---

Crakeur,
I'd say the FBI was involved because it was a claimed foreign object near a commercial jet. I think due to increased security, no matter how slight the perceived threat, someone is going to come check it out. There's always the "what if" these days, and "better safe then sorry" aspect. Sure they have radar looking for that kind of thing, but you've always got the aspect of stingers and other hand held anti-aircraft weapons.

I for one am glad they check out any and all possibilities of that. Even though you couldn't get me on a plane if you paid me.

As far as the object going "behind cloud cover", thats also another aspect of the rod thing. I myself put a camera out on the porch one day many years ago to test shutter speeds and see if I could get any bugs. The frame I caught a "rod" on, seemed to show the rod going behind clouds. I knew better, and that I'd just caught it at a speed where by the elongated image of the bug "dashed", and seemed to go behind background clouds.

It's very easy to look at rod evidence and get involved with it...they aren't hard to capture, and the idea of a unknown species is pretty seductive. But it's been thoroughly shown to be...well, blurred bugs in flight. People do at some point need to realize what we see on video tape of any kind has little to do with the actual event (as could be perceived visually), but rather how a CCD in a camera reacts to light and it's desperate attempt to convey that in electrical impulses onto tape medium, or digital medium.

My guess it thats what may be seen here. I think the similarity to the "rod" debacle is pretty clear, and I'm more then satisfied to call that bugs. I do not see any evidence of a missile, which would show a visible trail at this angle (and a fairly lasting one), and a lot more solidity within the frame.

LOL
thanks folks for taking a look
when I posted this video I thought it could have been
posted before and I was expecting to get flamed for
a repost but I guess I was wrong.

It was an object flying in the air
and we can't agree on what it really is
so that makes it unidentified

so I still say it's a UFO

but by all means keep up the dialogue
as we may come to a consensus eventually

Frame rates in video cameras can provide seemingly miraculous results. Take this for instance:

youtube.com...

In the video the frame rate matches the blade's rotation making the blades appear in the same position for each frame of video captured. The object in the OP's video could indeed be a bug whose wing's are flapping at rate which could be cancelled out.

Yes, it looks exactly like a 'rod' but I think rods are just bugs which are very, very quick and have some internal specialized neural navigation capability (and thus avoid collisions). It's just an illusive lifeform that's never been caught or observed until recently.

My impression is, that as this object passes through the cloud it must be at a significantly higher altitude than the aircraft, and consequently much larger.
Has anyone checked the weather information with regard to cloud height?
this may help to determine the actual size of this object.
I am inclined to think that cranium is on the right track, it would also explain FBI interest.
Just my thoughts, peace to all,
Horsegiver.

first - check the date - this footage was reportedly shot in 2002 - yup just months after 9/11 do people really find it supprising that the FBI investigated a ` missile like ` object filmed at an airport ??????

second - did it REALLY pass behind the cloud - or was the contrast between the cloud and object so low that object is no longer defined ??

my vote is for lack of contrast - but rods believers automatically seem to claim " it went behind the cloud " because such statements validate thier therories

lastly - if it is really an object above the cloudline - its size and airspeed would be massive - i would like to know what the feild of view for that lens was and how far away the aircraft was to do a quick calculation

Lose? Lose what? No one will ever convince me that these are anything but bugs. Why...a professional videographer ran a time sychronized test with a standard video camera and a high speed (oh yes, high def) camera, ran them at the same time and wow...they filmed a perfect rod on the standard camera, that same rod on the high speed camera...A MOTH.

Hey, I'm no camera expert...are you? But I've seen these reproduced too many times.

I have nothing to lose here.

[edit on 18-1-2008 by hsur2112]

Yes the supposed rod "phenomenon" has always suprised me with the amount of interest it gets. You can capture all kind of insects from filming and i certainly think it's a bug.

If it was a missle, why don't we see any evidence of heat or a contrail behind it?


[edit on 18-1-2008 by Electro38]