Originally posted by jhamende
Is it common for respected ATS members such as jritzman and crakeur to make judgements on a topic (which sway member opinion) when they clearly haven't observed the subject in a thorough manner? This wasn't a bug flying behind the cloud and the case is not closed.

Yes. It's called video interlacing. Basically the cloud is relatively static. The 'rod'
moved relatively fast. (it's actually a bug or a bird) With video interlacing = voila it APPEARS the 'rod' is moving behind the clouds. It's not magic. It's not cylindrical UFO.

If you want to know more google video interlacing and do some research. I don't have time to explain...

[edit on 18-1-2008 by omnicron]

Wow. I feel embarrassed for that photographer, because he caused a commotion over what is clearly an insect flying past his camera. Also, I'm not sure how you get a "long 1/2 mile tube cigar shaped craft" from the same thing I just watched. That's quite a stretch.

while I would have to agree that "some" rod shaped ufo's
can be explained by bugs & shutter speeds and so forth. Though
I don't believe for a moment that "all" can be explained
in that manner. In my opinion, this is one of those that can't.

But I guess we are all free to believe what we wish. As I doubt
any time soon that NASA is gonna come out and disclose the
true culprit of said video or any other ufo phenomenon for
that matter. Which leaves our own hypothesis's and theories
the only thing we have to rely on.

I guess the next thing your gonna tell me is that the ufo's
surrounding NASA's tether incident can be attributed to amoeba
that was close to the camera lens even though it clearly passes
behind the tether. Hard for even a skeptic to rationalize an
explanation other than et. So if they can look like amoeba
they most def can look like bugs as well. Can they not ??

edited for spelling and to add content

[edit on 18-1-2008 by SimonSays]

Originally posted by SimonSays
while I would have to agree that "some" rod shaped ufo's
can be explained by bugs & shutter speeds and so forth. Though
I don't believe for a moment that "all" can be explained
in that manner. In my opinion, this is one of those that can't.

Ok. So answer one question for us:

Why?

What is it in this particular piece that just won't allow you to accept this as an answer.

Thats all I wanna know.

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by IAttackPeople

I bet the AF investigated the Bentwater/Rendelsham incident, eh?

they didn't investigate anything. there's nothing to see. they don't do it anymore although they sure do seem to have quite a bit of records detailing what they don't do.

That's true. They never investigated it for the last 40 years....

There tons of paperwork in the U.S. archives that proves that

But the U.K. and France did have some things which they put on the internet.

But the U.S. is a total different country where nothing happens regarding to UFO's.....

Originally posted by jritzmann
What is it in this particular piece that just won't allow you to accept this as an answer.

cuz in my opinion, the object in question went behind the cloud.
Not only did I notice it even before the reporter mentioned it,
but I reviewed it many times and every time I saw the same thing.
There is one still frame where the front of the object is visible
then the middle part is obscure behind the cloud then the tail
is visible again. So there are 3 different views of the object
in that one frame. Unobscured, obscured and then unobscured.
If it was lighting distortion from shutter speeds on a bug, then
the bug would not have disappeared on the white background
when clearly the bug is dark in color.

A shutter speed incident of a bug would not obscure the middle
part of that object leaving the other 2 (ends) visible. It went
behind the clouds. The cloud cover was way above the plane
thus making a ratio comparison that the object was way larger
than the aircraft.

Also if it was a bug, then how do you account for the double
set of what appears to be tentacles. There are 4 in the still
shots. How many bugs do you know of that have 4 wings
other than a dragonfly? And it can't be a dragonfly cuz the
tentacles (wings) are not in the right location on the object
exterior frame. The dragonfly's wings are both together and
toward the front of his body which is not where they are located
in those stills. Unless you're telling me the dragonfly was flying
backwards at high speed.

There is too much evidence in my opinion to counter the
bug theory. It just don't add up for me. But if you want to
believe it, go ahead as this is a free forum.

And as far as a missile theory. I doubt it very much
being that close to an airliner without somebody being
jail in gitmo for the offense as we would have heard about
it on the news WAY before now since Bush loves to tell
his terror (fear) stories on TV for public support.

I also doubt the missile theory for another reason.
A missile fired that close to an airport could NOT have come
from a shoulder fired mechanism. It would have to have come
from an airborne platform. It was too large to be
carried on someone's shoulder PLUS the fact that even if it was
a shoulder fired missile, it's trajectory would be headed upward
toward aircraft and not on a steady level flight path as is
apparent in the video. Unless you mean to say that we've been
invaded by enemy aircraft and they fired at our airliners
which I'm sure that we would have invaded that country by now.

So for those who say missile or bugs .... I say hogwash !!!

I think this is a bona fide case of a ufo based upon
what I've seen so far. And that is why I don't accept your
answer as a solution.

Originally posted by SimonSays

I guess the next thing your gonna tell me is that the ufo's
surrounding NASA's tether incident can be attributed to amoeba
that was close to the camera lens even though it clearly passes
behind the tether.

Actually SimonSays, I personally believe that some of the NASA footage from various STS missions is some of the best evidence for ufo's out there. The tether incident is one of my favorites. It's hard to misinterpret that, like it's hard to misinterpret objects in space on more than one occasion making 90 degree turns at amazing rates of speed.

With that said, I just feel that rods in particular are easily explained.

Originally posted by jritzmann
It's not obscured, it's simply not captured within that particular frame, at that angle.

dude .... it is an expensive professional camera used for TV .... it's
not a mini cam used for the internet or a hand-held
digital camcorder you buy at Wal-Mart.

I feel like a trial lawyer standing and saying "I object your honor"
stealing a line from Johnny Cochran "If the camera doesn't fit ....
you must acquit!!!" .... LOL

this line of questioning is getting us nowhere

blaming ALL rod footage on camera flaws is a flawed theory !!

I'm done with this ...... no offense

Originally posted by SimonSays
blaming ALL rod footage on camera flaws is a flawed theory !!

Ok, I ain't arguin'. Everyone here has tried to show and explain to ya (including the History channel and the fantastic link to the fact or fiction article), but you know more about it then all of us put together...hell it's a production cam....oh geeze ya got me there...they never make mistakes, they're the infallible cams!!.


Now I'll tell you why I think you don't want to accept this as an answer: You're emotionally vested. You want this to be, something, and no one is going to tell you different. Why? Because you feel your reputation or intelligence is on the line, if nothing else.

It isn't. And there's nothing wrong with saying "they got me", or "I'm wrong, it was..." or "I didn't realize...". We all do this. It's how ya learn and we're all constantly doing that.

Of course this is all just my take on your position. But it serves as a micro of the community these days. People are vested one way or another, and just refuse to accept any other answer.

I'm not bustin ya dude, please I beg ya, go read some on video and it's behavior. I'm serious, you'll save yourself a lot of disappointment, and you'll be more interested when you *cant* explain a piece.

why would the FBI take the guy in for questioning? He filmed it by accident, maybe they do know about UFO's or because the object was so close to the airport.

Originally posted by SimonSays

.... it is an expensive professional camera used for TV ....

The professional camerman man that did the Hist. Channel test, in addition to a camera with a standard shutter speed, did use a professional camera used to film objects at a high speed. It's not a matter of the camera, it's all about shutter speed and exposure time. The airport camerman was using, I'm sure, a standard shutter speed. If he was filming with a high speed camera, he would have ended up with a blurry plane and a clear bug. If your trying to film, let's say a hummingbird or insect, you wouldn't use standard shutter speed.

I respect your opinion, however, as jritzman said, check out the History Channel episode when it reruns.

Have a great weekend, big doings in Texas!

Originally posted by tati.12
why would the FBI take the guy in for questioning? He filmed it by accident, maybe they do know about UFO's or because the object was so close to the airport.

That the FBI showed up doesn't surprise me. I would hope that they would if someone reported something like that. But they only showed up because of what was seen in this video. No one else saw or heard anything.