UFO recorded on video by Fox Photographer

reply to post by jritzmann


I think that you and I can agree to agree! I for one appreciate all of the input you've put into this thread. We seem to have the same opinion, your technical support on this has been valuable.

reply to post by SimonSays


Do you have any idea just how many different missiles there are? I gave a perfectly good link to a page on most of the US military arsenal of missiles. Of course this doesn't include all the experimental ones but I saw at least 3 that looked like a pretty good match.

I was moving away from the insect theory due to the lack of motion on the "wings" which I said usually look like a corkscrew effect. However, looking at it over and over It could quite possibly be an insect or a bird although a bird would be a longshot. We all know that the odds of it being a missile are very low but I just can't completely ignore the possibility.

It's definitely not a longshot for it to be a video anomaly as others argue.

reply to post by Mindless


it makes perfect sense - try reading it i am addressing a claim made by others

reply to post by SimonSays


you wrote " show me any bu which flies with his body in a straight line "

i guess you missed the post previous to yours that shows motion blurred bugs in a guys garden ???????????

hey they are straight as a die

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by SimonSays

 

you wrote " show me any bu which flies with his body in a straight line "
i guess you missed the post previous to yours that shows motion blurred bugs in a guys garden ???????????
hey they are straight as a die

yes I did see those but they weren't flying 1000 MPH+ either

People who keep saying that it can't be a missile because there is no contrail:
Do everyone a favor and watch the last 10 seconds of this video:
www.youtube.com...
Zomg no contrail on the AGM-88

Under certain conditions many missiles will not show a contrail. Another possibility is that it missed it's target, ran out of fuel in mid air, and fell near an airport.

Note I'm not supporting the missile theory at all, as I personally think the object is a bug, but I'm keeping my mind open to all other possibilities, including the missile one.

reply to post by jbondo

well it would take me about a year to compare all the missiles
in the world to the photo. The first one mentioned in the thread
was the AIM-7 so I ran with it. I don't intend to compare all the
missiles as the skeptics here wouldn't believe it even if I did the
work. So I realize I'm chasing my tail. So I give up.

It's a missile !!!!
It's a bug !!!!
It's an insect !!!!

take your pick

(sarcasm implied)

talking bout me being vested ..... hmmmm .... look around

For those of you who haven't a clue as to what a ROD is (besides for fishing) ... well here's the buzz (pun intended). It started around eight years ago, when someone took pictures of strange, mysterious flying objects at a cave in Mexico. People have made buckets of bucks ever since: selling videos, DVD's and asking for donations for more research and expeditions to study these "unearthly" RODS.




continues... home.flash.net...

mod edit to use "ex" tags
Quote Reference.
Posting work written by others. **All Members Read**

[edit on 19-1-2008 by sanctum]

[edit on 18-1-2008 by Palasheea]

yeah that is a "x362" spy drone the military developed for use in what i like to call: Operation Iraqui Liberation (O.I.L) it would have been in a patrol flight... sorry to burst your bubble

reply to post by Armin


Great post Armin.

Seriously friends, just ask yourselves what makes more sense. And if it makes more sense to you that it is some unidentified missile then there are a lot more serious questions you should be asking.

This thread is so very indicative of the reason that UFOs continue to be a fringe area of interest.

Here's the deal - Jeff asked me to look at the clip. I'm not impressed. It's nothing out of the ordinary.

That there are some of you who think this is something paranormal, is both telling and frustrating. That some of you claim that you're sure it's going behind the cloud - well, I'm an expert at knowing the depth prioritization of 2D representations of 3D objects, and the issues of foreshortening distortion of objects in motion, and it's clear to my TRAINED eye that this is a small thing MUCH closer to the camera than the plane. It absolutely does NOT go behind the cloud. It's most likely a small bird, or insect. It's NOT a missile or other type of fueled/unfueled projectile, unless someone shot something from a wrist rocket close to the camera.

It seems that many people here think that ANY opinion is valuable about a topic - sorry, I disagree. INFORMED opinions are much more valid and insightful than random opinions. I don't offer definitive conclusions about many things, but when it comes to something like this clip, I'm completely comfortable saying that, in my professional opinion, it's absolutely nothing to get excited about. I share Jeff's frustration with this situation, and the constant demands of some of the folks here that he spend insane amounts of time doing analysis at no charge, because you WANT him to do it. It's part of the scourge of entitlement that has infected our society, and I personally detest this attitude. You want in-depth analysis? Then get us original, uncompressed video, and ask NICELY, and we'll consider taking a close look. You have grainy, low-res, compressed video showing the degradation of being run through harsh DCT compression, and you have the chutzpah to DEMAND they we PROVE that it's not a UFO? Get real, folks.

As far as the whole RODS thing - give us a break. We know ALL ABOUT the RODS nonsense. Anyone wanting to buy into it, have fun - it's about as mysterious and interesting as a pile of dirty diapers. Realize that belief in that silliness is predicated on absolute ignorance of analog/digital video formats, interlacing, fields and frames and motion artifacting. BELIEVE what you want, but once you learn video 101, you'll quickly realize what the deal is, and move on.

And for the record, NOTHING would thrill us more than being able to say, without hesitation, that a piece of video is genuinely a UFO. But stop and consider - a legitimate photo of a UFO tells you precious little about what it is, where it came from, what's inside of it and what it means. Jeff and I have both had multiple, intense sighting experiences, and our agenda is to try and get some clarity around this topic. Jeff's been involved in investigation work in this field much longer than me, and I can see why so many folks get turned off to any level of rational, reasonable discussion of the topic. It's sad - this is certainly one of the most important, and interesting topics worthy of our time and consideration, and in the end, it all turns into a #storm of egos, vested interests and insecurities. Too bad.

Believe what you will, Jeff and I have little use for belief, it's understanding and knowledge that primarily drive both of us. We don't claim to know what the truth of this phenomenon will ultimately turn out to be, but we know a fabricated/bogus/conventional image/video clip when we see it. Take it or leave it, we offer our opinions, but make harsh demands of us, and we'll cease sharing our thoughts and continue in our quest in a personal and more discrete fashion. That's a promise.

dB

[edit on 18-1-2008 by davidbiedny]

[edit on 18-1-2008 by davidbiedny]

[edit on 18-1-2008 by davidbiedny]

I think we have a match.

home.flash.net...

look at the insect (rod) in the bottom right corner. straight line, no corkscrewing, 5 offset "tentancles, instead of 4. Thats the only difference.

Also if you read this persons website, the conditions he used, low sun, shooting camera/video on a 30 degree angle up toward the sunset, perfectly matches the scenario of the video.

It doesn't pass behind the cloud, it just becomes so faint and "transparent at that point, it appears to be passing behind the cloud.

Conclusion, a bug.

reply to post by jritzmann


I have to say you are such a valuable asset to ATS !!!!
Little amateur graphic people like *me* look up to people like *you*
Try not to get discouraged too much, because there are TONS of people here who value the time and effort that you put in here!

I just wish you were able to analyze the stuff posted here more often

*ducks*

Originally posted by Nola213
I think we have a match.

home.flash.net...

look at the insect (rod) in the bottom right corner. straight line, no corkscrewing, 5 offset "tentancles, instead of 4. Thats the only difference.

Also if you read this persons website, the conditions he used, low sun, shooting camera/video on a 30 degree angle up toward the sunset, perfectly matches the scenario of the video.

It doesn't pass behind the cloud, it just becomes so faint and "transparent at that point, it appears to be passing behind the cloud.

Conclusion, a bug.

It does look very similar. Perhaps a slightly different shutter speed would account for the extra "tentacle". If i'm interpreting the website correctly, the species responsible was a either a dragonfly or a Tiphiidae wasp?

reply to post by Leto



Exactly what I was thinking for the appearance of the extra "tentacle". It may also have to do with the speed the insect is flying, how many show up. Faster the speed, more tentacles(actually wings i guess), slower the speed of the insect = less? Cause he does have photos showing all different sizes and turns all in the same picture. But ya I was thinking shutter speed at first.

Oh, ya he does say it's some kind of wasp, the one you quoted was correct, I wouldn't try to spell it off the top of my head (yes I'm too lazy to opwn another window, lol)

The website link was actually posted on like page 3 or 4, then someone linked all the photos from the site on page 4 or 5. So it's not my find, it just seems some people are looking at the links, and other's aren't.

Because, I think it's pretty definitive proof of what we're seeing in the OP's film.

I mean it was just last week a guy figured out how to reproduce, the F.A.S.T. photos (who were originally made by same guy who came out with the rod theory.) It seems people have been reproduceing the Rods for alot longer, because there's actually quite alot of sites out there with pictures exactly like these, and the people can reproduce them at will.

So I'd say the guy who raked in all the dollars with F.A.S.T., and Rods, is finally debunked. But yet here we are with another thread of people being folled by this junk. Sorry, it's just I don't care for people who make money off trickery.


[edit on 19-1-2008 by Nola213]

[edit on 19-1-2008 by Nola213]

reply to post by jritzmann


I think you're right. People have said the object flies behind the clouds, but it's impossible to tell, exactly. Because of the shutter, and the semi transparency of the cloud, you can't really say for sure whether the object is in front or behind the cloud.

The freeze-frame of the object, however, looks really interesting. It doesn't look like a normal object blurred by shutter.

"That's fair enough but what about the fact that the object passes through the clouds? "

I think what you are seeing is what you want to see. I see none of thise "passing through clouds" you mention. This is just a rod. Wether it's a bug or womething else is not important.

Originally posted by davidbiedny
This thread is so very indicative of the reason that UFOs continue to be a fringe area of interest.

Here's the deal - Jeff asked me to look at the clip. I'm not impressed. It's nothing out of the ordinary.

Wow, just wow. You know, I started out in this thread with a statement of respect towards JRitzman. In fact, my being in this thread attempting to analyze this video at all was because of the work of JRitzman and others like Armap, and Internos.

Believe it or not, I'm trying to learn to get better at this.
It's a shame that the both of you are SO FAR ABOVE the rest of us, that you can't even understand that it's in your own interest to just frickin explain yourself.

If either of you had explained the process by which this 'illusion' can occur, I would have understood it. In fact, I would then be able to explain it to others, who are unclear on the effect. SAVING YOUR PRECIOUS TIME.

But you didn't. In fact, I still don't get it, but I'm certainly done examining this video. Fine, it's a bug, whatever.

Nobody DEMANDED anything of either of you. JRitzman's opinion was asked for by 'the owner' and he came here to give it. I responded VERY clearly about why his explanation didn't make sense to me. That's all. That's what happens at a message board. I even thanked him for coming, and stated that I valued his opinion. If you'll look, you'll also see I told him it would be detrimental to ATS were he to discontinue posting, IMO.

I've lost the chance though David, to ever even gain any respect for you. JRitzman's work speaks for itself, and I meant what I said earlier about his bringing valuable rational analysis to a lot of threads here at ATS. But why come here and post like you have? Why just rub it in my face that I'm not some INFORMED person like you?
That's just plain mean dude, and it's WAY off topic and AGAINST the ATS Rules, which clearly say attack the post, not the poster!

Why not just explain the process?

[NOTE - WFA is NOT demanding that you explain the process, he is pointing out that it would be helpful if you did]

Nobody is asking you or JRitzman to 'stake your reputation' on anything. Take a huge sized chill pill. What I've been CONSISTENTLY asking you to do, is to EXPLAIN why it looks like the 'thing' went behind the cloud. That's it, nothing more. I actually want to understand!

But like I said in my earlier POLITE posts, if you don't have the time, or it isn't worth your effort, don't bother. I'll just continue to go on un-educated, lowly little ATS member guy who comes here to learn from people who DO have the time and inclination.

Ill met, David, Ill met indeed.


Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 20-1-2008 by elevatedone]

for anyone to say that they are a trained professional and to think that this object doesn't go behind the cloud is a joke. Nice try to make yourself sound like an expert, but this is no illusion. That object is clearly shown to go behind the clouds twice. This is a fact and there is no debating that fact. If you try and debate that this object goes behind the clouds you are either lying or very far from a professional. It's funny how everyone is a professional when they are trying to push their opinion on a certain topic. A person trying to prove this does not go behind the cloud would have to believe that this video was a fake and had been photoshopped. The level of agenda on here by some is no laughing matter.