UFO ? and fighter jet

this footage of a fighter jet and a ufo has always intrigued me.

www.youtube.com...
YouTube - Russian UFO footage


i dont know if its ever been debunked here on ATS but i was watching another video of a jet fighter and a experimental fighter or jet and it really looked like a ufo.

www.ufospider.com...
F-18 Fighter Jet intercepts a real UFO? | UfoSpider.com


www.youtube.com...
YouTube - X-45A and F/A-18B Formation Flight (Flight 13)

could this be an explanation for the ufo in the first video ?

Well the first one isn't Russian. It's an F-16, and I'm not sure how real that one is. As for the others, it's nice to see videos of the X-45 flying.

reply to post by Zaphod58
thanks for the post

that video does show an American fighter but in the beginning of the video( wich seems to have dissappeared from you tube) shows the russian fighter with the same or similar ufo flying along with the jet and ducking in the clouds also

trying to find the part with the russian fighter in it

i have seen it before so i know it exists...hmm..

I remember seeing that one before, and one of the things brought up was that the "ufo" goes into the clouds without disturbing them in the slightest. Have you ever seen pictures of aircraft entering clouds? It's pretty awesome. You would think that a UFO would do something similar from the air displacement coming off it.

reply to post by Zaphod58


well its hard to tell from that video because it appears to very quickly drop into the cloud and seems to drop into sorta a hole in the cloud so you cant really see any displacement. but it sure is a cool video imho

i just looked on disclose tv and i cant seem to find the part with the russian jet in it...but i am still looking .

reply to post by Zaphod58


this video i found seems to say that a russian mig was flying along with the f-16 when this video was taken.

this video also shows the ufo closer up when its going into the cloud.


www.youtube.com...
YouTube - UFO KGB SECRETS 3



at the end of this video it shows i believe a russian fighter with a ufo

www.youtube.com...
YouTube - UFO KGB files



i was surprised to see the concord video in the kgb files movie with Roger Moore

www.youtube.com...
YouTube - Concord UFO

About the first video:

Originally posted by David Rudiak on Updates
When Stan Friedman visited the S.F. Bay Area a few years back,
Reuben Uriate, Northern California MUFON director, demonstrated
for us that many portions of your referenced "documentary" were
flagrantly hoaxed.

This program was shown on the TNT network and was supposed to
show, among other things, films of Russian jet interceptors
encounters with UFOs.

What they _really_ did was take a previous TNT documentary on
_American_ fighter planes and then used computer graphics to
insert the supposed-UFOs.

He showed the clips from the original documentary followed
immediately by the "UFO" clips. No doubt about it. The UFOs were
computer generated and they hoped the average viewer wouldn't
know a Russian MIG from a U.S. fighter.

Source:
Virtually strange


About the second one,

claimed to be a MIG chasing an UFO, it has been pointed out many times that the Plane is NOT a mig, but a F 16: in the detail, member C0bzz provided yesterday the name of the ejection systems: ACES two.

You can find it here (unless the server is down):
www.ejectionsite.com...
And here you can find a detailed drawing:
www.xflight.de...

More infos can be found here:
www.parascope.com...

Here you can find the original page of TNT dedicated to the KGB UFO files:
(is no longer available but this is recovered with web archive)
/3bqnxs

IsaacKoi has further, conclusive informations about this stuff.

About the Concorde Test Flight UFO:

''This official British Airways film, was taken in June 1976 during one of Concorde's test flights over southern England. The video depicts a strange white light or probe type object, which seems to descend from above Concorde to below the aircraft and then back up again in front of the fuselage. What makes it puzzling is the fact that the light goes vertically downwards all whilst Concorde is travelling horizontally and at great speed.
However, a later analysis of the images presebnted in a UFO documentary indicated that the small object was really a relfection of sunlight within the camera lenses. The camera has an image stabilizer, which produced the effect of an apparent independant move of the reflection.''

ufologie.net...

www.davidicke.com...

Well, i haven't looked at the analysis so i DON'T know neither how they have been done, nor how reliable they are. And sadly there's not a good quality video available. So, until i see the analysis, i'd keep this one in "open" status, but this is just my opinion, of course.

reply to post by internos


well thanks internos !

i have been wondering about this for years because the footage almost seemed to be.... too good to be true.

this is a huge problem for anyone trying to make sense of the ufo phenomenon. so many hoaxes and disinfo out there.

i wonder how Roger Moore would feel knowing he was part of this hoax ?

so i have to assume anything in the KGB files documentry is probably not true. what a shame.


the concord video is the only one that seems more credible, but i am beginning to think it was a publicity stunt of somekind.


well anyways thanks again

Originally posted by internos
IsaacKoi has further, conclusive informations about this stuff.

Hi,

I'd sent Easynow (the OP) an email yesterday giving him a heads-up. I mentioned:

...I'm preparing a submission for the ATS newsletter which gives the background to various hoaxed photos and videos of "ufos" and "aliens".

All 3 of the "UFO" videos supposedly obtained from Russian files in the "Secret KGB UFO Files" documentary narrated by Roger Moore are covered in the article I'm writing...

All the best,

Isaac

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
...I'm preparing a submission for the ATS newsletter which gives the background to various hoaxed photos and videos of "ufos" and "aliens".

All 3 of the "UFO" videos supposedly obtained from Russian files in the "Secret KGB UFO Files" documentary narrated by Roger Moore are covered in the article I'm writing...

And it will be, as ALWAYS with you, a five-star work! Oh, i can't wait to see it !!!

reply to post by internos


yes Isaackoi did send me a u2u telling me he was working on his project that included this f-16 footage.

so " thanks" go to both of you and i am impressed with your knowledge and skills.

just seems a shame to have to weed through the hoaxes to find the truth.

i dont think this thread is the right place to discuss this but.. can you tell me in your opinion.. what is the best photographic or video evidence that would confirm an actual flying saucer flying around in our airspace ?

in other words what is your favorite or number one choice of photographic evidence of a flying saucer or ufo ?

i ask this because you guys are the best of the best and it would be a highly respected choice if you have one...

reply to post by easynow

This is a very hard to answer question: whatever i would answer, it would be an incomplete answer, to say the least. Talking just about photographic evidences, there are some really puzzling cases, some of them have been analyzed in every way one can imagine, with zero conclusive results: of course, the most interesting (IMHO) are the oldest ones to which have been made serious analysis: for example, the Trent photos, but not only:
here there's an article to which you could be interested, IMHO .
www.popularmechanics.com...

But if we talk about a whole case, then is different: a good example of
compelling case is, IMHO, the Belgian ufo wave.


Flying Triangle, Belgium UFO wave, Petit-Rechain, april 1990

The photo by itselfs says nothing, but the whole case is compelling:
mass sightings, multiple witnesses, media coverage, military jets that chased UFOs, UFOs spotted by radars making manoeuvres impossible for the (known) terrestrial aircraft, at impossible (for us) speed/accelerations and so on.

Basically:
1) Object witnessed at Eupen, Wavre, Leige and Brussels
2) Reported in over 2,600 statements to police
3) Photographed by many people on both Video and Camera
4) Detected and Confirmed by radar stations on the ground
5) Detected, Confirmed and photographed on aircraft radar screens
6) Pursued for over an hour by two F-16s.

Someone claims that it was a TR3B, (of course, as always, providing ZERO evidences, pheraps because even the evidences of the existence of the TR3B are missing ).

Glons radar confirmed the sighting of an unidentified object at an altitude of 3,000 meters. Semmerzake radar confirmed the Glons detection and passed its confirmation onto the Air Force. The radar scans were compared with the previous Eupen radar sightings (see Eupen Case) by Semmerzake and Glons and were found to be identical.
Several police patrols had witnessed the same phenomenon before. It was a massive triangular shape with the same lighting configuration as seen at Eupen four months earlier.

Colonel Wilfred De Brouwer, Chief of the operations section of the Air Force, said: "That because of the frequency or requests for radar confirmation at Glons and Semmerzake - and as a number of private visual observations had been confirmed by the police - it was decided that as these parameters had been met, a patrol of F-16 aircraft should be sent to intercept an unidentified object somewhere to the south of Brussels"

As a consequence, two F-16 aircraft of the Belgian Air Force - registration
numbers 349 and 350 = flown by a Captain and a Flight-Lieutenant, both highly qualified pilots, took off from Bevekom.
Within a few minutes - guided by the Glons radar - both pilots had detected a positive oval-shaped object on their on-board radar at a height of 3,000 meters, but in the darkness saw nothing. This oval configuration, however, caused the pilots some concern. It reacted in an intelligent and disturbing way when they attempted to 'lock-on' with their on-board radar.

Changing shape instantly, it assumed a distinct 'diamond image' on their radar screens and - increasing its speed to 1,000km/h - took immediate and violent evasive action.

This is what has been disclosed by the military, it wasn't a single witness
making wild claimings

Photographs of the actual on-board radar of the F-16s recorded a descent of this object from 3,000m to 1,200 in 2 seconds, a descent rate of 1,800km/h. The same photographs show an unbelievable acceleration rate of 280km/h to 1,800km/h in a few seconds. According to Professor Leon Brening - a non-linear dynamic theorist at the Free University of Brussels - this would represent an acceleration of 46g and would be beyond the possibility of any human pilot to endure.
It was noted that in spite of these speeds and acceleration times there was a marked absence of any sonic boom. The movements of this object were described by the pilots and radar operators as 'wildly erratic and step-like', and a zigzag course was taken over the city of Brussels with the two F-16s in pursuit. Visual contact was not possible against the lighting of the city.
This same procedure was repeated several times, with this object - whenever an attempt at radar 'lock-on' was made - pursuing a violently erratic course at impossible speed and losing its pursuers.

Colonel De Brouwer added "Immediatley after the operation, the pilots said they had never seen anything like it. Certainly the flight pattern and echo on their screens was in no way that of a conventional aircraft"
The Belgian Minister of Defence in the Belgian parliament stated that "The
Government did not know what they were".

I think that the explanation (as said based on ZERO evidences) that it was a military craft does not make sense, especially if we look at the data:

Acceleration data


Radar data


Colonel W. De Brouwer, Belgian Air Force, with the radar videos of one of the F-16s at the press conference of July 11th


Blow-up of the image on the bottom screen above.
The 990K is the speed of the object in knots.
990K = 1830 kilometers per hour = 1.5 Mach.


Clearly, some radical manuvers are occurring:

Speed changes of up to 410 knots in one second.
Heading changes of up to 70 degrees in one second.
Altitude changes of up to 3000 feet per second (1,777 knots) maintained for one second or less and typical ascent / descent rates of 1000 feet per second (592 knots).
That these manuvers are radical can be seen by comparing them to some
representative figures for commonly available fighter aircraft. For instance, the F-4 Phantom is known be able to turn at only 11.5 degrees per second, less than 1/6 as fast as the observed UFO profile.

The nature of these manuvers and their coincidence in time is also visible in this graph, which only shows the value of the changes:



Text file of the radar contacts of one of the F-16s
www.geocities.com...

Anyway, if it was a military craft, why perform such a secret/need to be hidden manoeuvres ofer inhabited places?

I would like to point out that i've chosen this one just as an example of a
compelling case: but there are other ones, some older some more recent: the most appropriate thread in order to discuss them, is, imho
Compilation: Some of the best UFO Cases (or the Classics)
by Gazrok

Sources, more infos and references:

www.ufoevidence.org...
www.ufoevidence.org...
ufos.about.com...
www.ufoevidence.org...
www.geocities.com...
ufologie.net...
/ypsaz9

Original article related to the pics (recovered)
/2hrdam

Originally posted by easynow
i dont think this thread is the right place to discuss this but.. can you tell me in your opinion.. what is the best photographic or video evidence that would confirm an actual flying saucer flying around in our airspace ?

Hi easynow,

As Internos has commented, that is a difficult question to answer (particuarly since I strive to avoid giving opinions, prefering to stick to the facts).

You may be interested in my thread at the link below, which highlights the photographic and video evidence most frequently discussed in UFO books - which is not necessarily the same thing as the best evidence: ATS Premium: Top 10 UFO Photos (and masses of others).

Kind Regards,

Isaac

reply to post by IsaacKoi


thanks for the link...looks really good and will definately be studying all the evidence presented.

the info you and Internos have given me is alot to absorb. i am familar with most of it but putting it under the magnifying glass does give it all a different perspective.

i have alot of reading to do before i can even think about formulating somekind of conclusive opinion. if its even possible to do so...lol

i see you have a thread called ' best cases ' and i will be watching that also. you will be hearing from me eventually...thanks again