It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


UFO Over Pacific

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 02:26 PM
The object comes in sight at 15.134 ms.
The first thing i've noticed is that its movement is definately related to the one of the plane:
i mean, there's not a single frame in which the object shows an independent movement.
This is a possible clue that the source of the lights that we see is the airplane itselfs, but of course is not enough in order to make an assessment.

What could be the light source?
Perhaps the answer can be found at 16.367 ms, here

But this is just a guess:
my only problem with this theory, is that when he zooms, the appearance of the object remains basically unaltered, unless he's been so able to keep focused on the same exact point shooting the video from the same exact angle.
This is a question to which only hpsfl is able to answer:
by the way, i trust him: i mean, i don't think this is a hoax attempt, but simply a request of opinions.
So here are my two cents.

[edit on 16/4/2008 by internos]

posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 09:44 PM
HI internos, may I inquire what the lights (are those lights on the four small poles?) would be bouncing off of? Not sure where they would bounce off of in order to put the reflection there. Could be the fueselage (sp).. or could be off of the window itself, or another one on that side... Could that be simple reflection projected on the window? or reflection projected on the the clouds that appear to be around the plane? (in other words, could I get 4 cents from ya? lol J/King)

[edit on 16-4-2008 by constantine70]

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 02:33 AM
Great thinking internos!

However, since the lights are vertical, I doubt they could rotate through relection to a horizontal position. This also wouldn't account for the color variation vs. the winglights.

Also, as a "pilot in training" myself (I'm getting my license next winter), The "lights" on the wing you speak of are the reflections of the anti-collision light (The big light at the base of the winglet) on the de-icing tips. However, as the anti-collision light is a blinking light, that would have to mean the object itself would dissapear and reappear, corresponding with the blinking of the anti-collision light.


posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 03:36 AM
I tend to rule out that the reflection (IF it's a reflection) is projected by the collision lights.
I've made some still captures:
the first one shows clearly four lights in the following order:
Green, Red, Green, Yellow (or white)

the second one shows five lights in the following order:
Yellow, Green, Red, Yellow, Yellow (or white)

I've also noticed that, by coincidence, this order of lights match the one of a standard lights configuration on civil airplanes:

but this proves nothing of course
The problem is that i'm on a lossy compressed video, and some frames are too confused:
i've sent you an U2U with my email address: so you could send me the original version of the video: once uploaded on youtube a video loses many details, an it's almost impossible to make a serious assessment.
Click here
to check your U2U in box.
Thanks in advance,

[edit on 17/4/2008 by internos]

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 07:05 AM
reply to post by hILB3rT

No it is Sheridan, Indiana. Zip code 46069. Only once did I see something... my dad and I were leaving one night after working on the house he was building and it just appeared out of nowhere and hovered approx 50 ft away from our car and about 50 feet in the sky. I don't remember the colors of the lights but there was not one sound coming from it (we had all the windows down and sunroof open). It sat there for a good 2 minutes and then sped off with incredible speed and vanished.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 04:04 PM
reply to post by bigshow

Aww, thats to bad. Was hoping it was IL so I wouldn't be the only "nut" in that small farm town.

Have you had any other experinces since then? Seems if they were that close that they might have wanted something from ya, or wanted to make themseleves known to you. Anywas best of luck.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 07:02 PM
problem with all of this is the person who claimed to take the video doesnt even know the type of plane they were on.

777 - no
767 - no

neither of these planes have wingtips as shown in the video. b767-400 & b777 variants have raked wing tips, nothing like the large vertical type in the vid.

the wing tip or winglet is looking to me to be from a b737-800 aircraft, very similar to the 737 image posted above, although minus the winglets. in addition, i doubt that type of aircraft would be flown commercially from japan to canada.

story is bogus for mine.

[edit on 17-4-2008 by from downunder]

[edit on 17-4-2008 by from downunder]

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 07:23 PM
reply to post by hpsfl

Hey hpsfl, this seems to be an excellent video. I have found some posters comments interesting as they seem to blame you for the lack of quality and for the fact that your friend is cracking wise. I suppose you should have planned ahead for this moment and reacted smoothly and professionally. Only you know what you saw and videoed.
I immediately could tell you were on a plane and could clearly see that the object in the foreground was the wing and the object you were taping was to the right.
What made you say the object was large, was it clear even in the air and from that distance? As a pilot in training what have you heard or been told to do about the presence of a ufo in the sky with you?

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 07:47 PM

Originally posted by hpsfl
hey guys

I'm the poster of the video in question.

Just to let you guys know this is 100% real, and this is genuinly on a direct trans pacific flight.

As for the details you are requesting:

Flight was: AC 036 Tokyo Haneida-Vancouver
Boeing 767-300ER (I know my friend said it was a 777, he knows # about airplanes)

ac036 is in fact a 767 flight, from Osaka (KIX) to Vancouver (YVR)

osaka...... - not exactly tokyo is it???

[edit on 17-4-2008 by from downunder]

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 10:17 PM
reply to post by from downunder

Yes, your right, however AC 036 transits through Osaka. The flight itself originates as a code share.

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 01:06 AM
hpsfl, care to comment on aircraft type? - the vid is clearly not a 767, nor 777.

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 06:24 PM
reply to post by from downunder

You may be aware that Seattle based aerospace company "Aviation Partners Boeing" is offering a program which fits 767-300ER variants with winglets.

Article about launch is here:

Also, Air Canada has recently begun to fit the same variant of winglets to it's 20 year old 767-300ER fleet, cited here: (At the bottom of the main article)

Air Canada was third in line to recieve the winglet upgrades, after American Airlines and Air New Zealand. As of such, the video IS filmed on a Air Canada 767-300ER.

All this has brought up a thought:

Is the only purpose of this thread to provide evidence that my video is a fake? If it is then I'll stop answering all your questions, because it's real. NO VIDEO EDITING WHATSOEVER, as previously proved in past posts. Besides, how can you film a frisbee at night?

[edit on 18-4-2008 by hpsfl]

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 06:25 PM
[edit on 18-4-2008 by hpsfl]

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 06:29 PM
reply to post by Polaroids Of Polar Bears

Errmm...WHAT object exactly? All I see is a guy's flashlight. And maybe a brief glimpse of something that looks like car headlights. What has this got to do with UFOs exactly?


posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 08:44 PM
Well I think that the video is interesting.

I could have sworn that I've seen a few 767's with winglets before. Also, get off the dudes case for not knowing what type of model the airplane was. heck most people on an L10-11 think they're on a DC-10. Most people think that they're on a boeing and it's really an airbus. getting on the guys case for not knowing what type of plane he was on....geeeze you might have well been chewing the guy out for calling a Klingon Bird of Prey a Romulan Warbird. Or confusing a Galaxy Class USS Enterprise with an Excelsior Class USS Enterprise. I mean the the stupidity of some people. Not actually knowing what type of jumbo jet they are on!

Also I don't think that the aircraft could maintain it's shape and size while showing all of it's nav lights. from the way other posters have described the object conforming so perfectly to the running lights of a commercial plane would have the plane going straight at the aircraft the video is recorded from to make any sense. How on earth did it not get bigger when it was approaching the plane. it should have. How on earth could all of it's running lights be showing at once from just one angle. they wouldn't.

I'm not saying it's a UFO, just that I don't think it's a commercial airplane.

Also, Even though there are no reference points for size for us to see I think that the human eye calculates one more factor into judging the size of objects that we may not be considering. Atmospheric effects. Doesn't the average human also determine the distance of an object by factoring in the quality and conditions of the light as it reaches our eye to figure how much atmosphere it's traveled through to get to us. generally a person can estimate the distance of an air born object in my opinion just by the light sources interaction with the atmosphere. we've as humans have enough experience looking at enough various objects at various distances to have an internal reference point for distance and size.

hope that made any sense.

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 08:54 PM
reply to post by csulli456
I have to agree. This is by far nowhere near to being anything. This is typical of why the average person with working brain cells call ufologists idiots, "which is saying it politely.

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 09:20 PM
reply to post by internos

I hope you get the originals. I see what you mean by the placing of the lights of a parallel plane.. and the intensities that are portrayed match your diagram pretty good as well...

good job, and should the original only strengthen this then it is case closed for me!!!

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 09:57 PM
reply to post by BASSPLYR
At least it is darn good to know starship etiquette. Thanks for the questions on the starfleet exam. I'm sure they'll come in handy. By the way, which starship were you stationed on?

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 11:06 PM
So are you guys just giving up now?

I really don't care what you do, however, for the hypothesis of the lights being a relctions of the external Nav/Strobe lights, lets return to a previously asked question:

What would the lights be reflecting off?

The angle is too acute/shallow for it to refecting of the ocean, So I guess my airplane must've been flying parralell to the Ever Mysterious "Giant Never Ending mirror over the Pacific" then?

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 07:13 PM
reply to post by hpsfl

the articles you quote dont tell us much.

i just read on the net -

"APB plans to receive a Supplemental Type Certificate for 767-300ER Blended Winglets by November 2008." (APB = airline partners boeing).

doesnt this mean that the 767 winglets arent even in service yet??

& AA is the launch customer...? november 2008??

& just announced that Condor marks the 5th airline to order 767 winglets. So far:

AA (763ER)
DL (763ER)
LA (763ER & 763F)
OS (763ER)

& no air canada? yes, they have "plans" for them, but they havent begun installing them as you suggest.

yet, apparently, you were on an air canada jet with winglets (that dont even look like the blended variant anyway...)?

mate, im into ufo's as much as the next guy, but your post reeks of BS.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in