The "Concord" UFO Video

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by KILL_DOGG
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 

I have no clue what the object itself is, but it's obviously a free falling object caught up in the drag created by the supersonic jet, pulled in, and then breaking free of the drag.


G'day KILL DOG

An object.....?

Well, I think that would be a difficult proposition in view ofd the speed of the Concord, the turbulence around it, etc...

I think the video stabilisation / artifact effect is a more likely explanation than that.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not




posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


---

"...I think the video stabilisation / artifact effect is a more likely explanation than that."...

Hi,
Wondering if you might elaborate that line above?

Thanks

Decoy



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Decoy
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 

"...I think the video stabilisation / artifact effect is a more likely explanation than that."...

Hi,
Wondering if you might elaborate that line above?
Thanks
Decoy


G'day Decoy

I have to go out for a while.....

When I get back I'll go back through some of the explanation offered by some of our ATS "heavyweights".

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Decoy
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


---

"...I think the video stabilisation / artifact effect is a more likely explanation than that."...

Hi,
Wondering if you might elaborate that line above?

Thanks

Decoy

There is not any explanation to the video.
A CGI stabilizer will change the way you get the image, and what you say would make sense.
But since it was a physical stabilizer, you have no way to determine how it jeopardized the video: all i can tell you is that the video is NOT the original one, and that a physical stabilizer shows to you stuff that you don't even think exists, especially whenever it comes to reflections on the lenses. You are watching at some tenth generation video. Nine pixels over ten are crap. And if you think that some analysis can be done on this video, then bear in mind that it will be some 10th generation one, and worthy to be taken as seriously as some tenth generation analisys deserves.
No one is saying that it's not an ufo, i'm saying that we have NOT enough evidences in order to call it either ufo or not.
I mean; take the 16 mm and send it to Jeff Ritzmann.
The original film. Can you do that? Can't you?
No, you cannot.
Then, what are we talking about, may I ask you?



[edit on 19-3-2010 by internos]



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


G'day internos

I sort of like the idea this one's still an "unknown".

However if the original film ever becomes available, let's hope it can be analysed & a definitive conclusion is possible.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 20 2010 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


---

I have the video. Don't know how many generations it is? But do know it was recent when I had taped it back in appx /96. But being a total unexpert in stuff like that (use to rely on our main ATS Video analysis Man), don't know that I can add help to this particular disscussion?

Sincerely,

Decoy



posted on Mar, 20 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Decoy
 

The original should be a 16 mm video, but i'm not sure:
its original purpose wat to promote the Concorde, but it was made by British Ayrways: if you own some copy on film of it, the best thing to do is to send it to some specialist, but if the copy you own is some VHS, then you can keep it at home: Jeff Ritzmann is the man whenever it comes to analisys. The analisys must be done straight on the film, what has to be done is to find how the emulsion of the film has been impressed: we must know everything about this video: not only the video format, but also the device used in order to stabilize the video, and assess whether it's possible that such a device could originate the apparent "intependent movement " effect.
I can tell you for sure it's not a cheap one, like those used on "gun cameras" of fighters during ww2, for example. The aim of the stabilizer was to "control" the "bumping effect": that type of device has several different settings: we need to know who did the setup and how he did it: and why he did it: but on top of that, we need to estabilish how this could have affected the video. The reason why they used it was that they were filming a plane from another plane. But if we don't know at least what device has been used, then we are stuck at the point of departure.
I'm going to u2u you my email address.



[edit on 20-3-2010 by internos]



posted on Mar, 20 2010 @ 04:56 AM
link   
I would say it is a reflection from somebody's watch or ring. It appears to be on the inside of the window of the documenting aircraft. Somebody in there noticed the reflection and then played with it by moving it down, then up and along the edge of the Concorde. The camera is obviously not moving, but somebody's arm is moving inside the plane that is carrying the camera.



posted on Mar, 20 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


---

Hi, thanks for taking the time to reply in detail. I know Jeff, he was the man, pic/video/film analysis here at ATS. He knows me too, under a different handle.

As for my video, it was recorded from an original prg on A&E, I believe called 'into the unknown'?
Anyway, Tip-of the Hat to you and time taken to respond thoroughly.

Respectfully,
RSF



posted on Mar, 20 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by chunder
 

A few of our more experienced members insist the appearance & movement of the "object" is quite consistent with a reflection combined with strong video stabilisation.

I would be very interested to see some similar examples.

Internos' commentary is quite telling, particularly when he notes the "less impressive" appearance of the "object" in earlier generation vid's.

Internos also mentions the film makers have offered explanation.
I'll have to spend some more time looking for all of that.


I found it interesting to see a post that the BBC did a documentary about this explaining it was an effect of stabilization, because I've never seen that documentary and I was convinced this was a stabilization effect based on my own observation. I think if you find an unedited version of this film, what you might find is some movement of the camera or the plane the camera is on prior to the edited portion of the clip which shows the so-called "UFO". As others have suggested, I think this is carefully edited and I expect if you can find the unedited footage, that will help solve the mystery even without the BBC explanation.

This doesn't look at all like a flying object to me but a photographic artifact. Hopefully someone can find the unedited footage to help show this, or the BBC documentary that explains it, but I fully expect the video stabilization effect is the likely explanation as provided on ufologie.net:

www.ufologie.net...


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.


I'm starting to understand why other people see UFOs and I don't, I would never have called that a UFO, I see an artifact, not an object.

While I'm pleased the ufologie.net site includes the prosaic explanation for the Concorde UFO, I'm equally displeased that the sighting right underneath that, which has been thoroughly debunked in my thread here on ATS, doesn't offer the proven explanation for that sighting! It's been proven to be a freaking mirage, why don't they admit that???

Their claim is further evidence that "craft" that make impossible maneuvers may not really be "craft" at all, that one sure isn't.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Decoy
reply to post by internos
 

I have the video. Don't know how many generations it is? But do know it was recent when I had taped it back in appx /96. But being a total unexpert in stuff like that (use to rely on our main ATS Video analysis Man), don't know that I can add help to this particular disscussion?
Sincerely,
Decoy


G'day Decoy

I will be very interested to hear if your version of the video is going to be useful.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cabaret Voltaire
I would say it is a reflection from somebody's watch or ring. It appears to be on the inside of the window of the documenting aircraft. Somebody in there noticed the reflection and then played with it by moving it down, then up and along the edge of the Concorde. The camera is obviously not moving, but somebody's arm is moving inside the plane that is carrying the camera.


G'day Cabaret Voltaire

That's an interesting thought.

I think the references to reflections to date have been in the context of a strong illumination source refelecting within the lens system(e.g. the sun).

I wonder if an object suah as a ring could reflect brightly enough to cause the effect seen in the video.....

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Son of Will
 


I was thinking camera artifact @ 1:06 you see something above it and below it...I moved it back and forth....that is only a quick guess though.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
I'm still working on this one, haven;t forgotten it. I am hoping fingers crossed a mate might be able to help me. He still has a working video player and i have a shelf full of videos of UFO documentaries. There is a slim chance i have a copy of the original documentary which goes into great detail of how this effect was caused by the camera they were using. Can't promise anything but, if i do have it i will try and find someway of uploading it. if i do have it I'm happy to send it to someone on here who has the equipment for transferring it.

The frustrating thing is, that clip from the BBC film crew and the UFO is from the same documentary, so maybe i should contact the person who uploaded it and ask if they have the part explaining the Concorde sighting.

For the record, i do think, some sightings cannot be explained by human technology. However, in this case, i was convinced by the evidence presented that, this was nothing more than a camera artifact.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


FireMoon.....

Many thanks....

That would be very interesting, as long as it isn't a crazy amount of work for you.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


No probs mate..my friend is happy to got through the videos and if i do have it, we can upload it here and put this one to bed. It deserves to be archived so that people can see the explanation. I'd be the last to deny there wasn't a twinge of regret when this one was explained. However, explained, to mind, it was and that's what we are here for isn't it?

We often learn, far more, from our mistakes in life. With this sighting, unless you know the equipment used, as a professional, the chances are, you'd never actually spot what happened.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Dammit MMN, why can't you just post some CGI crap so we can get it dubunked quicker.
As to the thread I will be forced to go through some hypotheticals in my head which is scary as I am reading Robert Jordan right now and my head ain't all there. Great thread as usual.

As for the post itself, I will leave you with the words of the now dead Heath Ledger, "Why so serious".



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Used a bit of lateral thinking and found this. it isn't the documentary i was looking for but IT DOES contain the concord film, in full and that BA said it was caused by an optical effect in the camera.

This was made in 1977 according to the details given. I have to admit the very start with the photo from the 1880s is a totally new one to me. I thoroughly recommend viewing this documentary. Cos of copyright issues, I'm not going to embed it but simply provide the links to, what i think, is as much has been uploaded.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


FireMoon.....

Thanks again.

I shall look at that in the a.m.

Cheers as always
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
G'day

Along with the 1994 Nellis Air Force Base UFO video.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

.....here's another of the very few UFO videos that I find interesting.....

The "Concord" UFO video:



I cannot find very much explanation as to what this might be, either on ATS or externally.

I will be extremely interested to read the expert commentary of our ATS members regarding this video.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 13-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]


The Concorde footage "UFO" was simply a camera lens reflection and you can see it in the way that the reflection and the camera imitate each other's movement. Additionally, this footage has been duplicated with another airplane in another documentary. I have it in one of my many UFO tapes off the TV.





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join