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