fast ufos in the sky over Niagra falls Canada April 13th, 2010

reply to post by The Cusp

The Cusp.....

There's hardly enough there to go on to even begin to draw conclusions in any form.

I disagree…..I think there is enough info there to conclude that on balance, the objects are bats.

But when I see balls of light in the sky like that, I'm inclined to think they may be balls of plasma discharged from crystals being crushed deep within the earth.
Especially in light of the seeming increase in geo-seismic activity of late. The objects in that video were much more inline with the movement of free floating plasma balls than with the movement of bats.

Do you have any sensible sources or reference material to validate:

- The particular crystal in question & whether it’s located where that video was taken

- The assertion there was geo-seismic activity occurring at the time the video was filmed

- The existence of free plasma balls of the nature you describe

- The size of such free plasma balls if they exist

- The nature of the movement of such free plasma balls if they exist

- The appearance of such free plasma balls on the NV equipment used to make this video, if the free plasma balls exist

It took offense at the bat explanations because of how little effort was used to support those claims. To throw out a seemingly possible explanation then dismiss the whole thing doesn't bring us any closer to understanding what's really happening in that video.

I think you should keep a cool head, rather than “take offense” & leap to erroneous conclusions regarding “how little effort” was used to arrive at the conclusion the objects are bats.

It seems like people are more intent on disproving UFOs than getting to what is really happening.

People who are genuinely interested in finding out the truth about this subject will filter out the massive amounts of BS pointed in their direction.

UFOs or not, it's the mystery that fascinates people.

It’s the truth that fascinates me.

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not

[edit on 18-4-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

He shows us some low flying birds and makes the assumption that the objects can't be birds. Apparently there are only one species of birds at Niagra falls and they only fly at a certain altitude. What about swallows? What about bats? He has not made an effort, why should we take him seriously?

how the hell can ANYBODY seriously think these are birds or bats.

and wth do u mean "he has not made an effort". he has purchased thousands of dolars of NVG recording equipment and posted vids of the sky for our viewing pleasure.

Originally posted by cripmeister
He shows us some low flying birds and makes the assumption that the objects can't be birds. Apparently there are only one species of birds at Niagra falls and they only fly at a certain altitude. What about swallows? What about bats? He has not made an effort, why should we take him seriously?

Are you suggesting we should take material such as this seriously only under the circumstance that the provider of such material has done an exhaustive analysis himself? By that logic, the Trent UFO photos should be a priori dismissed because the Trents did not perform a photometric/photogrammetric analysis! Perhaps the claimant himself lacks the skills to perform an analysis. His "effort" is therefore not the deciding factor if he has captured something interesting on film.

And don't tell me you have made an effort in this thread to build a case for a prosaic explanation. You made even far less an effort than the "claimant" since you provided exactly nothing.

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
I disagree…..I think there is enough info there to conclude that on balance, the objects are bats.

I will have to disagree with you here. Have you determined angular size, plugged in the numbers and calculated distances? Calculated speed? Have you compared results to known figures for bats? These quantifiable results are imo not necessarily out of reach.

Based on the bat vids posted I can really see only few similarities.

I'm not saying the UFOs could not be bats, but the underlying argument is poorly put together.

Originally posted by jclmavg
I'm not saying the UFOs could not be bats, but the underlying argument is poorly put together.

Jclmavg.....

Well..... this is your opportunity to provide a better argument with better evidence regarding the nature of the objects.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 18-4-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by DrexonI seem to recall him arguing against bats stating the "it's winter" argument in at least one of his videos.

I haven't seen the other videos, I usually limit myself to one at a time.

As for the size it Is detectable to some extent.

Then why did you said it was not?

At one point a bird (dove, most likely) flies by the shot, revealing itself to be very large in comparison to the dot.

At what time does that happen? I didn't saw any bird when the camera is showing the unidentified object.

and have you tried catching one of those on video at a large altitude?

I don't understand what you are referring to, but I tried to catch some swallows on camera, flying at some 50 metres above me and it was hard, their movement was very fast.

The acceleration is important too.

But that's the problem, how can we calculate acceleration if we don't know the speed, and we don't know the speed because we don't know the distance?

What I meant to say is that the size isn't detectable, but the distance to some extent is... making at least a size comparison possible. Sure you're not splitting hairs here? (Then again English isn't my first language, Swedish is.)

If the bird wasn't in this video it was in another one.. possibly the April 1 one.

What do you mean "calculate"? Just look at the damned thing and compare it to real life. No bug flies that smooth or accelerates or even has the ability to stand still, all in what appears to be very smooth and "heavy" movements. Regardless of the size of the object, no earthly reference I know of match the ability to achieve that kind of acceleration and, yes, speed, considering the movements suggest it's bigger than a bug (has weight).

Its movements just looks very mechanized somehow. They're too precise, even if the movement pattern is erratic at best.

reply to post by Drexon

Precise, yet erratic flight. Rapid accelerations. The hallmarks of a bug catcher.


In the OP video, there is no way to determine the distance, size, or speed of the objects.

[edit on 4/18/2010 by Phage]

Brutal to anyone who thinks they are bats. Hahaha ahhahahahahah HA HA HA

Besides it's all the usual debunkers with their stigmas anyways.

Bat sheet crazies around here.

Once again wolverine is grasping at straws with comparisons to bats swirling over a pond to. Weakkkk sauceee.

Sweeet vid.

reply to post by kerazeesicko

Birds? they would have to be Circular birds.

reply to post by Phage


What's up john lithgow? Whats up with he professionally tailored BBC video of bat's. Does it have any similarities to the OP video?

You "batters" claim there's no evidence for speed, elevation, angulation , relation, haha etc etc but yet can frivolously state it's a bat.

"Precise, yet erratic flight. Rapid accelerations. The hallmarks of a bug catcher. " quote-john lithgow

Yea an expert on everything now are yea, thumbs down batters weak sauce evidence for your bat boy theory!

I suggest birds...namely swifts or nightjars. Bats are doubtful, if only because they have an erratic-looking flight pattern...they flit through the air. Swifts and nightjars show similar characteristics to the objects in the video. I checked to see if they are native to the area and they are. We've got bats, swifts and nightjars in the UK and I've watched them since childhood.

Swifts tend to be seen in larger groups...more than three. Nightjars? Both birds tend to be busy in the hour or so before dawn and after dusk.

If they aren't birds...they must be UFOs with prevarication issues...'Ummm...should I go this way...should I go that way...' Maybe Woody Allen is the pilot?

reply to post by jclmavg


Are you entitled to express your opinions on this? Yes of course and so am I. The guy has made an half-assed effort to try to dismiss the bird explanation. In my opinion it is clear that he favors a UFO explanation over a prosaic one, his video is named Fastwalkers UFOs over Niagara Falls.

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
Well..... this is your opportunity to provide a better argument with better evidence regarding the nature of the objects.
[edit on 18-4-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Alas, I'm not making any claims regarding the nature of the object, therefore I need not provide "a better argument".

Those who believe the objects can be explained by bats have the burden of proof and they seem in fact to be in a position to provide some better evidence using simple math. Yet so far no one seems to be willing to step up.

I think it's probably a bird, yes. I don't think it's a bat. I've seen plenty in my day, and I don't ever recall seeing one fly in such a straight line, for such a long time. They fly around very erratically. In the video, it flew for a straight line for a good while. So, don't see how that could be a bat.

But if you watch it, you can see fluttering... a break in the "light" color of it. In a rhythmic beat you would assume would be bird wings. And for those saying how could it be a bird.. why couldn't it be?

It's what birds do you know.. fly around in the sky.

Originally posted by Phage
In the OP video, there is no way to determine the distance, size, or speed of the objects.

Phage, the BBC video is not evidence of anything. Either way, the average size of a bat is known and quantifiable. This in combination with angular size means that a theoretical range of distances can be calculated if it is presumed to be a bat. Do not pretend prosaic explanations could not be tested in any way.

reply to post by jclmavg

The BBC documentary is evidence of the precise, erratic flight and high accelerations of which bats are capable. They can easily match the maneuvers in the OP.

There is not enough data to calculate anything. We do not know the most basic information necessary, the focal length of the lens used. Apart from that, all we are seeing (in a compressed youtube video from a light amplification device) is an object 1 or 2 pixels across. There is no "angular size" to speak of.

Does anyone else find it curious that the camera motion stops at the same instant the object does?

[edit on 4/18/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Drexon
What I meant to say is that the size isn't detectable, but the distance to some extent is... making at least a size comparison possible.

And how is distance detectable? If we don't know the size of the objects we can only get an idea of the distance if we assume a size for the object.

Sure you're not splitting hairs here? (Then again English isn't my first language, Swedish is.)

Maybe I am, but English is not my first language either, and it's not even the second.

If the bird wasn't in this video it was in another one.. possibly the April 1 one.

That's what I thought, thanks for the clarification.

What do you mean "calculate"? Just look at the damned thing and compare it to real life. No bug flies that smooth or accelerates or even has the ability to stand still, all in what appears to be very smooth and "heavy" movements. Regardless of the size of the object, no earthly reference I know of match the ability to achieve that kind of acceleration and, yes, speed, considering the movements suggest it's bigger than a bug (has weight).

I also think it's bigger than a bug, but by looking at the "damned thing" it looks like a bat to me, they can make very sharp turns and accelerate or decelerate quickly.

Its movements just looks very mechanized somehow. They're too precise, even if the movement pattern is erratic at best.

Bats following insects must have very precise movements if they want to get their dinner, they do not fly randomly, they have a purpose.

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
Do you have any sensible sources or reference material to validate:

- The particular crystal in question & whether it’s located where that video was taken

- The assertion there was geo-seismic activity occurring at the time the video was filmed

- The existence of free plasma balls of the nature you describe

- The size of such free plasma balls if they exist

- The nature of the movement of such free plasma balls if they exist

- The appearance of such free plasma balls on the NV equipment used to make this video, if the free plasma balls exist

First of all, I was referring to the fact that in general I don't jump to the conclusion that every ball of light in the sky is a UFO, but that I find the plasma theory more plausible than UFOs. I have no more proof that plasma is responsible for that particular video than you do that bats are to blame.

I have better things to do with my afternoon than try to present someone else's research for the like of you, but for those interested, they can look up Joshua P Warren's research into the Brown Mountain Lights phenomena, and their conclusions about plasma.

Research on the phenomenon has been conducted by scientist Joshua P. Warren and L.E.M.U.R. (the League of Energy Materialization and Unexplained phenomena Research) based in Asheville, North Carolina. After fifteen years of field research, working with a wide variety of scientists, they concluded that the lights are caused by natural plasmas produced by special geologic and atmospheric conditions of the mountain. According to their interpretation, conductive and non-conductive layers of the mountain (such as magnetite and quartz) store electric charge when water runs through tunnels in the ridge. At night, when the rocks cool and contract, these layers squeeze together causing massive discharges. Sometimes multiple discharges intersect and spin fast enough to be observed in the visible electromagnetic spectrum, causing the illusion of a self-contained sphere of light at the point of intersection. L.E.M.U.R. claims to have reproduced the "Brown Mountain Lights phenomenon" on a miniature scale in a physics lab, demonstrating the viability of the plasma theory and earning the cover of the journal Electric Space Craft in 2004. They say their work has shed light on the enigma of how ball lightning, and other unusual plasma, is produced in nature.

www.where-is-area-51.com...

I'm unfamiliar with the geological make up of the Niagra area, but quartz is pretty common everywhere, and earthquake force seismic activity isn't necessary, only pressure, or at least from what I understand.

I'd put a large lump of cash on bats, the flight movement is a pretty perfect match as is the just see-able flittering of wings.

Not UFO's..

Originally posted by Phage
The BBC documentary is evidence of the precise, erratic flight and high accelerations of which bats are capable. They can easily match the maneuvers in the OP.

Easily match? You must need new lenses, Phage. Kadinsky and others here argue the maneuvers shown in the OP video do not fit bats at all. They are in general too consistent and only at moments "erratic". I would tend to agree with that assessment. Surely you're not saying your conclusion is true by default?
None of the bat examples are taken under similar circustances and recording position. They do not look alike so no conclusions can be drawn from that footage.

There is not enough data to calculate anything. We do not know the most basic information necessary, the focal length of the lens used. Apart from that, all we are seeing (in a compressed youtube video from a light amplification device) is an object 1 or 2 pixels across. There is no "angular size" to speak of.

The objects are several pixels wide (not one or two), similar to some stars seen in de background.
You are merely presuming that further information, such as the lens used, or the raw data will not be forthcoming. While that may be true, I doubt you've made any effort to acquire this data.

So what does it all amount to? The video is inconclusive. You lament about the lack of better data and information which would enable a better judgement. But at the same time you have no problem labeling it as an example of bats flying. You seem to be mighty inconsistent.