It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Post Your Un-debunkable Real UFO Footage

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 

It is not a Mig, as you have pointed out.

I do not see any maneuvering on the part of the sleeve. I see the F15 turning on the target then reducing his rate of turn allowing the target to leave the field of view.

Here is what an ATS member with some experience had to say about it.

The silver sausage looks like a form of TowDart used in airial gunner practice. Some look like darts, some look like long tubes, they are towed behind Lear jets and shot at to give pilots a bit of real world practice shooting at moving targets with the gun. Normaly they just get to blast away at ground targets.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by dainoyfb

Originally posted by spacevisitor
I knew that, but I do not believe that as the explanation for it.


Why come?


Because in my opinion does the motion of the object definitely not matching the timing of roll of the aircraft carrying the camera.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




It is not a Mig, as you have pointed out.


Um...What is not a Mig? In the footage we see both mig21's (outside shots) and F15 (cockpit shot)

I refer to the footage as the "Mig UFO footage" simply to identify the video that I am talking about.

Phage, would you be able to show me a few things in the footage and also explain some things as well? (since you seem to have it all figured out)

1. I would like to know where the aircraft is (the one that is supposedly towing your sleeve target)

2. I would like to know where you see pull ropes attached to the sleeve target.

3. Im having trouble with this being a sleeve target due to the fact that it is mainly used for GROUND TO AIR targeting.

You mention that this can also be used as a gun target for aircraft. Why would the fighter jets engage this target from the rear? (6 oclock position)

This seems unlikely since any gunfire would have a high probability of hitting the TOW plane that is pulling this target.

If you still think this is a towed air target, please explain the high turn rate exhibited by this target? What could be towing it if the F15 had to pull out and reduce his turn rate? An F-22 pehaps? or maybe a forward swept wing Xplane?

---GeminiSky



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
post removed by debris765nju

[edit on 063131p://pm3132 by debris765nju]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 

1) The towing aircraft would be out of frame to the right.
2) I don't see any towlines. The quality of the video is terrible but the towline would not need to be very thick.
3) Towed targets are also used for air to air practice (Unless you think the ATS member I quoted was lying.)

The TDU-32A/B and TDU-32B/B aerial banner tow targets (fig. 8-1) are effective low-cost devices for air-to-air and surface-to-air gunnery training.

www.tpub.com...

The 6 o'clock position is preferred for air to air fighting but is not required, nor is the F15 on the tail of the target.

As I said, I don't see a high turn rate of the target. I see the F15 turning on the target then reducing its rate of turn. If you watch the rate the clouds move across the field of view you can see this happen. The slower turn rate allows the target to move across the field of view. The F15 would have been doing this in order to improve his position on the target. By reducing his rate of turn for a moment then again increasing it he would decrease his angle off the target.

[edit on 7/15/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


What do you say about the objects dull gray color?

Not quite similar to the bright neon orange and white with bullseye's painted on the towed targets.

Sorry at this point im just not buying the object in the footage is a target sleeve.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 

Dang. Wrong color. Well that settles it. It's a UFO.

Never mind it isn't "Rare Declassified Soviet MIG" footage.
Never mind that it comes from a program called The Secret KGB UFO Files (yes, the one with the alien autopsy). A "documentary" known to be full of hoaxes.
www.zamandayolculuk.com...

Because it's the wrong color it must be a UFO.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 7/15/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I don't get this?
Doesn't the fact that the footage is not MIG-21's, but F-15's in gunnery practice kind of negate the entire premise? It was presented fraudulently, so why do we assume anything about it is noteworthy?



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Finally you see things my way! Oh Phage I knew you'd come around!



--GeminiSky



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Spacevisitor.....

I have been intrigued about the "Concord" UFO for many years.

I started a thread about it with a view to collating more info & expert commentary:

The “Concord” UFO Video

I am now satisfied it is a camera reflection / anomaly caused by the image stabilisation process / equipment being used at the time.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
China just had an incident with soemthing in the sky that appears to be a UFO. They were forced to close the airport that day and 18 flights were delayed. This link contains and article and a video.
buzz.yahoo.com...


The next link is an article explaining why the UK is no longer paying attention to UFO complaints. www.timesunion.com...

This article is is about making the UFO files public. It is involving the EU and some other country. The article says that the public should know about the 3-something encounters and that they should not continue hiding the "X-files " from the public. The article had been deleted, but I have a news paper.... I can't find it. If I do I will post it here word for word. www.timesunion.com...

Okay never mind I find this link:
www.washingtontimes.com...

Here is Uk's files on UFO's :
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk...

[edit on 15-7-2010 by queenkelley]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Nice thread, OP!

I'm typing this from my phone or I'd try to link it, but has anyone explained the "ufos over Turkey?" That one film that features a strange craft with oscillating lights and the people taking it speaking in Turkish?

It was a fairly long video. Anyway I'm sure it was debunked, just asking.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SaosinEngaged
 


Thanks!

Yea I know which Turkish footage you were talking about. The one where they can see an ET standing in the ship...I always wondered about that one..

I would love to see how that footage was definitively debunked, and proved to be a hoax..

--GeminiSky



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by dainoyfb
 


Aww no one got the joke.

Epic fail on my part!

*facepalm*



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 05:35 AM
link   

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


Spacevisitor.....

I have been intrigued about the "Concord" UFO for many years.

I started a thread about it with a view to collating more info & expert commentary:

The “Concord” UFO Video

I am now satisfied it is a camera reflection / anomaly caused by the image stabilisation process / equipment being used at the time.


Hi Maybe...maybe not, I obviously missed that thread..

I am not convinced of that in any way, look for instance from 0:29, see how stable both planes behave, yet the object moves pretty fast and over quite some distance.

Then it looks as if the cameraman sees it and point the camera at it, after the objet moved remarkably exactly next to the windows it goes up again and the camera try to follow it.

It looks to me as some small remote controlled apparatus.

Something like the one in this video.

N.A.S.A. STS-37 Original U.F.O. Footage Sphere UFO April 5 1991





[edit on 16/7/10 by spacevisitor]



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaosinEngaged
Nice thread, OP!

I'm typing this from my phone or I'd try to link it, but has anyone explained the "ufos over Turkey?" That one film that features a strange craft with oscillating lights and the people taking it speaking in Turkish?

It was a fairly long video. Anyway I'm sure it was debunked, just asking.


SaosinEngaged.....

I've spent hours & hours looking at & reading about that one.

On balance, their are massive problems with the whole case, from beginning to end.

Even the so called "professional analysis" is compromised by a significant conflict of interest.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Spacevisitor.....

Regarding the Concord Video:

The thing that really clinched it for me was the earlier generation video wherein it was shown the original "object" was much dimmer & much smaller, thereby looking much more like a lens effect.

Regarding the "spherical" object you've just posted:

I've also looked at that one in detail & read about it at length. There is strong argument to the effect that is a droplet of water inside the cabin, close to the camera.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 05:46 AM
link   

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


Spacevisitor.....

Regarding the Concord Video:

The thing that really clinched it for me was the earlier generation video wherein it was shown the original "object" was much dimmer & much smaller, thereby looking much more like a lens effect.

Regarding the "spherical" object you've just posted:

I've also looked at that one in detail & read about it at length. There is strong argument to the effect that is a droplet of water inside the cabin, close to the camera.


I knew of that argument Maybe...maybe not, but i do not agree with that one either.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 06:18 AM
link   



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Kumburgaz video question:

If that sighting continued that long, why the cameraman didn't use a tripod at some point?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join