What the...What was That? UFO spotted in LIVE NBC News SkyCam at Fort Worth, TX

page: 29
115
<< 26  27  28   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Really doubting that it's a bug since it gets lost in the light pollution at the horizon. For it to be a bug an appear at that size it would have to be much closer to the camera and would not be rendered that much less visible before the direction change.

No idea what it is, so I'm not going to throw ideas about that around.

What I'm pretty sure it ISN'T:

Meteor - The pause before the direction change
Bug - Already explained why i discard that theory
Plane - Way to drastic of a direction change at that altitude...also, the pause
Helicopter - Too fast of a descent and ascent at the angle
edit on 3-8-2011 by musicjunkie because: grammar




posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Great footage! Definately not a bug imo.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I seen something very similar to that a long time ago. Reported it to NUFORC. They explained it to me as a "meteor" ricocheting off of our atmosphere, and it only appeared to be changing directions, drastically.

But what they failed to take into consideration, was that I clearly specified, that it was IN the atmosphere, and I thought it was either a plane or space debris, about to crash on a hill top.

Nice find either way.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by musicjunkie
Really doubting that it's a bug since it gets lost in the light pollution at the horizon. For it to be a bug an appear at that size it would have to be much closer to the camera and would not be rendered that much less visible before the direction change.


Unless it's a firefly, as previously discussed. I don't think we can completely rule that out.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I just posted this in another thread. But this video is MUCH closer to what I saw....

We stepped outside to have a smoke after dinner and we both saw a very bright light moving at an insane speed, doing crazy turns very high in the sky, in a zig zag motion. I have no idea how long it lasted, anywhere from 5-12 seconds I’d guess. And then it shot straight up!

We sat down, I had to relight my smoke, and I just felt... weird. Like one of my senses was was going haywire. Then I realised... there was no sound during the entire thing. My boyfriend looked at me like “We just saw what we saw and you’re freaked out because there was no sound?!”.

Broken down -
White light - no colour to it.
Insane speed.
Mind boggling turns.
Shot straight up.
No sound.

Can light do all of that? I think so?

Also no pics, sorry. I had a smoke in my mouth and almost dropped it when my bf screamed “*&#@&$^% look at that!!!”.

It took me a long time to come to a (right or wrong) conclusion that it was light. Pure and simple light. From where it came and where it went to I have no idea. I have no idea if that is correct or not..

Other thread on ATS
edit on 8-8-2011 by worlds_away because: to add link



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by musicjunkie
Really doubting that it's a bug since it gets lost in the light pollution at the horizon. For it to be a bug an appear at that size it would have to be much closer to the camera and would not be rendered that much less visible before the direction change.


A friend asked me about this, so I thought I would post what I thought about it.

I personally wouldn't say it's going into cloud cover or lost in light pollution at all. There's a number of factors at work here which suggest it's an object close to the camera and probably quite mundane.

The background RGB values are approx: 56 46 56
The object when it goes into the 'light pollution' RGB values are approx: 61 53 60

When an object moves with speed it creates motion blur which for a camera creates transparency. The white object is becoming transparent and pulling color from the background. What you're looking at essentially is this:



There isn't a single frame in this clip where the object is both opaque and pulling values from the background or light polution. Light shines through atmosphere. It doesn't go behind it briefly and then out without being at an odd angle in most situations.

The above image is take from a composition with motion blur. Taking the same object and overlaying it onto the frame produces similar values to the actual object. Can also do this with a soft brush in photoshop to simulate the same effect. If this object was 30ish miles away it would be pulling a color cast from the atmosphere and would never appear completely white without being a rather over powering light and even then ... the further back a light the less likely it is to be unaffected. To explain this as something different than mundane starts to require things like ...

1. The object being a massive light source which drowns out other ambient light sources around it
2. The obect would be moving on some very odd type of angle
3. The object is a stealth object but is somehow picked up by NBC sky cameras and cannot be seen and reacts to light in a special way; the object doesn't react the way other lights in shot do

I don't neccessarily think it is a firefly. Some insects do tend to take 'rests' while flying and glide for a while. The discovery channel told me this. So buggie stops fluttering for moment, glides into frame pretty opaque and white ... then flutters violently to create the look it has. Similar techniques are used in films to make stuntmen and the like look much closer or higher than they actually are. A stuntman leaps in front of a shot and looks like they are perhaps falling from a helicopter, but are in fact 20 - 30 ft away from it. (See the movie Wolverine)

Or perhaps it is the smallest tiniest alien flying in front of the camera?

The other factor causing issues here is this:



Only the originally timed footage is relevant for looking at. When footage is slowed down in many compositing applications frames are 'created' by weighting an average of the other frames. This is often done via frame blending where a number of cross fades cause images to over lap. This creates some of the more eratic movements during the slow motion sequences. It really isn't the best idea to apply frame blending or other slow motion techniques to build a theory about a UFO or similar unless its clearly understood what's being gained from it and why.

Some frames will show the ufo with an elaborate 'flare' or in two places at once. Essentially this is two frames over laid to create a new frame to full the eyes into thinking the image makes sense. These frames didn't exist in the original camera, and are not good for investigating.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


By far the best explanation we've seen in this thread, and thank-you again for spending the time to teach instead of being dismissive. You're the awesumestest!

Also I'd give you applause if I could



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


I think it looks like a bug.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Not sure how anyone could come to the conclusion that a missile or meteor is a more credible explanation than the simple bug theory.

It looks like a lot like bug flying near the camera to me.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ApeyBaby
 


haha
Do you even know what kind of camera that is
???



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by lazydaisy67
 


The cam
think about the cam



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Archirvion
reply to post by lazydaisy67
 


The cam
think about the cam


What about the camera in this instance is significant?



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   
You people still saying bug really are not using their brains here and need to pay more attention to the flight path of it.

You can CLEARLY see it go behind the cloud/pollution as it changes trajectory. A bug CLOSE to the damn camera wouldn't do that. Please use your heads.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by RisenAngel77
 


Looked like a typical image of a "rod"



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProphetOfZeal
You people still saying bug really are not using their brains here and need to pay more attention to the flight path of it.

You can CLEARLY see it go behind the cloud/pollution as it changes trajectory. A bug CLOSE to the damn camera wouldn't do that. Please use your heads.


The camera can't even resolve clouds, so how would it be behind them? Would have to be moving at an incredibly odd trajectory to get further behind/into the atmosphere. It doesn't look particularly smoggy either.

When things move quickly they become transparent. They then take on characteristics of their background. IMO that's what is happening here. Take a look in the sky next time you see a distant plane and shoot some footage of it ... do you see it take on color from the background suddenly when it descends?

Now kick a football and film that. Through the motion blur you will find the background. Just my IMO, and I don't think it's stupid to have this opinion at all to think this isn't evidence of a large swoopy object.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by RisenAngel77
Heh caught live, i'd like to see debunkers take on this one. I wonder how many people saw this live.

If this is genuine, it's definitely a UFO.


A UFO is an unidentified flying object. This object is clearly flying, and clearly an object, so finally, is it identified? No? Then it's a UFO.

UFO does not mean alien spaceship.

This looks to be a bird to me. I deduce that from many years of birdwatching.

I believe in aliens and also that aliens have a presense here on Earth, but every single flying object that gets taped is not a UFO worthy of speculation; sometimes it's just a bird.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
This many pages devoted to a moth. Astounding.

You can see it's wings flap for cripes sake. You can't tell that it's "clearly" flying behind clouds. What a ridiculous claim! The video is so low quality, you can't tell anything for certain.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   
Def not a bug, if you follow it closely (turn the brightness up on your display) you can clearly see it passes through clouds on the rebound, but one thing is for sure, it travels down then back up and to the right out of camera shot.

The traffic below was traveling at speed, so the speed this ufo was traveling was very great.

j/k


If you watch the video, the object seems to be more in focus than the distant objects, which means it was probably pretty close to the cam, also, you can see it's just moving in and out of light at the top, so it kind of creates an optical illusion. But, it definitely appears to be some kind of insect.

But, for giggles, has anyone thought to look at some archive footage from that very cam at night to compare real aircraft that come into view and or other insects?
edit on 11-1-2012 by porschedrifter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Sorry but it is obvious if you watch the path taken by the object its most likely an insect in front of the camera




LOOK closely you can see the curve of its flight path in front of the camera!

The object gets faint as it flies away from the camera but you can always see it faintly in the video!



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Nice video, not sure what it is, that makes it a UFO...unidentified.

Lot's of people will want a autopsy, on the first Alien to set foot on their front yard, and will be walking around the ship he came in looking for the Made In China sticker.

There are photos in the public domain that they won't even go look at for themselves, that show a lot of what they'd like to know about alien contacts, and photographic proof. They won't go look, instead they'll will wait for the video, and naysay....till the Moon turns blue. It's easier for them... It's easier for me to just let them have it their way....I don't need their agreement, I have what I wanted to know.
edit on 11-1-2012 by Moonatic because: Can't spell




top topics
 
115
<< 26  27  28   >>

log in

join