It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# UFO seen at 41000 feet recorded by copilot

page: 7
60
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:02 PM

Originally posted by FlySolo

Everyone seems to ignore the fact the brighter light passes from right to left of the dimmer light.

I think your senses have fooled you... The bright light never moves at all... The dim light is a reflection moving around the bright light based on the cameras movement. The moving dim light (reflection) creates the illusion that the bright light (UFO) is moving, but it is not, it is stationary.

edit on 8-7-2012 by IGotAllDay because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:15 PM
Up to the first 43 seconds at least the camera is static and in fact the dim star is almost to the centre most of that time, while the bright object seems to be in apparent movement, you are not looking at a bright and dim star near each other, and the very bright object is not venus. Someone actually mentions venus while another seems (in his own words) to be saying that venus is in morning star mode. It's difficult then, although not impossible, to think that the very bright object is something being reflected from behind, as the camera is plainly steady, with the dim star in line of sight while the vey bright object has motion.

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:19 PM
There are two ways to watch the video, and depending on your mindset, both ways will trick your mind.

1: Imagine the bright object is a stationary star or planet. That would make the dim object appear to be moving around.
2: Imagine the dim object is a stationary star or planet. That would make the bright object appear to be moving around.

Using clues from the video, you can come to the conclusion that #1 is the correct way to see the video, and #2 is incorrect;

Watch the video from 0:32, to 0:34. At about 0:33 the camera stops zooming abruptly, and at that exact moment the dim object stops moving abruptly. That proves the dim object's movement is related to the camera zoom/movement, and is a reflection of some sort.

At about 1:03 to 1:10 you can see the dim object bounce around in relation to the camera movement. Then the camera zooms out, and the dim object moves inward. That proves once again the dim object's movement is related to the camera zoom/movement, and is a reflection of some sort.

So, that means the bright object does NOT move at all. The bright object only appears to move because the dim object is moving around it, and it creates an illusion.

The dim object is not the UFO, it is a reflection. The bright object is the UFO. It is probably a star or planet.
edit on 8-7-2012 by IGotAllDay because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:26 PM
Not sure if this helps any but here's the video stabilized ...

UFO at 41000 - Stabilized Enhancement

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:29 PM
Before I even started watching the video I thought..."surprise surprise, it's dark!"

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:32 PM

Originally posted by IGotAllDay

Originally posted by FlySolo

Everyone seems to ignore the fact the brighter light passes from right to left of the dimmer light.

I think your senses have fooled you... The bright light never moves at all... The dim light is a reflection moving around the bright light based on the cameras movement. The moving dim light (reflection) creates the illusion that the bright light (UFO) is moving, but it is not, it is stationary.

edit on 8-7-2012 by IGotAllDay because: (no reason given)

I disagree. I watched the clip a couple of more times with your standpoint. Viewing it as if the brighter object was stationary and flipping the perspective around, it would make the dim light move out of focus as he zooms, if it were indeed a reflection. In addition, as I pointed out a couple times already, both lights disappear beginning with the brightest one first. Indicative of clouds. Not from zooming out either because clearly they are visible before he zooms in, in the beginning.

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:54 PM

Originally posted by juanvaa

Sorry guys I'm new here , how cam i create a post?

You just did. But you might want to look here for more info...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:00 PM

I can't give pilot names, aircraft type, company names, or date. The pilot that gave me the video wants to remain unknown for professional reasons. Here is the information I can give. Time of day was 10:49 PM. The pilot that recorded the video of the bright object and the aircraft radio communications was flying west on a course of 280 at 38,000 feet just south of Lake Charles, Louisiana. The pilot that was heard on the radio reporting bright objects in front of his aircraft was flying east at 41,000 feet somewhere northeast of Houston, Texas. Two aircraft flyng towards each other see bright objects in front of them. One records the objects on video, the other reports the objects on the radio. The original video is in the hands of the pilot that recorded it. Only he can supply the original high resolution footage. That's all the information I have. Hope it helps.

I let it to you guys with these additional infos to decide whether or not it's Venus.

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:05 PM

Originally posted by cantsee4looking
the pilot says "planet venus comes up every morning"...
nuff said really.

translation: pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

planet venus does NOT come up EVERY morning

the very fact that aviators who report these sightings are pressured to shut up
should be enough to tell you somethings going on

such behavior is classic of swamp gas. Definitely not a UFO.

swamp gas.
seen at 41000 feet
L
L
but most people prefer to go with the most facile explanations

edit on 8-7-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:28 PM
The object is definitely stationary. Some of you are not taking into account the curvature of the aircraft's windshield and the camera's optics creating the illusion of movement when it zooms. You can replicate this with a simple experiment in you backyard at night by shooting through a curved piece of thick glass. Just point your camera at a group of planets/stars where one is brighter than the rest.

This is a case of mistaken identity.

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:29 PM
The time does help.

At 10:49 Pm, looking east, it would not be Venus. Seems the object is over east Texas.

Venus could be in the west if it were at evening star time.

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:47 PM

edit on 8-7-2012 by intrptr because: Then again, maybe not

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 05:09 PM

Great. But we still don't know if the two crews were seeing the same thing. For the airplane heading west this could very well be Venus. Was there anything on radar?

Another plane pilot say he has them in sight. Yet another asks ATC if they had a report at 410. ATC reports that they might see traffic 3 miles ahead and instructs the jet to turn left.
Another voice comes on the radio saying it is the planet Venus. The pilots want to remain unknown for professional reasons so don't ask me the names, dates, or aircraft information.
This is real video, recorded in a real jet airplane, on a real trip. The audio is the recording of the real pilots and ATC radio communications.

3 miles!? They would have flown past it or into it by the time ATC had finished the sentence. Plus we don't know if ATC was referring to the supposed UFO or other aircraft. The whole thing reaks of obfuscation.

edit on 8/7/2012 by cripmeister because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 05:10 PM

The time does help.

At 10:49 Pm, looking east, it would not be Venus. Seems the object is over east Texas.

Venus could be in the west if it were at evening star time.

But not at 10:49pm. That, and the fact that Venus does NOT rise in the East "every day," as the man mistakenly said, should qualify as a dagger to the heart of the "Venus" theory. Thank god.

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Druscilla
Originally posted by knoledgeispower

You are wrong, it is not Venus because Venus doesn't move. You are either so full of yourself that you won't admit to what is so obvious because it's against your beliefs or your a disinformation agent.

Handheld cameras pointed outside of an airplane cockpit window move and when the camera moves it can create the illusion of movement.
Ever watch Startrek when Enterprise or Voyager is attacked? Most of that shaking is not the prop stage the actors are working on, but the the camera-man intentionally shaking the camera to create the illusion of the spaceship under attack.

Camera movement can create the illusion of movement that is NOT taking place in real life.

Except that's not the case here. This isn't a tv show, it's real life.

Yes because you are someone of legitimate credibility. Reading your responses to so many posts really blows my mind and thus I've come to the conclusion that I stated above, refusing to believe the obvious when it goes against your beliefs or your a disinfo agent.

Oh yes, because you're such a mental juggernaut that your mind isn't easily blown by every planet, satellite, chinese lantern, or LED kite video that comes out and is labelled as being a UFO. uh-huh.

Disinfo agent? Really? You're playing THAT card? Are you really THAT desperate? Pathetic much?
I'm not the one that is desperately clinging to the beliefs that have time and time again been proven wrong. So I'm not the pathetic one. All the UFO videos that I have commented on have always been obvious UFO's and I've seen one in real life so no that doesn't blow my mind. What blows my mind is that you keep insisting your beliefs are correct when time and time again you have been proven wrong. Because you don't give up then yes that makes me come to the conclusion that you are a disinfo agent or someone who will deny the truth because it goes against their beliefs.

SO many people try to talk to you with logic and in a civil demeanor but you go nuts when anyone says something different to what you believe, even when they are right and you are wrong.

Actually, it's usually quite the opposite. I present probable explanations that for whatever reason tend to make every little true believer princess pee their panties and throw fits to the point where they then respond with attempts at character assassination, as you seem to so ardently be trying to do with your oh so easily blown mind, that I feel the need to defend my position in turn.

Of course then, because most often I'm defending my position against uneducated people that barely have a grasp on what the word "Logic" means since they've usually never attended university to take those classes in philosophy, logic, reason, and statistics, I then get painted the villain by all the squishy brained little people.
Sigh.

You've gone toe to toe with very intellectual people and people who are qualified professionals that offer them insight to the truth, if anyone is uneducated "squishy brained little people" it is you.
As for presenting probable explanations, you stick to your, sometimes very lame, probable explanations that are false instead of admitting to the truth.

Most people say they hate lies, but, when presented with a truth that flies in the face of some fantasy, superstition, or belief they hold personally dear, those people then prefer to cling to their fantasies contrary to and in spite of all evidence of the truth.

Hang onto your lies, superstitions, fantasies and mythologies if you like. This is a public forum, and I will voice my opinion. If you're so fragile that your mind gets so easily blown and my opinion upsets you, then, I suggest you not read any of my opinions.
That's funny cause that's how everyone feels about you, that you cling to your fantasies in spite of all the evidence of truth. I see the truth, that it is absolutely, in your case, very arrogant of you, to believe that we are the only intelligent species out there and that Earth has not been visited by UFO's since as far back as cavemen days and still be visited. You are the one holding onto lies and fantasies.

Cheers. No tears here, but, lots and lots of

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Unidentified_Objective
The object is definitely stationary. Some of you are not taking into account the curvature of the aircraft's windshield and the camera's optics creating the illusion of movement when it zooms. You can replicate this with a simple experiment in you backyard at night by shooting through a curved piece of thick glass. Just point your camera at a group of planets/stars where one is brighter than the rest.

This is a case of mistaken identity.

All good and true up to a point, but the initial start and the final end points are not the same. When the bright object is first seen it is not in a zoom mode, and the bright object is to the right of the dim star, in the final zoom out, the bright object is to the left of the dim star. The other thing is that the air traffic is talking about something that is not venus, they would not be phased by that, yet someone is wowing. That both the dim star, (which itself would actually be fairly bright) and the bright object disappear together is of no consequence other than a drop in altitude/bank to the right, much the same effect.
edit on 8-7-2012 by smurfy because: Text.

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 05:30 PM
I think you are really offending here, I am not saying it is even an aircraft but this is hardly Venus and saying it is - is stupid

First of all have you checked Stellarium to see when Venus is there on the horizon?
Secondly, do you think the pilots who fly are so much of a morons to not distinguish a star/planet from smth different and report a star?

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Imtor

Secondly, do you think the pilots who fly are so much of a morons to not distinguish a star/planet from smth different and report a star?

Pilot sends plane into dive after mistaken Venus for oncoming plane

Yes.

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 05:58 PM
Ah well that was a commercial one above, I still think US AF don't take such crappy pilots.

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 06:00 PM

The only difference with that story is it was one pilot who just woke up from a nappy nap. There are two pilots in this story and no disorientation.

top topics

60