posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:06 PM
One other thing you may want to consider here is that:
If your aim is to prove that you have something that's worth taking a look at (which I assume it is?), just capturing some random light in the sky
with little or no "frame/s of reference", as you would be if you went the "hand-held/camcorder" route is not likely to fulfill that aim. Youtube
is full of such footage, and very little if any of it gets taken seriously.
On the other hand, if you want your footage of something unusual to be taken seriously, going the PC/detection software route can provide valuable
scientific data about an object.
With a single camera/detection software, that data is a bit limited, but at least you will have accurate timing of the object, and useful data
regarding the brightness of the object.
The real bonus comes if you can find someone about 50 miles (about the optimum distance apart for gathering data from objects entering the atmosphere
- meteors enter the atmosphere (become visible) at about 100km) from your camera location who can also run a similar camera setup that points at the
same part of the sky as yours. If both cameras catch the same object at the same time, the data from both cameras can be compared/triangulated (using
software) and the altitude/speed/orbit
of the object calculated.
This kind of data, plus the fact that the UFO was recorded on two independent cameras, would give you some compelling evidence that something real and
unusual is going on, providing of course that you actually captured something that did not have characteristics of any known objects/phenomena.
Of course, there are already many cameras around the world like this, but still no evidence of anything truly unusual that I have come across.
See the links in my previous post here
for more info.