More footage of UFOs over Denver. Baffles aviation experts.

page: 3
207
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Thank you gortex and the poster above,

How many videos of bugs flying close to lens have we seen which resembles this vid.

Looking at the vid and the description of where these are being filmed from how could it not be bugs, in the video there is a shot of a camera on a tripod i assume to show where these are being filmed its on loose dirt and usually when its a sunny day you will have many bugs flying about especially around a less built up area.




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I have a question.

At times the footage is slowed down and it looks like the UFO is skipping across the sky. Like it's making small little jumps in a rhythmic manner. Could that be a artifact of the camera not being able to capture it's movements in one frame of film. Ot is the craft using some sort of propulsion system thats responsible for this effect.

TO me I can't rule out RC craft because of the schedule and location the object decides to take off from. But it doesn't move in my opinion like an RC craft. It moves way too fast. Unless Fox is hoaxing and speeding up the camera footage. I say it's very possible that they did capture a UFO and not an RC craft.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I, too was thinking the possibility of a bug and while that's been discounted by the news-people, I'd like to know HOW they discounted it.

Bug or not, I, personally believe it's organic, not mechanical. The question would then be terrestrial or not



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I'm saying insects very close to the camera, at one point you can see one almost hit the camera.

If the insect flies to close for the lens to focus (remember its most likely set on auto focus) what you see will be a digital creation of the camera based on the limited data from the object. What you see could look a little like the object but most likely nothing like it.

Sorry, got to be insects for me...



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
More and more UFO vids showing up on the "news"...

...our differences would vanish quickly worldwide when facing an alien threat. (Reagan)

It is unidentified, but of outer space origins? (if it is not a bird/bug w/e which I don't think it is, rarely does anything go straight in nature or the animal kingdom).



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim
The obvious explanation is bugs. I could not listen to the video but when I was watching it everything about it just screamed "bugs flying close to the camera".


It's impossible to tell how close to the camera it is. You're assuming it is a bug.



How has this been ruled out? If it hasn't, it's almost certainly the right answer and we should not even be bothering to discuss this.


No, it's your assumption



As for the guy seeing it at a certain time, I would wager that if the camera was set up for the entire day, we would see these bugs at multiple different times, and not just 1 PM.


No kidding you will eventually see bugs except it's November. So is this your strawman reasoning? Here's an IQ true/false question for you
"if all snips a quips and some quips are bips, then all snips are bips."
Think about it...


They made a mistake in asking aviation experts, imo, since we need to rule out mundane things first they should be asking a photography expert, who most likely would have solved this thing before it hit the news.



Except these aren't photographs.


edit on 9-11-2012 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Kinda looks like a Class IV Intergalactic Doomfreighter.These are well known to baffle aviation experts...



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by humphreysjim
 
I thought they said they were sure it WAS NOT A BUG.



Yes, but this is Fox news, I don't trust them on their word, or indeed, anyone.

If they're sure, what exactly caused them to discount the most logical explanation?



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
It's not an RC plane, that's for sure.

The turbine RC jets are very loud. If you're close enough to film you are close enough to hear it.

Also, banking that fast would tear it apart, or at best cause it to lose control.


Interesting footage.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


They may not be photographs but the same rules of optics apply!!!



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo

Originally posted by humphreysjim
The obvious explanation is bugs. I could not listen to the video but when I was watching it everything about it just screamed "bugs flying close to the camera".


It's impossible to tell how close to the camera it is. You're assuming it is a bug.



How has this been ruled out? If it hasn't, it's almost certainly the right answer and we should not even be bothering to discuss this.


No, it's your assumption


It's not an assumption, I am asking how/why the simple explanation has been discounted. Obviously, if we cannot discount bugs or other obvious mundane factors it's hardly newsworthy, is it.

All I'm saying is, if we have no good reason to assume it isn't bugs, we have no reason to begin talking about anything more exciting.


Originally posted by FlySolo

No kidding you will eventually see bugs except it's November. So is this your strawman reasoning? Here's an IQ true/false question for you
"if all snips a quips and some quips are bips, then all snips are bips."
Think about it...


WTF are you talking about, and why are you being so unneccesarily snippy with me? I don't want this to be bugs, I'd love it to be something exciting, all I'm asking is for someone to justify excitement here, and I'm not seeing it.


Originally posted by FlySolo

Except these aren't photographs.


The stills they are examining basically are, and we're discussing essentially the same concept. They are far better placed here than an aviation expert. Bring in the aviation experts once photographic experts rule out bugs, something I am sure they capture all the time and have a lot of experience with.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Exactly!



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


bigfoot and a ufo all in one video. very impressive.

it looks like a mylar balloon caught in the wind



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


What rules of optics? What will an analysis of the video itself prove? Cgi or not cgi? You're not going to ascertain distance, size from it. Other than trying to determine if it's fake or not, you won't get anything else out of it.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
As someone close to the Denver area, thanks for posting this! I hadn't heard of this prior (I stay away from the news, not even for weather updates!) so it's interesting to hear about this so close to home.

To me, this seems legit but not at the same time. I feel as though it could be something of alien origin but not. The things that make me feel like it isn't are the time frames it shows itself, and the fact it "appears from and lands" in a residential area. Those two things make me feel like screaming "TOY".

One thing we can all agree on is that this IS a UFO. As one person stated before me, this object is an object (obviously) and it is currently unidentified. Until this is identified, it is a UFO. Remember, ATS, UFO =/= Alien.

reply to post by Jaellma
 


I would absolutely love to go to the location and film for everyone, however, the only video camera we have is a 5 year old POS who's resolution is absolutely terrible.
Hopefully someone else in the area can do exactly that, though.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 





It's not an assumption, I am asking how/why the simple explanation has been discounted. Obviously, if we cannot discount bugs or other obvious mundane factors it's hardly newsworthy, is it. All I'm saying is, if we have no good reason to assume it isn't bugs, we have no reason to begin talking about anything more exciting.


I've been on your side of the fence before with many videos I've believed were just bugs. Clearly, you have not watched this video more than once. I don't feel like screen capturing the parts which scream to me it isn't a bug. I've been wrong before but this isn't a bug.



WTF are you talking about, and why are you being so unneccesarily snippy with me? I don't want this to be bugs, I'd love it to be something exciting, all I'm asking is for someone to justify excitement here, and I'm not seeing it.


Sorry, I'm not being a jerk. I was merely pointing out your opinion of bugs was based entirely on the fact that bugs exist. I wasn't trying to be facetious. Yes, if you leave the camera there all day, chances are you will film bugs.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
I thought bug aswell, but then there are clear stills of it and it looks nothing like a bug, I think its to fast and erratic to be a rc toy or something blowing in the wind. I think 'bug' is the most likely explanation from the info available but its far from conclusive.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Yeah bugs.... from notfromthisplanetlol......




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
If the photographer wanted to prove that it is not bugs close to the camera, why wouldn't he place a tall obstruction in the foreground, approximately 20 feet in front of the camera, with a width of about 10 to 15% of the shot?

If the flying object disappears behind the obstruction, it is further away and more likely to be a UFO. If it remains visible in front of the obstruction, it is a bug or tiny debris in the wind close to the camera.

Sometimes, with a story like this, I think the most basic experiment is not performed for a reason.
edit on 9-11-2012 by InTheFlesh1980 because: (no reason given)


+2 more 
posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
OH and here's number
4) Wind your neck in a bit the next time!


Ok wmd, simmer down now.

I understand how difficult it is to compile a program when the code has improper syntax. You will have to forgive me for not forming my written opinion to the strictest rules of scientific integrity. What I thought was clearly just my opinion, has rather been put into the public domain as a dissertation of evidence of how real this video is and the facts I think support it. I apologize for offending you so greatly.

On matter #1: Yes the website and within the video it is said "At least twice a week". I said "each day". I understand the epic chasm between these two statements is vast, and it was diabolically wrong of me to reference this indisputable fact in any untrue manner.

On matter #2: Are the two objects the same? Well I am afraid we are both swimming in the yellow part of the pool on this one. I don't know that they are, and you don't know that they are not. I can give reasons why I suspect they are, and you can give reasons why you think not. In both cases, this is not a resolvable question.

On matter #3: How big is the object? Or what your real query is, has this been faked with a miniature? Well again, we are both in the yellow part of the pool. Neither of us can prove, or disprove this matter. Not unless we personally visit Colorado and set up a scientific experiment. Though we reached far outside the boundary of how much I care, as soon as you took personal exception to me expressing my unscientific opinion.

I personally don't care much whether the video is authentic or not. I also still hold my opinion, that it is the most credible video I have seen in recent memory. I am sorry you so strongly dislike me holding that opinion, and hate me worse for sharing that opinion, when it is so clearly infantile from your perspective, but that's how it is.

Bonus paragraph for those actually reading this far. To me, the question of whether aliens exist or not is pretty moot. I'm a life form, floating on a rock in the vastness of space, communing with other intelligences I can not see, or hear or touch. With magical movements of my fingers, I can communicate with other members of my species thousands of miles away without so much as uttering a vocalized breathe. Enslaved machines under the force of my powerful species work tirelessly serving the lazy masters that built them. We are aliens, living, breathing, floating on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. And if there are others of us out there, that would not really be that interesting. What would be interesting, would be learning their new culture and history. What technology and sciences have they developed. The question of whether another living race exists, is not a very pressing question given the overwhelming evidence and precedent of our own existence.

And its not a question I think is answered by the OP's video. I just think its a neat video with good back-story.





new topics
top topics
 
207
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join