Incredible UFO Filmed By Commercial Pilot above Costa Rica skies on 23 January 2013

page: 8
61
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arken

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Arken
This incredible and clear Footage


Clear footage of lense flare.... what is so incredible about it?


"The Incredible" is... your post...

In which kind of "Lens Flares World" do you live?


No one expert, with a brief knowledge of photographic skills, can subscribe your opinion.

The object is real and fast, really fast, and everyone can see that it shine when it pass throught the sunrays.


Yet the spanish experts talk about being a flare in the window or lens flare.




posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Staroth
I suspect those who say it's a flare don't have a good screen to watch it on

I have a 27" LED-backlit LCD monitor and watched the video in 1080p over and over. Read my post just above yours. It can't be anything but a lens flare.

I suspect those who say it's not a flare want to believe it's anything alien other than something terrestrial.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by gunshooter
 





For all you people who say lens flare, "You're all a bunch of retards!" In my opinion. Prove without a shadow of doubt its lens flare. That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard about this video. Were any of you there? Are any of you commercial pilots, are any of you actual trained observers. My guess is no. I'm not sure what it is myself, but I do know lens flare when i see it, and this is not it. Please, please, please, all disinfo agents, trolls, and, dummys please leave this thread alone, and go shovel your crap elsewhere.

Well said!!! I was going to say something similar but seen you had already, thanks and I fully agree! Not sure why they don't see the object is solid; a flare looks like a flare and something solid looks...SOLID! I think they are trolls to be honest.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Ok, One more time. Just for a little background, one of my primary jobs in the film industry is to find and eradicate light that spills onto the lens before we start shooting. Every single time we shoot. Not once a day, not once an hour, maybe 30 or 40 times a day. So, I am paid, handsomely, to know what a lens flare looks like. And they look exactly like that UFO. What an amazing coinky dink!!
Now, watch and pause the video when the UFO appears and you'll notice that the sun appears in the frame at exactly the inverse position. Measure it even. Now, advance the playback and stop and compare at several intervals and you'll notice that they both maintain that relationship to the frame all the way until the sun and the UFO leave the frame at the same time.
As far as the reflection in the sun beam, firstly, a "sun beam" is simply an aberration in the lens itself. It is not a concentrated beam of light. It is simply a form of lens flare in itself. Aside from sunlight peeking through a cloud and creating a shaft of light visible only because of particulates and moisture in the atmosphere, there are no "sun beams". They would need to be called sun lasers. The "reflection" is simply the light at a shallow angle to the lens reflecting and bouncing off of the deeper lens elements. Case closed.
I hope that helps and I'm sorry if I seemed a little condescending. It's all part of being an A-hole I guess. Haha. I truly love you guys and am thrilled to be part of this family. Really.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Staroth
reply to post by gunshooter
 





For all you people who say lens flare, "You're all a bunch of retards!" In my opinion. Prove without a shadow of doubt its lens flare. That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard about this video. Were any of you there? Are any of you commercial pilots, are any of you actual trained observers. My guess is no. I'm not sure what it is myself, but I do know lens flare when i see it, and this is not it. Please, please, please, all disinfo agents, trolls, and, dummys please leave this thread alone, and go shovel your crap elsewhere.

Well said!!! I was going to say something similar but seen you had already, thanks and I fully agree! Not sure why they don't see the object is solid; a flare looks like a flare and something solid looks...SOLID! I think they are trolls to be honest.


are you kidding me dude? everything points to lens flare, I stopped writing my long post because there are enough detailed paragraphs explaining what it is and more input on it is just a waste anyone's time.
I am a motion artist I know what I am talking about and so are manny other members here with common sense and logic.

and another fellow member of the industry above explaining in the best detail EVER, better than what i was writing. LOL
edit on 31-1-2013 by Arsenis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Seriously, now you're just being stubbornly obtuse.

The angle of the plane doesn't change during the filming of the object. The Sun was already there, it did not "enter" the frame suddenly.

The object is moving much, much faster than the plane. Good luck finding an example video that shows this.

The object curves to the left too sharply at the end. Motion flares do not change directions that radically without a corresponding radical change in angle to the light source in 2 dimensions. You can see the horizon the entire time, the plane did not shift enough and COULDN'T have shifted enough to produce that left hook. This is the freaking SUN, not a spotlight 10-50 yards away from the camera.

Where are the other flares / artifacts? Every flare with that much luminosity I've ever seen has multiple flares / artifacts.

Where is the change in intensity? Why doesn't the object suddenly vanish when the plane reaches a 45 degree angle to the sun?

Anyone who has spent 2 decades in film / video can clearly see the difference. That IS NOT a lens flare.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   
I willing to bet those who are shouting 'this is not a lens flare' have no understanding of optics or extensive experience of video recording.

Yes it impressive looking but unfortunately ITS LENS FLARE so get over it...not to forget mention it recorded through planes window



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   


cameras use this type of shield to avoid lens flares, cell phones don't have those, on top of that you have a whole lighting crew to avoid this type of thing, the cell phone in that video also has a windshield in front of it which makes the flare look different than what most people are used to...

but you know what yeah it's a UFO.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   
All I see is some pixelated shít- "enhance" it!



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ecoparity
 



The angle of the plane doesn't change during the filming of the object. The Sun was already there, it did not "enter" the frame suddenly.

Could you post a link to the video that you're talking about?

This thread is about the video posted in the OP.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ecoparity
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Seriously, now you're just being stubbornly obtuse.

The angle of the plane doesn't change during the filming of the object. The Sun was already there, it did not "enter" the frame suddenly.

The object is moving much, much faster than the plane. Good luck finding an example video that shows this.

The object curves to the left too sharply at the end. Motion flares do not change directions that radically without a corresponding radical change in angle to the light source in 2 dimensions. You can see the horizon the entire time, the plane did not shift enough and COULDN'T have shifted enough to produce that left hook. This is the freaking SUN, not a spotlight 10-50 yards away from the camera.

Where are the other flares / artifacts? Every flare with that much luminosity I've ever seen has multiple flares / artifacts.

Where is the change in intensity? Why doesn't the object suddenly vanish when the plane reaches a 45 degree angle to the sun?

Anyone who has spent 2 decades in film / video can clearly see the difference. That IS NOT a lens flare.


I HAVE spent twenty years in the film industry and I HAVE learned more about lens flares that most people could even fathom. So feel free to fantasize about this UFO all you want. It is not real.
The multiple flares you are asking about comes from the many different elements in a lens. The more sophisticated, the more numerous. A camera phone is simply a fancy pinhole camera. Almost as simple of a lens as possible. Don't even get me started on anamorphic.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Ok he seen it on his camera, but didn't track it?

Enough said...



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


Heh, its funny I watched the vid this morning 4 times in a row then posted my views on it, ive only just read the thread from page 2 onward and seen your diagrams which are 100% what I was thinking as I watched the vid.

Good to see someone stuck something like that up pictorially since its pretty much a given that, that is the objects explanation.

Whats not good is 6 pages latter there are people arguing about this still being a UFO



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Yah, reflection. Plane turns in front of sun and object is nothing more than the sun refracting thru the canopy as the plane turns. If the pilot had for a moment suspended his rate of turn the "object" would have seemingly froze in place.

edit on 31-1-2013 by intrptr because: sad ditional



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I would like to amend my position. I first believed 100% that is was lens flare. I now am thinking of another possibility.

50% Chance it's lens flare.

50% Reflection of the cell phone camera, lit by the sun, in the planes concavely curved windshield.
edit on 31-1-2013 by zayonara because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Wow. That is the most obvious case of lens flare you can get.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   
The people who truly believe this is a real UFO, are getting even more "Out There" with each additional post.

It is Lens flare/Sun Reflection/Refraction whatever you want to call it, but it is Not a solid object.

Consider this......

It appears when the Sun appears....Check.
The Plane is turning Left and Banking at the same time........Check.
The "UFO" tracks exactly!! the same trajectory banking as the plane does.........Check.
The "Pilot" (Im sure an intelligent man), saw the object on the camera screen BUT not out the _...Check.
Im sure there are usually 3 or more (Pikot, CoPilot, Navigator) in the cockpit of a commercial plane, not ONE of them saw the object out the window as it flew away..................Check.
Not ONE Passenger has come forward to say they saw the UFO................Check.
It fades out, when the Sun fades from view of the camera.......Check

Deduction................It is a reflection from the Sun.......Often refered to as Lens Flare.
Simple really.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by zayonara
50% Reflection of the illuminated cell phone camera, in the planes concavely curved windshield.


The 'UFO' wouldn't have moved at all if that was the case, Unless the planes window was moving, in which case... abandon ship where going down!


Oh wait, you mean reflected sun light dont you not illuminated (as in a light source on the camera)?

Since the plane is moving not the camera so the window and camera are fixed relative to each other. Although I see what you mean if you mean the sun moves (as the plane banks) in relation to the camera and so the reflected light from the cameras lens/lens frame etc is reflected on the planes window and it moves across the window pane, fading out as the suns angle becomes to acute or blocked by parts of the plane behind the right shoulder of the camera operator...

Hmm that's actually quite a good possibility. Would something like that still line up with the lens flare from the sun though?


Originally posted by ecoparity
Plus the biggest idiot test of all - a lens flare would have been moving the opposite direction. The only way to make a flare move in that direction (same as the plane) would be for the plane to turn TOWARDS the sun or for the sun to be moving sideways - neither of these happened.


Wow, just wow...

sorry but really, what bizzaro style world do you come from that the mechanics of light work in that manner.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


Hey thanks for the explanation. At least now I know who to pay attention to on these topics. Anybody who outright dismisses your explanation without any supportive evidence is now on my list of who not to pay attention to. Excellent work BTW.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigfootNZ

Originally posted by zayonara
50% Reflection of the illuminated cell phone camera, in the planes concavely curved windshield.

Oh wait, you mean reflected sun light dont you not illuminated (as in a light source on the camera)?

Since the plane is moving not the camera so the window and camera are fixed relative to each other. Although I see what you mean if you mean the sun moves (as the plane banks) in relation to the camera and so the reflected light from the cameras lens/lens frame etc is reflected on the planes window and it moves across the window pane, fading out as the suns angle becomes to acute or blocked by parts of the plane behind the right shoulder of the camera operator...

Hmm that's actually quite a good possibility. Would something like that still line up with the lens flare from the sun though?


Originally posted by ecoparity
Plus the biggest idiot test of all - a lens flare would have been moving the opposite direction. The only way to make a flare move in that direction (same as the plane) would be for the plane to turn TOWARDS the sun or for the sun to be moving sideways - neither of these happened.


Wow, just wow...

sorry but really, what bizzaro style world do you come from that the mechanics of light work in that manner.


Yes you got it and the more I run through it in my head, the more it makes perfect sense. To confirm it with geometry, I would need to know how far back off the glass, the cell phone was, and the radius of the glass. A fairly complex mathematical equation, but it makes total sense from what I see.
It still is lens flare, sort of. Instead of the multilayer lens flare from a pro-lens, you are getting interaction between the cell phone lens and the back of the windshield acting as a lens.
edit on 31-1-2013 by zayonara because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
61
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join