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

Originally posted by miniatus
That is absolutely a lens flare .. it moves across the screen exactly as the sun does

Yeah most of the time you could argue lens flare...but in this case you can't.

Those folks out there who claim lens flare are practicing pseudoskepticism or are idiots.

This video could be of a drone, new tech, military crap, etc, etc, etc, but this video is of an object...not a lens flare!

I still think it's some fast white jet traveling close to the ground. It only seems to be traveling about the speed of an airforce fighter jet does I can't see the lens flare thing at all, I understand what people are saying and all the evidence of flare can be applied to anything. You see what you know, they see lensflare. It does not match the sun that well, it doesn't act right against the horizon for the lensflare idea to be right. It looks more like a fast jet. I've seen movies of jets traveling like that from a plane, did hollywood create that illusion from a lens flare on those old pieced together world war two documentaries?.

after getting hyped on the title of the thread, I am really really really really disappointed after watching the video.
Believe what you want but that video doesn't impress me at all. These types of video's divides the kooks from the people who actually seen something significant.

Originally posted by ecoparity
The Sun was already there, it did not "enter" the frame suddenly.

Really?

Start of the video. Look, no sun:





And here comes the sun a few seconds later along with our lens flare:

Originally posted by ecoparity
The angle of the plane doesn't change during the filming of the object.

I didn't call this a false statement earlier just for fun. Here is one of several "bobs" of the plane as it's banking:

Originally posted by ecoparity
Seriously, now you're just being stubbornly obtuse.

I don't know if you're trolling to get your kicks out of saying the complete opposite of what's happening in the video, or not watching the same video as the rest of us altogether, but I would seriously consider not posting on the internet if you're going to make claims that are the complete opposite of what's being shown.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
At least now I know who to pay attention to on these topics.

When you've been around here long enough, you quickly learn who the credible people are and who the not-so-credible people are just by their posts on some of these topics.

Every single person who claims this is "definitely not" a lens flare should be ashamed of themselves. Wanting to believe in aliens so badly that they are blinded by something so elementary.

not a flying saucer at all. definitely some kind of light reflection phenomenon happening, like when the sun hits a person's watch.

I believe there are extra terrestrial spaceships that people have seen, but I also believe that aliens have grown hip to the digital camera as well. So far there has been very little to surface on video thats worth even considering, the "orb" videos being the biggest culprit. WOW! THREE LIGHTS!

what was the deal with the weird videos from Mexico and Brazil of the falling tracer-ish looking light groupings? those were kinda curious.....

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Like I said, stubbornly obtuse.

The plane was flying TOWARDS the sun already and made a left turn. You can see it on the left side of the first pic.

AND, the plane did not change angles, you're confusing a shift in perspective (from the plane turning to the left) and thinking you're seeing the plane's angle to the horizon change - it does not.

Regardless - the object is MOVING TOO FAST. It cannot be a lens flare for that reason alone. The rest just adds support.

A real lens flare would vanish completely as the plane turned away from the sun (around 45 degrees). This thing didn't, it actually hooked a turn to the left at that point which I have never seen a lens flare do.

Lens flares change shape, especially so at the extremes.

Look, I can understand why people think that, it does seem like a really good debunking but you (and they) are wrong. You're seeing only what you want to see and ignoring the rest. The speed is wrong, the movement is wrong, the shape is wrong.

And for the poster who compared a phone camera to a "pinhole camera" - do some research next time. Pinhole cameras have NO lens. Phone cameras are normally board mounted sensors and behind that glass protective lens on the outside is a very small tube with two lens elements on top of the sensor.

Try it, take your phone - a bright light and make some lens flare videos. That alone should show you how wrong you are in this case.

Here's what iPhone lens flares look like







Notice anything different? Pretty much every current phone w/ a camera capable of video is based on the exact same optics.

reply to post by ecoparity


If your going to make a comparison, at least use a similar analog to the original film... ie pictures of the sun in a similar angle to the camera, at a similar time of day. Also dont do it with your monitor in frame, since they often reflect background light, not to mention make it hard to see the bits and pieces of the flare.

If your camera lens flares of the sun come out differently compared to the easily seen lens flare of the OP's vid (and im talking about the lens flare objects that arent the 'ufo' object where talking about) then that would indicate the guy who took the footage was using a camera with a larger set of lens (and according to you all camera phones use the same optics, ie basically a single or double lens from what I can see googling dismantled iphone camera lens), and therefore he wasn't using a Camera Phone he supposedly said he was...

Which immediately means he lied about something in his testimony which means the entire case and footage must be thrown out due to contamination of this possible fact, after all if he lied about what he took the film with, what else did he lie about?.

Edit:- After doing some googling, Looks like you can buy proper little manual focusing screw on lens for Camera Phones like iPhone and the like. Although looking at them they might just be fairly simple setups (since im thinking of proper camera lens where you have up to 6 or more lens inside em although some look pretty damn complex, and expensive ). Not sure how to work out how complex a lens was from its lens flares although im sure there is a correlation.

One thing I noticed, that was, the person taking the picture has one hell of a steady hand... almost too steady.

Originally posted by homeslice
It does show up exactly when the lens is facing the sun...

And it also still remains when the angle changes - a lens flare appeared in the 1st half of the video but once the angle changed, the object remained, the flare was gone, in case you dont notice.

When you people try to call something, make some proper analysis, throwing in definitions isn't gonna make your statemenet any credible

That said, I do not think this is a 'UFO' as an aicraft, I am not even sure if it is not fake, just saying what it is not.

THIS IS THE PSEUDO ANALYSES

Ok we do see lens flare, then the flare is gone, the object still remains, is this still flares to you? It's clearny not, but like I said, I do not think this is a credible video, I just disagree with the 'FLARES THEORY'

Originally posted by rickymouse
I still think it's some fast white jet traveling close to the ground. It only seems to be traveling about the speed of an airforce fighter jet does I can't see the lens flare thing at all, I understand what people are saying and all the evidence of flare can be applied to anything. You see what you know, they see lensflare. It does not match the sun that well, it doesn't act right against the horizon for the lensflare idea to be right. It looks more like a fast jet. I've seen movies of jets traveling like that from a plane, did hollywood create that illusion from a lens flare on those old pieced together world war two documentaries?.

Agreed, and this is what I think it is SOME JET. Show me 90 degrees turn or smth of those weird cases, otherwise it seems to be nothing High Tech and 'NON HUMAN' ...

reply to post by Arken


I don't think it is a lens or glass flare

I think it is your standard Flying Saucer

OH MY GAAAAAWD

Alright!!
To be honest...it took me about 30 seconds to see and understand that this dot is the result of an internal reflection inside the camera. The internal reflection is clearly visible in one of the lens flare halo. The white dot is in the exact position it should be for a reflection of its kind. The white dot stays at the exact position inside the lens flare while the camera (or plane) is moving.

Step 1: Adjust your screen brightness and contrast!!
Step 2: Activate brain for incoming data!!
Step 3: When brain is open for information, LOOK!!

I only gave these stills a push by coloration up to 100%

Internal reflection matching up with the lens flare halo


Internal reflection still visible within the lens flare halo and also matching with a flare streak


Leaving flare streak and still the dot is in the purple flare halo


Here you can see it pretty clear


Internal reflection dot leaving the lens flare halo

Here is a zoomed one. I sharpened it a bit.


And no... I will not add red circles or arrows to the pics to show what everyone clearly can see!!
If one can not see the purple lens flares then it only can be the fault of the monitor or a serious brain damage!!
This whole discussion is ridiculous!!
Even an idiot like me could directly see and understand!!
Bird, Drone, Orb, CGI muarghhhhhhh can not even remember what all was said
How could any of the above manage to stay in the "Exact Position" an internal reflection takes in a lens flare, visible for us when we watch the recording?

When i am wrong i'll use Elvis Hendrix explanation from page1 for my cure because it makes the most sense to me

"It's Oberg on his way to Phage for a sleepover"

Well, I am rather surprised there is so much ongoing debate over this video. I guess some people WANT to actually see something and others actually look at the facts. As to the people who say they are video professionals and insist its not some sort of lens related effect, I really don't know what to say.

And for this person:

Originally posted by SunLife

prove it then, prove you edit video for a living, mr I edit videoman. show us your skills and software

pin your name to it.

Well obviously not intentionally wanting to reveal my entire name on ATS, My first name is Dion and I have no reservations claiming I edited these. Sure they dont have my name on them (hence why I chose them to share with you) But I know I made them and have lots of proof. So watch a couple of these Serato Icon Artist profiles I edited last year (there are more and hopefully more to come). Enjoy them or not / think the are good or not- I don't care. I think they are nicely made edits considering I only spent 2 days on each, and you asked for them.










Sorry for the off topic-ness - this thread needs some cheer anyway.

Originally posted by SunLife

Originally posted by green1
Is the phone a Samsung Galaxy? I ask this because when I photograph the sun with mine, I get what appears to be a light object beside the sun, which for a while had me a bit excited re; objects near the sun. Recently a photo was on the net, taken in Russia of a supposed object near the sun (2nd sun / planet X / Nubiru), which looked the same as my image, which left me wondering if that Russian image was captured with a Sumsung Galaxy, or similar.

However lately, I am suspicious its only some form of lense flair, as when I started experimenting with the phone camera, I obtain the same result when shooting the midday sun filtered somewhat through the leaves of a tree canopy, as well as a mesh type sun shade used on car side windows. I have tried to get the same object result with a regular digital camera, with no success.

I'm sorry if I may be bursting some peoples bubbles here, but I dont like kidding myself, or anyone else with illusions which we, as truth seekers, are only too eager to see. However, if its real after all...BRING IT ON!

lmao...the only bubbles your bursting is the ones you make in the bath tub.. I hate to sound rude but Comon-man are your serious? I am breaking my own rule not to patronize these types of responses..

I think Mr Grumpy here needs a nap. Then after you have woken up, re-read what I just said & how I said it. Yes, I am serious, along with all the rest of the analysts here. I simply added my 5 cents of balanced, practical & thoughtful experience into the mix, along with all the rest. Thats what this site is for. Gee, I know that UFO's exist & I want the evidence too, but you exemplify what is causing truth seekers to look stupid; that is, you wont analyse thoroughly enough. It seems to be so hard for some to decide whether to open their minds a bit, or save face & keep it closed.

at the 1:42 mark, there seems to be the mothership moving from the bottom left corner...

Originally posted by elevenaugust

Originally posted by Arken
In which kind of "Lens Flares World" do you live?

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

Definitely lens flare created by the sun reflection on the camera optics...

How it works:

The flare is generally due to the presence of a protective filter in the camera, after the lens. It also works however with some lens without this filter.
Anyway, the flare is a mirror ghost of the original bright object (the sun here), with the image center serving as a point of symmetry (or point reflection).

Black arrows indicate the light rays of a distant bright light source that form a regular image point on the film (1). Values for the reflectance of undeveloped photographic film vary from 15% to 40% [see sources 1,2], which makes the film a much stronger reflector than any optical component in the lens.

So, a significant percentage of the light is reflected off the film, partly specular and partly diffuse. (For convenience, we will consider that paths of the reflected light are the same and thus are already drawn for the incident light).
Thus, the blue arrows indicate light reflected from the film. This light encounters the filter, which specularly reflects a small fraction (red arrows). The red rays are parallel and consequently focused onto a point on the film. (2)

The virtual source of the mirror point is traced by the dashed black lines. Note that the blue rays reflected by the film seem odd from the viewpoint of specular reflection; they merely illustrate the fact that all light rays that originate from a single point on the film, and which are collected by the lens, emerge parallel at the filter.

Not all light reflected off the film makes it back to the mirror point. The presence of an aperture stop further reduces the number of rays allowed to return to the film.

The risk of being confronted with filter flare reduces with a smaller focal length, a smaller aperture (larger F-number), an increased separation of highlights from the image center, and with a better filter quality. However, by far the most secure way to avoid this type of flare is to omit the filter altogether.

People who want to try their luck with UFOs may improve their chances by using a tele lens at a large aperture. I guess that, instead of a filter, a lens element with a flat face could also give rise to mirror ghosts.

[1] SPSE handbook of photographic science and engineering, edited by Woodlief Thomas Jr., John Whiley & sons, p. 204 (1973).
[2] Sidney F. Ray, Applied photographic optics, 3rd ed., Focal Press, p. 139 (2002)

edit on 31-1-2013 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)

oh sure lens flare. so how do you account for all those lines in your photos?

Originally posted by ecoparity
the plane did not change angles, you're confusing a shift in perspective (from the plane turning to the left) and thinking you're seeing the plane's angle to the horizon change - it does not.

You either really can't see the "bobbing" of the plane as it's turning, or you're deliberately ignoring it to satisfy your false theory. Either way, there's no hope for you.

Originally posted by ecoparity
Regardless - the object is MOVING TOO FAST. It cannot be a lens flare for that reason alone.

Are you having fun typing false claim after false claim? The "object" is moving exactly as fast as the sun. The "object" enters the frame at the same time the sun does, and it exits the frame at the same time the sun does. Kindergarteners are educated enough to see that. Why adults can't is beyond my comprehension.

Originally posted by ecoparity
The speed is wrong, the movement is wrong, the shape is wrong.

The speed is exactly the same speed as the light source, the movement is exactly the same as the light source, and the shape will never be pre-defined on lens flares or light reflections.

You're trying to be an "expert" on this subject, but you're becoming the lone voice as you continue to type the exact opposite of what's really happening. When someone claims the exact opposite of what's being portrayed, red flags are raised that suggest they are either trolling or deliberately trying to mislead others.

This has already been proven to be a lens flare by numerous people including myself. Even though it didn't need to be proven as it's so painfully obvious.

Moving on......

Originally posted by CDC444

Originally posted by miniatus
That is absolutely a lens flare .. it moves across the screen exactly as the sun does

Yeah most of the time you could argue lens flare...but in this case you can't.

Those folks out there who claim lens flare are practicing pseudoskepticism or are idiots.

This video could be of a drone, new tech, military crap, etc, etc, etc, but this video is of an object...not a lens flare!

You said it! I don't care how many different ways it can be explained away as a lens flare using simple geometry and what not....you just can't explain it! Even though its been shown to be a lens flare, its just not. Idiots indeed.