Explain This! UFO????

reply to post by spiritualarchitect


Whoa, Good catch ...

Segment starts at 2:20

I dont know why I read these threads, the armchair experts have already decided it was a cheap camera attached to his telescope it must be a star and the camera is wobbling in an elliptical manner.
The other obvious conclusion is he has faked it.
Well you of the scientific persuasion need to replicate this video and post it so we can see how a cheap camera wobbles on a telescope creating an elliptical shaped light source.
Any takers?
Or maybe its swamp gas or a balloon or Venus. Write cliche and just add typical naysay as your catch phrase.
Easy to doubt as it is impossible to prove. Look out here come the naysaying cavalry.
For me, this one is more than a little interesting.

reply to post by Tazkven


If the filmmaker is telling the truth about what he saw, it was either alien or a toy of some kind. If someone created it as an artistic statement, they would have to have had it on a black helium balloon that no one could see. And it would be a launch and forget toy.

Or maybe it is a fan powered remote control flying device. If so, why is it not at Radio Shack by now? And why fly it so high that no one could see its colors with the naked eye?

reply to post by kudegras


I don't know why the arm chair experts read these threads since they "know" everything is fake.

Actually I do know. They want to make sure no one thinks there is anything on Earth more intelligent than them.

reply to post by kudegras

Well you of the scientific persuasion need to replicate this video and post it so we can see how a cheap camera wobbles on a telescope creating an elliptical shaped light source.

If it's an elliptical shaped light source why does it look like it does at 1:46?

ETA: How about at 2:35?

reply to post by Tazkven



I wonder why a saucer would need something that looks like support beams? Maybe they are tubes that connect the science lab to the abductees quarters. It looks like they are either in a cross shape or there are 2 side by side.

Are these 2 craft the same?

If they are then we have the question of why it is in view of Joe South and his telescope. Everybody knows Joe got a new telescope a couple months ago, so why in 2013, is he seeing this?

The “Best Evidence” video you just posted came out in 1997. Does that means someone’s toy was found in a field 15 years ago and just now made it back to video?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


I have as many answers as you do, None! which is why I dont surmise to know the answer.
As I said it is easy to sit there and shoot a video down without knowing type of camera, type of telescope, day or night, any relevant details. I think a lot of the naysayers get their kicks out of shooting other people down.
Are you one of those? Or can you prove without a shadow of doubt that he has faked it or its due to a cheap telescope and camera.
Absolutely not. Ergo, my comment.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


While 2:43 looks like changing lights around the craft seen from a different angle, the 1:46 image supports the alien saucer theory, because they are known to warp in and out of view due to propulsion effects.

reply to post by spiritualarchitect

While 2:43 looks like changing lights around the craft seen from a different angle

Looks like? Sounds like a guess. Where did the elliptical shape go?

the 1:46 image supports the alien saucer theory, because they are known to warp in and out of view due to propulsion effects.

Good one. Not looking like a saucer supports opinion that it's a saucer. Got all the bases covered there, if you're willing to buy it. Propulsion effects? Where do you see evidence of shape warping propulsion?

Originally posted by Tazkven

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by fiftyfifty

 

I'd agree with this except it looks more like the colour of a sodium streetlamp than a star.

The reddish coloration and extreme scintillation (twinkling) are consistent with a star or planet extremely close to the horizon. Throw in a wobbly mounting for the telescope and that's what you're looking at.

The possibility can not be ruled out but wouldn't the tripod also be wobbling up and down and not just side to side if it was loose? Plus you can see the camera moving around at the beginning trying to bring the point of light into the frame, it does not appear to be erratically shaking ... Not sure I fully accept that conclusion.

edit on 8-3-2013 by Tazkven because: Removed Youtube poster comment after researching.

I agree with that, but i use a telescope and know that a far off object, especially one moving around as much as that thing is, wouldn't stay in shot as much as it does, and the object would be out of frame more than in while he was trying to reaquire it with the scope.

It jitters around a lot...but stays in shot..doesn't ring true imo.

reply to post by Tazkven


That video definitely shows the edges glowing with corona plasma. Most of that is orange/red. There's lots of videos around how to build a simple laser that creates a nitrogen plasma right out of the normal air that is bright blue. No need for a gas filled tube like neon/helium mix lasers do. A red color like that probably because of different metals, different energy levels, different Hz frequencies etc. All of that can make a change to how something works. Atoms are pretty crazy, and there is lot's we don't know about.

Oh I wanted to add, it also look like some kind of a round hatch on the bottom. On the right side it shows up a couple times in the video.

reply to post by kudegras

Or can you prove without a shadow of doubt that he has faked it or its due to a cheap telescope and camera.

Who said he faked anything? He hasn't shown that he knows anything either though.

I'm not trying trying to prove anything other than what is shown in the vid I posted earlier. It shows what some pretty damn good equipment can do to an image when not properly adjusted. My only point has been that the OP vid is not an accurate depiction of what was being viewed. Why would anyone think it is?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


I dont think he was claiming ho knows anything. What he is claiming he put a cheap camera on the end of a telescope and he is seeing something ho cant explain. If he or no one else here can without doubt explain what they are seeing then that is a UFO, not a flying saucer but a UFO.
Unidentified ! flying object unless of course he has faked it, then you need to prove it and to date no-one has.

reply to post by kudegras


Don't let the skeptics bring you down, they often bring in new ways of looking at something. In this instance though that is not the case. I still haven't heard a valid explanation.

When you toss in the other video at the top of this page where we have two instances of the same happening, that indeed makes it very interesting.

Who knows what we are looking at in these videos but I am quite sure it isnt the product of vibrating equipment or a poor quality webcam.

reply to post by Tazkven


It's all good bro', I just like taking the urine out of the nay sayers on this site. There are too many with narrow minded views on what they themselves only think to be the case.
Some things cannot be proven and this looks to be one of them at the moment.
Time will tell, I prefer to keep an open mind as there are more things in heaven and earth Horatio that are dreamt of in their philosophy.

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
reply to post by RoScoLaz

 

Maybe someone can find this video because the ufo is right in the beginning of the documentary. The doc is at least an hour long and is called something like "Best UFO's Caught on Tape".

reply to post by kudegras

I dont think he was claiming ho knows anything. What he is claiming he put a cheap camera on the end of a telescope and he is seeing something ho cant explain. If he or no one else here can without doubt explain what they are seeing then that is a UFO, not a flying saucer but a UFO.
Unidentified ! flying object unless of course he has faked it, then you need to prove it and to date no-one has.

That's because we don't have any information to work with: date, time, location, compass bearing, type of telescope, type of mounting, type of camera...

Originally posted by kudegras
I dont know why I read these threads, the armchair experts have already decided it was a cheap camera attached to his telescope it must be a star and the camera is wobbling in an elliptical manner.

Statistically speaking ... with no astronomy experience what so ever ... what do you think the likelyhood of object in random telescope with no time or coordinates being something other than a known anomaly is?

Well you of the scientific persuasion need to replicate this video and post it so we can see how a cheap camera wobbles on a telescope creating an elliptical shaped light source.
Any takers?

You're on a conspiracy web board not the hidden Mensa web board for peer review of telescope and sky artifacts.

Persons are allowed to suggest their opinions or ideas without massive disclaimers. I'd go nutso if I had to start every observational statement with ... I am not 100%, perhaps only 67% on this one, and I haven't done any science on it, and it's just my opinion, but ...

I'd also go nutso if I had to do science everytime I have to have an opinion. Note: Science actually doesn't start observations with the above statement either.

Originally posted by kudegras
reply to post by Tazkven

 

It's all good bro', I just like taking the urine out of the nay sayers on this site. There are too many with narrow minded views on what they themselves only think to be the case.

Which contributes zero to the discussion ergo your statements haven't changed a single nay sayer's mind or contributed anything to discovery at this point.

Do some research, explain why it isn't a star or planet, be the change you want to be or you're no better.

Time will tell, I prefer to keep an open mind as there are more things in heaven and earth Horatio that are dreamt of in their philosophy.

Yes, but there are also more of these things than we can hope to investigate, ergo when a case isn't particularly compelling we move on to the next one instead of launching a 1000 hour investigation into it. (Or we just realize we're on a webboard and not in a science lab)

Signed, Punky Aweso Skeptic Naysayer.

Correct me if I'm wrong here ,but isn't the person making a claim the one responsible for providing the evidence needed to convince folks and NOT the other way around?

Also, didn't the OP ask for opinions here when he included this in his post?

Explain this my friends. Taken with cheap web-cam hook to telescope. In the West around 3 something am. --J7409

If so, then all opinions should be welcome, whether the OP agrees or likes them or not. When you ask for opinions, you ask for ALL opinions, not just the ones that meet your internal criteria for acceptance.

So, if I say it looks like a Santa Claus siting, that opinion is just as valid as someone saying it looks like a starship from Zeta-Reticuli. Both of these opinions have the same amount of "evidence".

The video looks to be somewhat genuine. Maybe not good quality, but still something to wrap your brain around.