Interesting video about a sighting

page: 1
20
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Thought about this video today and decided that it was worth a thread and posting a link for several reasons.

One; It's a damn good sighting by someone with experience in the field of electrical technical drawing and draughts work.
Two; They have direct experience in the field of aviation.
Three; They had no interest in UFOs or anything of its' ilk prior to the sighting.
Four; It was a multiple witness sighting at close quarters.
Five; It also contains some of the high strangeness the likes of me and others find fascinating.
Six; The guy actually shows a model of what he saw and his reflections on the construction are pertinent given his engineering background.
Seven; It happened in almost my own back yard and the area it occurred has along and rich history of UFO sightings dating back to the early 1940s. It might be just coincidence however, it also happens to be very close to where the first ever RADAR system was tested in the 1930s.

So, Mr Colin Saunders explaining and showing a model of what he witnessed near Pailton Warwickshire.

Colin Saunders talks about the Triangle he saw close up




posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


So there is no video of the actual sighting?

I skimmed through it and it looks interesting but I was hoping to see video of the ufo.

P.S. - I love your avatar.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


Strange he could see the front light under the nose yet didn't see the light at the left or right tip which he put on his model, also at that time of the year at 9.45pm it's dark seems to have seen a lot of detail



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


The model s a combination of his own sighting of that and that of a craft seen in Belgium from the underneath. He goes on to make the very point that, he is not sure whether the "lights" are lights as we understand them and why, when they are visible when the rest of the craft appears to be able to be totally invisible. If you listen to what he says, then there's a damn strange coincidence with that described with the Phoenix lights in Arizona. That being, at one point he says the craft was "see through" which mirrors exactly, the description of those who saw the Phoenix craft from relatively close quarters

One point that truly fascinates me is how he describes the air as "seeming to ripple" as the craft appeared. Now, from my own experience when one hallucinates, not merely has visual distortions then, in the immediate few seconds before the hallucination forms the area around it seems to "ripple" be it a wall or simply the air one is focused on.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


Too bad the Belgium triangle is a fake.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


Great video FireMoon. The way he described the skin of the craft as a sort of liquid is amazing. This has to be one of the most detailed sightings I've ever heard of.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Foundryman
reply to post by FireMoon
 


Too bad the Belgium triangle is a fake.


There were hundreds of sightings reported in Belgium and the photo you are talking about, the so called faker has singularly failed to re-create the one he claims to have faked even though, he has been asked to by numerous people.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
There were hundreds of sightings reported in Belgium and the photo you are talking about, the so called faker has singularly failed to re-create the one he claims to have faked even though, he has been asked to by numerous people.


Why would anyone invest their time and money into recreating a fake just to prove they did so in the beginning if they're not going to get paid to do so?
Dangle some incentive and you'll get results.

It's one of the reasons people fake UFOs.
Other reasons include doing it just for kicks, attention, advancing interest in a topic they 'CLAIM' zero interest in but are serious obsessive closet cases, delusional self validation, and many others, including no discernible reason at all just as doing it for kicks.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


Sounds interesting. I wish I could have watched it but there was a commercial about paint and after that nothing played. I repeated the steps, (clicked on an arrow) and got another commercial. Saved the link to look at later in case there is another way to view it.



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

Originally posted by Druscilla

Originally posted by FireMoon
There were hundreds of sightings reported in Belgium and the photo you are talking about, the so called faker has singularly failed to re-create the one he claims to have faked even though, he has been asked to by numerous people.


Why would anyone invest their time and money into recreating a fake just to prove they did so in the beginning if they're not going to get paid to do so?
Dangle some incentive and you'll get results.

It's one of the reasons people fake UFOs.
Other reasons include doing it just for kicks, attention, advancing interest in a topic they 'CLAIM' zero interest in but are serious obsessive closet cases, delusional self validation, and many others, including no discernible reason at all just as doing it for kicks.



You forgot another reason people fake UFO sightings.

They do it to draw attention AWAY from an actual sighting. The fake is staged and shuffled in and when it is found wanting, all interest in the real event dies out. Defense dept. can then investigate and operate without pesky spectators or looky-loos.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


Frankly that's ridiculous reasoning. The critical faculties of the sceptics have a strange habit of flying straight out of the window the moment something conforms to their own prejudices. One could just as easily say, the so called faker was paid to say he faked it by other interested parties, you know, the sort stuff Philip Klass used to do. One assumes the guy was paid for the story about faking it, so why didn't they ask him to re-create it or, were they simply not interested in the reality of the situation simply , happy to publish a story that would generate publicity and hits on their own website?

I'd also remind people, this thread is NOT about the so called Belgian fake photograph and I will take a dim view of any more postings about it and immediately ask for the mods to remove any posts that try to derail the purpose of this thread which is to discuss a wholly different sighting and a totally different one from Belgium.
edit on 31-7-2013 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 10:39 PM
link   
How interesting that Colin reports that he could see the craft closer than he should have. After that close-up he basically "snapped back" into the car.

It's almost as if time stood still for Saunders and his family. Like some kind of time and space disruption and they were close enough to this "dimension hopping" that they were incorporated into something like a wormhole.

I also thought it was an interesting observation that a triangle can somewhat appear saucer-shaped depending on angle of view.

"Saucer" Angle

The oft related detail that he had more high-strangeness events after the first encounter always fascinates me. When I saw the following diagram it made me think of the All-Seeing Eye. Hmmm…

All-Seeing Eye

Initial POV

Here's a PDF with Colin's account and drawings and pics of the model from various angles:

www.ufo-data.co.uk...

edit on 31-7-2013 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by Druscilla
 


Frankly that's ridiculous reasoning. The critical faculties of the sceptics have a strange habit of flying straight out of the window the moment something conforms to their own prejudices. One could just as easily say, the so called faker was paid to say he faked it by other interested parties, you know, the sort stuff Philip Klass used to do. One assumes the guy was paid for the story about faking it, so why didn't they ask him to re-create it or, were they simply not interested in the reality of the situation simply , happy to publish a story that would generate publicity and hits on their own website?


Would you rather work your job and only get paid ONCE?
... or would you rather continue to get as many paychecks as you can out of it?

One should never underestimate the desire or even avarice of someone paid once for something, to get paid again, and again, and/or as often as possible.

Besides that, anyone that's already flipped their story once, well ... you be the judge.


edit on 31-7-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


Firemoon, you're not wrong about that being an interesting video my friend -great find! Have only had time to watch the first part of the interview but it's certainly refreshing to hear so much specific detail from a techincal draughtsman in the aviation industry - also, just a gut feeling but something tells me he's not making it up. Could be the Holland Michigan, Hudson Valley, Stephenville or Lebanon UFO cases but I could swear I've heard an almost identical object description submitted by police officers so will have a look round for that.

Cheers.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Nice one OP, Pailton is only a 20min ride away from my town, I've never heard of this case. Will look forward to studying it after work. Thanks again



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


Funny his report on his sighting has drawing with the wing tip lights



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by Druscilla
 


Frankly that's ridiculous reasoning. The critical faculties of the sceptics have a strange habit of flying straight out of the window the moment something conforms to their own prejudices. One could just as easily say, the so called faker was paid to say he faked it by other interested parties, you know, the sort stuff Philip Klass used to do. One assumes the guy was paid for the story about faking it, so why didn't they ask him to re-create it or, were they simply not interested in the reality of the situation simply , happy to publish a story that would generate publicity and hits on their own website?

I'd also remind people, this thread is NOT about the so called Belgian fake photograph and I will take a dim view of any more postings about it and immediately ask for the mods to remove any posts that try to derail the purpose of this thread which is to discuss a wholly different sighting and a totally different one from Belgium.
edit on 31-7-2013 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)


You may change your mind


Looks like Colin cant remeber what he say's on your video link go to about 9:26 watch and listen to what he claims to have seen.

Now go to this video listen from about 9:50 onwards now what do you think about his report.



In your link he claims to have seen the largest flying craft he had ever seen yet in the video made years before he didn't.

HOAX!!!



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Sorry, I haven;t clue what you are talking about. in the video you have posted he 's talking about the craft he saw close up which disappeared. He then saw what he took to be the back end of a huge craft heading away from them that was not the same as the craft he saw close up. I'd try paying more attention if I were you.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Sorry, I haven;t clue what you are talking about. in the video you have posted he 's talking about the craft he saw close up which disappeared. He then saw what he took to be the back end of a huge craft heading away from them that was not the same as the craft he saw close up. I'd try paying more attention if I were you.


I suggest you put headphones on and open those ears he talks about his wife reversing the car and getting out to try and see the craft because they lost sight of it in both videos

On your more recent video he claims to have seen the largest flying craft he had ever seen yet on the old video they only saw flashing lights many miles in the distance.

He is talking about the SAME EVENT in both videos with a different account of what happened after he lost sight of his claimed object.

HOAX!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Sorry, I haven;t clue what you are talking about. in the video you have posted he 's talking about the craft he saw close up which disappeared. He then saw what he took to be the back end of a huge craft heading away from them that was not the same as the craft he saw close up. I'd try paying more attention if I were you.


I suggest you put headphones on and open those ears he talks about his wife reversing the car and getting out to try and see the craft because they lost sight of it in both videos

On your more recent video he claims to have seen the largest flying craft he had ever seen yet on the old video they only saw flashing lights many miles in the distance.

He is talking about the SAME EVENT in both videos with a different account of what happened after he lost sight of his claimed object.

HOAX!!!!!!!!!!!





new topics
top topics
 
20
<<   2 >>

log in

join