London ufo on Russian tv

Well, if we can't use the same old mantra, of responsible thoughts. Maybe it's Russia's new air to air K-77M ... If that won't work. Must be ALIENS! Thanks, for sharing. Good day.

IAMTAT
I think this was already discussed here recently...I believe that the general consensus was that it was a bird flying by the window.

It's allways a bird. Or Fly. Or...you get the point. I'm even open to drone but there comes a time when enough is enough and the usual suspects need to notice when some of the tried and true doesn't fit anymore.

reply to post by FlySolo


How is it that you make a thread and claim this thing is "zipping by at great speeds" then tell us what it isn't it's others when they question that assertion who are the ones that have to supply proof ?

I've asked you nicely in a IM last time I made a thread. Remember the fly? You just blew me off. That's rude and I had enough

I have no idea what you are talking about in regard to the pm but I still think that is the most likely explanation.

reply to post by FlySolo

It's allways a bird. Or Fly. Or...you get the point. I'm even open to drone but there comes a time when enough is enough and the usual suspects need to notice when some of the tried and true doesn't fit anymore.

It's not always a bird or a bug (even though we've got billions of them here on Earth!)....sometimes it's a plane....

You really, really want it to be a UFO don't you?.....

gortex
reply to post by FlySolo

 

How is it that you make a thread and claim this thing is "zipping by at great speeds" then tell us what it isn't it's others when they question that assertion who are the ones that have to supply proof ?

I've asked you nicely in a IM last time I made a thread. Remember the fly? You just blew me off. That's rude and I had enough

I have no idea what you are talking about in regard to the pm but I still think that is the most likely explanation.

edit on 6-12-2013 by gortex because: (no reason given)

I shouldn't have stated "great speeds" It was wrong of me to ascertain that fact and I know better.
With that said, I can't say "at slow speeds" either so where does that leave us?

At this point, seeing you have taken it upon yourself to respond to this thread with an answer of your own, it would be pertinent of you to provide something to back your stance. Specifically, the shape of the bird.

reply to post by Argyll

You really, really want it to be a UFO don't you?.....

First, that question needs to be phrased in an unbiased leading way. I am able to be objective.

Well after the reading the first page of posts all I could say was:

"That escalated quickly!"





Regardless, and with all due respect to everyone on here. After looking at the video several times, I'm going to have to go with a bird of some kind. However, if someone can prove otherwise I'll happily listen. because it does move very fast, and I would of thought something that close to the window would show much more detail regardless of speed IE it's actual size. Where as it does look literally long and thin, but there are a lot of insects that are long and thin.

A tough one.

Well if it is a bird (which the numbers say is likely, millions upon millions of confirmed birds on Earth, not one confirmed extra-terrestrial craft), then could it be the bird was gliding and not flapping its wings in this case. If so, then the side profile of a gliding bird, wings outstretched, from altitude (which would seem to be equivalent to being horizontally next to the thing) would appear as a thin cylindrical shape.

When that shape is moving, swiftly past a fixed position, it would be elongated even more, and resembling what we see in the video....would it not?

reply to post by Krakatoa

then could it be the bird was gliding and not flapping its wings in this case

I think that's most likely , possibly one of these chaps ...

Looks like a failed CGI to me. It enters the screen via the right side....travels in a linear fashion...but when it goes behind the wall and female speaker, it does not reappear on the left side of the screen.

I call a HOAX.

reply to post by gortex


Gortex. My man. I'm not an unreasonable guy. But I really do think you need to sharpen your debating skills. You have so many stars yet you provided such an irrelevant response.

I already posted a seagull pic from the side which resembles a ufo for comparison. I was expecting you to come back with something a little more similar to what's in the OP, not a video proving seagulls live down by the river. Or come up with some kind of technical explanation on TV cameras or frame rates.

I could sworn it was chinese lantern.

Wasn't this video posted months ago?

Its probably a bird of Prey as they dont flap thier wings much when they soar though the air. London has lots of them because of the amount of slow pigeons there are flying around that are easy to hunt.



Londons birds of prey

FlySolo
reply to post by gortex

 

Gortex. My man. I'm not an unreasonable guy. But I really do think you need to sharpen your debating skills. You have so many stars yet you provided such an irrelevant response.

I already posted a seagull pic from the side which resembles a ufo for comparison. I was expecting you to come back with something a little more similar to what's in the OP, not a video proving seagulls live down by the river. Or come up with some kind of technical explanation on TV cameras or frame rates.

Ok I will give it a go then,

What we have is a smeared object this could be from a distant large object moving at fantatsic speeds or a close small object moving at speed but not fantastic speed if the camera was focused on foreground objects ie the woman and her guest.

First thing to rule out is it a bug in foreground flying by at very close distance.

No, in the video the 'object' moves behind the window frame then the womans head so no its not a bug.

image of object disappearing behind window frame.

image object evidence 1

So is it a large distant object moving at fantastic speeds ?

No if it was a large object it would leave a shadow on the ground or more likely the pale looking building

image object evidence 2

So it is not a large distant object.

What is it then ? Its a fairly small relatively fast object.

If you rip the stream and convert it to .mp4 and step through it frame by frame its a smear, a blur as I have done you will see it change shape slightly frame by frame.

So it changes shape, its not a plane or a missile then.

here it looks like your classic cigar shaped ufo.

image object evidence 3

here it looks like a missile or rocket

image object evidence 4

what does it look like blown up ?

image object evidence 5

its a smear or blur but you can make out a tail structure and two short wing structures. The front of the object is compeletely diffuse and undefinable.

So what is it ?

I would say its a seagull gliding in a very fast wind circling the tall building the woman is shooting the tv program in.

Its a very smeared or blurred seagull but its a seagull tilted at an angle with its wings outstretched a little circling in very fast winds.

Dont get me wrong I would absolutely love it to be a Ufo but its simply not big enough.

You have to be rational about these things.

Like I said on page 1 I'm no professional at saying what is there. This is what my eyes see. The object is outside we can see that clearly, but when the object appears my eyes see it as possible a small bird maybe a starling or sparrow flying fairly close to the window but not really close
I can't explain how I've judge a distance but say about no more than 30 feet from the window, the object seems to be in full flight. What I mean by that is when the object appears it hasn't just started moving, it was already going the speed it was when we see it.

Now flysolo I come here with trying to respect every members opinion in whatever they may chose to say, so by saying this I'm not trying to mock you or go with the flow of logical explanations for things. But I believe what we see is a small bird gliding past the window.

reply to post by IAMTAT


It could be a UFO or it maybe isn't. Using Sagan's old rule of dismissing every mysterious unknown by interjecting a "logical," Occam's Razor analysis gets us nowhere. Just wait, the evidence and predilection for finally seriously tagging such things as UFOs where they are mere birds, etc. is not too far into the future!

Probably any day now China will spill the beans about triangles being the secret weapon of the US and that they were derived from genuine UFOs and they will demand that the rest of the world all needs a piece of the action. --That was just a post thought (different than a forethought!)

reply to post by snoopy11


I don't know how visible a shadow would be seeing it is pretty cloudy and I wouldn't imagine a bird being close would be so out of focus to give it that exaggerated elongated look, even with the camera focused on the foreground. You make some other interesting remarks regarding the inconsistency of the projectile shape so I'l give you a star for the good response.

FlySolo
reply to post by snoopy11

 

I don't know how visible a shadow would be seeing it is pretty cloudy and I wouldn't imagine a bird being close would be so out of focus to give it that exaggerated elongated look, even with the camera focused on the foreground. You make some other interesting remarks regarding the inconsistency of the projectile shape so I'l give you a star for the good response.

Well,

As I say I would absolutely love this to be a Ufo.

But I dont think it is, sorry FlySolo I hate disagreeing with you but on this occasion I have to.

Take Care.

Snoopy.

FlySolo
reply to post by snoopy11

 

I don't know how visible a shadow would be seeing it is pretty cloudy and I wouldn't imagine a bird being close would be so out of focus to give it that exaggerated elongated look, even with the camera focused on the foreground. You make some other interesting remarks regarding the inconsistency of the projectile shape so I'l give you a star for the good response.

Well it could easily be out of focus (even if near) if the camera lens was set at a small aperture. That reduces the depth of field, resulting in things in the background being out of focus.

Larger apertures (smaller F-stop number) and closer focusing distances produce a shallower depth of field

Controlling Depth of Field

If this is the case, then the object outside the window could very easily be out of focus, even if it was a stationary bird sitting on the ledge.

There is no arguing with hardcore "UFOS are Alienz!"believers.

The "God of the Gaps" belief has been replaced by a more modern "Aliens of the Gaps" belief among these people.

Don't know what "God of the Gaps" is?

God of the Gaps thelogical philosophy…..

UFOlogy is not a science to these people, it's a religion requiring faith, belief and most importantly a suspension of logic.