The most convincing UFO video footage we have.

Arbitrageur

jhn7537
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

Do you care to take a shot at this video?

Did you read the Tim Printy analysis I posted back on page 2, the first time you posted that? I'll re-post it here:

Arbitrageur
UFOs? Are you talking about the oil well fires?

home.comcast.net...

edit on 27-12-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

It's not oil well fires... These were seen at 10,500 ft in the air. What oil fires burn at that height? They also accelerated and deaccelerated? Did you happen to read the link I posted with the video where there is a detailed breakdown from the flight crew?

Please take a look at this


UFOlogists most significant arguments against the oil well fire theory are:

1. There are no flickering/changing shapes of the lights

2. The objects appeared in front of clouds and could not be distant

3. The FLIR did not have the range to see the oil well fires

4. The camera was not pointing in the right direction

5. The angle of elevation was too high for oil well fires

PhotonEffect
This is part of the famous Derbyshire video series. This video, for me, defies explanation unless someone can better explain what it is that's flying past the moon.

If you aimed a video camera at a plane, and made it out of focus, why wouldn't it look just like that?

reply to post by jhn7537

Do you care to take a shot at this video? It's authentic, in the sense it came from the Mexican Govt... These 11 objects were caught on infrared cameras.

Swamp gas isn't too far off. It is actually gas being burned off from the oil rigs in the water:






More at the link here:

www.alcione.org...



This stuff is easy to find if people would do some simple research before exclaiming "ALIENS!!!"

jhn7537
It's not oil well fires... These were seen at 10,500 ft in the air.

That's what Maussan would like you to believe, but he's a well-known hoaxer.

Mexican Air Force FLIR's video lights are not UFO's.

THE AN/APS 143B(V) RADAR DOES NOT PROVIDE ALTITUDES OF MOVING TARGETS SO THEY COULD HAVE BEEN MISTAKEN AS FLYING OBJECTS WHILE DETECTED AT GROUND LEVEL

UFOs over Mexico 2004 solved?

December NARCAP update: In late October 2004, NARCAP did amplify on how their invesitgations had progressed. They seemed fairly convinced that the oil well hypothesis was the correct answer to the event and congratulated Captain Franz for his work.

I'll play

reply to post by _BoneZ_


To debunk the oil field claim you would think they would be able to put the oil field theory to test pretty simple. They know the height they were flying at, they know the exact location they were flying at. They should go back and record it again with those same instruments, because the oil fields aren't going anywhere and it would be pretty simple to do the experiment over and over again to see if the 11 lights are actually just that... I know the debunker theory, I just don't believe it one bit, the oil field was over 100 miles away and there are reports of the objects changing speeds which goes against what a stable object would do. Not to mention there is no flickering of lights which is what you would get from an flame.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Care to show how it would look just like that? Wouldn't the strobes be seen?

I'm okay to put this one to bed just like all the others, yet this is the one that keeps nagging me.

I've never found a video of a plane shot out of focus at night to compare it to. Do you have one so we can debunk it already?

If not then the video still stands.

Having witnessed with my own eyes (and two other witnesses seen it also) a UFO at close enough distance to know beyond all doubt it was a disc shaped machine of some kind, I'm still waiting to see footage with that exact same craft in it. What the hell it was doing flying in night time snowy conditions in the Scottish highlands in the early 1990's is another mystery

reply to post by TXRabbit

Except that it isn't a Russian aircraft, it's an F-15 (ever wonder why those who claim "UFO!" have to lie)?
Compare the back of the front seat as seen here.


The object is probably an aerial gunnery target sleeve, towed behind another aircraft. Something as described here:
www.freepatentsonline.com...

Here's one that's been hit a few times.

Just to add on to my previous post:


reply to post by jhn7537

1. There are no flickering/changing shapes of the lights

That won't matter, and won't be seen very much on a blurry, out of focus IR video.

2. The objects appeared in front of clouds and could not be distant

The lights clearly went behind the clouds. You can see the lights through the clouds at times because IR cameras pick up light so well.

3. The FLIR did not have the range to see the oil well fires

I'm not sure where you got that claim from, but one of the purposes of IR cameras is to pick up heat signatures. Most modern FLIR cameras can pick up heat from engines or from human bodies several miles away. The burning flames from the oil rigs are much hotter, therefore can be detected many more miles away.

4. The camera was not pointing in the right direction

I'm not sure where this claim came from either. The camera was pointed wherever the pilot had it pointed.

FLIR stands for Forward Looking InfraRed. That means the camera detects whatever is in front of it. The pilot obviously turned the camera towards the lights as evidenced by the plane flying "sideways" when the camera normally faces forward.

5. The angle of elevation was too high for oil well fires

I'm not sure where this claim comes from either. It's very clear from the video that the lights are coming from somewhere far below the clouds near the ground. When you asked me what I thought, I almost said city lights or something else on the ground until I did more digging to find the oil rig explanation.

I know the debunker theory, I just don't believe it one bit

I'm not sure how you can not believe it. The images I posted and the analysis at the link are more than clear. The images are almost identical.

But, as I stated earlier, it is far easier to proclaim "ALIENS!!!" than it is a more rational explanation, or even an explanation that's nearly identical like the images I posted above.

free_spirit
reply to post by roncoallstar

 

Hi roncoalistar, good thread by you but unfortunately you chose the wrong video for
your proposal, it`s a hoax. A CGI hoax created by a certain individual named Brian Bessent
in 2005 to attract new subscribers to his pay per view website UFO Theatre. Bessent sent
the CGI video to Jeff Rense to be published as big headline wich Rense did. The footage
was attacked as clear CGI but Rense defended Bessent just to find out later that it was
all a hoax and the story ended in a big scandal that even took Bessent to jail for beating
up his former girlfriend in Phoenix. A very disturbed guy Brian Bessent disappeared forever
as well as his UFO Theatre website.

Read the complete story discussed here in 2005:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And here is the hoax exposed and final conclusion:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 27-12-2013 by free_spirit because: (no reason given)

Well done on the link, I was not aware of the hoax, but I thank you for clearing that up.

Thank you all for for your videos, there are definitely some interesting ones I have never seen before. I have no problem with people debating the videos, in fact I would encourage it, however, could we please try to refrain from insulting other people? If you have proof of a hoax for a video someone posts, provide a link and hold off on the insults. Insults don't really add much to the discussion but rather they derail the discussions.

Keep the videos coming.

Phoenix Lights

jhn7537



Also, STS-114 UFO incident is a crazy clip in itself... NASA video shows white orb @ 2:18 mark come into frame from the right stop and then reverse. What in space can do that? Most things in space travel in straight lines and don't stop.

Now I do remember reading a discussion about this one. May of been on here somewhere. I really can't remember where, but it was about the 'stop and reverse' motion. In the end it was decided that the object never stopped at all, but was actually still moving and did like a U turn movement, but because of the angle of the camera, and the way it was moving away and round, it just looked like it stopped. But it didn't, it was just slowly curving away from the camera and then carried on. Does that make sense?

Not saying it's a hoax, just remember reading about this particular video.

reply to post by PhotonEffect

Do you really think a completely out of focus video is the "most convincing" UFO video?

When the video is out of focus on a distant light, you don't see the shape of the object, you tend to see the shape of the camera's aperture. Since different cameras have different aperture shapes, they will not all look the same filming the same object. Even the same camera can change the shape of the out of focus object as some apertures have variable shapes. There's a little of that going on in the video you posted. But here is one where you can see the UFO starts with an orb shape, then morphs into other shapes, like diamond for example, because that's the shape of the camera's aperture:

CAUTION: to all UFO videographers


That's the orb shape, but keep watching and you will see several other shapes.

So there's another out of focus orb, not quite at night but it's at dusk. The problem is, if it's out of focus, you can't tell what it is. In this video, he eventually manages to get it in focus. In your video, the photographer doesn't even seem to be trying to get it in focus.

HomerinNC
Phoenix Lights

You haven't seen this video yet?

New evidence re, Phoenix Lights flares or what?

They are flares. The pilot from the group who dropped the flares in a training exercise is interviewed, and video evidence confirms they disappeared behind the mountain range.

bottleslingguy
reply to post by roncoallstar

 

mine are the most convincing to me

and here's a tutorial on concave objects

In the posting box it looks like you have used the same link twice, and it also looks like a redirected video, if that's any help. Just use the direct link to youtube for now.

reply to post by JimOberg


absolutely will and thx for the link...ive always loved this video and am open to new ideas on it no matter what the outcome...thx

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Your first video link doesn't work.

But yes, I'm fully aware that camera aperture influences out of focus objects. There doesn't seem to be much light emanating from the object in the moon flyby. I guess the plane strobes would be focused out?

cosmicexplorer
reply to post by JimOberg

 

absolutely will and thx for the link...ive always loved this video and am open to new ideas on it no matter what the outcome...thx

Go for it, and I'd love feedback on making such explanations clearer, since the space environment really is unusual and normal ground perceptual processes can lead an observer astray. We're not in Kansas anymore.

This is definitely a boisterous conversation.

But there's a bigger question -- how could a newbie enthusiast entering this arena, be able, using existing internet search engines, to find conflicting and 'debunking' versions of such famous videos and cases? Is there any way to reliably 'automate' the hands-on process that these contributions represent?