The most convincing UFO video footage we have.

reply to post by jhn7537

Instead of reading and believing a report from Santiago Yturria (Maussan's buddy) try reading the NARCAP study. The radar on the aircraft was not capable of determining the altitude of the returns. It is, in fact, meant to detect surface targets.

ArMaP
My favourite video is from STS-80, but not the most popular one, it's this one.

Whatever that thing was, it looks like it comes over the clouds and stays above them, outside the atmosphere.

As it's in space I suppose it's flying, and I cannot identify it, so that's an UFO to me.

Come on, you know better. It doesn't earn the 'UFO' label until, as Hynek himself defined it, it's been seriously investigated and the eyewitnesses have been interviewed. Two STS-80 crewmen are on record believing the televised dots look and act just like ordinary stuff they see out spaceship windows from time to time -- how are we supposed to disregard that? Visual phenomena out there ARE weird -- unearthly is a well deserved term -- and I've tried to describe these non-common-sense aspects in my '99 FAQs' on my home page, they do need careful reading. I'm happy to follow-up with resulting issues, but please start at the introductory material.

reply to post by 727Sky


The Turkey-Ufo, I think it is one of the best, cos u can see some guys in there.
Try this Link: Turkey UFO Incident

Phage
reply to post by jhn7537

 

Instead of reading and believing a report from Santiago Yturria (Maussan's buddy) try reading the NARCAP study. The radar on the aircraft was not capable of determining the altitude of the returns. It is, in fact, meant to detect surface targets.

Would you care to post the study you speak of? I would like to read it...

reply to post by jhn7537

See this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by jhn7537


reply to post by Phage


Phage beat me to it, but I concur with his implication that Maussan and Yturria have not proven to be reliable sources. I found this thread where Yturria's credibility is further brought into question where he appears to be making stuff up about NARCAP in relation to this case, which is refuted by NARCAP, and NARCAP said you can contact them at their website contact information to confirm it's really them:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

1deepstar
...You claim to be a good friend of mine but you don't seem to know a thing about me or NARCAP or our involvement in this case. Further, your defamation of Captain Franz because of his rigorous engagement of UAP cases is inappropriate considering that he has seen UAP himself and is only seeking to put the false cases to rest so that the bonafide ones will recieve the attention they deserve.

So you claim to be a friend of mine and you present clearly false information, call me a liar, defame Dr. Haines, Capt Framz. NARCAP and myself and worse, at the same time... Let me invite you to contact me through the NARCAP website and we can continue this discussion. I will be happy to review the relevent aspects of our chat with the list.... you won't mind, since we are good friends and all....

That's just the tip of the iceberg regarding the lack of reliability of Yturria as a source, but it's directly relevant to this case.

jhn7537
Can the debunkers show proof that where the camera is pointing is right at the oil rig?

Yes:




Those images are identical except for one aspect: the reflections on the water are slightly different. The image on the left shows the reflections elongated due to the camera being low to the surface. The image on the right shows the reflections to be very short due to the camera being much higher than the surface, like the sky on an aircraft.

And there's your proof. Both images show reflections, proving both images were taken of the same thing on the water. Not flying through clouds in the sky.

Anyone can make any wild claim they want, and give any description they want, but the evidence proves otherwise.

Take 9/11 for instance, some people said they saw a black plane. Some people said they saw a gray plane. Some people said they saw a small commuter plane at both the Pentagon and NYC. All of the evidence proves them to be inaccurate. It doesn't matter what anyone says, the evidence says otherwise.

Same thing with this "UFO" story. It doesn't matter what they think they saw, or what they claim they saw. The evidence proves otherwise.


Reflections prove what they videoed was on the water. There is no debating it. There is no doubting it. It's 100% proof-positive that they videoed the oil rigs regardless of any other claims made.



Having said that, everyone is free to embrace and believe in whatever they choose. If someone wants to believe all of the baseless, wild claims instead of the actual facts and evidence, that's their choice. It still doesn't make the actual facts and evidence any less valid.

Aluxe
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Some people claimed the Mexican airforce video was just oil riggs however if you look at the below video at around minute 3:00 it shows tone of the UFOs turn direction and move at an incredible speed all of a sudden. That in itself can not be an oil rigg.

Also the pilots when they were interviewed said they were at some point sorounded by the ufos and also recorded the sudden incredible change of speed of the ufos. So the oil riggs explanation does not really work well for all these reasons. Pay close attention around minute 3:00, the light changes direction very fast a few times.

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

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

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

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

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

To me at the 3 minute mark it just shows the camera panning left. I also read, and it makes sense to me, that the illusion of movement was also caused by the way the clouds were moving. This has happened to me star gazing, I spot what looks like a moving light, but in fact it only appears as such.

I wouldn't mind getting ATS members input on the 2006 O'Hare UFO incident... Lots of aviation workers witnessed this incident, and I'd believe them to be credible.

At approximately 16:15 CST on Tuesday November 7, 2006, federal authorities at Chicago O'Hare International Airport received a report that a group of twelve airport employees were witnessing a metallic, saucer-shaped craft hovering over Gate C-17.
The object was first spotted by a ramp employee who was pushing back United Airlines Flight 446, which was departing Chicago for Charlotte, North Carolina. The employee apprised Flight 446's crew of the object above their aircraft. It is believed that both the pilot and co-pilot also witnessed the object.
Several independent witnesses outside of the airport also saw the object. One described a "blatant" disc shaped craft hovering over the airport which was "obviously not clouds." According to this witness, nearby observers gasped as the object shot through the clouds at high velocity, leaving a clear blue hole in the cloud layer. The hole reportedly seemed to close itself shortly afterward.
According to the Chicago Tribune's Jon Hilkevitch, "The disc was visible for approximately two minutes and was seen by close to a dozen United Airlines employees, ranging from pilots to supervisors, who heard chatter on the radio and raced out to view it."So far, no conclusive photographic evidence of the UFO has surfaced, although it was reported to Hilkevitch that one of the United Airlines pilots was in possession of a digital camera at the time of the sighting and may have photographed the event

Below is a YT clip O'Hare UFO Leaked News Footage seconds before Broadcast

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by jhn7537


Have you ever been to an airport, and seen how many people have cell phones, and cameras? What's amazing to me is that I've never seen a picture of the O'Hare UFO, though I've read stories implying there are some. I thought if there were pictures, they would have leaked out by now. So, it's an interesting case, that seems like it SHOULD have photographic evidence, but where is it?

NARCAP wrote a very long report about that case. No doubt people saw something interesting, but it's another case lacking in photographic evidence, at least public evidence. See technical report #10:

narcap.org...

In your video there's a mention of a picture taken of it. Where is it?

The photo you posted appears to not be the case discussed in the video, which was seen over gate C17 and that isn't over a gate.

JimOberg
Two STS-80 crewmen are on record believing the televised dots look and act just like ordinary stuff they see out spaceship windows from time to time -- how are we supposed to disregard that?

Were they talking about that specific dot? That's the only one I am interested in.

I'm happy to follow-up with resulting issues, but please start at the introductory material.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that.

reply to post by jhn7537


That image of the "UFO" at O'Hare is also a known fake. The original image that the fake was made from, and the fake image are both posted here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...




This thread truly is becoming "how many fakes and hoaxes can we put into one thread".

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Yea, I've always found this incident to be rather interesting, one being that it comes from my neck of the woods (Chicago) and two, the eye witnesses are airport workers, baggage handlers, pilots, etc. These people have seen thousands upon thousands of planes and they understand how O'Hare operates as an airport. The picture I posted was one I've found in researching the incident, it's one that's not necessarily proof, but it also hasn't been debunked yet, so I find it interesting too.

_BoneZ_
reply to post by jhn7537

 

That image of the "UFO" at O'Hare is also a known fake. The original image that the fake was made from, and the fake image are both posted here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



This thread truly is becoming "how many fakes and hoaxes can we put into one thread".

Ok, the picture is fake. How about the story? I see that you want to debunk everything discussed on here, so please, have at the 2006 O'Hare UFO incident.

And since you're participating in this thread, why don't you post a UFO story/video that you believe in. Or do you not believe in any UFO stories?

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I studied 3d animation and cgi at Full Sail and I'm here to tell you if you think this is "terrible" cgi you have no clue as to the process or results of good or bad cgi.

jhn7537
Ok, the picture is fake. How about the story? I see that you want to debunk everything discussed on here, so please, have at the 2006 O'Hare UFO incident.

I don't have an issue with the O'Hare story. It seems like it was documented by several credible people. I'm only debunking the known hoaxes and fakes. Nothing more.

jhn7537
And since you're participating in this thread, why don't you post a UFO story/video that you believe in. Or do you not believe in any UFO stories?

I did post my contribution to this thread on the very first page. You might want to go back and check it out.

And as far as not believing in UFO stories, you could take a look at the last link in my signature as well.

ArMaP

JimOberg

I'm happy to follow-up with resulting issues, but please start at the introductory material.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that.

Here's the link -- www.jamesoberg.com...

Stackpot
I studied 3d animation and cgi at Full Sail and I'm here to tell you if you think this is "terrible" cgi you have no clue as to the process or results of good or bad cgi.

The video in the OP is terrible for those of us who can immediately recognize CGI. I've seen some good CGI posted right in this very thread. The video in the OP is not one of them.

And since you don't know me, it's pointless trying to guess what I know and don't know.

JimOberg
Two STS-80 crewmen are on record believing the televised dots look and act just like ordinary stuff they see out spaceship windows from time to time -- how are we supposed to disregard that?

Jim, I think there is a misunderstanding here. ARMAP is talking about one dot, I think. At least it's only one dot I'm curious about in the video he posted, and, it's only one dot the astronaut operating the camera pans to follow, then zooms in on as it goes out of range. It seems anything but ordinary to me and you know I'm very skeptical, but more importantly to your point, I infer the astronaut also thought it was not ordinary the way they paid so much attention to that one dot by tracking it then zooming in on it with the camera.

There is probably some kind of prosaic explanation, however I have no idea what it might be.

Arbitrageur

JimOberg
Two STS-80 crewmen are on record believing the televised dots look and act just like ordinary stuff they see out spaceship windows from time to time -- how are we supposed to disregard that?

Jim, I think there is a misunderstanding here. ARMAP is talking about one dot, I think. At least it's only one dot I'm curious about in the video he posted, and, it's only one dot the astronaut operating the camera pans to follow, then zooms in on as it goes out of range. It seems anything but ordinary to me and you know I'm very skeptical, but more importantly to your point, I infer the astronaut also thought it was not ordinary the way they paid so much attention to that one dot by tracking it then zooming in on it with the camera.

There is probably some kind of prosaic explanation, however I have no idea what it might be.

edit on 28-12-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

Yeah, I just watched it. Even the original youtube poster declined to provide date/time so we can't determine vehicle orientation or illumination conditions, or who was on duty that period. And usually Mission Control ran the external camera controls.

The sudden appearance of dots is undeniably bizarre, except not under space conditions. It often happens when nearby stuff drifts out of the spaceship's shadow, as explained in the 99 FAQs, Here's another attempt: