New UFO Video

[Kess]

On the UK news (Channel 5) they just showed a new film clip showing a quite convincing UFO.

I think they said it was shot by a TV cameraman. He was filming an airliner passing overhead when a dark pencil-shaped thing shot across the sky at phenomenal speed. The odd thing is that the object passed behind a cloud, which would seem to rule out camera artifacts or an insect flitting past the lens.

Anyone else see this? Any rational suggestions?

[Marc]

haven't seen it, but I do have a question.

The clouds the object goes 'behind', are they white, brightly lit clouds? If so that opens the possiblity of light bleeding around the edges of the object. What happens is an object in front of a brightly lit background, the light can obscure the edges of the object. In the case of small or thin object they can be blured out entirely by the light.

This was seen in the Moon Hoax conspiracy theories. The brightly lit white space suits would cause the black crosses on the camera lense to appear to go behind the astronaut, giving fuel to conspiracy nuts.

[Kess]

Originally posted by Marc
The clouds the object goes 'behind', are they white, brightly lit clouds? If so that opens the possiblity of light bleeding around the edges of the object.I know what you mean, and yes the clouds were white. The "object" also only clipped the edge of a cloud, so only a bit of it was actually obscured which supports your theory (in fact I think it was only "behind" the cloud in one frame - they showed it in slow motion and it moving so fast (apparently) that it was only in the picture for 6 or so frames).

I've seen it on two separate news programmes now, so I guess it's doing the rounds.

[arcticpenguin]

Is this TV camerman claiming to have seen something himself, or did he just find it later on examining the footage?

[Kess]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Is this TV camerman claiming to have seen something himself, or did he just find it later on examining the footage? It wasn't noticed until the footage was examined later.

I've been looking for a link, but so far all I've got is http://7am.com/cgi-bin/twires.cgi?1000_2002102901.htm (no pictures I'm afraid).

[The Bad Astronomer]

It wa s abird or insect (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=2527&forum=1&27). This is another case of the so-called "Roswell Rods", which are birds or insects which look weird due to the video frame rate in the footage.

[Kess]

Originally posted by The Bad Astronomer
It wa s abird or insect (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=2527&forum=1&27). This is another case of the so-called "Roswell Rods", which are birds or insects which look weird due to the video frame rate in the footage. I think you're probably right - it's a shame that none of the "experts" interviewed by the news seemed aware of this phenomenon/explanation.

I'd like to see the frame where it appears to go behind the cloud again though...

[thatguywhojuggles]

It cracks me up when people use the term "UFO" When I was young, it was explained to me that "UFO" meant Unidentified Flying Object. It doesn't mean, green little men in flying saucers. Unless of course, someone changed the meaning of it, and didn't tell me. It just means an object flew, and the witnesses of the event were unable to identify what the object is.

UFOs happen all the time.

Edited to add:

When people ask me if I believe in UFOs I say "Yes! I do!"

[chessmanskeptic]

Originally posted by Kess
On the UK news (Channel 5) they just showed a new film clip showing a quite convincing UFO.

I think they said it was shot by a TV cameraman. He was filming an airliner passing overhead when a dark pencil-shaped thing shot across the sky at phenomenal speed. The odd thing is that the object passed behind a cloud, which would seem to rule out camera artifacts or an insect flitting past the lens.

Anyone else see this? Any rational suggestions?

Sounds like one of those so called "ROD" UFO's. The current theory on those is they might be some kind of cephalopod that can move through the air at phenomonal speed. This has already been discussed in another thread.

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
Sounds like one of those so called "ROD" UFO's. The current theory on those is they might be some kind of cephalopod that can move through the air at phenomonal speed.You mean "the current woo-woo theory."

[chessmanskeptic]

Originally posted by RSLancastr
You mean "the current woo-woo theory."

I agree that it is a woo woo theory.

[Charlie in Dayton]

Originally posted by The Bad Astronomer
It wa s abird or insect (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=2527&forum=1&27). This is another case of the so-called "Roswell Rods", which are birds or insects which look weird due to the video frame rate in the footage.

...which is of course the apparent source of the 'paranormal event' in one Carlos Swett's tape of Sept 11...but of course, he rejects that theory quite vehemently.

[chessmanskeptic]

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton


...which is of course the apparent source of the 'paranormal event' in one Carlos Swett's tape of Sept 11...but of course, he rejects that theory quite vehemently.

Lets not bring the idiot Carlos into this. I for one wish he would just go away.

[Purple Tentacle]

i hope the video gets played here in australia, i like UFO videos.

p.s. i have retired from the "carlos swett affair" for ever, and my headaches have stopped, soon i will move onto solid food again.

[Brown]

It's a bird... it's a plane...

Well, it could be Superman. Has anybody considered that??

It's probably a bird. But then the whole story would be, well, dull, wouldn't it? "Oh, look, I took video of.... a blurry bird."

[chessmanskeptic]

Originally posted by Purple Tentacle
i hope the video gets played here in australia, i like UFO videos.

p.s. i have retired from the "carlos swett affair" for ever, and my headaches have stopped, soon i will move onto solid food again.

Funniest post today :D. I say we vote Carlos off the island once and for all.

[Rocky]

I have a friend that was a part-time camera man who shot a clip of "somthing" going past the camera and it look like it goes behind a hill about half a mile away. It's only in 6-8 frames (12-15 fields) if I remember corectly. It is quite odd looking and with the movment of the camera it looks sure looks like it travels really fast but..... When we removed the camera shake with a computer it turns out that it looks more like a big bug. I have the images some where if anyone wants to see them.

[Wolverine]

Linda Moulton Howe (http://www.earthfiles.com/headlines.cfm?category=Headline+News) is "discussing" this right now on Art Bell's show.

I'm laughing my ass off. :D :D :D

[thatguywhojuggles]

I wish they would invent a camera that had infinite focal range with an incredibly fast shutter speed. Many of our problems would be solved.

[davidhorman]

I wish they would invent a camera that had infinite focal range with an incredibly fast shutter speed. Many of our problems would be solved.

I vaguely remember some experiments done about 10 years back with some kind of grating - you place it in front of the lens, take your picture, and because of the grating a computer is then able to extract a near-infinite depth perfectly focused image.

Only saw it working in black and white but it looked interesting.

David

[De_Bunk]

I always wonder why any UFO is never filmed right above the person at a low altitude and within the cameras focus...

1) Why are UFO's always seen in the distance......

2) Why isnt any UFO able to fly at low altitudes...

3) Why hasnt any UFO ever been seen within the clear focal range of a Video camera...

4) Why do all the UFO's that fly at night, comply with F.A.A law and appear completely lit up...Why not totally blacked out, flying low....

5) Why do people think that UFO's, from an advanced species, could be picked up by Earths radar and satellites...Humans have "Stealth" technology....Why havent the visitors from another part of the universe...

6) Why do UFO's always pick remote..barely inhabited...miles from anywhere places...to land or crash...

7) Why has every UFO that has visited Earth always seemed to be "Non Hostile"...Surely one of the species would be a race of war mongering, all conquering bastards...

8) Why has no other galactic species ever built or left alien artifacts on the Moon or Mars or Earth...and if not...why not ??

9) Why does every species or race of aliens, only ever seem to appear and communicate to "Mr / Mrs Average"....

All that vast intellect thats needed to travel billions of miles across the galaxy and instead of talking to world leaders and scientists...they choose a McDonalds worker or farmer to discuss the meaning of life and the Universe...

10) Why does mankind believe it could actually defend itself against a vastly superior race of beings...

Just a thought..

Anyone got anymore...

De_Bunk

[Purple Tentacle]

yeah i have something to say, why do aliens have such big heads a head that size would be great for zero gravity but on earth they are gunna look like this :

[Marc]

In talking about one UFO, just a bunch of lights in the sky really, I put forward the possibility that they were lit balloons or flares because I heard that they did not appear on radar. Not sure if balloons are invisible to radar.

A friend said he would think aliens with the technology to reach here would have the ability to defeat our radar.


Sure, they have the tech to hide from radar to remain unnoticed, but then forget and leave their headlights on!

[De_Bunk]

Balloons are visible to radar..

As pointed out in the song "99 Red Balloons" by Nena...

[Lothian]

Originally posted by De_Bunk
Balloons are visible to radar..

As pointed out in the song "99 Red Balloons" by Nena...

Note to self.

When things get so bad that I study the meaning of Nena song lyrics it's time to stop drinking.

[malaka]

Video (http://www.local6.com/orlpn/news/stories/news-174511920021029-071018.html)

[Lothian]

Nena
http://www.vacha-live.de/bilder/nena/nena_tn.jpg

[Dragon]

Originally posted by malaka

Video (http://www.local6.com/orlpn/news/stories/news-174511920021029-071018.html)

My suggestion -
It an insect.
The long object is the body and the two pairs of bright protuberances are the wings catching the light as they beat twice during the frame.

[King of the Americas]

And answer to ALL of your points lies in the motive behind each of these entites' visits.

Whether to take a simple visual study of, to interact with, or to seek tissue sample of us, ALL require very different vehicles.

Take Our Scientists for example, on their outings into the wilderness to study 'primative species'. Some of our efforts lie in simply recording their actions, some are designed to actually interact with them even teaching them a form of interspecies-language, and yet some of our efforts are just to 'tag & track' different animals as they go about life in their environment.

When it is that I look with Scientific Eyes, I see much of the same inconsistancy in their behavior and shape, as I do our own form.;)

[Brown]

Originally posted by Dragon
My suggestion -
It an insect. It looks like an insect to me, too, but it could be a bird. It's not very large.

[CurtC]

No, it's an insect. It looks exactly like the ones at roswellrods.com. Those little white dots on the sides are the places where the wings were at the right angle to reflect sunlight towards the camera. I can't believe that a news reporter was taken in by this.

[HotSoup]

Originally posted by CurtC
No, it's an insect. It looks exactly like the ones at roswellrods.com. Those little white dots on the sides are the places where the wings were at the right angle to reflect sunlight towards the camera. I can't believe that a news reporter was taken in by this.

Because news reporters are such paragons of intellect right? I stoped being suprised a while ago.
Through out my childhood I watched Sixty Minutes with dedication. I would get upset when the stupid football game delayed my favorite show. Then they ran a story about Sudden Acceleration in Audis. With no solid investigation they blamed the car makers. They had a few explanations of how it could be the machine. The NTSD did a complete study and found it was people steping on the wrong pedal. This was the easiest most straight forward solution, operator error. Which is what I had guessed from the begining. But 60 minutes never to my knowledge updated the story. And so my opinion of newsies and reporters took a sharp turn downwards.

[Ed]

Originally posted by De_Bunk
Just a thought..


De_Bunk


A couple.

Why no evidence ? None

Why not one clear photo?

Why not one revelqation that no person on this planet?

Sniff test, once again

[Mr DNA]

I'm just as skeptical as the next guy, but if I were to believe in the little green men from outerspace, here's what I'd say (my devil's advocate repies are below, after each question):

Originally posted by De_Bunk
I always wonder why any UFO is never filmed right above the person at a low altitude and within the cameras focus...

1) Why are UFO's always seen in the distance......

'cuz they always fly at high altitudes.

2) Why isnt any UFO able to fly at low altitudes...

No need, they just beam down to Earth when they want to.

3) Why hasnt any UFO ever been seen within the clear focal range of a Video camera...

'cuz they're so far away and the camera operator is usually shooting something else.

4) Why do all the UFO's that fly at night, comply with F.A.A law and appear completely lit up...Why not totally blacked out, flying low....

Obviously the ones that aren't lit up can't be seen.

5) Why do people think that UFO's, from an advanced species, could be picked up by Earths radar and satellites...Humans have "Stealth" technology....Why havent the visitors from another part of the universe...

They don't think that. The lack of radar evidece is always cited as proof that the object is otherworldly.

6) Why do UFO's always pick remote..barely inhabited...miles from anywhere places...to land or crash...

The vast majorityof the Earth's surface is uninhabited. When crashing from such a high altitude they have plenty of time to steer away from population centers.

7) Why has every UFO that has visited Earth always seemed to be "Non Hostile"...Surely one of the species would be a race of war mongering, all conquering bastards...

Non-hostile races evaolve much more rapidly. Their non-agressiveness is what allows them to work together to make such huge advancements.

8) Why has no other galactic species ever built or left alien artifacts on the Moon or Mars or Earth...and if not...why not ??

They have. Ever seen the pyramids?

9) Why does every species or race of aliens, only ever seem to appear and communicate to "Mr / Mrs Average"....

All that vast intellect thats needed to travel billions of miles across the galaxy and instead of talking to world leaders and scientists...they choose a McDonalds worker or farmer to discuss the meaning of life and the Universe...

The vast majority of the population would qualify as average. Ever try to arrange a meeting with a world leader?

10) Why does mankind believe it could actually defend itself against a vastly superior race of beings...

We don't, and besides, they're non-hostile.


Just a thought..

Anyone got anymore...

De_Bunk

The video of a Swallow chasing a "rod" sealed it for me. It is an insect.

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic


Lets not bring the idiot Carlos into this. I for one wish he would just go away.

Chessandtherest:

You are calling me an idiot.
I remember to you that in my notarized application to JREF I explained the reasons why is not an insect or a bird, so that proves that I already knew about that optical illusion.

You are not decent enough to insult me in the "thread" about my case, you are hiding here insulting me without arguments.

You are a COWARD, you can not face me, you are also afraid of my proofs or facts.

POOR COWARD CHESSMANSKEPTIC, Another loser.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
You can now go to my thread and insult if you want, but you always be a COWARD.

[Purple Tentacle]

Originally posted by S&S


Chessandtherest:

You are calling me an idiot.
I remember to you that in my notarized application to JREF I explained the reasons why is not an insect or a bird, so that proves that I already knew about that optical illusion.

You are not decent enough to insult me in the "thread" about my case, you are hiding here insulting me without arguments.

You are a COWARD, you can not face me, you are also afraid of my proofs or facts.

POOR COWARD CHESSMANSKEPTIC, Another loser.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
You can now go to my thread and insult if you want, but you always be a COWARD.

S&S / Carlos ,
THAT was terrible, you should not be so insulting. your posts are consistantly counter-productive and rude, you are already seen as a Troll, if you want respect you must treat others with respect, and be prepared to take some flak from people who disagree with you. Aim-Up Carlos, Aim-Up or Shut up !

Originally posted by S&S


Chessandtherest:

You are calling me an idiot.
I remember to you that in my notarized application to JREF I explained the reasons why is not an insect or a bird, so that proves that I already knew about that optical illusion.

You are not decent enough to insult me in the "thread" about my case, you are hiding here insulting me without arguments.

You are a COWARD, you can not face me, you are also afraid of my proofs or facts.

POOR COWARD CHESSMANSKEPTIC, Another loser.

Thanks,
S&S

AGAIN CHESSMANSKEPTIC:

You need this twice: YOU ARE A COWARD.

At leat Purple Tentacle is decent enough to face his points or whatever in the thread of my case.

YOU can not , because you are COWARD.You are hiding here and insulted me with no reasons or arguments.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
You can now go to my thread and insult if you want, but you always be a COWARD.

And again: You are COWARD

[Foodbunny]

Originally posted by S&S


And again: You are COWARD

http://truemeaningoflife.com/foodbunny/caplock.jpg

Yes, insults have much more impact when in CAPITAL LETTERS.

Originally posted by Foodbunny


http://truemeaningoflife.com/foodbunny/caplock.jpg

Yes, insults have much more impact when in CAPITAL LETTERS.

Hi Foodbunny:

But you "look" so NICE and SWEET . Congratulations.

The capitals letters in your case is a "piropo". Is an spanish word, sorry I don't know the word in english. I hope it causes the same impact on you.

Thanks,

S&S

[arcticpenguin]

Bump - for Pscott

Originally posted by The Bad Astronomer
It wa s abird or insect (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=2527&forum=1&27). This is another case of the so-called "Roswell Rods", which are birds or insects which look weird due to the video frame rate in the footage.

You are a smart man. Do not tarnish that image with this comment! An Insect?:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Purple Tentacle
i hope the video gets played here in australia, i like UFO videos.

Have you seen the STS 48 video. No, I do not believe the "ice-particle solution" at all. What was the "beam" coming up from the Earth among other things?
I cannot locate a site for the actual video at this time. A discussion is here: www.mufor.org/sts48.htm

[arcticpenguin]

---------------------------
Pscot to the Bad Astronomer:
You are a smart man. Do not tarnish that image with this comment! An Insect?
---------------------------

I cannot sense how many levels of irony are in your response. Are you unwilling to accept the insect hypothesis and why?

- object was not seen at time video was shot, only noticed later in the footage.

- long poorly focused central streak in direction of motion, consistent with insect flying near lens.

- side marks consistent with flapping of insect wings catching sunlight.

No vapor trail, No radar signature, etc

Object passing "behind" cloud - I didn't do a frame-by-frame analysis, but someone else has postulated the brightness bleeding effect.


your comments?

Originally posted by De_Bunk
I always wonder why any UFO is never filmed right above the person at a low altitude and within the cameras focus...

1) Why are UFO's always seen in the distance......

2) Why isnt any UFO able to fly at low altitudes...

3) Why hasnt any UFO ever been seen within the clear focal range of a Video camera...

4) Why do all the UFO's that fly at night, comply with F.A.A law and appear completely lit up...Why not totally blacked out, flying low....

5) Why do people think that UFO's, from an advanced species, could be picked up by Earths radar and satellites...Humans have "Stealth" technology....Why havent the visitors from another part of the universe...

6) Why do UFO's always pick remote..barely inhabited...miles from anywhere places...to land or crash...

7) Why has every UFO that has visited Earth always seemed to be "Non Hostile"...Surely one of the species would be a race of war mongering, all conquering bastards...

8) Why has no other galactic species ever built or left alien artifacts on the Moon or Mars or Earth...and if not...why not ??

9) Why does every species or race of aliens, only ever seem to appear and communicate to "Mr / Mrs Average"....

All that vast intellect thats needed to travel billions of miles across the galaxy and instead of talking to world leaders and scientists...they choose a McDonalds worker or farmer to discuss the meaning of life and the Universe...

10) Why does mankind believe it could actually defend itself against a vastly superior race of beings...

Just a thought..

Anyone got anymore...

De_Bunk

You need to spend a whack of time at Billy Meiers site: www.billymeier.com/ of course most of your above questions will thus be answered by your doing this and undoubtedly filled with lots of unnecessary expletives:rolleyes: on your part.

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
---------------------------
Pscot to the Bad Astronomer:
You are a smart man. Do not tarnish that image with this comment! An Insect?
---------------------------

I cannot sense how many levels of irony are in your response. Are you unwilling to accept the insect hypothesis and why?

- object was not seen at time video was shot, only noticed later in the footage.

- long poorly focused central streak in direction of motion, consistent with insect flying near lens.

- side marks consistent with flapping of insect wings catching sunlight.

No vapor trail, No radar signature, etc

Object passing "behind" cloud - I didn't do a frame-by-frame analysis, but someone else has postulated the brightness bleeding effect.


your comments?

My comments would need to be generally reserved until people who can analyse/analyze such footage infinitely better than I could have re-analyzed this. I would say that I have NEVER seen an insect with NO legs and little tiny wings at the VERY front AND VERY back of its legless body. No 3 piece body to boot :eek:
P.S. Do not be so afraid of something actually existing which you cannot explain!

I saw the video in question earlier this week on the local news. Thanks to the discussion of "rods" by Randi and others on this site, I immediately recognized it for what it was. The little wings are a dead giveaway.

Originally posted by LukeT
I saw the video in question earlier this week on the local news. Thanks to the discussion of "rods" by Randi and others on this site, I immediately recognized it for what it was. The little wings are a dead giveaway.

Oh really. Can you address some of my "off the top of my head" concerns with this "obvious" insect? I think that this -- so called --skeptical method of thinking results in a conditioned response of a negative nature, rather than a response begun by an analytical method, a method which one should always use.

[arcticpenguin]

----------------------------
I would say that I have NEVER seen an insect with NO legs and little tiny wings at the VERY front AND VERY back of its legless body. No 3 piece body to boot P.S. Do not be so afraid of something actually existing which you cannot explain!
-----------------------------

My understanding of the 'insect' hypothesis is that the body is not that long, what you are seeing is a streak caused by the insect passing a fairly long camera exposure at a rapid angular velocity. Also, If the focus is set near infinity to catch an airliner in the sky and the insect is within a few feet of the lens, it will be well out of focus.

The streak hypothesis would be backed up the appearance that the wings are flapping through 2 cycles during the duration of the exposure.

The legs are very small, moving fast, and out of focus so would not show up well.

The wings showing up as bright spots is explained by their catching the sun at a certain angle during the stroke; i.e. they are caught in a 'freeze-frame' by bright lighting.

If you look into the "Roswell rods" stuff, you will find that if the wings are lit for most of the frame, they give the rod a helical appearance.

[arcticpenguin]

--------------------------------
I think that this -- so called --skeptical method of thinking results in a conditioned response of a negative nature, rather than a response begun by an analytical method, a method which one should always use.
--------------------------------

I think you confuse skepticism with credulity. Since many of us have seen this sort of phenomenon before, there is no need for us to start from scratch each time.

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
----------------------------
I would say that I have NEVER seen an insect with NO legs and little tiny wings at the VERY front AND VERY back of its legless body. No 3 piece body to boot P.S. Do not be so afraid of something actually existing which you cannot explain!
-----------------------------

My understanding of the 'insect' hypothesis is that the body is not that long, what you are seeing is a streak caused by the insect passing a fairly long camera exposure at a rapid angular velocity. Also, If the focus is set near infinity to catch an airliner in the sky and the insect is within a few feet of the lens, it will be well out of focus.

The streak hypothesis would be backed up the appearance that the wings are flapping through 2 cycles during the duration of the exposure.

The legs are very small, moving fast, and out of focus so would not show up well.

The wings showing up as bright spots is explained by their catching the sun at a certain angle during the stroke; i.e. they are caught in a 'freeze-frame' by bright lighting.

If you look into the "Roswell rods" stuff, you will find that if the wings are lit for most of the frame, they give the rod a helical appearance.

There is a lot of assuming and theory with this response. I have seen a lot of insects in pictures. If this is true than such occurances should be easily duplicated and shown. I do not dismiss the insect concept entirely, but it seems to me to be a stretch, something that it could ONLY be. SOooo if it isn't an insect, than it is of alien origin is it not :cool: Either way. The insect theory lovers would battle this ad nauseum as it is LIKELY impossible to DISprove this concept. Another stalemate it appears.

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
--------------------------------
I think that this -- so called --skeptical method of thinking results in a conditioned response of a negative nature, rather than a response begun by an analytical method, a method which one should always use.
--------------------------------

I think you confuse skepticism with credulity. Since many of us have seen this sort of phenomenon before, there is no need for us to start from scratch each time.

If it is such a common and regular "phenomenon" than why is it causing such a query amongst seasoned and expert analyzers including the FBI?

Originally posted by Pscott


Oh really. Can you address some of my "off the top of my head" concerns with this "obvious" insect? I think that this -- so called --skeptical method of thinking results in a conditioned response of a negative nature, rather than a response begun by an analytical method, a method which one should always use.

Which is more likely, Pscott? An alien craft from across the galaxy flying across the sky, or an insect too close to the lens?

If the phenomenon has been seen before, and demonstrated/recreated using a camera and insects too close to the lens, and it looks exactly the same as this new video, why in blazes should I think this is suddenly evidence of a UFO? If anyone is jumping to a wild conclusion, it is a viewer who assumes it is an alien spacecraft from across the galaxy.

Do I need to take a bite out of an apple to make sure it is an apple, and not a pink elephant disguised as an apple, every time I see one?

[arcticpenguin]

--------------------------
If it is such a common and regular "phenomenon" than why is it causing such a query amongst seasoned and expert analyzers including the FBI?
--------------------------

Because not enough of them read Randi's column. If you have some contacts in the FBI maybe you could save them a lot of effort by giving them the URL.

[arcticpenguin]

About the bright spots off to the sides, which the JREF consensus says is the insect wings catching the light, and which do not match the fin confugration of any known missile:

I postulate that the bright spots do not line up across the body because the wings beating up and down in unison on the two sides catch the sunlight at different times in their stroke cycle.

[panduh]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
About the bright spots off to the sides, which the JREF consensus says is the insect wings catching the light, and which do not match the fin confugration of any known missile:

I postulate that the bright spots do not line up across the body because the wings beating up and down in unison on the two sides catch the sunlight at different times in their stroke cycle.

There are also insects with two pairs of wings (like dragonflies) that alternate their wings up and down in a diagonal oppositional pattern. Their wings also swivel lengthwise when they beat.

[arcticpenguin]

------------------------
The insect theory lovers would battle this ad nauseum as it is LIKELY impossible to DISprove this concept.
------------------------

Feel free to disprove it, Pscott. Point out any feauture of the video footage that is not explained by what we've said here.

But most importantly, get a video camera yourself and do some field research. Keep in mind the points we've been making: lenghty exposure time (when they photograph those insects for the national Geographic they use high speed film and cameras), focus set out to infinity, insects flying near the lens, try a bunch of different angles relative to the sun.

And remember, the cameraman never saw anything himself until he examined the footage.

I've got an idea, if you've got the energy for it. Get two video cameras and set them up for stereo photography. Then go looking for insects. Shoot a lot of video until you see a "rod". then use the stereo set up to judge the distance, something you couldn't do with monoscopic video.

[Kess]

Originally posted by Pscott
If it is such a common and regular "phenomenon" than why is it causing such a query amongst seasoned and expert analyzers including the FBI?
Are the FBI really involved, or was this just an invention of the media (perhaps a journalist phoned a chum in the FBI about it who just shrugged and said "I dunno" - hence FBI "officially" baffled by UFO footage).

The only experts I saw interviewed on the news were the cameraman and, I think, a retired Air Force officer (or something like that). They both assumed the object really looked like the image in the pictures (i.e. made no allowance for exposure time effects/distortions). So much for "experts"...

Personally, I'm pretty convinced by the insect hypothesis. I would like to see the behind-the-cloud frame again though - are all the frames on display anywhere on the web?

[davidhorman]

Pscott mentioned Billy Meier - would this be the same Billy Meier who claimed to have been shown the future by aliens (and took photographs which later turned out to be photos of a 1930s San Francisco earthquake and stills from a Ray HarryHausen dinosaur film) and later had a UFO model found in his shed which looked exactly like the ones he'd taken?

All of that's from memory and can't be bothered to find any links, but someone else might know what I'm talking about.

Edited to add:

From http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/8148/scam.html

The Meier photograph of the beautiful Pleiadian alien, Semjase, turned out to be a photocopy of a model from a Sears Catalog. Another one of Meier's photographs, where he allegedly traveled into the future aboard a Pleiadian Beamship to photograph the aftermath of a 9.0 earthquake in San Francisco showing the toppled Trans-America building, turned out to be a realistic looking painting from a geology magazine article about earthquakes. On top of these damning examples, every single one of Billy Meier's photographs of Pleiadian ships have been shown to be of third, fourth and even fifth generation(photographs of photographs) This means the he likely airbrushed suspension wires and other signs of fraud. There is not one example of an original, first generation Billy Meier photograph. On top of that, it has been shown that the reflections on some of the Pleiadian ships are not consistent with the position of the sun, indicating possible superimposition techniques. To top it off, a reporter found a bunch of miniature models exactly matching many of the Pleiadian ships shown in his photos. His ex-wife has come out to denounce him as a fraud as well. The evidence is overwhelming that whole Billy Meier story is unquestionably, absolutely, completely and totally 100% BOGUS. Case Closed!

On the same page is a statement from Underground Video who exist to sell this kind of crap - even they don't buy it any more.

David

[arcticpenguin]

---------------------------
There is a lot of assuming and theory with this response.
---------------------------

OK, Pscott, enough theorizing. How about this:
If the mystery object in the Albany video is not an insect, I'll eat a bug!

--------------------------------
Another stalemate it appears.
--------------------------------

Questions raised by Pscott and not answered by the insect hypothesis: 0

Holes Pscott was able to poke in the insect hypothesis: 0

Alternate theories raised by Pscott and supported by the evidence: 0

Looks more like checkmate to me.

[arcticpenguin]

Randi newsletter discussion of "rods"

First discussion of Roswell rods:
http://www.randi.org/jr/052402.html

skeptic easily reproduces rods:
http://www.randi.org/jr/053102.html

Bruce Maccabee incorrect on camera exposure setting:
http://www.randi.org/jr/060702.html

[xouper]

Pardon while I indulge one of my Pet Peeves™:

The Meier photograph of the beautiful Pleiadian alien, ...The proper spelling is Pleiadean, not Pleiadian, since Pleiades is a Greek name, just as Hercules becomes Herculean, and Archimedes becomes Archimedean. Published authors who anglicise the spelling lose credibility points. Books like The Pleiadian Agenda (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1879181304/qid=1036366354/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-9103420-1923210) are automatically suspect because of the phony spelling. In my opinion.

[/rant]

[arcticpenguin]

Sorry if I'm beating this to death, but I want everything in one thread here in case the issue comes up again.

If you follow the object frame-by-frame across the field of view, you will notice that the position of hte 'fins' on the central streak changes. This is not consistent with a clear image of a missile or other craft. It is consistent with 1) motion blur of the central body and 2) the 'fins' being caused by sunlight reflecting off wings at one point during their stroke.

The streak impinges on two separate portions of clouds. It appears to pass behind the first, extremely bright part. Not so for the dimmer cloud. The bright part of the cloud is probably saturating the camera sensor (usually a CCD chip thsese days). If the 'object' is actually motion blur, then it is obstructing the cloud for only a portion of the exposure. Let's say 10% for a rough number. The cloud is probably bright enough that a 10% shorter exposure is still saturating. This is not the case for the dimmer cloud. And there is no disruption of the clouds to indicate that a real object passed between them.

[arcticpenguin]

Bumped to avoid pruning. :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Pyrrho]

With the powers of my mind, I have moved this thread. I also used my fingers, because I'm a slave to the western metaphysic.

[TruthSeeker]

here's another UFO video clip (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&threadid=9385)

along with a summary of the Coast to Coast show (aka: Art Bell show) about UFO "witnesses"

Hey, I see Art Bell is coming back on the weekends! woo-hoo :crazy:



correct link here (http://www.coasttocoastam.com/)


edited to add corrected link.

[Eos of the Eons]

Um, I clicked the new video thingy in your post truthseeker, and it opened this new reply box so I could tell you it only helps me post, not see a video.

If it is such a common and regular "phenomenon" than why is it causing such a query amongst seasoned and expert analyzers including the FBI?
:roll: FBI who? and what seasoned/expert anylyzers?? I remember the media reporting how scientists were 'baffled' by a blob washed ashore, but it only took one look at it by a marine biologist who could tell right away it was sperm whale remains. One look. Hardly what I'd called baffled.

I'm sure there's hardly any query.

Darn media goofs. Kinda mean - giving UFO buffs hope like that.

Who's art bell? I have an Art Bell in the family, but he lives in BC.

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Um, I clicked the new video thingy in your post truthseeker, and it opened this new reply box so I could tell you it only helps me post, not see a video.


Sorry about that. try this (http://www.coasttocoastam.com/)


Art Bell used to host the show Coast to Coast. He is a big believer in all things woo-woo. I think he is American.

[Eos of the Eons]

Now I can't find the video in question. There's a dumb one on a speck that looks suspended from a string or somethign.

My Art Bell owns and runs a tourist motel/ghost town and collects old train cars. He's not really the woo woo type, I'm glad to say it can't be him. He's too busy to go on about ufos.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Foodbunny




Yes, insults have much more impact when in CAPITAL LETTERS.

Not to mention EVERYTHING IN CAPS IS COMPLETELY TRUE SO ALL MY ARGMUENT IS JUSTIFYED!!!

That's the gospel according to Muscleman anyway.

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Now I can't find the video in question. There's a dumb one on a speck that looks suspended from a string or somethign.

My Art Bell owns and runs a tourist motel/ghost town and collects old train cars. He's not really the woo woo type, I'm glad to say it can't be him. He's too busy to go on about ufos.

Yes, yes...that's exactly the video. Are you saying the speck didn't change your life? Really?

[Rocky]

I had a room mate that shot skydiving video. One day he was filming people landing and caught a funny thing in the background of the video that is very obvious but no one saw it live, it was noticed on play back.

THe "object" seam to be going VERY fast, from out of the fram to over a hill in only about 1/4 second. His film was the most real UFO I have ever seen, until I digitized it and used a computer to take tha camera motion out. Now it just looks like bug flying past the camera. :D

Until the camera motion is taken out it is real good. I can try to mpg the file if anyone wants to see it.


PS you should see the scarry stuff he wouldn't sell to RealTV!

[Purple Tentacle]

who the hell dug this up !??! this thed is over a year old !