New UFO Video

[arcticpenguin]

Bump - for Pscott

 

[Guest]

It wa s abird or insect. 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?

 

[Guest]

STS 48 video

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?

 

[Guest]

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 on your part.

 

[Guest]

---------------------------
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
P.S. Do not be so afraid of something actually existing which you cannot explain!

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

----------------------------
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 Either way. The insect theory lovers would battle this ad nauseum as it is LIKELY impossible to DISprove this concept. Another stalemate it appears.

 

[Guest]

--------------------------------
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?

 

[Guest]

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]

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]

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.