Apparent massive triangular object captured over Melbourne - night vision video

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

I agree about the clutter, but it's been really interesting watching the growth of cube sats. A single rocket launch can have 20 satellites on board, as opposed to one really big satellite. They can even be added to a larger satellite launch as secondary cargo. The 2015 launch cost, including building the sat is under $200,000 to launch into LEO.

a reply to: draknoir2

But Drak, that doesn't explain why it is always that way, does it?

I support my alien huntin' season theory.

I know, I know. Jokes, frogs, dissection, yada yada.

@Zaphod: I wonder how far we are away from reaching the critical point of at least one satellite always being within view of any place on Earth where the sky is visible. I wonder if we're already there...

I mentioned it a couple of times but they are enjoying the nonsense. The triangle is overlaid on a picture!!!!

We're out in the hot tub at least 4 nights a week and don't go out till dark. I'm east of Chicago so there's lots of air traffic. Haven't seen anything really strange in years.



a reply to: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: Zaphod58

And do you know why one side of those V formations is always shorter than the other?

Missing goose formation?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yup, so they flew it over Melbourne!

Makes sense.

a reply to: Chadwickus

They flew two black projects over major cities in broad daylight. They flew another that has a very obvious light signature across Alabama down through Florida and out to the test range.

It wouldn't be anywhere near the first time.

a reply to: Zaphod58

zaphs correct. i can think of 3- 6 classified aircraft that will probably never ever be declassified that they have flown over los angeles in the last few years. hell last year alone i saw three different aircraft of such status. all due to their obvious light signatures.

like zaph says. look up more often. you never know what you'll be able to see.

I really hate that there are things that will never be declassified. At least the basics or existence of. (I can understand not giving, say, the Manhattan Project's specifics out to North Korea)
Too much shady stuff gets hidden up. Stuff the Government really has no business dealing with.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I guess in the US, there's no avoiding flying over cities. I imagine it is pretty avoidable in Australia though..


Anyway, what was filmed in the OP is clearly not an aircraft.

To me the vast number of witnesses to these triangle craft leads me to believe that this video might be the real deal. I do see some slight star twinkle during its apperance. I could be wrong of course , however ......I ask that you read this.
theobjectreport.blogspot.com...

It's refreshing to see a craft from one of the more advanced species passing through. The typical solid saucers and cigars give man the impression that he's almost as advanced as the aliens. But the craft shown in the OP's video belongs to a species that could probably wipe out a continent if it wanted to, and then vanish into another dimension.

a reply to: carewemust

That would be cool.

Not sure what you mean by vanishing into another dimension though. Which one? Length, width, or depth? X, Y, or Z?
Cuz, that's what dimensions are.

Or are you talking about something like other universes? Cuz that would be really cool.

Phage, got any comments on the star twinkles?

Also, isn't time considered a dimension? I believe you model with it in some physics graphs.

Likely black government tech. Supposedly triangular/aerodynamic designs are exclusive to humankind.

a reply to: Gh0stwalker

That makes no sense. At all. It might be government tech, but why would aerodynamic designs be exclusive to humans?

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn
1) No.

2) Depends upon your point of view I suppose. Time is an aspect of spacetime but it is not actually a dimension.

Space has dimensions; three of them. Time is something else.

In any case, the pop idea of "another dimension" is sort of silly. Even if time actually is a forth dimension in the same regard the other three are; "Pardon me, I'm going to hop into the second dimension. See ya!" Going into "another dimension" means absolutely nothing.

New theory, lens flare.

Caused by what I don't know.

See the lens flare from this video by same user at 1:27 - www.youtube.com...

Somewhat familiar shape forms? Now, consider what we do not see - in this video or in ANY of his other videos. We NEVER see what's at ground level. We have absolutely no idea what kind of other lights might be shining in the video creator's direction.

This image sums that up:



After multiple viewing and watching his other shock-jock titled videos, I suppose this one is actually in realtime. His equipment is apparently custom made and I think that shows because of artifacts and glitches in the video, typically because the CCD in the equipment isn't great?

There are other quirks in there though and it'd be nice to see the original, but judging by the other videos, all the titles, editing etc - this UFO Lou person doesn't "do" original raw footage.

I think lens flare is a strong angle that is being ignored here.

I do have to ask, why Eila...not typing that tonguetwister out sorry...but why are you so keen to defend someone you've never met, know nothing about and who has only presented you with more questions and no answers? In fact, why does anyone here jump straight to their defense? Does anyone know UFO Lou and their intentions at all? By all means, if you can get that person to swing by and weigh in then it'd be most welcome.

Presumably any defense is borne through how such pictures/video relate to things we have seen. Some replies suggest people can relate this blurry image to something they've encountered. But where in history have other people noticed a static triangle superstructure craft materialize above them and then de-materialize (without any movement). Such a thing doesn't really exist in UFO lore. There are common elements but this doesn't seem to feature them. Even those here backing up this video with their own encounters haven't mentioned any kind of static display. Maybe I've overlooked some cases but from general brain racking - nothing here adds up. And if there's one thing I've learned, it's that things (to do with UFO's) add up when they're true and pretty simply so that everyone can see (if you're willing to look).

It's not a matter of "being nice to other human beings" or whatnot. It's not taking at face value all the shock-jock click-me titles, "MASSIVE SUPERSTRUCTURE" and "IS THIS AN INVASION" and his top ranking video "AIRCRAFT CARRIER SIZE". Are we not allowed to make our own judgements? Do such extravagant titles really need to be used? When people do this in real life, embellish facts/assumptions, make things seem like more than they are - we call them liars. Why then when it comes to UFO's do we not? Why so quick to side with people & motives we know nothing about?

Ultimately, first hand experiences are vital. If an ATS member brings their UFO video here then they are worth defending. But random youtubers who have nothing to do with ATS? Nah... do explain to me why we should? I don't see why we should.

And disclaimer: I am a believer and a witness to the phenomena or something related to it. I'm seeking in videos what I feel is the real deal, and I'm sure the next person is too but they're looking for something different. That's fine. But please don't assume everyone just says "hoax" or "there's a mundane explanation" for thrills... some things actually genuinely feel like they've been cooked up for youtube hits and this video is one of them. I'll accept a discrepancy or two, maybe even 3. But 4, 5, 6 discrepancies? Now you're asking a lot of us!

The creator doesn't even CONSIDER lens flare, nope, just straight with MEGA STRUCTURE and other UFO hit counter key words.

There's also this in the video description:

"Simply appears, lasts a few minutes, then vanishes."

If I'm not mistaken, the object appeared for about 5 seconds and then faded away. 5 seconds is not minutes. I said it before I'll say it again - obfuscation! Possibly "innocent" but perhaps even premeditated obfuscation for youtube hits... I mean that's generally what all these UFO channels on youtube are aren't they? It's not like they're a treasure trove of definitive answers or anything...

More like " crikey mate thats a big one" i can just imagine Steve Irwin describing a ufo.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

I'm sorry, I have to disagree that its not motionless, the user towards the ends shows the source footage and as with all night vision camera's its full of twinkling stars, in ZERO way does that match with the object footage, the object footage has ZERO twinkling and does not move, its a STILL frame and what is shown isn't real, he or she used a still frame to add the ufo.

Or to put it another way, why wasn't the end footage which is the same screen size shown with the object, the one where its naturally twinkling from the light capturing qualities of a night vision camera.

Sorry but that is an object simply added to the footage and not even done with any skill.

In another one of his videos HERE, he films a plane with navigation lights flashing with the same shape and lights on each corner. I turned the object a bit in the pic below to show it lined up. He could have taken a still from his older video and placed it into this scene and faded it in and out. It's another possibility and could be the source for the object?