NEW UFO Photo: Red UFO in Aztec, NM, May 8th, 2018

originally posted by: Mt385
Hard to judge without a video and just a photo. It may or may not be a real UFO. a reply to: peacefulpete

I agree, although I think the most interesting part is that the photo shows that 3-minute timelapse, so it's showing that those two flashes happened fast, within those 3 min. (So it's more meaningful than a typical photo of one object.)

The two appearances of the object also suggest that it was a real object, not a trick of light or reflection or whatever.

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: gunshooter

originally posted by: tommyjo
a reply to: peacefulpete

It is just a commercial aircraft. It can be matched to a particular flight. The question is why are some people fooled by such things?

just like you've been fooled into thinking it's an airplane, right??

If you can't see that it is an aircraft then that is simply your mindset.

The question is why are some people fooled by aviation and especially aviation lights?

It not only matched the strobe reflection off the engine nacelles but also the large air ducts on the belly.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sadly the UFO Community is full of hoaxers and people who simply want to believe. For example this guy who lives about 30 miles east of me in the UK. All he does is film the military aircraft night flying and re-labels them as he sees fit. His subscribers lap it up.

Be astounded at the footage of the Antaran Batwings

The fact is that you're insisting that a single red light, is an airplane. No, airplanes don't look like a single floating red light. Their underside light looks similar, apparently, but the LACK of ALL other plane lights, suggests that it's really NOT a plane.

Really the only way to argue that the UFO is a plane-belly light, is that you'd have to argue why all other lights are missing, for its wings etc.

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: gunshooter

originally posted by: tommyjo
a reply to: peacefulpete

It is just a commercial aircraft. It can be matched to a particular flight. The question is why are some people fooled by such things?

just like you've been fooled into thinking it's an airplane, right??

If you can't see that it is an aircraft then that is simply your mindset.

The question is why are some people fooled by aviation and especially aviation lights?

It not only matched the strobe reflection off the engine nacelles but also the large air ducts on the belly.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sadly the UFO Community is full of hoaxers and people who simply want to believe. For example this guy who lives about 30 miles east of me in the UK. All he does is film the military aircraft night flying and re-labels them as he sees fit. His subscribers lap it up.

Be astounded at the footage of the Antaran Batwings

Also that video you posted is strange as hell lol. I wouldn't have thought those were airplanes. The shape seems wrong, the lights seem wrong, and at the end, one craft has a jetpack effect underneath it (shooting downwards, vertically).


You called these military craft? Do you think they are planes or what?

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: tommyjo
A Boeing 777 landing showing how the strobe reflects off the inner sides of the engine nacelles.

That's pretty damn close. Could be the lights were strobing at the usual rate, but it moved across the field of vision fast enough that it only registered twice during the three minutes.

Yes, EXCEPT we're missing all the other lights, that should be there, if it's a plane. Even your quoted photo shows this, with a blaring huge "headlight" at front, which is MUCH BRIGHTER than the center red light, plus two white lights on either side of the wings' base.

So that photo is more of an argument AGAINST it being a plane.

What other lights? The aircraft is up at cruising altitude and running with strobe and navigation lights. If you are referring to other picture and videos posted these will be in landng take off configuration.

You can see when the image levels are boosted that there are three thin lines of light.

The arrows point to the third light trail when the levels are boosted.

So just a coincidence that they match up with standard aircraft navigation lights? Red on the aircrafts port wing (left wing) and Green on the aircrafts starboard wing (right wing)

That is compelling actually.

Except still, planes have flashing lights, in addition to steady lights. If the lines are from steady lights, then why can't we see any residue from flashing lights?

Is it because we're seeing the absolute underside of the plane so all the flashing lights are covered up? Would that really work like that?

ALSO there's a problem with assuming those lines are from the plane's lights. (And by the way, I can't tell if those lines are color the way people are saying. I can't really see color in the lines.)

The problem with assuming the lines are from the plane lights, is that the photo ALSO has a single horizontal line. Think about that: What would produce a single horizontal line of streaking light? Maybe that was a satellite? What do you guys think?

Anyway, the main point is that assuming the 3 vertical lines are plane lights, will leave us obligated to also explain the single horizontal line, which really would not correspond with a plane...

So what would that horizontal line be? A satellite? What do you guys think?

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: tommyjo
A Boeing 777 landing showing how the strobe reflects off the inner sides of the engine nacelles.

That's pretty damn close. Could be the lights were strobing at the usual rate, but it moved across the field of vision fast enough that it only registered twice during the three minutes.

Yes, EXCEPT we're missing all the other lights, that should be there, if it's a plane. Even your quoted photo shows this, with a blaring huge "headlight" at front, which is MUCH BRIGHTER than the center red light, plus two white lights on either side of the wings' base.

So that photo is more of an argument AGAINST it being a plane.

What other lights? The aircraft is up at cruising altitude and running with strobe and navigation lights. If you are referring to other picture and videos posted these will be in landng take off configuration.

You can see when the image levels are boosted that there are three thin lines of light.

The arrows point to the third light trail when the levels are boosted.

So just a coincidence that they match up with standard aircraft navigation lights? Red on the aircrafts port wing (left wing) and Green on the aircrafts starboard wing (right wing)

That is compelling actually.

Except still, planes have flashing lights, in addition to steady lights. If the lines are from steady lights, then why can't we see any residue from flashing lights?

Is it because we're seeing the absolute underside of the plane so all the flashing lights are covered up? Would that really work like that?

Of course it is compelling because what has been imaged is simply a commercial airliner. Think about it? Strobe reflecting off the inner engine nacelles. Strobe also lighting up the two air ducts under the belly to the rear of the strobe and also the navigation lights showing the standard red and green on the wings.

See following. I've done my best to overlay a Boeing 777 to try and match up the navigation lights as best as possible now imagine that image moved up and aligned with the strobe?

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: gunshooter

originally posted by: tommyjo
a reply to: peacefulpete

It is just a commercial aircraft. It can be matched to a particular flight. The question is why are some people fooled by such things?

just like you've been fooled into thinking it's an airplane, right??

If you can't see that it is an aircraft then that is simply your mindset.

The question is why are some people fooled by aviation and especially aviation lights?

It not only matched the strobe reflection off the engine nacelles but also the large air ducts on the belly.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sadly the UFO Community is full of hoaxers and people who simply want to believe. For example this guy who lives about 30 miles east of me in the UK. All he does is film the military aircraft night flying and re-labels them as he sees fit. His subscribers lap it up.

Be astounded at the footage of the Antaran Batwings

Also that video you posted is strange as hell lol. I wouldn't have thought those were airplanes. The shape seems wrong, the lights seem wrong, and at the end, one craft has a jetpack effect underneath it (shooting downwards, vertically).


You called these military craft? Do you think they are planes or what?

Yes of course they are military aircraft. They are Royal Air Force Tornado GR4s based at RAF Marham, Norfolk, UK. What you are referring to as the "jetpack" effect is the afterburners (reheat). The guy lives under designated military airspace and repeatedly films the aircraft night flying from his house. The Tornado is also swing wing (variable geometry) and he also has filmed them in the past during wing sweep. He know exactly what he is filming but as he lives in a target rich environment for aviation lights he plays it up for his subscribers. He claims that he can summon these "alien craft".

This is a Panavia Tornado being ground run on engine test. Only one engine being tested but you get the effect.



See following link for a map showing where the guy lives and films under the military training area.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: tommyjo

OK, good points. I'm not going to discuss the other guy's video very much, other than saying that his video looks bizarre and otherworldly.

And while government does have secret aircraft, his vid still looks bizarre, and at a glance, I would have thought the guy was genuine with his videos. The last comments are from like 4 years ago, so it's not like it's an active YT channel (at least for that video). It seems he posted video a few years ago, that he considered mysterious.

..............

Re: OP's pic:

Again, I have to insist that if we consider the vertical lines as plane lights (which is possible), then it leaves us obligated to also explain the single horizontal line in the photo. It looks the same as the vertical lines, just horizontal, and all by itself.

What caused the horizontal line? Not a plane, right? Maybe a satellite? I'm seriously asking.

a reply to: peacefulpete

Thanks, I agree, this photo is very mysterious and compelling. All we know for sure is that the object flashed twice in the 3-min. exposure. And that rules out anything man-made (it would seem).

twice you have said this,

why and how?

a reply to: peacefulpete

Nope. I haven't made up my mind about anything, besides how disingenuous a lot of posters are in this forum.

can you read?

read your own post prior to this one.

Yes you certainly have made up your mind about a few things.

you make absolute statements, which indicate you have made up your mind.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: peacefulpete

Thanks, I agree, this photo is very mysterious and compelling. All we know for sure is that the object flashed twice in the 3-min. exposure. And that rules out anything man-made (it would seem).

twice you have said this,

why and how?

The entire thread is full of reasons that it does not resemble known aircraft.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: peacefulpete

Nope. I haven't made up my mind about anything, besides how disingenuous a lot of posters are in this forum.

can you read?

read your own post prior to this one.

Yes you certainly have made up your mind about a few things.

you make absolute statements, which indicate you have made up your mind.

No, you're off-target, and "absolute statements" could be said about anyone who says anything, ever.

I certainly did not make absolute statements of what the object really is, which is the whole point of the video and thread.

And I did find it compelling to consider the vertical lights as a plane's running-lights, however, that leaves us wondering what made the single horizontal line in the photo?

a reply to: peacefulpete

The entire thread is full of reasons that it does not resemble known aircraft.

reasons?


Other posters have shown evidence that it could have been a plane, not just reasons.

No, you're off-target, and "absolute statements" could be said about anyone who says anything, ever. I certainly did not make absolute statements of what the object really is, which is the whole point of the video and thread.

You certainly did make absolute statements.

even used the word absolute to make sure you get the absolute point across.

here let me quote you

It absolutely rules out the explanation of a plane.

from your OP

and this as well in the OP which I was asking about

This photographed object is going dark for 90 seconds at a time, which doesn't fit anything that humans have flying through the sky!

"doesn't fit anything that humans have flying" is also an absolute statement.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: peacefulpete

The entire thread is full of reasons that it does not resemble known aircraft.

reasons?


Other posters have shown evidence that it could have been a plane, not just reasons.

No, you're off-target, and "absolute statements" could be said about anyone who says anything, ever. I certainly did not make absolute statements of what the object really is, which is the whole point of the video and thread.

You certainly did make absolute statements.

even used the word absolute to make sure you get the absolute point across.

here let me quote you

It absolutely rules out the explanation of a plane.

from your OP

and this as well in the OP which I was asking about

This photographed object is going dark for 90 seconds at a time, which doesn't fit anything that humans have flying through the sky!

"doesn't fit anything that humans have flying" is also an absolute statement.

OK, I'm glad to at least be discussing specific things.

Sure you can call the quotes "absolute statements" but I will say that my perspective has shifted since I started the thread. At that point, I did consider it absolute that it wasn't a plane. I thought that the odd flashing pattern, and the lack of other plane lights, did establish that.

(Although I never claimed to know what the UFO actually was.)

However, the thread has gotten me to consider that the vertical lines could be those other plane lights. And so maybe the pic is just a really freak-accident photo, that a plane came out looking so incomplete and bizarre.

And at this point, I'm almost convinced of that, actually, but I wish someone would explain why the pic has a single horizontal line running across it. This line looks similar to the vertical lines, so if those are from a plane, then what is the single horizontal line from? A satellite floating across the sky?

Are you guys familiar with other photos that show lines running across, like this?

Very interesting. a reply to: peacefulpete