UFO Filmed By Pilot Model Valentina Rueda From Cockpit Of Private Plane. April 4, 2023

a reply to: Encia22

Ah, it's an aviation channel, that covers 3.

But here's my thought. It was intentional because the object lost too much definition when the starting point was too small. You need to add secondary objects for the very beginning, or else the object that passes you is really poor quality. Like fill in the gaps (counting on compression defects) before the main added object can be believably added.

Like, why only when it's first appearing are frames dropped?

Just bugs me.

Ok, after some hunting around, I think this is the origin of the news.

A Journalist, Jaime Maussan, who interviewed the pilot Jorge Arteaga (in Spanish).

It's a Twitter thread, with the video in the first tweet.

There's also a second video in the second tweet, but I can't see the object.

twitter.com...

Make of it what you will. I'm not so convinced anymore, thanks also to the discussions in this thread.

a reply to: Encia22

Check this out.



Something wrong with the sun (shadow/reflection) or is it a lens or angle thing I'm missing.

If I am missing something it was probably just a balloon.

a reply to: Degradation33

What are considered almost identical frames of a video can be dropped to make videos smaller. So, when the object was just a dot, I think a lot of frames were removed by whatever platform it was uploaded to.

Here's an explanation about video compression:

blog.video.ibm.com...

a reply to: Degradation33

It looks ok to me. The sunlight is coming from the top right corner. So, the propeller casts its shadow, the undersides of the clouds are dark and the object is lit from above.

a reply to: Encia22

Okay. Genuine object. Compression issues. Other screengrabs have a different surface reflection captured. No CGI model is going accurately move the sun's reflection across its surface in successive frames. I'm too used to bunk videos, I guess. Usually, that's how you catch it.

So, genuine balloon (possibly small and close) in a common ufo shape. The way it passed the Cessna particularly slowly. Looked to be floating there.

Con relación a "UAP V" en Antioquia Colombia; el Primer Piloto, Jorge A. Arteaga confirma que no se trata de un globo de algún tipo, que no es un dron y que no es algún objeto conocido para él, la fecha oficial; 12 de mayo del 2022 sobre San Jerónimo; Cessna T303 Crusader.

Se. The Crusader goes about 175 knots at cruise. He can say it's not, but I'd say that's about right for a balloon being passed at about 200 MPH.

a reply to: Degradation33

Absolutely, I agree about the usual bad quality of hoax videos. That's why I never post any, except this one that just felt different.

The problem is we could easily surmise it's a balloon if it were not for the pilot's report. He said it was spotted as stationary and then flew towards him when he took a closer look. Do we trust him, or is it all just a show?

Also, according to the interview, this happened on the 12th May 2022. Why is it coming out now? Did it perhaps take this long to have the video analysed for authenticity?

originally posted by: Encia22
Ok, after some hunting around, I think this is the origin of the news.

A Journalist, Jaime Maussan, who interviewed the pilot Jorge Arteaga (in Spanish).

It's a Twitter thread, with the video in the first tweet.

There's also a second video in the second tweet, but I can't see the object.

twitter.com...

Make of it what you will. I'm not so convinced anymore, thanks also to the discussions in this thread.

I can't say the video is hoaxed, it may show a real object, but Maussan is a shady character who in the past has not only promoted balloons as UFOs, but he was even actively involved in creating a hoax of the "metepec creature" so his reputation is quite poor:

The Jaime Maussan Metepec Creature Confirmed as a Hoax

After that, Maussan notoriously arranged a conference about the "Roswell slides", which before the conference had been confirmed to be a mummified human in a museum, yet maussan held the conference anyway and even has so-called experts presenting their alleged findings that it wasn't a human in the slides.

Even if Maussan gets real UFO footage, it's not beyond him to put a biased slant on how it's presented or even withhold information that could show it's not really a UFO, (or alien in the case of the Roswell Slides).

A date was finally set to reveal the slides: May 5, 2015, in Mexico City. A big extravaganza was being planned to reveal the slides on the holiday Cinco de Mayo, and it was organized by Mexico’s best-known UFO huckster, Jaime Maussan. If the slide promoters were seeking credibility (as opposed to a quick buck), they could not have made a worse choice. A well-known sensationalist journalist, Maussan is Mexico’s very own P.T. Barnum, having made a lucrative career peddling dodgy photos and videos of UFOs, alien beings, and the like. He previously promoted a skinned dead squirrel monkey as an alien creature, and even published a photo of what is supposed to be “uncaballo en el cielo”—a horse flying across the sky. The Mexican website alcione.org lists “more than 40 frauds of a pseudo-journalist and charlatan,” Maussan.

Maussan hyped the slides shamelessly, promising to reveal a Roswell “smoking gun” on May 5. This was your opportunity to witness an event that would change history! About 6,000 tickets were sold priced between US $20 and $100 (according to Ticketmaster in Mexico); some accounts claim that up to $350 per ticket was paid. Thousands paid $15 or $20 to watch the bilingual event on streaming Internet video (which did not work well, angering many). The Twitter feed of those watching the streaming video (#RoswellSlides) was overwhelmingly negative, with most commenters mocking the presentation.

The promoters of the event were advised in advance that the slide was just a photo of a mummified boy but Maussan and company continued with the deception and held the reveal.

It would be unfortunate if someone gives Maussan the first real video of alien visitation, because like the boy who cried wolf, nopbody will (or should) believe him, based on his established history as a charlatan. So anything involving Maussan should invoke serious skepticism. Maybe he helped distort the original version of the story you found, before you found a more realistic story? It wouldn't surprise me if he did that, but whoever is responsible, it's too bad the original story was so inaccurate. Thanks for updating us on a better version, though knowing Maussan is involved, it's not quite the redemption we might hope for.

originally posted by: Encia22
Yes, it's difficult to discern, but it was pretty close to the plane, maybe less than 200ft IMHO and we see part of the engine and propeller for reference, so my estimate is that it was about the same size as the plane.

To me it was much closer and much smaller.
Without a clear reference it's real hard to know.

My problem with it being stationary is the cloud from where it first appears as a dot. If it had been still, then the interception would have occurred when the plane reached that cloud, which still appears to be miles away.

The cloud can be miles away and the object close, it depends on its size.

Agreed! I believe it's moving at a constant velocity and probably rising, but not changing course. In the video the cloud from where it first appears seems to be below the line of sight of the plane, which looks to be flying level. Once it meets the plane, the object is above it. So, a gentle ascent seems probable.

I agree, a slight ascent appears

I'm on the fence... but I want to believe, so I'm not as rational as I could be.

I have an advantage, I don't want to believe or disbelieve.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Excellent, Arbitrageur! I thought that name rang a bell. I had forgotten about him.

If I had known he was related to this story, I would never have posted this crap.

If Moderators like, this can go in the hoax bin.

Double pozt,

a reply to: AOx6179

What are you looking at

originally posted by: Encia22
Now, this is where it gets interesting and is pure speculation... yet incredible if confirmed by anyone else here.

Let's say the the distance to the cloud, origin of the object, is 10 miles.

The plane, by my calculations above, traveled 1.5 miles in the 18 seconds.

The object appears for only 6 seconds, so theoretically, it covered 8.5 miles (considering the distance the plane flew) in that short time.

That depends, as that could only be said about the clouds, assuming that distance between the clouds and the plane.

The fact that we start to see the object at a specific time means either that it came out of the cloud or that it become big enough to be seen on the camera at that time, when it was at an unknown distance from the plane.

Imagine that the object is 1 metre wide. At, for example, 300 metres from the plane and giving the low resolution of the video, it will not appear in the video. Assuming the above information was true, 300 metres travelled in 6 seconds gives us 50 metres per second = 180 km/h = 112 mph.

If that's to low for that type of plane we can adjust the variables use, like, for example, a 1 metre object at a distance of 750 metres, giving us 750 metres travelled in 6 seconds = 450 km/h = 280 mph.

The above calculations assume a stationary object.

My conclusion: we cannot assume that the object came out of the cloud, only that it started being visible at that time, either by getting out of the cloud (which I do not believe, seeing that the object doesn't appear to show any "distance fog") or by becoming big enough to be "seen" by the camera.

a reply to: Encia22

Different versions for the same video is highly suspicious...

originally posted by: Degradation33
No CGI model is going accurately move the sun's reflection across its surface in successive frames.

It's the exact opposite.

When you create a scene on a 3D software and place a light source in a place, any movement of any of the objects in the scene will show any reflection/shadow in the exact positions, the software does all the calculations.

originally posted by: Encia22
a reply to: ToddB

In this case, I think Rueda just took her time to decide how best to release the video. Maybe she was shell-shocked for a week.

ya but is she hawt?

a model, flys her own plane? stupid question, sorry.

looks like someone or something made it, to me.

a reply to: Encia22

Looks like skunk works to me.

Manta ray shape and great white shark color differentiation.

Propulsion system outlet perfectly centered at the back and contour design suggests current Gen stealth capability.

Reminds me of this experimental military drone system:

en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Encia22
Ok, after some hunting around, I think this is the origin of the news.

A Journalist, Jaime Maussan, who interviewed the pilot Jorge Arteaga (in Spanish).

It's a Twitter thread, with the video in the first tweet.

There's also a second video in the second tweet, but I can't see the object.

twitter.com...

Make of it what you will. I'm not so convinced anymore, thanks also to the discussions in this thread.

Pause the first video in that tweet @ the 18-second mark just after the initial flypast. You can see what's either a second object take off at speed or it's the same object that turned on a dime and hit the warp drive.

Just pause the video back and forth at 18 secs. it's farther away and small but it's there.

I've circled the object and drawn a line of travel so you know where to look.

a reply to: ArMaP

LOL, I'm lost. I was terrible at maths in school and at 50+ years of age, I'm never going to learn. I understand the principles you presented and I thank you for the clarification, but my brain refuses to compute... I'm a lost cause. As you said, there are so many variables here that any theory remains speculation.