UFO caught on camera flying over 10 000mph

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Has this moving vid version (uploaded about 14 years ago) of the Capitol flyby… ever been debunked?

Seems to me….this one would be more compelling…..…since it’s not a still shot….to make the reflecting lights on the poles matchup..comparison as easily I would think.

Notice lights go behind the top and dome of the Capitol……….and tree branch movement from the wind, in the foreground of the camera framing, …..as well.



I have no clue as to the original source the YouTuber uploader used. Don’t know if it’s cgi from 14 years back or the original source goes even farther back. I.e. is it as old as the early 1950’s.

If it was debunked …..I’d like to see/read …..how this “video” ….not still shot….was debunked.

The alternative is that it is a real objects flying video……and that perhaps the still shot was actually a freeze frame screenshot that has been circulating all these years…..as the only source…..and then came the light pole matchup reflections to declare to the world that the ‘still shot’ is a fake…..when all along ……a ‘video’ existed in reality.

👽

originally posted by: ArMaP
Don't forget that this effect affects much more the central part of the lens than the edges, so lights with the same brightness but close to the edges would be less likely to create a lens flare.

I drew a blue arrow at the bottom pointing to a light in between two other lights, all centrally located, and if it made any reflection it's barely visible, you have to squint and hold your head sideways just to almost see a hint of a reflection, unlike the two on either side of it where the reflection is quite clear.

So if your hypothesis was correct about which lights make reflections, why didn't the light with the arrow pointing to it reflect like the two on either side. I submit that your hypothesis that the other two cars should have made reflections is not correct to the point it can be considered reliable, though there may be some general tendencies along those lines. If all three cars had identical lights then it would be a reasonable hypothesis, but I don't think they are identical.

Wouldn't a stronger light create a bigger halo around the car's headlight? They all look the same. Even the last car, that passes on the lane closest to the camera doesn't show any signs of being brighter.

I drew arrows to the glare I see above and below the headlight on car 2 which for the most part I don't see on car 3. (and Car 1 looked dimmer than either one to me):

It doesn't look to have more glare than the third car.

Check my screenshot comparison.

I get 1.5972:1 (720 x 1150) from the frames saved by Avidemux.

And what should it be? 16:9 or 1.78:1 or something like that?

I'm not sure it's lens flare, but there are several things pointing to that possibility and your normally persuasive argument doesn't rule it out for me yet due to the differences in the lights. Why don't all the lights show up as reflections in the Washington DC photo?

For example, it does look like the "object" does match the car's headlights, but with some variation, and the central point appears much lower than it should.

Yes, it does match sort of, and the fact there is a central point as you illustrated seems like more than coincidence. Regarding the central point being lower than it should be, I agree, which is why I think if we got the original, uncropped video, and the central point was in the center where it should be, that would more or less clinch the lens flare explanation for me. Which is why I was pointing out why I think the video is cropped...What smart phones record a 1.5972:1 aspect ratio? None? Is the video cropped from 16:9?

And why does the "object" appears to follow a curved path (marked in yellow in the image above)?

Good question. If it should be a straight line, could it be a little bit of a fisheye effect from a wide angle view? The water horizon near the center is straight, but the beach line below that looks curved up a bit, so if that's from fisheye effect, then horizontal lines above the middle would curve down.

originally posted by: charlyv
You cannot rule out an Earth Grazing meteor. They happen a lot, and just barely enter the atmosphere before they skip off it like a rock skipping off water.

Yes they happen, but it's pretty far down on my list of possibilities for this one.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Has this moving vid version (uploaded about 14 years ago) of the Capitol flyby… ever been debunked?

Seems to me….this one would be more compelling…..…since it’s not a still shot….to make the reflecting lights on the poles matchup..comparison as easily I would think.

Yes it's been debunked. I think they took the still shot of the reflections and made them move with CGI, but they aren't really moving, and nobody reported seeing anything like that.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

👍🏼

👽

I have no confidence in any UFO photo claims unless they're vetted by experts or under a microscope of the most expert technological means to analyze videos.

It amazes me that in our technological era, people consider seriously ufo videos from YouTube! Or anywhere else for that matter.

a reply to: charlyv

I very much doubt it was a meteor, the colour is the wrong one.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I drew a blue arrow at the bottom pointing to a light in between two other lights, all centrally located, and if it made any reflection it's barely visible, you have to squint and hold your head sideways just to almost see a hint of a reflection, unlike the two on either side of it where the reflection is quite clear.

That's because that light is not as strong, it's either a light from inside the building or a reflection of one of the street lights on the window.

So if your hypothesis was correct about which lights make reflections, why didn't the light with the arrow pointing to it reflect like the two on either side.

It was not an hypothesis, that kind of lens flare is much stronger close to the centre of the lens.
And I didn't say that the above doesn't mean that what you said is right.

I submit that your hypothesis that the other two cars should have made reflections is not correct to the point it can be considered reliable, though there may be some general tendencies along those lines. If all three cars had identical lights then it would be a reasonable hypothesis, but I don't think they are identical.

You are ignoring the fact that in the still images taken from the video all cars' headlights present the same lightness.

Wouldn't a stronger light create a bigger halo around the car's headlight? They all look the same. Even the last car, that passes on the lane closest to the camera doesn't show any signs of being brighter.

I drew arrows to the glare I see above and below the headlight on car 2 which for the most part I don't see on car 3. (and Car 1 looked dimmer than either one to me):


It's hard to be sure because the cars are different, but I think you are right, the glare appears slightly bigger, but I don't think that means the light was that much stronger than the others and was able to create a reflection while the others weren't. As I said, all cars' headlights have the same lightness in the images.

And what should it be? 16:9 or 1.78:1 or something like that?

I don't have the slightest idea. I was most likely cropped in some way before being uploaded.

Yes, it does match sort of, and the fact there is a central point as you illustrated seems like more than coincidence. Regarding the central point being lower than it should be, I agree, which is why I think if we got the original, uncropped video, and the central point was in the center where it should be, that would more or less clinch the lens flare explanation for me. Which is why I was pointing out why I think the video is cropped...What smart phones record a 1.5972:1 aspect ratio? None? Is the video cropped from 16:9?

A 16:9 video would mean, for a 720 pixels width, a 1280 height, and when I change the image height to that (without resizing the image's content) the added pixels at the bottom make the converging point be almost in the centre, so I suppose the video was slightly cropped.

Good question. If it should be a straight line, could it be a little bit of a fisheye effect from a wide angle view? The water horizon near the center is straight, but the beach line below that looks curved up a bit, so if that's from fisheye effect, then horizontal lines above the middle would curve down.

So would the lines below the centre line, and we don't see that, you can see that the wheel's rim makes a straight line.

originally posted by: ArMaP
That's because that light is not as strong, it's either a light from inside the building or a reflection of one of the street lights on the window.
...
You are ignoring the fact that in the still images taken from the video all cars' headlights present the same lightness.

I agree with the first sentence, but you seem to be missing the point of the analogy in your second sentence.

The reflection that's almost invisible if it's even there must come from a light that's not as bright as the two on either side, yet, when I look at the light sources instead of the reflection, I can't see the difference in the brightness of the three source lights, can you? Do you measure different brightness levels with those? The black and white photo is more original than the annotated image with all the lines drawn on it so I would use that more original photo for any measurements.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: charlyv

I very much doubt it was a meteor, the colour is the wrong one.

Meteors can be any color, white, yellow and green being most common.

This fits very well . Low horizontal, very fast and any tail obscured by latency in the CCD. IMO, an Earth Grazer. The curvature is more of a spherical distortion in the lens.

BTW: I remember a debunk of the White House UFO flyover done by IssacKoi about 4 or 5 years ago. I tried to look it up in search, but could not find it. Anyone else remember that?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I agree with the first sentence, but you seem to be missing the point of the analogy in your second sentence.

I'm not, I agree with what you said about the lights being stronger than the saturation level of the sensor (or film).

originally posted by: charlyv
Meteors can be any color, white, yellow and green being most common.

I never heard about blue meteors.

This fits very well . Low horizontal, very fast and any tail obscured by latency in the CCD. IMO, an Earth Grazer. The curvature is more of a spherical distortion in the lens.

I doubt it, there's no other sign of spherical distortion on the images.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: charlyv
Meteors can be any color, white, yellow and green being most common.

I never heard about blue meteors.

This fits very well . Low horizontal, very fast and any tail obscured by latency in the CCD. IMO, an Earth Grazer. The curvature is more of a spherical distortion in the lens.

I doubt it, there's no other sign of spherical distortion on the images.

The curve could be trajectory due to Earth gravity since grazers are usually above 60 miles.



The blue color indicates a high iron content. Many meteorites — space rocks that survive their fiery trip through Earth's atmosphere — are high in iron. Some may be the cores of ancient asteroids, according to the Natural History Museum in the U.K.

Solid Irons are usually green as the ablation of nickel contributes to the color as well.

Still think this is an Earth Grazer
Depending upon distance from observer they can last a fraction of a second or if you have a horizon to horizon view, some have lasted 10-20 seconds or more.

Cool

a reply to: charlyv

Thanks.

a reply to: RedPanda94
what certainty do we have that super sonic missiles leave a trail? They're not exactly a common thing yet.

a reply to: iAlrakis

I suppose that the fact they need to go through the atmosphere at a very high speed should be enough.

a reply to: RedPanda94



I watched in 1080p several times, it looks to me like it's really an object that flew through the clouds and lightning. I think it illuminates the space around it, slightly.

I don't think it's convincing to blame it on the car, especially that the object has a curved path that doesn't seem to match the car.

(But it's a possible explanation, just because the car seems to almost match up with the object...)

Pretty sure it's reflection from the cars headlights on the camera lens. I could be wrong