Wow! Real good video of a Flying Saucer in Oregon

Thanks for making the quicktime video Doc, if you want a copy of it just leave a message for me on youtube with your mailing info and I will get it out as soon as possible.

Originally posted by oregongal
It was going from shiny to dark to shiny and it was very hard to find it in the viewfinder.

Which reinforces my contention that the object was not uniformly reflecting sunlight, even with the ambient lighting conditions (due to cloud ceiling). Possibly we're looking at an irregularly shaped object that is rotating in such a way as to produce the "shiny to dark to shiny" effect, as is apparent in the Quicktime clip, also.

See? Even in the absence of the eyewitness account (which we didn't have until now), the QuickTime edit revealed details that are substantiated by the eyewitness.

Originally posted by oregongal
I don't think it disappeared behind the trees, but I couldn't find it again. I only have about 16 secs of video, the one that is posted is the 16 secs at regular speed and then slowed to half speed.

Yeah, I noticed that the same cluster of trees and power lines passed by the lens again about halfway through, whereupon I suspected that I was looking at a replay.

Originally posted by oregongal
I did get a couple frames from it that I thought were interesting. Here are two frames, original and then enlarged.

And, again, as confirmed by two separate edits (one by oregongal and one by myself), the object is seemingly illuminated from different angles — since we know the sun isn't arbitrarily moving around, then the object itself must be somehow rotating, pitching or turning relative to its light source to produce the light/shade effects.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 4/6/2007 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by Majic
Do you consider it possible that this is a light source moving along the object?

Why not? I consider anything possible, but I'm trying to think of what is probable. As I watch the bright spot or bright area moving along the length of the object, I can see that it's always accompanied by shadow — which is no doubt one reason that it stands out as it does, thanks to higher contrast.

So, I'm thinking, if it's a strobe of some kind, then it's still protruding from the object, casting its own shadow on the body of the object.

— Doc Velocity

Hey what a superb job you have done

I have just found another video of an object in the southern skies of Oregon. Do you think it might be the same object?


Here take a look at this video here

This second video looks to me looks like some kind of blimp. The first video does not look like one. But my question would be, could they possibly be the same object filmed in different times?


Oh... and by the way

You have voted Doc Velocity for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by The Coward]

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
However, I did see that the light & shadow rolled across the UFO in an irregular fashion, which seems to suggest that the object is a polygon of some kind that we're viewing on-edge.

A polygon is a 2D, closed, plane figure with straight edges. eg triangle, trapezium, pentagon...

Yes, we are looking at a 2D image, however, trying to infer the shape of the 3D object as a polygon is technically incorrect.

You're probably mixing up polygon with polyhedron.

[edit on 7-4-2007 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by The Coward


Here take a look at this video here

This second video looks to me looks like some kind of blimp. The first video does not look like one. But my question would be, could they possibly be the same object filmed in different times?


[edit on 6-4-2007 by The Coward]

This video looks very similar..Blimp theory is possible but what I dont understand is this: The wheather conditions are (in both videos) very bad for blimp. I would postpone the blimp programm in such weather conditions.

It all goes back to the first UFO report Kenneth Arnold told a reporter that "they flew erratic, like a saucer if you skip it across the water." Actually, what he said was that they looked like boomerangs, but the reporter's account called them "flying saucers." And since newspapers were soon filled with reports of "flying saucers" in the skies, "flying saucers" are what people reported seeing, not "flying boomerangs." Seldom has the power of suggestion been so convincingly demonstrated.

Why would extraterrestrials redesign their craft to conform to the reporter's mistake?

Originally posted by yeti101
...since newspapers were soon filled with reports of "flying saucers" in the skies, "flying saucers" are what people reported seeing, not "flying boomerangs." Seldom has the power of suggestion been so convincingly demonstrated. Why would extraterrestrials redesign their craft to conform to the reporter's mistake?

Yeah, the Kenneth Arnold sighting was more a description of advanced flying wing technology. It would be easy to say that the entire flying saucer craze sprang out of a misquote; but that argument implies that disc-shaped objects only appeared in our skies after 1947. And that's an inaccurate observation.

Because a lot of people knew about disc-shaped craft prior to Arnold's sighting — We can look back to experimental aircraft of the 1930s right here in America. Consider the ARUP Tailless Monoplane:



That thing must have caught a few wondering eyes in 1935, don't you think?

Years later, the German Luftwaffe was developing such "flapjack" lift bodies for military applications during World War II, years before the Arnold sighting and the flying saucer misquote.



So, where did the Nazis get the idea? If it was just an experimental design that never caught on — and the Germans had a ton of such experimental designs — then why did the U.S. Air Force continue the German research into developing these saucers after the war?



Do you think the governments of 2 of the mightiest nations on earth (at the time) would pursue the flying disc design on a whim? Or based upon a misquote in the press? Indeed, somebody was taking the concept of saucer-shaped aircraft very seriously, both before and after WWII.

Which leaves the Arnold misquote of 1947 kind of stuck in the middle — surely, the term "flying saucer" didn't mark the birth of disc-shaped aircraft, because we can see examples of just such a design years earlier. Why would the Nazis ever think that saucers were a good idea? More importantly, why would the USA think the technology was important enough to continue researching and developing it?

Unless, of course, they were desperately trying to emulate a high-performance technology that was just a tad beyond their reach.

Point is, even before the 1947 misquote and the subsequent coining of the term "UFO," there must have been a few people who looked up and saw experimental disc-shaped craft buzzing around in the sky and wondered what the hell they were. So, I think there was at least some opportunity for airborn disc-shapes to sink into the public psyche before 1947.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 4/8/2007 by Doc Velocity]

Here`s the UFO after applying autolevels...


After applying solarize,invert,find edges,desurate,fade desurate,hue,gamma2


Cut of just the UFO...


Zooming in on the middle...


And invert...


There seems to be some sort of craft inside,but i don`t know what it is...
And i see a face on top of it with 2 eyes...could be the pilot or some operator...

Originally posted by Johhn
There seems to be some sort of craft inside,but i don`t know what it is...
And i see a face on top of it with 2 eyes...could be the pilot or some operator...

this technique you have of singling out occupants in these crafts is interesting.. how did you come upon this technique?

A lot if what i know now about filtering comes from the very interesting website Aliens and UFO Art by Wiolawa... www.wiolawapress.com...

She started it all a few years ago...i couldn`t believe it until i tried it myself...