UFO in Oklahoma storm chaser video

There's more to this story than what is shared in that little video. Lan claimed to have not known he captured something on his footage until 2 or 3 weeks after the storm when he had potential customers visit. He claims he was showing the footage to these customers when all of a sudden he saw something in the footage. Then he claims that after being blown away by what was on his footage he took a still frame shot that contained the object, went back to the rural area the footage was shot at, and started interviewing locals to see if they had heard anything about locals seeing something that day.

One of those people was Ann Campbell, owner of the General Store in Loco, Oklahoma. (The footage was shot just outside of Loco.) According to Lan's story he went to the General Store and questioned Ann after he inadvertently noticed the object during the viewing with the potential Japanese customers. That would have placed it 2 to 3 weeks (or more) past the storm date.

Unfortunately that's not what Ann Campbell says. She said he came in her store the same week of the storm with the picture of the object. When pressed as to whether she might have the date Lan visited the store messed up, she was adament that it was just 2 or 3 days after the storm (the same week), and that the storm itself served as a timetag.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


The film was studied by scientists and debris, flies and birds were ruled out.

There are many reference points in the film scientist would have used to estimate the size and speed of the object as well as the distance travelled.

The object definitely goes under a base cloud. I don't know how far away the storm was from the camera, but looks like at least 2.5 miles away. At 2.5 miles per second that would be 9,000 miles per hour. Interestingly that is the low end the scientists came up with. Naturally, as the object gets further away from the camera and closer to the storm in appears to get smaller and smaller in direct correlation with the distance it would have to travel.

My opinion is that this is a real UFO. I have no doubts about it.

According to this article dated today:

www.ufodigest.com...

Lan is still telling the story of not knowing the image of an object was on the film until 2 weeks later. Unfortunately, he had the still frame in his hand 2 days after the storm, according to Ann Campbell.

[edit on 12-21-2008 by Valhall]

reply to post by Valhall


He also went to the expense of renting an airplain to see if it was a meteor. It's a lot of expense to go through just to get some footage to add to a hoax. It tells me that he really did capture something and he wanted to find out what it was. We all get dates mixed up, espaecially when a lot of things are happening in our lives that are out of the ordinary.

reply to post by Valhall


Anne Cambell may have storms mixed up. There are many storms that pass by, near, and around us all summer. One person's memmory is not good enough for me to discredit the guy or his film.

That's fine, John. If you choose to believe he caught something on the video, that doesn't bother me one bit. I'm just telling you that things don't jive on the story that he didn't even know he had caught something on video for 2 weeks.

I would hope you want to know all the information surrounding this event before you made up your mind. For the record, I investigated this event first-hand over about a 3 month period, interviewing people across the country side surrounding the Loco area. I interviewed Ann Campbell myself. My investigation began in the latter part of June 1997 - less than a month after Lan came out with his video the first time. I spoke several times with Ms. Campbell, as well as her employee in the General Store, and they were firm that Lan came in - with photo in hand - 2 to 3 days after the storm. They were specific enough to state they believed it was Friday of that week, but could have been Thursday. But it was definitely before the weekend of the same week of the storm.

Take it or leave it...there's an apparent discrepancy in the story.

[edit on 12-21-2008 by Valhall]

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Valhall

 

Anne Cambell may have storms mixed up. There are many storms that pass by, near, and around us all summer. One person's memmory is not good enough for me to discredit the guy or his film.

I live 8 miles from Loco. I was here in 1997. There was exactly one tornado that touched down next to Loco, oklahoma that year - it was the Memorial Day tornado...the one with Lan's object in it.

[edit on 12-21-2008 by Valhall]

I just want to explain why I investigated this event in the first place. This general location is the same place I had my sighting about 3 years before. In addition, when I was a kid, my grandparents lived out in this same area and they had sightings of their own. You have to understand that in the days they had their sightings (which would have been in the 60's and possibly as late as early 70's), there wasn't a lot of publicity on the 3 channels they could get on their antenna out in the middle of no where for them to know other people in other areas were seeing things as well. They were just a couple of rural dwellers that didn't have much contact with the outside world.

When I first caught the Oklahoma City coverage of Lan's video in 1997, I was excited that it could be confirmation that the area was some how a hot spot...that's why I decided to take up doing interviews of all the residence in the area. Before it was over I had some extraordinary conversations with some people, including the "two Don's" (i.e. the Sheriff and Deputy Sheriff of Jefferson County). I learned a great deal, and it was a blast.

I still believe the area is of interest. That's why I'm a bit irked at the discrepancy in this story. It doesn't help the situation any.

[edit on 12-21-2008 by Valhall]

reply to post by Valhall


Ok, ok. Did you ask him to explain the discrepency? I'm assuming an impartial investigator conducting an investigation over a 3 month period would include asking the filmaker about any discrepencies.

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Valhall

 

Ok, ok. Did you ask him to explain the discrepency? I'm assuming an impartial investigator conducting an investigation over a 3 month period would include asking the filmaker about any discrepencies.

Yes, as a matter of a fact, I have brought this up a few times to Lan. I've met Lan in person, and over the past 11-1/2 years I've asked him a few times to explain the discrepancy. No...he has not offered an explanation, he has always become belligerent and turned the subject by being indignant. I have no ill feelings toward Lan, and I hope he is doing well, but there's a sticky-wicket in his story that he never has really addressed....other than getting miffed about it being brought up.

Originally posted by truthquest

Originally posted by John Matrix
Very convincing evidence of UFO passing in front of a tornado, at over 9,000 miles per hour with no sonic boom. Very clear footage with cam on a tripod, no shaking to give you a headache.

www.oklahomaexpeditions.com...

It looks like a bug flew in front of the camera. I agree with alienmojo's posting.

[edit on 21-12-2008 by truthquest]

I'm leaning more towards a ball lightning thing due to the fact at one point it passes behind a small piece of cloud.

reply to post by Valhall


I apologize, I was rushed to type a response and could have worded it better.

He may have embellished upon the facts to sensationalize the account in his film. I don't know for sure. The discrepancy should be put to him. But Even if he embellished the story a bit, the video itself is remarkable. I know that if I was going to fake a video, I would not do it in such a way as to leave people thinking that it could be a piece of debris or a bug. If I was going to do it I would do it right.

Whether the scene is a direct analog to digital conversion from the original source tape, without any digital alterations, I need to confirm that by either watching the capture from analog to digital or do it myself.

So I'll take off 5% for not seeing the original source tape and another 5% for embellishing the story and give it a 90% likelihood that it's real.


[edit on 21-12-2008 by John Matrix]

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Valhall

 

Ok, ok. Did you ask him to explain the discrepency? I'm assuming an impartial investigator conducting an investigation over a 3 month period would include asking the filmaker about any discrepencies.

Yes, as a matter of a fact, I have brought this up a few times to Lan. I've met Lan in person, and over the past 11-1/2 years I've asked him a few times to explain the discrepancy. No...he has not offered an explanation, he has always become belligerent and turned the subject by being indignant. I have no ill feelings toward Lan, and I hope he is doing well, but there's a sticky-wicket in his story that he never has really addressed....other than getting miffed about it being brought up.

It's kind of strange he would be miffed by the question. I mean really all he had to do was say "Ya I misquoted in the video but didn't really have time to change it" I mean really it doesn't make the sighting any less or more believable as it is just a small thing.

But the reaction of him is what makes it out to be a big thing. Kind of interesting his reaction and all.

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Valhall

 

I apologize, I was rushed to type a response and could have worded it better.

He may have embellished upon the facts to sensationalize the account in his film. I don't know for sure. The discrepancy should be put to him. But Even if he embellished the story a bit, the video itself is remarkable. I know that if I was going to fake a video, I would not do it in such a way as to leave people thinking that it could be a piece of debris or a bug. If I was going to do it I would do it right.

Whether the scene is a direct analog to digital conversion from the original source tape, without any digital alterations, I need to confirm that by either watching the capture from analog to digital or do it myself.

So I'll take off 5% for not seeing the original source tape and another 5% for embellishing the story and give it a 90% likelihood that it's real.


[edit on 21-12-2008 by John Matrix]

No problem. I don't want you to think I think Lan faked something. I don't. I never have thought Lan faked the image on the video. But the question of WHEN he knew he captured something is important to WHAT it could be. And I say it that way because IF he knew he had captured something WHILE filming, then the object was not traveling as fast as some "experts" have stated, nor was it as big as some would want us to believe. And it's the nature of WHAT is on the video that really matters.

It's been a long time since I reviewed any of the things surrounding this taping, but as I recall when this video first came out it was stated that not only Lan caught the object on film, but that a news crew filming from the opposite side of the tornado also caught it on film. I did not watch all of Lan's new video (I admit it), because I pretty much am familiar with the story that goes with the video.

My question - did he bring up the second video in this documentary? Because, if I remember correctly, after a couple or so weeks of the claim that there were 2 videos capturing the same object, I believe the second claim was rescinded and there was some talk that the camera person involved with that second video had either fibbed about catching it, or something to that affect.

I'm going to see if I can pull up anything on that...please let me know if this aspect of the event was discussed in Lan's video and I'll go back and listen to what he has to say. But as I recall, there was a recanting of a second video from another vantage point...and there were some questions concerning why the claim was made in the first place.

reply to post by Darthorious


Most people don't like to admit they erred or that they embellished a story with inexactitudes. His defence mechanism kicked in because he doesn't want to admit he erred. The important thing is the video itself, as you have well said, it doesn't take or add anything to the video itself.

[edit on 21-12-2008 by John Matrix]

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Valhall

 

I apologize, I was rushed to type a response and could have worded it better.

He may have embellished upon the facts to sensationalize the account in his film. I don't know for sure. The discrepancy should be put to him. But Even if he embellished the story a bit, the video itself is remarkable. I know that if I was going to fake a video, I would not do it in such a way as to leave people thinking that it could be a piece of debris or a bug. If I was going to do it I would do it right.

Whether the scene is a direct analog to digital conversion from the original source tape, without any digital alterations, I need to confirm that by either watching the capture from analog to digital or do it myself.

So I'll take off 5% for not seeing the original source tape and another 5% for embellishing the story and give it a 90% likelihood that it's real.


[edit on 21-12-2008 by John Matrix]

No problem. I don't want you to think I think Lan faked something. I don't. I never have thought Lan faked the image on the video. But the question of WHEN he knew he captured something is important to WHAT it could be. And I say it that way because IF he knew he had captured something WHILE filming, then the object was not traveling as fast as some "experts" have stated, nor was it as big as some would want us to believe. And it's the nature of WHAT is on the video that really matters.

It's been a long time since I reviewed any of the things surrounding this taping, but as I recall when this video first came out it was stated that not only Lan caught the object on film, but that a news crew filming from the opposite side of the tornado also caught it on film. I did not watch all of Lan's new video (I admit it), because I pretty much am familiar with the story that goes with the video.

My question - did he bring up the second video in this documentary? Because, if I remember correctly, after a couple or so weeks of the claim that there were 2 videos capturing the same object, I believe the second claim was rescinded and there was some talk that the camera person involved with that second video had either fibbed about catching it, or something to that affect.

I'm going to see if I can pull up anything on that...please let me know if this aspect of the event was discussed in Lan's video and I'll go back and listen to what he has to say. But as I recall, there was a recanting of a second video from another vantage point...and there were some questions concerning why the claim was made in the first place.

There was no second camera or mention of it in this video.

If he did see it on film or at least if I did as it occurred while filming my first reaction would "holy smokes guys did you see that!" along with a few expletives in between. Also would have quickly scanned the area to see if I could catch it again. I'm guessing he didn't see it when filming.

reply to post by Valhall


There is no mention of another video in this latest one. I recall being said that it's the first time it has been published in HD. You can watch it full screen and it's darn nice video.

Originally posted by Darthorious


There was no second camera or mention of it in this video.

lol

Okay...interesting that he doesn't cover the unsavory business of the claim of a second video for a few weeks that then got reported as being non-existent. This story was a rather big deal in Oklahoma for several weeks...and the whole big thing about two videos filming in opposite directions catching the same object on the same path and one of those cameras being with a news crew was a major point in the first story. But then (and this is where I can't remember the particular wording) the claim of the second video was recanted. In fact, I'm trying to remember if the camera man involved didn't get canned over the whole deal. It's been a long time, and I've slept since then.

Okay, yeah, the news camera man got fired for hoaxing the second shot.