The BEST UFO footage of all time! Maybe?

If you are familiar with the Biological UFO's that were filmed during the STS-75 Mission and featured in many other STS videos, then you will find that this video collaborates all of the STS footage available and the content presented is truly authentic.

That statment alone lets us know that your judgment is clouded by unsubstantiated belief...which some would call ignorance. You state that a bunch of debris/ice crystals are "biological ufos" is a stretch of the imagination, then you use that formidable stretch to say this meaningless video substantiates the STS video? I can't even comprehend the logic that leads you to ignore common sense, reason and logic to the many more plausible explanations in order to arrive at the most outlandish one first. That is what is wrong with this entire subject.

Basically what i am suggesting is that their are similarities between this footage and the STS footage, i.e the geometry of the object being almost identicle albeit from a different projection.

[edit on 19-11-2009 by kayne1982]

reply to post by Moreonethananyone

According to the OP a telescope is being used (though the youtube poster does not say so).

The date is right (Sept. 24). The rate of movement past the stars is right, compare it to this video (go to around 2:00).



[edit on 11/19/2009 by Phage]

The same youtube user it is the iss.

reply to post by Phage


Granted the speed is the same as the ISS but the reason I keep coming back to it is at the end of the Vid clearly shows that it passes behind a house so he isnt using a telescope.And in your vid the ISS clearly is a rectangle shape,not perfectly round like the original Vid.I think that we will have to agree to disagree friend,I knew what I was in for taking you on.

While the movement of the object is consistent with a satellite, I have yet to see a spherical satellite orbiting at less than 2000 ft.

He's not using a telescope either. Videotaping w. a telescope would produce more magnified camera shakiness. Also, observe the focus quality and size of the stars in comparison to the object.

[edit on 19-11-2009 by NightVision]

reply to post by NightVision

What make you think this is at less than 2,000 feet?
The object is not large, it is bright. The brightness oversaturates the camera ,causing blooming.

[edit on 11/19/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NightVision

 

What make you think this is at less than 2,000 feet?
The object is not large, it is bright. The brightness oversaturates the camera ,causing blooming.

[edit on 11/19/2009 by Phage]

Yes, this is true. And yes, brightness does cause blooming. My personal feeling and experience is that most satellites when traversing the skies at night, are slightly brighter than or the same brightness as an avg. star. The stars in the background are considerably less bright, yet still in focus.

There would be numerous videos circulating the web with the same brightness/size ratio as the OP's video if oversaturation is the culprit, no?

Originally posted by kayne1982
They live all over the place in our upper atmosphere and it is becoming more evident that these Bio UFO's are responsible for most the UFO sightings we have had throughout our human record!

Comments Anyone?

They apparently don't have anything to do with the reports, photos, etc., of metallic flying saucers that occasionally have humanoid aliens in and around them. What about those?

reply to post by NightVision

When the ISS made its pass over New York on the night of the video (Sept. 24) it had a magnitude of -3.3. Sirius, the brightest star in the sky is magnitude -1.4. The magnitude scale is logarithmic, making the ISS almost 5 times brighter than Sirius and much brighter than your "average" star.

The from the look of the video, it was probably done in night shot mode (or perhaps through NV gear) which would enhance blooming. Note that toward the end, when the house enters the frame, a great deal of blooming can be seen on the house itself. Also note that the blooming of the object decreases at this point.


[edit on 11/19/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage

The from the look of the video, it was probably done in night shot mode (or perhaps through NV gear) which would enhance blooming. Note that toward the end, when the house enters the frame, a great deal of blooming can be seen on the house itself. Also note that the blooming of the object decreases at this point.


[edit on 11/19/2009 by Phage]

True. I did notice that. You think it's re-creatable?

reply to post by NightVision

Using the same equipment, I think you could get the same result.

Look how that lens distorts the straight lines of the siding on the house! Must be a really low power telescope if he can run and get in front of the lens and still be in focus. Maybe a spotting scope for hunting rather than an astronomical scope. I do not understand where the biological part comes in though. It was only a light. How can you jump to any conclusion that it is biological?

Definitely a UFO.


It's an unidentified flying object for sure.

As far as being an 'alien craft', i'd say not. I'd go with potentially a chinese lantern that has been exposed brighter by the infrared.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Moreonethananyone

 

According to the OP a telescope is being used (though the youtube poster does not say so).

The date is right (Sept. 24). The rate of movement past the stars is right, compare it to this video (go to around 2:00).

[edit on 11/19/2009 by Phage]

That's it right there, good find mate.

I'd say that's 95% what it is to be honest, i'd say definite but it'd be hard to prove 100% that it is that without actually being there.

Like most such, hard to say.

Not a telescope I think, as the focal would be more precise. Stars are in focus, so do not emulate the bloom as you would expect. The blooming seems too large in comparison to the stars, but if night mode or super-lux they could be 14th mag. stars. Not seeing much larger stars however.

Seems too slow for the ISS. I've videoed that on occasion, and even seen some bright spikes in intensity naked eye that when I check my software was Soyuz docking and the solar panel flashing.

All together too little information, but seems like it is worth a closer investigation. But, I saw this some time ago, so the investigation is likely gone cold in the memory of the videographer.

In my maybe box if I could explain the lens boot or augmented video cam.

ZG

If a telescope, the bloom would not be as pronounced. Probably an 8" Cass.

Just seems off the expected profile. Still has me guessing.

ZG

Originally posted by Lister87
Definitely a UFO.


It's an unidentified flying object for sure.

As far as being an 'alien craft', i'd say not. I'd go with potentially a chinese lantern that has been exposed brighter by the infrared.

No variability in the light for the flame. Bloom would amplify that. See lantern video. I would loose the much too overused classification of a Lantern. More imagination needed there.

Try a balloon with superbright LED suspended within, with stablizers and propulsion. Right.

Non conventional, whatever it is, if not ISS.

We are way beyond lantrs here I'm afraid.

ZG

This is the smoking gun we've all be waiting for

Originally posted by Phage
It looks like a satellite to me.
Probably the ISS. It made a pass over Jamaica on September 24.

Got to say I agree with Phage on this one.. and that's a first for me

The ISS is huge and the light it reflects is large compared to other man made objects floating around above our heads. On a clear night here in OZ it shows up as a big gold colored.. satellite... meaning it doesn't deviate from one path.

The transect rate looks consistent with a low-orbit object.

Luminosity seems to factor up at a reasonable variable relative to the background stars.

I did not see the recording/optical equipment used, but I would speculate that rather than a telescope the person who shot this video filmed it through a hand-held video camera fitted with an optical zoom maxed out to about 40x, and additional settings or accessorized with night-vision/IR.

The videographer's voice and manner sounded contrived, maybe even premeditated. In recent months we've seen several videos of UFO/IFO phenomenon during which the ubiquitous "...whoa...whoa...whoa..." is becoming commonplace. Perhaps our videographer took some cues/scripting from some of these other AV clips?

My vote is with Phage et al on this one: Man-made object traversing the night sky in low orbit filmed by a foolish (or, less likely, simply ignorant) perpetrator.

It is something ordinary and common, presented and narrated as if it were not, and then distributed to a gullible audience that subconsciously wishes it be more than it is. Alas, it is not.

I appreciate the OP posting the clip however, and for the many reactions and opinions that followed. After all, if we are not able to eliminate the "evidence" that is false, how are we to recognize the real thing when it finally shows up?

Thanks.... and keep looking up!

Next!