UFO caught heading into tornado. Amazing footage *Video*

reply to post by argentus


I may be wrong here, but I believe that a second video was shot from a different location, and the measurements (speed/size of the object) were triangulated from that.

However if I understand correctly, this second video was hoaxed by the cameraman, and he lost his job! (or have I misunderstood that part?)

If this is the case, then the calculations for size & speed have got to be wrong surely?

If they are correct, then where are the reports that MSFC apparently compiled?

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/717e394ad338.png[/atsimg]

I suppose a 30 feet object other than a bird could morph into different shapes.....

[edit on July 2nd 2010 by greeneyedleo]

If any member here posted these shots in order to prove anything, they would be trashed and laughed at.



I guess its now a morphing bird

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/717e394ad338.png[/atsimg]
"greeneyedleo" has provided good images here, which is more than anyone else has done, so we should thank him for that. Also, there doesn't need to be any animosity in this thread - it's all good fun!

Now, let's look at these pictures... we are seeing what looks like a classic "ghost" effect.

Film cameras usually run at around 24 frames per second. In other words, in the time it takes you to say "UFO" a camera will have taken 24 individual photographs [frames]. That's damn fast!

Now imagine how fast an object must travel in order to appear twice or thrice in the same frame of film...

Put simply, in the time it takes the camera to take one frame - 1/24th of a second - the object must move a noticable distance.

A grand prix car wouldn't produce this effect. A 747 wouldn't. A jet-fighter wouldn't. But a bird will?



[edit on 2-7-2010 by FOXMULDER147]

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Put simply, in the time it takes the camera to take one frame - 1/24th of a second - the object must move a noticable distance.

You are assuming that we know that the object was far away from the camera. We do NOT know that. That is NOT an established fact.

If the object was quite close to the camera, which I think it was, then the distance it moved is not so noticable...





[edit on 2/7/10 by ziggystar60]

Originally posted by ziggystar60

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Put simply, in the time it takes the camera to take one frame - 1/24th of a second - the object must move a noticable distance.

You are assuming that we know that the object was far away from the camera. We do NOT know that. That is NOT an established fact.

If the object was quite close to the camera, which I think it was, then the distance it moved is not so noticable...

That's very true. Of course, at this point, we don't know how far away the object was.

reply to post by FOXMULDER147


I gave you a star for that explanation, well thought out!

But I gave Ziggystar one too.......because that is a very good rebuttal.

Doesn't anyone find it odd that this guy can show a pic of this Skeet guy, yet provide no evidence of this so called analysis he's done? This analysis should be of utmost importance, yet it isn't shown. That doesn't seem right to me.
I wouldn't be relying solely on his word, to ridicule others by saying it can't possibly be a bird or insect, because it's flying at 9000mph. You don't know its that fast, and until I saw evidence, I wouldn't repeat it as fact.

On the youtube channel, the poster claims that the speed and size was determined by triangulating using other footage. Yet this footage is not even mentioned? Without that footage, it would be impossible to tell how big or how far away it is. Without it, there could be no analysis. Has anyone seen this footage, or do we have to just rely on someone's word, again. It doesn't help either, that they're trying to sell the footage. If it was that important, they shouldn't feel the need to charge people for it.

And seriously, who would have believed that that was a meteor? Even enough to spend loads hiring aircraft, to search for it (technically, they'd be searching for a meteorite, not a meteor as explained in the video). I can't believe anyone would do that based on the footage shown.

My initial reaction, was that it was something small, maybe an insect, going past the camera quite close, catching a reflection from the sun (even though it's behind the cloud, a fair bit of light is still coming through). As it travels past the camera, it stops reflecting light, making it look like it passed into the cloud. This could explain why nobody saw it. But that's just my opinion, which I would happily change if other footage of the same object was provided.

PS. It was pretty cool storm footage, regardless of the speck going past the camera.

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
On the youtube channel, the poster claims that the speed and size was determined by triangulating using other footage.

Here are the comments made by "Windchasercom":

[user]
I think it's a small, scared white bird

[Windchasercom]
Again, I wish it were a "small scared white bird." But another video and a photograph was shot that captured this event as well. And they were taken from a combined two miles away by other storm chasers.  One that worked for KOCO channel 5 in Oklahoma City, and another freelance hobby chaser.

[user]
You could get a triangulation then IF you knew exactly where the cameras were positioned at the time. I would like to see the photo, can you post it somewhere or email it to me uncompressed?

[Windchasercom]
Its because of the other two pieces of event evidence that we were able to triangulate the object on video. That is how Skeet Vaughn and Bruce Maccabbee where able to come up with the size, distance, altitude and speed of the object.

[Windchasercom]
I'm looking for funding to produce a full documentary on the event.. No luck as of yet but we have a few nibbles. Yes, we investigated that question with the FAA who were very helpful. Nothing was on radar at the time in that area of OK. As far as we can tell, no one who captured this image on camera saw it with the naked eye. The still image shows almost the same view as the tape I shot. The shutter speed was slower than the video so it appears as a streak.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


Pretty much what I've been saying mate.

Apparently the other footage was hoaxed........so if the triangulation calculations were done using this footage and the hoaxed footage.......then they aren't worth the paper they are written on.......but the paper they are written on appears to be conspicuous by it's absence!

[edit on 2/7/2010 by Argyll]

reply to post by Curious and Concerned



I totally agree that there isnt enough information to make a judgement on the object in question.

That is why i find it disturbing that a moderator would fly in on page one stating.

" It is so obviously a bird, I cant even believe the people uploaded this claiming UFO."

With the evidence backing them up being. I can see the wings flapping and then some blurry out of focus pictures of deformed blobs.

reply to post by ziggystar60



How can the "Bird" be close to the camera but not show any discernable features such as wings etc? Secondly, the object, if it is a bird, is on a downward trajectory... meaning it's imminent death within a second. Thirdly, like I sad earlier in this thread, even if this bird was just 20ft away from the camera (Assuming it's not a pterodactyl) it still wouldn't cover the distance this object has within the 1.13 seconds it takes it to traverse. And that's if this bird went straight across the field of view of the camera.... from right to left. It's just not possible. Because any bird at 20ft from the camera would have indentifiable features. Not be a white dot off in the distance. Even the smallest bird capable of flying this fast would have visable featues. The only way it wouldn't have any features is if it was at a great distance, which is ruled out because of the speed of this object. It just simply does not compute. You don't need any expert analysis to come to this conclusion. It's just deduction. Plain and simple. Any expert would rule out a bird in a few minutes of study of this video.

reply to post by ReeVeeR



Your missing the point mate!

Unless the reports from a "NASA official" or the report from MSFC which are all claimed, can be shown.......it's just a white blob of light flying in front of a storm cloud!

I want to believe.......I just can't on the basis of this

Just to be clear, a UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object. A UFO does not have to be an alien craft.

Honestly, when I watched it the first time, mouse hovering over pause, ready to go to work (lol), I saw it emerge from the right, and thought

"surely they are not talking about that bird".......

And continued to wait to see the object.

It never came.

.....and that guy went on and on about what a big celebrity he became, and finally had to stop granting interviews! He just couldn't take all the fame! Kinda funny, really.

Just my opinion! No offense intended. (People on this thread are so touchy)

reply to post by Argyll


I agree with you 100%. All I'm saying is that this is no bird. Beyond that, your guess is as good as mine.

Originally posted by ReeVeeR
reply to post by Argyll

 

I agree with you 100%. All I'm saying is that this is no bird. Beyond that, your guess is as good as mine.

I agree, I don't think it's a bird either, I don't know what it is



What concerns me is that claims are being made of a 30 x 18 foot object travelling at 9000-16000 mph, and these claims are being attributed to NASA and Marshall Flight Centre experts........with no proof whatsoever!

I seriously doubt we'll ever know what that is in the video.

reply to post by Argyll


Yea i just read yesterday that nasa reported 10 UFOs flying in our air spaces over the MSM.

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by Curious and Concerned

 

Pretty much what I've been saying mate.

Apparently the other footage was hoaxed.......

I stepped away from this thread for a while as it got a bit too personal for my liking but after reading it I can't help but comment on this very issue. Here's one for yourself, Leo and others to ponder;

Why is it that you can quite happily claim the expert analysis is a complete fabrication or incorrect, when you can absolutely accept and echo the words from an ex-ATS member that the additional footage was a hoax and the original filmaker lied, when the ex-ATS member in question has provided no evidence to back up their forum post whatsoever?!

Is it because the ex-ATS member's claims align with what you want to believe?

Personally, I am still leaning towards an insect close to the camera as an explanation. However, the alleged corroborating evidence is most intriguing and is causing me some doubts. Without this evidence it is hard to come to a solid conclusion so hopefully it can be shared with us at some point. It is very possible that the video's creator does not have the rights to publish the corroborating video and photograph, which would explain it's absence satisfactorily.

I'm off to do some more digging...



[edit on 2-7-2010 by Goathief]

reply to post by Argyll

I may be wrong here, but I believe that a second video was shot from a different location, and the measurements (speed/size of the object) were triangulated from that.

However if I understand correctly, this second video was hoaxed by the cameraman, and he lost his job! (or have I misunderstood that part?)

If this is the case, then the calculations for size & speed have got to be wrong surely?

If they are correct, then where are the reports that MSFC apparently compiled?

Thank you. you articulated it in a way that I was unable to. I understand triangulation, only............. where is the data? It should be easy to produce, especially if that data resulted in quantifying the size and speed of the object to a fairly precise degree.

If I had two cameras trained on an airplane, travelling at a consistent vector, I would have to compare the distance between the two cameras, along with the angles of measurement equidistance along various points of the airplane, measure the time elapsed between points as compared with both viewpoints, factor in the distance of the airplane from BOTH cameras and then could form a fairly acccurate estimate of speed and size of the object.

I'd like to see the data.