Virginia UFO sighting, July 25, 2010 all 4 parts

More contradictions to come! Didn't you hike up the hill, didn't you take video?

Originally posted by Airborne880

Originally posted by MMPI2
I didn't have time to comb thru to look at all of the posts, so maybe somebody has already said this:

Maybe the next time you see the things, you could just walk over there into the woods and see what it is. Still filming and everything, but just walking out there and checking it out.

Great video.

Its a steep climb and I would not have done it. We all discussed it during the second sighting and the kids wanted to go up. My wife was afraid of snakes and bears and I was in agreement with her. if one of them slipped and got hurt or stepped on a rattlesnake at that hour.... it would have been a bad deal. Thanks for the comments

Originally posted by Airborne880

Originally posted by Invisible King

Originally posted by Phage
"Oh, I've gotta charge this up. I'm out of juice."

Um. When your battery goes dead you don't get audio or video.

Thought he said "I'm runnin' out of juice", but nevertheless if he brought his camera out specifically to film UFOs you would think he would have fully charged his battery.

Not to be rude but for the thousandth time... I had misplaced the charging cable and the battery was dead when we got thre. Further, I did not bring the camera to videotape UFOs. I was there to show my son the cabin and to shoot guns. I always bring the camera when I go. That is why I hoped (and was correct) that the cable had been left at the cabin on our last visit. people.... I am not a UFO hunter by trade, nor am I a videographer... I am a normal guy who is into many things. At this moment, UFOs have my full attention and I will be more prepared next visit to the cabin. But How can I be even slightly sure that they will appear? Finally... I am not sure what these were. i am sure of what they were not. They were not, car lights, flashlights, streetlights or stars. that much I do know.

Originally posted by Airborne880

Originally posted by JohnySeagull
reply to post by Airborne880

 

Really appreciate your response.

Why did you guys try and request the objects to form shapes? Have you done this before. What made you say this to the guys around you? Had you discussed doing this before sighting.

As I said in my original post I experienced something similar.

If you don't know why you were requesting the objests to form shapes I suggest you alone reflect on the incident more and you may come to a realisation about this.

4:00am and I am still on the computer researching other people's experiences hahaha. This is a record and i MUST get to bed. Regarding your questions... The people around me were my family... son, two nephews and wife. We had requested in an almost prayer like fashion that the UFOs would visit us and these things showed up. As we watched them for an hour and a half, we saw them form many geometric shapes. We would request them to get brighter and many times they would. So.... once I had a little bit of a charge in the camera, I wanted to see if the objects would form another cool shape because that would have been so nice to have on video. Sometimes the objects were scattered and spread around. Other times they merged into one or two orb like objects. But there were many times that they made octagons, triangles, and other awesome shapes.

I hope that helps and if not.... ask again. Thanks for the questions and now I will force myself into bed. Goodnight all

Originally posted by Airborne880

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
Well thank you and i did read through the thread , I take this stuff seriously unlike the blind faith believers in ORBS. Im looking for UFO's Unidentified Flying Objects not faint lights mountainside. I am not saying the guy did not see anything unusual ET or non ET. Im saying the footage is poor and i can relate in filming something and it not turning out myself. I had some object on film taken with camera phone and it is hardy seen in the footage and not worthy of presentation. Just more grainy shaky footage of what could be anything and unconvincing.
It would only make one look like a fool.


The ORB stuff is associated with ghosts and new ager hoaxes Like the Alison Kruse cult. Maybe it is a ghost? I see no correlation between UFO and ORB's. I see people here calling the lights ORB's lol. He did not describe ORB's see how the nutters try to change it to ORBS. They should have approached the lights if they wanted to get some good footage. It cant be that difficult to get closer.

If there is a next time i hope Airborne gets the up close footage I would like to see. Hike a ways if you can.

So the video is called "UFO" and again it does not fly. Why not call it "strange lights on mountain" ?

not UFO's in the video still

good luck



[edit on 27-7-2010 by Unknown Soldier]

Like you, I have always thought of orbs as being associated with ghost. It was not until after I posted these videos that I began to refer to them as orbs because of so many others doing so. I quickly looked around the internet and discovered that there are many orbs associated with E.T.s and UFOs and such. Did these things fly? Hard to say... but they did move around on the side of that mountain, as if they were floating. So... UFO still works. Unidentified FLOATING Objects

Whatever you want to call them is fine with me........ I

Look... I do NOT know what they were. I DO know what they were not, as I have said. They were NOT car headlights, streetlights, stars, or people on the face of the mountain with flashlights. What were they? I hope someday I can find out.

As for climbing up the mountain and going to them. Like many things... that is far easier said than done. In my case..... I have a few injuries that make it not such a great idea and easy task. Rods in the leg, plate in the neck, screws in the knee, etc. The others could do it but will they? One is 12, the other is 15 and the other is 23. They are not as brave about things like that as you and I.

Lets see what pans out this weekend. I will be happy if these things show up in any fashion. Roger that?

Cont..

Originally posted by Airborne880

Originally posted by torsion
I don't think this is a hoax as some are implying. But it's possibly a misidentification of natural phenomena.

When we see the daylight video of the location it is clear that the objects where close to the camera operator and on the forest floor.

Note also all the noisy insect activity.

So I suspect what you have videoed, Airborne, is a group of fireflies or firefly larvae.

Here's a video of fireflies blinking on and off for comparison.

Your's clearly aren't flashing in this way but from wikipedia "They have evolved a variety of ways to communicate with mates in courtships. From steady glows, flashing, as well as the use of chemical signals unrelated to photic systems."

Next time you see them try approaching. (But take your gun just in case I'm wrong)

Thank you for your thoughts on this. I am not close to being sure of what I saw... thats certain. I did consider the firefly possibility but only for a second. That is because the absolute brightness of what we saw (of course not shown on the video) was a brightness beyond description. At one point... about 30 to 50 of these things formed a perfect octagon shape and then all intensified their brightness in sync. They were so bright that it was difficult to look directly at them but you could not pull your eyes away from them either.

While it may have been a natural phenomenon, I really dont think that it was firefly s. And by the way... we have not seen any firefly s in those woods... on the mountain. We do see them in the trees and bushes along the creek that runs through th property, but that's it,
e
Thanks again and stay tuned.... maybe I will be able to bring more to the table in terms of solid or at least better evidence. Stay safe,

I'm done. The second thread Airborne created also has contradicting statements that don't corroborate with the original story which was all over the place anyways. How many different ways did we hear the story about the battery charging/changing the battery?

Going through the thread so many people asked him for simple investigative information to debunk what he filmed...

HOAX

I understand how you feel when something unbelievable happens. You wish to share these goosebumps, but with comments like these you should just go back again without any camera and bring friends instead and live this thing through...leave them on their couch.

In a case like this, circumstantial confusions and contradictions aren't sufficient to call hoax. Anyone who wants to make this serious allegation in regard to Airborne's intriguing footage of what appears to be a complex plasma phenomenon would need to carefully analyze the footage itself, just as was done, with great credit to ATS, in the case of the Sydney ufo image. Until such image analysis has been done, or it has been established that Airborne purloined footage from an unacknowledged source, the charge of hoax should surely be withdrawn, with apologies to Airborne.
Assuming the footage is genuine, it's fascinating to see how at these visible frequencies the orbs appear and disappear either at the apices or along the sides of a 3D network of linked equilateral triangles. In this respect the footage compares with the much larger UAP captured at Pascoe Vale, Melbourne in 2004.
The Hessdalen researchers have demonstrated the stability of these triangular configurations.
regards to all

Originally posted by Lowneck
In a case like this, circumstantial confusions and contradictions aren't sufficient to call hoax.

And.. so they shouldn't be mentioned?????

Anyone who wants to make this serious allegation in regard to Airborne's intriguing footage of what appears to be a complex plasma phenomenon would need to carefully analyze the footage itself

So you've done that? On what basis do you make the claim that it appears to be 'plasma'? They are bright pixels in a digital image, so please explain your use of that term, and how you jumped from bright pixels to 'plasma'.

just as was done, with great credit to ATS, in the case of the Sydney ufo image. Until such image analysis has been done

That is a COMPLETELY different scenario, and was very likely NOT a hoax, just a misinterpetation. All the Sydney images were in daylight, and the analysis revolved around photogrammetric measurements and demonstrations, even a visit to the site. Here we have an amorphous blob of light pixels, with no frames of reference. Indeed it is notable that the key player decided to withdraw once that type of question was raised. At least Fiona in Sydney had the cojones to stick it out and keep responding. And if anything she got a harsher reception than this guy.

Assuming the footage is genuine, it's fascinating to see how at these visible frequencies the orbs appear and disappear either at the apices or along the sides of a 3D network of linked equilateral triangles.

Please provide some annotated images showing what you mean, or at the very least, timings in the videos where this effect is most obvious to you.

CHRLZ,

Thanks for comments. I take your points about the Sydney ufo.

Regarding the equilateral triangles in the shapes taken up by the phenomenon, despite trying, I can do no better than the screen captures posted by OP. I guess there is no substitute at this stage for repeated viewings of the video.

What we need, obviously, is a professional analysis and it only after that has been completed that the question of the authenticity of the footage can be resolved. Had certain posters on this thread shown more sensitivity, Airborne would have cooperated in this process and a high-quality analysis through ATS with invaluable witness input might have been achieved.

If you look through the thread, you can see how an initially friendly, cooperative and intelligent but busy witness was progressively provoked to anger by what he saw as too many unnecessary and irrelevant questions. By contrast, when others, including myself, put forward natural scientific explanations for the phenomenon, he was appreciative. Not the behaviour of a hoaxer.

To understand why I believe Airborne may have captured a complex plasma phenomenon you will have to do some reading. A good online starting point would be Massimo Teodorani's 2009 Narcap review Project Sphere 2.4. Note the weird geometrical shapes assumed by such phenomena in his Fig 4. and Fig 5. Another useful online resource would be the Journal for Scientific Exploration; for example the 2004 paper by Teodorani on Hessdalen and the earlier paper by Derr and Persinger on the tectonic strain theory.

Then, of course there are the various ATS threads on Hessdalen, with links to YouTube videos, an example of which I try to post below. If you are already familiar with all this, I apologise.

In the end your hoax theory may be proved correct, but that will only be accomplished by professional video analysis. Looking through the thread I see your hoax theory is at present a minority view.

regards, or, as we say here in xxxx, no worries, mate

Lowneck, first up may I say *thankyou* for taking my comments at face value, and responding courteously.

I tend to get pigeonholed as an evil debunker, but I have my share of weird experiences, and I am not a disbeliever. But my standards are *very* high, and I do have a genuine background in the sciences, especially involving photography. (I know that making that sort of claim on a conspiracy forum is pretty much worthless, but you can browse my other posts and judge for yourself.)

Anyway, I look at footage like that supplied here, and I sigh wearily. Sure, we need to allow some leeway for people who are not familiar with how to make a decent video, but when someone like this comes along, claiming to be a rifle/pistol expert yet can't hold his camera remotely steadily or lean it on something, doesn't use his night vision, won't show the scene where he filmed... (there are many, many more issues here, but I'll stop there..) And *then* refuses to accept any suggestions on how to do it better, and storms off in a hissy fit...

Sometimes I wish that posts are not deleted, so you could see what airborne880 said in response to what has been, frankly, quite mild criticism for this forum. What he said was quite disgraceful, and the posts were rightly removed. Then he storms off claiming, FALSELY that he was banned, and flinging more abuse from Youtube, where he can safely hide and delete dissenting comments.

NOT cool.

Anyway, rant over - on to your comments!

Originally posted by Lowneck
Regarding the equilateral triangles in the shapes taken up by the phenomenon, despite trying, I can do no better than the screen captures posted by OP. I guess there is no substitute at this stage for repeated viewings of the video.

Fair enough, but given my comments above, you can probably gather that I have no intention of feeding airborne880 with more hits.

What we need, obviously, is a professional analysis and it only after that has been completed that the question of the authenticity of the footage can be resolved.

But there's the rub. That footage is close to useless, and (my opinion only, of course!) I would bet my backside that any professional forensic analyst would just shake their heads, and say "Sorry - it's a video of some bright stuff"... Yes, we could probably determine the actual brightness, given the camera settings, but as to identifying the source, from that? Not going to happen.
It is devoid of background detail and ridiculously shaky, and airborne880 appears to be refusing to assist with anything to help - eg information about the camera, details of what he was pointing at, better footage, etc.

Had certain posters on this thread shown more sensitivity, Airborne would have cooperated in this process and a high-quality analysis through ATS with invaluable witness input might have been achieved.

Do you mean me? Was I too harsh? You do realise this is a public forum, that anyone can post what they think, and that truly offensive posts can be alerted and removed? You do see that it is AIRBORNE's posts that were removed???? WHY would he run from criticism? Why wouldn't he simply ignore the criticism.. and PROVE THEM/ME WRONG by helping to backup and explain his case? I'm sorry, but to me, this looks exactly like something you see quite frequently from trolls - they post something controversial, then wait for some criticsim, get pseudo-angry and then abandon the thread. Job done.

If this was anything of interest, airborne should have had the guts to proceed with it. He should have the guts to listen to criticism of his techniques and learn to do it better. If he was accused of lying he should simply prove he didn't.

Crikey, mate, it's the Internet - grow a backbone!!! (that's aimed at airborne, not you, lowneck!)

If you look through the thread, you can see how an initially friendly, cooperative and intelligent but busy witness was progressively provoked to anger by what he saw as too many unnecessary and irrelevant questions.

I've highlighted the key words! I don't see it that way, but everyone is entitled to their view. Frankly, if he posts on a conspiracy forum without wearing a hard hat, and is not able to ignore people he doesn't like, or prove his veracity by deed.. then... Maybe he isn't cut out for this sort of thing, and should stay in the safety of Youtube...

Or maybe it was deliberate.

By contrast, when others, including myself, put forward natural scientific explanations for the phenomenon, he was appreciative. Not the behaviour of a hoaxer.

So why was he so selective, and so incredibly sensitive to criticism and suggestions on what to do to make a better video? In what way is spilled glow-stick chemicals *not* a possible explanation? Given the other videos in his collection (he uses them, shoots at them...) it is a VERY good suggestion, and is simple. KISS.

If you have something that removes it as a possiblity, do enlighten us - like I said, I'll admit I haven't pored over the videos with a fine toothed comb and I'm not planning to revisit them without extremely good cause, so perhaps I have missed something obvious, and unlike airborne, I LOVE being proved wrong. Every time it happens I learn something..

To understand why I believe Airborne may have captured a complex plasma phenomenon you will have to do some reading. A good online starting point would be Massimo Teodorani's 2009 Narcap review Project Sphere 2.4. Note the weird geometrical shapes assumed by such phenomena in his Fig 4. and Fig 5. Another useful online resource would be the Journal for Scientific Exploration; for example the 2004 paper by Teodorani on Hessdalen and the earlier paper by Derr and Persinger on the tectonic strain theory.

I'll accept that as a possibility at face value, but there are other potential explanations - unless there is better footage supplied, I don't believe there will be any useful resolution of this. I've gotta say i think an attempted hoax is much more likely - but again, HAPPY to be proven wrong. Consider this - imagine how much airborne would LOVE to prove us evil atsers wrong by proving it wasn't a hoax. Trouble is, to do so, he will have to start taking advice... from people like me who know cameras...

In the end your hoax theory may be proved correct, but that will only be accomplished by professional video analysis. Looking through the thread I see your hoax theory is at present a minority view.

regards, or, as we say here in xxxx, no worries, mate

Cooee, cobber.

And I will look into the hessdalen stuff in more detail at some later point, so you might run into me elsewhere...

When I look at videos of any UFO/Alien encounter I consider all possibilities.

I in my mind believe ET's exist, and that some UFO sightings are just our own man made things. Don't confuse flares with UFO's. I am not a skeptic I just open my mind wide enough to consider everything before I say it is " this or that "

Anyway, great videos. On a side note:


5 years ago my wife my two sons and myself were coming from my old security job on a highway that passes a so called non active Military base in Millington, TN. It wasn't quite dark yet still some light. But as we were driving we all almost at the same time turned our heads to something to the left about 20 yards away we saw a SUV sized egg type object that was on fire with a blue and white fiery tail just speeding forward. We knew it wasn't a small meteor because it turned slightly like as a correction of some kind. Then it just vanished behind some trees. It was off the ground maybe about 10 or so feet the whole time. We had our windows dows and we also slowed down to about 20ish miles per hour. There was no sound during or after it disappeared. I wish we had a video camera at the time it was just awesome.

Looking forward to your next post of video evidence.

CHRLZ,

Thanks for your long and thoughtful post. You've certainly convinced me that you're not just a blinkered debunker.

Completely agree about the need for high standards and people with your experience are invaluable to ATS.

But having searched YouTube for glow stick plus ufo and so forth, I can't find anything resembling Airborne's footage. If you could find a reasonable match it would be a useful reference not only in this case but for future use.

And I've tried very hard to picture Airborne as a hoaxer, but just can't do it. In the fighting units in which he's served, if you don't trust
your comrades-in-arms you're dead. As you might well be if you venture up his mountain. Don't rely on his shaky marksmanship.

And I still can't see why Airborne - no fool he - would jeopardise his career by faking some obscure phenomenon that isn't even a ufo. The great debunker Phil Klass, who claimed that ufos were nothing but plasma phenomena, would surely be bemused at the efforts here to debunk his chief debunking tool.

As a relative newcomer to ATS I think I've said enough - and probably too much about piezoelectricity. The last poster's story was interesting, but it would be good to also hear from OP, Torsion, MBMBN, moderators and so on.

I'm not really a digger sadly, though my mother was a teacher in NSW. But I love OZ and only a few weeks ago was nosing around the old gold mines near Kal. You can locate the old mines there by following the trails of old beer cans.

once again, no worries mate

CHRLZ,

Thanks for your long and thoughtful post. You've certainly convinced me that you're not just a blinkered debunker.

Completely agree about the need for high standards and people with your experience are invaluable to ATS.

But having searched YouTube for glow stick plus ufo and so forth, I can't find anything resembling Airborne's footage. If you could find a reasonable match it would be a useful reference not only in this case but for future use.

And I've tried very hard to picture Airborne as a hoaxer, but just can't do it. In the fighting units in which he's served, if you don't trust
your comrades-in-arms you're dead. As you might well be if you venture up his mountain. Don't rely on his shaky marksmanship.

And I still can't see why Airborne - no fool he - would jeopardise his career by faking some obscure phenomenon that isn't even a ufo. The great debunker Phil Klass, who claimed that ufos were nothing but plasma phenomena, would surely be bemused at the efforts here to debunk his chief debunking tool.

As a relative newcomer to ATS I think I've said enough - and probably too much about piezoelectricity. The last poster's story was interesting, but it would be good to also hear from OP, Torsion, MBMBN, moderators and so on.

I'm not really a digger sadly, though my mother was a teacher in NSW. But I love OZ and only a few weeks ago was nosing around the old gold mines near Kal. You can locate the old mines there by following the trails of old beer cans.

once again, no worries mate

Thanks for the response, LN. I appreciate your thoughts.

I agree that the purveyor doesn't look like your average hoaxer, but how do you know how much of his story is true? And what if he got his footage initially and made a big thing out of it, only to subsequently discover that he has captured something else, and is now too embarrassed to admit it.

Maybe *he* was hoaxed..

Maybe he doesn't even know it. (Yet?)

Who knows. But we do need to consider all possibilities, avoid taking stuff at face value, and not eliminate anything or make assumptions based on someone's say so. Especially when that someone has been shown to take liberties with the truth (eg his repeated claim he was banned here, when he was NOT.)

BTW, I have actually bought myself some glowstick stuff, with a view to doing some experiments... I'll post the results later, but it may be a while, as I have a life Oh, and there are also fireflies within not too great a distance, so I might also spend some quality time in the rainforest and see what I can get...

Glad you liked Oz - parts of it are bloody excellent, mate!

CHRLZ,

(apologies to all for incompetently duplicating my last post).

Exactly what I was thinking. That would explain a lot.

Looking forward to your forthcoming footage.

Saw amazingly bright flashes in the sky while looking for Perseids last night. Gave me an eerie feeling and I'm now thinking hard.

all the best, mate

Originally posted by Lowneck
Looking forward to your forthcoming footage.

So am I.. Hopefully it won't be too long - feel free to revive the thread later if I haven't done it...

Saw amazingly bright flashes in the sky while looking for Perseids last night. Gave me an eerie feeling and I'm now thinking hard.

Pictures or it didn't happen!! Jokin'...

So were they stationary, do you think? Were they really flashes or did they just rapidly grow/fade? Were they all in the same area of sky?

The reason I ask is that there are a couple of possibilities:
- 'head-on' meteors
If you are lucky, you might see meteors from directly under, or in line with its flight path. Rare, and they would all tend to be from the same region of sky - I would expect to see others at the same time, though, if you were out there looking for any length of time..
- satellite flare
Iridium satellites are well known for this - they have regular and predictable (heavens-above.com) flares of light, as their solar panels catch the sun. It also happens to other satellites, and i was once lucky enough to see one satellite that was obviously tumbling out-of-control, and regularly brightening and darkening - quite amazing to watch. But with satellites you will see their movement. (There are some geo-stationary ones, but flashes from those are *very* rare indeed.)

Have an expensive video camera ready next time...

CHRLZ,

Thanks for your quick response.

We're wandering a bit off topic, but in view of your contribs to this thread, I'll carry on a bit. I've been a lazy amateur astronomer for years, so had already considered and excluded the possibilities you mention, eg flares from Iridium 49, through the excellent Heavens Above site. Here's what I noted:

2010 15 Aug

no meteors observed
c 2135 GMT very bright white flash, about 1 second, near alpha U Maj
c 2145 GMT similar very bright white flash, much brighter than Venus, about 1 second, about ten degrees south of Altair. Appeared to startle sea gulls. No discernible noise.

Any further ideas welcome.

no worries mate

Originally posted by Lowneck
CHRLZ,

Thanks for your quick response.

We're wandering a bit off topic, but in view of your contribs to this thread, I'll carry on a bit. I've been a lazy amateur astronomer for years, so had already considered and excluded the possibilities you mention, eg flares from Iridium 49, through the excellent Heavens Above site. Here's what I noted:

2010 15 Aug

no meteors observed
c 2135 GMT very bright white flash, about 1 second, near alpha U Maj
c 2145 GMT similar very bright white flash, much brighter than Venus, about 1 second, about ten degrees south of Altair. Appeared to startle sea gulls. No discernible noise.

Any further ideas welcome.

no worries mate

A lazy amateur astro, eh...? We could be twins!!

And yes, I agree we should not hijack this thread any further.. except for this..

What's your observation location? (just rough latitude is fine) - reason I'm asking is to determine if it was early enough in the night to be sun-related - by your description of the locations, it sounds like the sun could be a factor - was there still a bit of dusk light? Apart from the satellite idea, it could even have been a very high flying aircraft, but I think you would have recognised the motion in that case.

Sounds like you know your stuff, anyway, so if you have no idea, then I doubt I'll have any better ones.

Better give Jaime Maussan and Santiago Ytturia/Garza a call, and they will verify that it was definitely of proven alien origin, and you can appear at their next conference...!!![/flippant]

(sorry..)

CHRLZ,

First, back on topic of this thread, with regard to the excellent guidelines on decorum by neformore, I was concerned about what Airborne perceived as personal attacks and responded to as an ex-paratrooper, not as a nerdish lazy amateur astronomer. I still think his footage is likely genuine and of great scientific interest. I think that you agree that complex geometrical plasma phenomena are possible and in the event of a hoax being proven (unlikely in my view), Airborne may well have been a victim rather than a perpetrator.

My own recent 'sighting' is really irrelevant to this thread, but thanks for the help. I was thinking misperceived stray fireworks recently. Certainly not flares from Iridium 49. Latitude about fifty north here, wish I was still looking at alpha Crucis rather than alpha U.Maj - was born and raised in S. Hemisphere where I first got to know stars.

If you have time to spare, I'd appreciate your input on the Bruce Cornet thread and on the fascinating recent San Diego triangle. I've done some amateur photoshopping on screen captures posted on the San Diego thread with intriguing results. Professional analysis and comments there would be great.

Cheers