What the...What was That? UFO spotted in LIVE NBC News SkyCam at Fort Worth, TX

Originally posted by Lost_Mind
Everyone is making it sound like they have a DSLR camera up there looking down on Dallas. At best they have a color CCTV or WebCam up there and with the focus pulled all the way back like it is most everything will be in good focus unless it practically lands on the lens of the camera, right? And even then you would still be able to see it because it would be blocking the view... I mean with the focus pulled all the way in, there is no DOF issues right? Splain it to me if I'm wrong here....Blaine, Blaine?

The camera is set for a view in the distance so yes anything close would be blurred.

Since it is a remote shot they would have lights set up to work under and to illuminate anyone who may have been in front of the camera.

With the lights behind the camera an insect would be brightly illuminated while it would have no bearing on the distant view.

After taking time to look closer and go through some frames on my own, the classic infamous Rod is clearly what this is.

The insect is very close while the focus is set to infinity likely. Any insect would appear as a bright white dot more or less and the wobble in the Rod effect is the wings syncing with the frame rate.

Due to perspective, anything close would appear to move at lightning speeds even a bug flying by. There is nothing to counter the idea this is in fact an insect.

People seem to have the hardest time comprehending the issues that perspective creates. The field of view narrows like cone as it approaches the lens. Due to that a distant object and a close object traveling at the same speed would cross the field of view at a different rate. The further away the slower it would appear to move.

You can almost categorically say that this is an insect of some sort. In the old Rod hoaxes they were mostly Moths I think.

As to why the people taking the video don't know, I'm not buying into that. When you work in entertainment or news it's all about seeking attention, exaggeration and sensationalizing.

If I'm completely wrong here, I've thrown out hundreds of still photo's with UFO's that I thought were insects. I don't think so.

Originally posted by jimnuggits
Depth of field would be all the way out here, so as to focus on the roads, traffic, etc.

So, basically, everything within the thirty closest feet to the camera would be blurry as Hades.

Not a problem for a roof mounted camera, and certainly the news channel would make sure that there was as few obstructions as possible, so that they get their money's worth from mounting the camera there.

Also, what would illuminate the supposed 'bug'?

The cameraman would make absolutely certain there was no lights close to the lens, because that would destroy and degrade the night time image they are trying to get.

Next...?

So, using a vid from Chadwickus' thread:



why is this model Ferrari not blurry as hades and yet we can still see a very well focused background? Based on your assumption it should be no more than a red blob, unidentifiable no less.

reply to post by tetsuoatx


I'm not saying it's not a bug, but that deeefinatly isn't "like hundreds of miles", from what we can see in the video it's literally like 1 mile.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Lost_Mind


Everything in this picture is within 90 feet or less from the camera.

And the trees in the background are not clearly in focus.

Take a look at the original film again.

Everything in focus is at least 400 yards away from the camera.

And the color of the lights are all of a very different hue from our intrepid Moth.

Why is the object in question lit by a type of light not present anywhere else in the frame?

I am not stating that I believe this is an alien ship, but I am not convinced it is an insect either.

reply to post by Lost_Mind


Depth of Field is determinate on may things. Aperture, exposure and which lens.

In that photo the background is not actually in that sharp of focus and there is some blurring. That is taken in good lighting.

As to the other the camera is focused very far away.

Article on this topic.

reply to post by jimnuggits


The lights are behind the camera and the shot is of the landscape in the distance. Why would the crew work in the dark for no good reason. The lights would create no issues.

I think you are misinterpreting the distances here.

reply to post by Blaine91555


I assumed this shot to be taken from a permanently mounted camera atop a building, requiring no back lighting. I imagined it to be the 'traffic cam,' but you may be right regarding the lighting.

The 400 yards may be erroneous, but certainly the DOF is set to infinity, otherwise we would not be able to see the horizon so clearly.

Good points, all.

Originally posted by SpringHeeledJack
reply to post by ancapaaron

 

Because the sheer stupidity of anyone lending credence to this hokum is infuriating to say the least. I don't have the self control and patience to actually go through and teach you to count to 10. Not even accounting for the fact that if I taught you to count to ten, you would argue that it's "one, two, three, potato, zulu, foxtrot, 10010100101001010." You're fixating on me. You NEED me to prove this to you when I've repeatedly said others have already done so. Go back through the pages. Video upon video showing the exact same thing.

Now look at the posts from Blaine91555. Perfect. He's teaching you to count so you better grab a pencil

Oh good lord! I never conceited any knowledge of what it was either way. You conceited the knowledge, and henceforth have to assume people know nothing about it. This again makes my point for me in the fact that these kinds of things have to be backed up with evidence. Quit trying to pull other people into our discussion about your half-baked skills on presenting something to others. Do your own stinking work, and quit being so inflammatory. This discussion between me and you isn't going to carry on beyond this point because it's crossed the line in terms of civility.

People here are SO uneducated in the idea of perspective. Something can move in front of a camera very close and NOT look close and LOOK big when its tiny. Its 9000x times more likely that this is a bug, illuminated by light, moving across the camera quickly which makes it very pixelated. I used to love playing with our family camera when i was a kid especially at night. I saw things like this all the time that looked exactly the same and they were BUGS. But hey lets ignore occam's razor and assume its an alien spacecraft.. derpderpa welcome to ATS.

reply to post by Lost_Mind


The man in the background is much more blurry than the Ferrari that the camera is focused on. Objects in the background display less blur when the camera is focused on the foreground, than objects in the foreground will if the camera is focused on the background.

It also looks like a cheap digital camera with no focus.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by tetsuoatx
It just looks like a bug to me. From the size of the object and the view if it were considered an actual aircraft that object is moving across like hundreds of miles in a half second. I doubt it.

I respectfully disagree, and this is one of the comments, from the YouTube video, with a good point:

"I didn't think this was a bug, there typically aren't lights in front/behind skycam cameras because they know lights at night attract lots of bugs and would interfere with the shot, also fort worth is like any other large city in the summer it has a layer of dense smog above the city which may account for the lightcraft appearing to dim but it could be b/c its shifting its vibrational energy signature as a means of propulsion but its hard to say since we don't exactly know the energy source".

i really dont know what that was since i really dont follow ufo's that closely but to me it looks like it could be a shooting star maybe. nice find though, really cool.

reply to post by mjleonid12


Number one, observe the banner at the bottom. It's moving much slower than it should be which means the video was slowed down considerably. During the live casting of this I would be surprised if anyone noticed it at all.

Number two, you have no idea who may have been on that tower working on another electronic item. They typically have many different devices attached to one tower and someone may have been working on one of them with a light. It could have also been a joke someone was playing. It doesn't take a genius to realize the ease of the hoax and the laughs someone would get from doing it.

Bugs, Bugs Bugs....

This is really bugging me. For what it's worth, that is a bug not from this planet...

I learned something from this thread, that if ever I come across something like this, whether it be on video or seen with the naked eye, it has to be a bug....

Yes, nothing exists but bugs...I rest my case.

Not

Peace.

At first I thought lightening. Then I read the posts. I looked for a bug. I cannot say its a bug as the object appears to try really hard to slow down...stops momentarily then speeds of with increasing speed in another direction. Bugs normally are fairly quick and don't need to slow down to change direction. On the replays I though maybe a small bird diving then flying away. But the fact that lightening seems to indicate its partially hidden in the clouds makes me wonder if its off in the distant horizon. Hell idk...but it is very interesting. If it were a UFO that thing has got to be huge if it is miles away.

reply to post by mjleonid12


If a bug or other critter, it may not be illuminated by a light source near the camera. I think that it is possibly lit up by a building display or artistic light, most likely shining up at the camera from below. Like the type of spotlights used to illuminate flags and prominent buildings with.

Unless it is pretty high I would think that if near the camera it would attract a LOT of bugs and we would see them as well, which is what makes me consider that the light source is very bright but quite distant.