Craziest UFO Video EVER

It was a long day, I'm being dyslexic right now.

It's a UFO, not what everyone is claiming. Like Uranus and Venus smooching together.

Originally posted by Manhater
It was a long day, I'm being dyslexic right now.

It's a UFO, not what everyone is claiming. Like Uranus and Venus smooching together.

Oh ok then!

Originally posted by Manhater
It was a long day, I'm being dyslexic right now.

It's a UFO, not what everyone is claiming. Like Uranus and Venus smooching together.

case closed then.we can all
move on

Originally posted by yourignoranceisbliss

Even more hilarious are the bandwagon jumpers you've managed to accumulate to support the shoddy debunking.

Why waste bandwidth? Just say it's swamp gas and be done with it. You're still guaranteed to have a couple of supporters, regardless.

Ridiculous.

The video is very obvious a de-focused star/planet...the "diamond" shape gives it away as well as the "halos" etc. which are evidence that it's out of focus. Also the movement of the "UFO" is very consistent with speed which a star/planet would appear to have in a telescope.

(The shot with the moon in it and then zooming in makes it even more obvious it's a planet).

So..when it LOOKS like a turd, smells like a turd...what it is?

It's a waste of bandwidth to investigate into something which can be so easily de-bunked, and NOT to point out the obvious as he did.

ATTENTION:

If you have something constructive to add to the thread such as "what the object could be" or "why it cannot be this or that" fine. But if you are coming to slam another member, post off topic comments, and violate the T&C.....just don't. Move on or walk outside and look at the skies. This goes for everyone.

Keep to the topic and the topic only.

Thank you.

Carry on.

EDIT: oops, overlooked part saying video was taken on 1.26.2012 (ive replaced the image with proper date)
Video was uploaded 01.28.2012

Here's a view of the sky on that date 1.26.2012:



VERY MUCH Venus.
Just Look at how close Venus is to the Moon at the time.

Yet another case of poor video equipment giving misleading information.

I have never seen a planet that looked like this before. I have never seen a video that portrayed that kind of a shape and called it a planet. I am still not convinced that it is just a planet.

reply to post by greeneyedleo

Apologies. I was not attempting to slam the OP so would like to add a constructive question towards Phage seeing as how he pointed out a rather common feature of household cameras. Hopefully this will help me and others understand certain basic principles and phenomena too.

ETA The Dutch have an expression. The only stupid question is a question not asked. Believe it or not its how I learnt their language too. Asking asking asking... There are limits of course to that statement but hey, its friday nite, a couple of beers ease the way.

reply to post by Phage

Phage. Could you tell us what kinds of "cameras" NASA uses in its various scopes, probes, crafts and sensors when taking (vaguely?) optical photos now? You mention digital zoom which I know from consumer cameras to be inferior to optical zoom. Do NASA use one, the other or a combination of both? I have read things about processing too but maybe that is unrelated? Are NASA optics in any way comparable in certain terms with what we have here on earth? TIA.

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

Could you tell us what kinds of "cameras" NASA uses in its various scopes, probes, crafts and sensors when taking (vaguely?) optical photos now?

JPL and NASA (generically) tell you right up front if you care to look for yourself.

Hang on ! Did I fall asleep and wake up back in the 80's ?

Crap I even gave Phage a star !


Peace

Instead of all this rhetoric, why not take a scientific approach and be done with it.
Take your digital camera out , point it at a bright point of light like a star or venus, and de-focus the camera.
You will get this same image. A diamond shaped blurry kaleidoscopic object which in reality is the lens opening through the shutter, imaged as optical feedback.

Then you can post it here, show it to the OP. If they believe it or not , so what, you have proven the effect, which is a grade school lesson in the effects of bright objects on improper focal length. Debunking needs to be constructive, not obstructive.

reply to post by Chamberf=6

I meant the question in a generic and informative way as a layman. I know Phage can explain things better than I can understand certain wikipedia articles, thanks for your input though. There's nothing wrong with asking a silly question, it is free to be ignored.

ETA "Results are in from Holland....nul pwan"

here you can see the same effect. this time from filming military flares.

That star (venus) is in that position every night.... Debunked

Originally posted by princeguy
I have never seen a planet that looked like this before. I have never seen a video that portrayed that kind of a shape and called it a planet. I am still not convinced that it is just a planet.

The planet doesn't look like that it's the cheap camera that's making it look like a diamond shaped ufo.

Try not using such gung-ho thread titles and you wont have as many disappointed people.

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

The optical devices on all of NASA's spacecraft are pretty much purpose built and specialized so they are each unique so no, I can't really tell you what they all are. But I can tell you that none of them would employ digital zoom (or autofocus), it would provide no purpose.

When a bright point source object is brought out-of-focus, the object will begin to take the shape of the aperture.

An iPhone has a 4 bladed shutter aperature, hence a square , or diamond image (rotated 45 degrees). Here is an out of focus picture taken of Christmas tree lights on an iPhone....

Courtesy: Iskin Bokah effects

It is Venus. I see it in that position every night.

Know the difference between viewing planets and stars? Planets don't flicker. Planets also show up in relatively the same position every night.

reply to post by princeguy


to me this is !00% proof of a a point of light and a substandard camera