check this out
http://www.rense.com/general41/dayfo.htm

Proof of what?

from what i could see from the screenshot it looks similar to the objects in the anthony woods video,

very exciting

proof that you don't have a clue

With todays technologies, photo's and video's do not constitue proof. In fact, they never did.

Evidence? Maybe, but not proof.

q
proof that you don't have a clue

It appears one of our resident members has taken on a new userid.

Who might this one be?

VRob

I hate to disagree, but that is an object, it's flying, and as of yet unidentified. If you know any craft that fly over a small city, make no noise, aluminates or create photons, disassemble in mid air, and take off so fast that they just seem to disappear then please show me the link. I'm just trying to share a treasure found in a huge pile of mostly garbage. Take from it what you will but from the looks of things you already have.


Here's some food for thought for those of you who actually do

You Don't Have To 'Believe'
In UFOs Any Longer
By James Neff
webmaster@rense.com
5-28-00


Whenever I hear the question "do you believe in UFOs?" in coversation I become immensely frustrated. To most of those who have devoted even a reasonable portion of time to acquiring an understanding of the phenomenon, the term "belief" simply doesn't, and should never, apply. To use this expression shoves the UFO over into the category of religion or even fantasy, and nothing could be more inaccurate or counter-productive. UFOlogy is a scientific pursuit like any other. It takes absolutely no leap of faith, no mustering of imagination or whimsy for any rational mind to realize what is already a proven reality: Unidentified Flying Objects of an inexplicable class and character exist and are as real and verified as comets or the rings of Saturn (and may have been around just as long).

The simple fact of the matter is, UFOs (and whatever may be piloting them) are a substantive, verified and massively documented phenomena ... but much of our culture and language perpetuate and cling to the erroneous notion that we're dealing with some kind of specter or myth of hysteria or mass-societal halucenation.

I'll go one step further. One might 'believe' in fire-breathing dragons or fairies ... yet, there is no evidence whatsoever that either of these exist. However, one need only look at the facts now in evidence to see that actual 'flying saucers' (not merely "unidentified flying objects") do, indeed, exist.

Those who know UFOs are 'real' need to make a serious effort to cease using and condoning that negative terminology of doubt inspired by our disinformation-driven culture. "Are you aware of UFOs?" (ie, "have you been educated on the existence of flying saucers?") should have replaced "Do you believe in UFOs?" in both text and conversation long ago. We no longer are soliciting people to 'believe'. Instead, we are (or should be) asking the uninformed to become educated to the facts. The issue of visitors to this planet, wherever (or whenever) they originate, is as vital an issue as any world geopolitical, religious, or economic affair or policy. In fact, it is probably far more important.


Flying Laboratories

It is simply a matter of education. The evidence we have for the existence of unidentified flying machines of advanced technology, even if we toss out all photographic evidence and all abduction accounts or close encounter experience testimonies from the most reliable, credible civilian experiencers, is... massive. Even if we dismiss the most credible testimony and eyewitness accounts, the evidence is simply enormous.

What remains is a nearly a century of 'expert' interaction with flying saucers (and other shaped craft of equally inexplicable propulsion technology) under extremely scientific, verifiable, and examinable circumstances. I am speaking of the countless military and commercial pilot interactions with these remarkable, unknown machines, in situations where often entirely empirical testing of data has been recorded. One could not ask for a much better 'test lab' for the UFO phenomenon than in the cockpit of a military fighter or commercial airliner.

In both situations there are one, or more, specialists in the field of atmospherics and aerodynamics in a 'flying laboratory,' well-equipped with scientifically-approved and understood instrumentation which can record and note verifiable time frames, locations, altitudes, longitudes, latitudes of the UFO phenomena. Additionally, and obviously, there is also (in countless cases) verification by radar -- which consitututes a second 'laboratory' of qualified, educated and capable specialists interpreting data.

Apart from pilots in their 'flying laboratories' and their ground-based radar counterparts, there is now also the testimony of astronauts who are increasingly detailing UFO evidence and information outside of the stratosphere.

From these three sources alone, there exists undeniable proof of the 'flying saucer' which would hold up in any court of law.

UFOs have entered practically every 'sensitive' international airspace, been tracked on uncountable civilian and military radars, been pursued by the finest and most advanced flying machines on the planet, eye-witnessed by our best trained pilots, even fired upon (or so attempted) by pilots dating all the way back to reports from WWI aviators over England.

Our visitors have been tracked at speeds exceeding all known propulsion or contemporary technology and fully-defying the laws of *our* physics. Flying Saucers have on scores of occasions brought military units, including our nuclear forces, to full alert and then engaged those forces in what appear to be tests of our technological capacity. Flying Saucers of gargantuan size have been seen at close range by both civilian and military professionals and verified by radar...both ground and airborne. Some would even say our visitors have taunted and played with our military...the reports of incursions into our SAC bases being particularly extraordinary.

Millions of dollars are spent every year by air force units around the world from every advanced nation to intercept these aerial interlopers. Countries do not spend that kind of money chasing Venus, 'heat inversions' or entertaining myths. To suggest so is simply preposterous.

The information and data, mountains of it, from these civilian and military aviation and defense specialists regarding the UFO match or exceed the information we have from "less than expert" civilian eyewitnesses of UFOs, and only serves to validate and support public accounts of UFOs and/or interactions with them. We accept without reservation the existence of atomic and subatomic particles which only a privileged handful of experts in that field of study have ever 'seen' with the most advanced special instrumentation.

Granted, there is far more 'scientific' data and knowledge of atomic and subatomic particles than exists for flying saucers -- but data is data, and evidence is evidence -- and we have no trouble in trusting and being dependent upon the experiences and veracity of the physicists and scientists involved. We accept the reality of these all but invisible atomic and sub-atomic structures with no hesitation. And yet with the flying saucer, we are not dealing with 'invisibles' at all.

At best, one must define the flying saucer as transitory, difficult and evasive -- but nonetheless, a real part of our physicial universe. Unlike the atomic particle which is governed by laws already understood, or well on the way to being understood within the sheer mechanics of the universe itself and its conditions and measures, the UFO has behind it an intelligence of its own. We can no more easily reach out and snatch a flying saucer for examination than we can ball lightning... yet, both exist. (There is strong indication our military has had examples of UFO technology ...and its flight crews...for more than a half century, but that is another subject altogether).

Our public sector scientific evaluation of the flying saucer is therefore more akin to hunting a rare and highly-advanced species of animal formerly classified as 'cryptozooligical' but now definitely reclassified as 'authentic' due to the sheer weight of verifiable and coherent data from experts. Like the Tasmanian Tiger, we now know they "are"... but to capture one for more advanced study proves to be essentially impossible.


Ours Or 'Theirs'?

It does appear that the U.S. military has developed craft with similar appearance and capabilities as some 'flying saucers' (as reported by many reasonable and credible individuals). However, history shows us that the flying saucer has been coming and going on planet earth for generations, and centuries, which rules out the idea that all flying saucers are manmade craft of a clandestine technology.

Considering these realities, our language regarding UFOs should cease, immediately, to reflect the elements of myth, legend or fantasy, and fully embrace its definitive reality, helping to bring in a new cultural era regarding the UFO. We must each arm ourselves with these most primary facts when dealing with those uneducated, prepared to give a rational defense of the subject.

There is absolutely no reason to ever feel awkward about the issue simply because others are poorly-educated about the facts. And educating them at every opportunity is paramount. The reality of UFOs is such that its implications require every human being to become as aware of it as their individual mental and emotional limits will allow. Our place in the universe is likely to be defined by this very subject, be it a truth we are ready to receive or a lie we are miserably destined to suffer.

Either way, we don't "believe" in UFOs. No faith is required. It is not a religion or occult pseudo science. It is a reality. What we do with that reality is now squarely on the table.


A Rebuttal


Jim Foreman of The Skeptic Report. wrote to alert me to his rebuttal...

X-Sender: (on file)
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 03:23:03 -0700
To: webmaster@sightings.com
From: "James H. Foreman"

It's been almost a year, but I'm still here, fighting the good fight.

The Daily Skeptic died a horrible, slow death, but it's been resurrected as The Skeptic Report. You might be happy to know that I just completed a story about your recent article that appeared on Sightings.com. Your article is well written, but it's wrong in a lot of places. Check out our rebuttle:

http://jebzingo.tripod.com/skepticreport/

Enjoy!

Jim Foreman
Editor, The Skeptic Report

His rebuttal is published as follows...

M A Y 2 9 , 2 0 0 0
From the UFOs Suck File
SORRY, IT'S STILL A BELIEF
http://jebzingo.tripod.com/skepticreport/

James Neff, the webmaster of rense.com, is a gentleman with whom we've clashed before. He's always been courteous and friendly in our dealings with him (except for that time he got really pissed off at us*), and he is one of the more intelligent, articulate paranormalites out there in the Internet's electronic soup. He also does some nifty artwork.

The reason we bring him up is for this nice little article he wrote for Jeff Rense's website (you can read it here) entitled "You Don't Have to 'Believe' Anymore." This article basically extolls the virtues of UFO worship, though he devotes the article to damning that anyone could "believe" in UFOs at all. According to him, the existence of UFOs is a proven fact, not open to belief at all. Here, Mr. Neff is just plain wrong.

OK, we'll grant that UFOs (in this, we mean Unidentified Flying Objects) do exist. There are strange things in the sky that people see and then report to their local branch of MUFON. Maybe these objects are vehicles, or are at least unnatural phenomena built by intelligent species. Some of them. Maybe. Does this mean that those few that are actually physical, manufactured objects made by humans? Probably. Does this mean that they're created by aliens? Absolutely not.

But rather than condemn Mr. Neff without any corroboration, let's let his own words convict him:


"It takes absolutely no leap of faith, no mustering of imagination or whimsy for any rational mind to realize what is already a proven reality: UFOs exist and are as real and the Pacific Ocean or the Rocky Mountains..."



OK, maybe you're on to something there. Like we said, we'll admit that people are seeing stuff.


"...(and may have been here just as long)."



What? Where's the corroboration for that? Does my rational mind accept that? Hell, no! Sneaking in undocumented "whimsy" into a somewhat corroborated statement of fact is just not very nice.


"The issue of visitors to this planet, wherever (or whenever) they originate, is as vital an issue as any world geopolitical, religious, or economic affair or policy. In fact, it is probably far more important."




Ah, yes, an undocumented, unreliably recorded and outright unproved event is definitely more important than, say, nuclear war or something. Realize this, Mr. Neff, UFOs aren't alien creations until you (or someone else) proves it. It ain't been proven yet. Case closed.


"What remains is a nearly a century of 'expert' interaction with flying saucers (and other shaped craft) under extremely scientific, verifiable, and examinable circumstances. I am speaking of the countless military and commercial pilot interactions with these remarkable, unknown machines, in situations where often entirely empirical testing of data has been recorded. One could not ask for a much better 'test lab' for the UFO phenomenon than in the cockpit of a military fighter or commercial airliner.

In both situations there are one, or more, specialists in the field of atmospherics and aerodynamics in a 'flying laboratory,' well-equipped with scientifically-approved and understood instrumentation which can record and note verifiable time frames, locations, altitudes, longitudes, latitudes of the UFO phenomena. Additionally, and obviously, there is also (in countless cases) verification by radar -- which consitututes a second 'laboratory' of qualified, educated and capable specialists interpreting data.

Apart from pilots in their 'flying laboratories' and their ground-based radar counterparts, there is now also the testimony of astronauts who are increasingly detailing UFO evidence and information outside of the stratosphere.

From these three sources alone, there exists undeniable proof of the 'flying saucer.' "


No, that's not true at all. Other than grainy photographs, radar ghosts and eyewitness testimony (which is always highly questionable...ask any lawyer) I am not aware of anything empirical or scientific. Simply noting that something is there, flying around, or might be flying around, in no way proves (or even logically suggests) that it is an alien spacecraft.


"Millions of dollars are spent every year by air force units around the world from every advanced nation to intercept these aerial interlopers. Countries do not spend that kind of money chasing Venus, 'heat inversions' or entertaining myths. To suggest so is simply preposterous."




Prove it. Can't? I didn't think so. It's not like a paranormalite to cite national governments as reliable about anything. I guess they do when it serves their purposes.


"We accept without reservation the existence of atomic and subatomic particles which only a privileged handful of experts in that field of study have ever 'seen' with the most advanced special instrumentation."




Uh huh. This doesn't explain why UFO supporters assume that because these flying things are unidentified, that they also have little gray men flying them around. That's "simply preposterous."
"Granted, there is far more 'scientific' data and knowledge of atomic and subatomic particles than exists for flying saucers -- but data is data, and evidence is evidence -- and we have no trouble in trusting and being dependent upon the experiences and veracity of the physicists and scientists involved."






I love it when paranormalites put the word scientific in quotations. Like it's just some buzz word that scientists attach to things to make them seem valid.

"Like the Tasmanian Tiger, we now know they "are"... but to capture one for more advanced study proves to be essentially impossible."




Uh, the Tasmanian Tiger "isn't," anymore, since it's extinct, and we know for a fact that it was wiped out by Europeans, since we still have their pelts. I met a guy who said he had an alien pelt once, but it looked more like a bolt of suede leather left out in the rain.
"However, history shows us that the flying saucer has been coming and going on planet earth for generations, and centuries, which rules out the idea that all flying saucers are manmade craft of a clandestine technology."






Pure speculation. There's no evidence for any of that at all. There are also some pretty cool accounts of vampires, but close examination by scientists familiar with body decay and pathology have shown that vampires probably weren't supernatural. Thus, historical accounts can't be trusted without modern analysis.

What really saddens us about the flavor of this whole article is the tendency for the people responsible for the dissemination of UFO information to wholly embrace the scanty evidence for Unidentified Flying Objects and then similarly assume, without any corroboration, that the objects are alien in origin. That's inexcusable, unscientific, and just plain unfair.


Reply

I love a skeptic, and consider myself one. A big one. It takes alot to convince me of anything. I'm not even sure you are real, Jim :)

You write:


"This article basically extolls the virtues of UFO worship, though he devotes the article to damning that anyone could "believe" in UFOs at all.



God forbid ANYONE "worships" UFOs as you claim I have encouraged! My entire point is that the UFO is undeserving of such mentality... because of the weight of evidence.

Now, allow me to defend myself only on two points, the rest of which I'll leave to the readers to evaluate using that wonderful gray matter between their ears. My admonition: BE SKEPTICAL. That's the entire point. EDUCATE yourself on the facts. Once the facts are in evidence, you will come to the same conclusion. Either that, or, turn in denial and ignore the truth.

(1) I make it very clear that we have in no way defined the ORIGINS of the UFO; this has NOT been verified or proven -- admittedly it is entirely speculative that they are "alien" craft from other planets or 'outer space'. But what I DO say is that since these craft have been recorded historically dating far beyond our own industrial revolution, much less the invention of manned flight, we can surmise that these are not all "ours" (ie, man made craft). You immediately debunk this idea. Well, history is on my side here. Anyone can crack a Bible and read about Ezekiel's UFO experience... anyone can read the Upanishads of the Hindu's and read about 'air cars' powered by an energy source called 'sidis'... and if one really wants to educate oneself on the true history of UFOs, you can read quite a lot in this excellent NIGHTWATCH article entitled "UFOs Through The Ages...A Timeline." Because human beings have been describing this same phenomena for so many centuries persuades me that the phenomena is at the very least not a production of modern technology. It remains to determine what they are, where they come from, etc. So we are in agreement -- your first statement is:


"OK, we'll grant that UFOs (in this, we mean Unidentified Flying Objects) do exist. There are strange things in the sky that people see and then report to their local branch of MUFON. Maybe these objects are vehicles, or are at least unnatural phenomena built by intelligent species."



(2) My second point is to rise to your challenge of proof that the military/air forces around the world spend millions of dollars dealing with the UFO phenomena. These events are on record. Stanton Friedman and many other researchers have amassed such data, and this is nothing new or earthshaking (to the UFO educated). Iraqi & Israeli Air Force, as well as the French government, have been entirely open about their UFO encounters. Several of our own astronauts have openly told about their encounters with UFOs when in the Air Force. Major Donald E. Kehoe spent the latter part of his life documenting such cases provoked by personal experience. Filer's Files frequently and archivally have records of such events. These aren't buried someplace! They've been known to anyone wanting to learn about it for years. Do you have any idea how much it costs to send your best fighters after a radar detected interloper traveling at 3000 mph over sensitive airspace (only to close in on it and discover it's not a missile, but a silver disc with brilliant lights playing cat and mouse)? Any person in the air force will confirm this fact: it costs millions, even if it only happens a few times a year. This website is overflowing with these cases and accounts, as are many others. The documentation is openly available. The witnesses, expert. The accounts, verified.

I will not defend the idea that UFOs are proven to be alien spacecraft. I don't know what they are. I simply know they 'ARE' and that historically the evidence for their existence reveals that, whatever their origin, it is entirely unrelated to our own technological status here on earth. Hence, it is not a "belief" system. It is a rational assembly of facts with a reasonable conclusion. Flying Saucers (and other shapes and forms of this same aerial phenomena) EXIST. They being of extraterrestrial origin is, indeed, a speculation; as is, a metaphysical conclusion; as is a phenomenon of nature. My personal speculation, based on the evidence, is that these are craft with intelligent occupants and/or guided by intelligent means which is not human; there is ample evidence of intelligent control behind these devices.

As I said, what we do with this reality is squarely on the table. I appreciate your skeptical proddings. Keeps me on my toes :)

PS: The Tasmanian Tiger is "believed" to be extinct. But so was the damned Coelacanth, captured in 1938.

*This "pissed off" issue was a FORUM abuse related issue. I could not link to their example because of the kind of frames The Skeptic Report was using, but anyone interested in such soap opera and longdead issues can find it at the original posting of Jim's rebuttal to my piece.


Comment
Glenn (Name/email on file)
5-20-00

The calibur of evidence is the evidence, not its source. UFO documentation is riff with source, which is all but meaningless. Nancy Reagan will tell you there is something to astrology, the Flat-Earth society was founded by a Phd, and astronaut Edgar Mitchell believed in mental telepathy (and later, a lot of other arcane things). If source is proof of anything, then just about every thing imaginable must be true!

Joe Blow says NASA is covering up. Joe Blow knows because he use to work for NASA. More source baloney. UFO buffs have to realize that Joe Blow can say anything he wants. But until Mr. Blow drags out the evidence, it is meaningless.

**** I was recently sent a video clip which supposedly showed a UFO crashing in the desert. They sent it to the wrong fellow as, despite the doctoring done to the video, I recognized it. I had watched that video of an unmanned F-100 crashing after being launched from a ramp possibly several dozen times. The UFO scene is so hoplessly mired in hoaxes that it's a wonder there are any skeptics left who bother to debunk the videos and pictures. The field is being left to the hoaxers who are busy trying to hoax other hoaxers.

I'd like to believe in visiting aliens, but not the ones being presented in all these tales of the day. Thankfully, I don't have to. I've looked at most of the so-called evidence, and I'm afraid all the UFO community has is its tales. Stories of aliens do not aliens make.


Reply:

You sure must have read 'another' article than the one I wrote. I said nothing of photos and nothing of 'tales.' I stated explicitly that even if we toss OUT ALL photographic and even credible civilian eye witness 'accounts and reports,' there remains a monumental amount of recorded, documented data and evidence from experts in aerodynamics with cooaberative radar to validate that these craft exist and do exceed all 'publicly known' modern technological achievements. The interaction of air force units the world over demonstrate the UFO is real. You don't scramble to intercept popular imagination or hoaxes. You don't have seasoned pilots return to the ground stunned by what they've encountered, and their experiences validated by scientific instrumentation if it's all just the planet Venus or swamp gas. The evidence is sufficient to stand up in any court of law.



Comment

From: "John Doe"
Subject: Rebuttal to a Rebuttal
CC: webmaster@sightings.com

" Sorry, It's Still A Belief " (..and other groundless drivel)

Mr. Foreman,

You're a pretty cynical individual, I respect that and applaud it in it's many forms. However, I hate to be the one to inform you of this---you, Mr. Foreman, are the one who is dead wrong on the subject of UFO's. You, Mr. Foreman, are the one who has not done the research, devoted the time, nor spoken with the individuals whom this entire field of LEGITIMATE research has affected. I'm so sick and tired of people blatantly damning a subject of which they have NO UNDERSTANDING. None. I'm sure you and Philip Klass would get along wonderfully...you should ask him where his financial backing and funding for his "loosely" (at best) based organization comes from. After he dodges the question several times he'll tell you "the US Government." It's no secret, it's a known fact. He's a skeptic such as yourself. Of course, his alterior motives are less than constructive. I respect people who are not afraid to ask questions and probe subjects until they are positive there is no shell left unturned I do not respect individuals who jump on a bandwagon, which is all you're doing here, so that they can sleep easy at night knowing that there is "no such thing as aliens", you can rest easy because you think you've seen all there is to see, heard all there is to hear, and read all there is to read. You are so far from the truth, so far from reality, I think you're going to need a map to get back.

I used to be a skeptic such as you, so did my father, an engineer. Of course he changed his tune quickly while he witnessed a formation of UFO's light up the sky above Washington D.C. in 1952, along with thousands and thousands of other witnesses. Funny how your entire outlook on the world you live in (or should I say bubble) can be instantly changed when it actually happens to you. It's like telling people "ya know, rolling your car 4 times at 65mph isn't that bad, it's surviveable, I don't know what all the hooplah is..." Then the day comes that it actually happens to you, do you think you're still going to retain that viewpoint? I don't think so.

I have said this in the past, and I'm going to say it again because self-styled researchers and egotistical skeptics just don't seem to listen the first time around---do the research *before* you start making claims. It's so easy and comfortable for you to sit back and say, "yeah, well this doesn't exist, and that never happened, and this was just swamp gas, blah, blah..." C'mon, you talk about being logical when in fact all you're really accomplishing is a wonderful demonstration of the antithesis of practical logic. (I think that was a required course in my second year of college) Ruling EVERYTHING out gets you nowhere, you'll be backpedaling the rest of your life with that philosophy.

I have had two sightings of my own within the past 6 years, both of which were witnessed with other people. One, my brother, the other a good friend of mine who happens to be a police officer, now in Florida. The latter sighting occurred from the window of a 767 at 33,000 feet over New Mexico in 1995. I can tell you what it wasn't, but I can't tell you with 100% certainty what is was either. It had to be unmanned, or it had to have full control of the laws of inertia, because any human being (or animal) would have been splattered against the back wall of the craft with the g's it pulled. So, do you see me sitting here saying; "yeah, these little aliens were waving at me out the window before they shot off at high Mach instantaneously..." No. It could have been a chimp flying the damn thing for all I know, but it would be one dead chimp if it were! That's called "keeping an open mind" and staying open to ALL possibilities, not just the most obvious.

Bottomline is, this was an excercise in hearing myself speak because (and forgive any offense), people like you will never admit that you are aware of unidentified craft entering and exiting the atmosphere of this planet on a daily basis. If a craft landed on your front lawn, you STILL probably wouldn't believe your own eyes. I have pity for you, personally. I hope you can get over that same skeptical "phase" that I was in and maybe see what's really going on around you. I hope you do, really. If you want to know more about what it is you're trying to talk about, do the research, because so far all you've done is make unfounded claims of your own, with no proof of your own otherwise. The US Government tried to explain away UFO's as well...it was called Project Blue Book, (this is Ufology 101). If you'd like to take a crack at explaining away the THOUSANDS of cases THEY couldn't explain, then I'm sure we'd all be interested to see what you come up with, in fact, so would the US Air Force. The proof is here, if you've managed to get a look at ANY of the NASA footage from STS flights of the past 6 years, there is literally hours worth of footage of unexplained objects entering and exiting the upper atmosphere of Earth. This was straight footage downloaded by numerous individuals around the world off of NASA select TV, raw footage from space, in realtime. I don't think you can get any more 'real' than that.

The evidence is out there, you just haven't taken your blinders off long enough to give it a second (or first) look. If you'd viewed the data, done the research and THEN made the statements you have--it would at least be credible, but all you're doing is playing Devil's advocate with an empty revolver. Where's your ammo? Where is your support? It surely can't be from your wonderful Geocities website (c'mon, in this day and age you can pay $20 a month for a REAL hosting service, don't bring a knife to a gunfight). I can't believe you have the gall to put down the sightings.com website and call it "amaturish" when your own site is utterly ridiculous. The key is to drive traffic TO your site, not AWAY. In your case, I'm glad there is very little interest. Aside from namecalling, what valid content do you have on your site? I can't seem to find any.

You talk about fighting a war....what war? We already know what's going on, we've all seen the facts and relevant evidence, you're just lobbing water balloons over the wall at us! There is no war, only you trying to clear your mind by making the world safe from us "paranormalites", by debunking everything first, then maybe looking at the facts later if it suits your own agenda. You're the one sticking quotes around a cutesy little word you made up hoping it sounds "scientific", not us. You don't see UFO researchers running around trying to debunk skeptics, you don't see us making up immature names to tag skeptics with. If you're going to play with the big boys, at least play by the rules and don't be an ass about it. There is plenty of mutual respect to go around for everyone, your e-mail to Mr. Neff was not indicative of that.

Good luck, and happy hunting -- for more excuses.

Best Regards,
A Concerned (Veteran) Researcher & Artist


Q
I don't find it hard to believe you have enemies here with your idiotic post's but never been here before and probably won't be back. Unlike you I have better things to do
lite up your:m: you mean little person

UfoHunter,
proof of what is a very applicable question?

Are you simply saying 'proof that UFOs exist'? If so, so what? Who cares if you want to say "hey, I don't know what this it"

If you didn't get the point my explaining it to you would be senseless, much like your post, and Q's.


Please stop posting garbage on this thread and let people enjoy this for what it is. If you don't want to know then don't look.


It would really be disappointing to find out people like you and q are the only intelligent forms of life in this universe.

How pathetic that would be.

Originally posted by UfoHunter


How pathetic that would be.

A lot less than this thread.

There is a policy against Cut and Paste here.

No, you don't get off that easy. You claim it is proof. Proof of what? I looked. I don't see proof of anything except a UFO... which isn't saying anything except "I don't know what it is". It may be interesting or unexplained, but not proof.

Although your resorting to personal attacks is kind of funny, considering you can't even answer a simple question of 'what it is'... which you talk around and around, but never actually say.

I'm glad you figured it out. good job einstien
the post descibed what it is.
and yet still olny one intellegent post
thank you for wasting my time. hope you enjoyed the video
why don't you go somewhere and post about something that you know about, or are there no things you know about. Lets face it, I posted a topic line that said "UFO video proof" pretty self expanitary yet olny one person replied with a intelligent reply.
what proof
all I see is a UFO
get a life people
So nice to have met you all,
I'll be sure not to post anything here, dont want to cause any problems with simple speach or the COPY AND PASTE POLICE
my mommy said I can't play anymore
thanks for the entertainmet

Oh by the way, when you find out what it is, let me know
I guess we'll just have to settle for unidentified, and sure seemed to be flying to me. Those lights look pretty bright considering the footage was taken around 3 in the afternoon (didn't I say it was a U F O?)I thoght I was posting in an area that dealt with topics like UFO's, obviously I was wrong and this is just another hate board.
btw, NASA dosen't know what it is either, why not write them about it.
See you in the funnys
http://www.ufodigest.com/
oops, was that a copy and paste? me bad
http://www.ufomoviesonline.com
the copy and paste renegade has struck again:bugeye:

UfoHunter all is fine and good if all you wanted to do was share an interesting video with people. But I would be a little more careful in what you call "proof" in the future. You're only asking for trouble. Personally, I'd seen that video you linked months ago and many others similar to it over the years that I thought were "cool" to look at or to ponder the "what ifs" over. But none of them are anything close to approaching "proof". Fact is, it is far too easy to fake footage like this (not saying that is the case with this clip). Just don't get so emotionally attached and defensive about some fuzzy clip.

Varelse
I'll take that into mind thaks.
I have seen the original vhs tape and as you state " it may look a little fuzzy" but that hapens when you compress a video for the internet. I have also seen it in slow motion which is basically amazing and nothing less, quite a treat.
thoose of you really interested in UFOs will sooner or later get to see a High Quality digital copy and scientific analysis soon hopefully.

UFOhunter,

I agree with Varelse. A video in itself does not constitute Proof. It may be evidence, but we have thousands of pieces of evidence.

Plus, today it is very easy to fake these videos/photos. In fact, the photo's taken 40 years are far more credible than any of todays photos.

Plus, today it is very easy to fake these videos/photos. In fact, the photo's taken 40 years are far more credible than any of todays photos

And yet another brilliant comment made about something in this everflowing fountain of info.

I've been studying UFOlogy for over 20 years my friends, not just posting pointless crap about what I think, but Fact

If you don't have anything worth hearing or seeing, THAT IS FACT, not your opinion then please!!!!! post otherwise just keep it to yourself, I know the definition of proof try looking it up instead of just throwing it up for a change.

I just can't believe their are still so many negative, bitter, people out here that you can't even post one of the best videos EVER to be taken of a UFO. Something that every UFO enthusiast in the world dreams of seeing and for the most part all you people do is sit there and do it injustice.
Phenomenal, Go over to skeptiks bboard and tell someone actually gives a shit about what you think beacuse no matter what any of you say
ONCE AGAIN FACT is FACT
go read the post about believing agian even though I know you didn't anyways.

UFOHunter: Don't get upset guy... no one's trying to mess with you here. If I understand what's going on, it's something like this:

1) We got a video with some pictures of a flying thing that we can't identify. Hence, it is an unidentified flying object.

2) People see flying stuff they can't identify all the time, which is enough proof that UFOs exist, because that's what they are... flying stuff that you can't identify. Any picture of an object taken from far enough away that you can't clearly distinguish its form qualifies as a picture of a UFO.

3) So, when (Q) asks "Proof of what?", he's asking what NEW THING these video screenshots prove, because we already have proof of the existence of UFOs (see point 2).

That's all. No one's impugning your integrity, no one's calling you a liar or anything. Everybody wants you to answer this question:

What does this evidence prove (other than the existence of UFOs which has already been proven)?

I believe I answered your question when I made the post
UFO Video Proof, video proof of an UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT
Nothing more, nothing less
why don't you go to www.ufomoviesonline.com and clink on the link that say's video proof and ask them the question.
Do you people even read the posts, what is it, Just have to get in your 2 cents. I've seen some other post made by these people and they are just spamming the posts.
I never said I had the answers to life people.
Somebody tried to share something special with the rest of us and I was passing it along.
I'd love to answer any realistic questions that haven't been self explanatory for I do have quite a bit of information about this sighting as I stated in an earlier post. But obviously some of you don't read them, you just post.

Originally posted by UfoHunter
I believe I answered your question when I made the post
UFO Video Proof, video proof of an UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT
Nothing more, nothing less

Then it can be added to the other thousand videos that prove UFO's exist.

Do you people even read the posts, what is it, Just have to get in your 2 cents. I've seen some other post made by these people and they are just spamming the posts.


Who's been spamming the posts?

All I stated was a video isn't proof of anything. It may be considered evidence, but not proof. Why are you getting all bent out of shape?

BTW: You are the first person who's ever called me a skeptic.

UfoHunter

Id be interested in hearing more on the video.

I found a photo of another video which features practicly the same object (slightly diffrent)

Very Interesting stuff

Thanks for sharing the video with us

I have a picture with a silver dot in the background. It's also proof of a UFO, even it did just happen to be a plane/helicopter/whatever.

See how meaningless proof of a UFO is?

There is a BIG diffrence between a dot and the video

Star One

What exactly is the difference between one proof of a UFO and another?

You make no sense whatsoever,
The only meaningless things around here are and your idiot friends posts.

I'd like to see one of you put a link to video of a UFO, not a dot,
that even comes close to what this video may represent.

if one of you little sheep can do it, let's see it
all you've done is shown ignorant you are and made senseless posts which just prove's how ingrorant you are.


star one
You should see more about this sighting, and others in an upcomming tv special. I'll keep you posted but you'll probabally here about it

Fuohunter

I believe I answered your question when I made the post
UFO Video Proof, video proof of an UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT
Nothing more, nothing less

I have clearly seen the error of my ways and you have shown me the guiding light. There is little doubt in my mind that you are 100% correct.

I will come clean and admit beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have successfully shown us an object that is unidentified. Nothing more, nothing less.

Congratulations!

Originally posted by UfoHunter
what this video may represent It is a represntation that none of us can identify everything.

It's not proof of anything else because it 'may' represent something else, but is certainly not proof of that something.

This plane had to have at least at 15 to 20,000 feet. The UFO was no Higher than 1000 feet, probably even lower seeing that it came out of a small, low, cumulus cloud. This picture was taken in just about the exact same area. - Paul
Um, first, planes do fly high enough that they appear as 'dots'. Second, the thing may have just been BEHIND the cloud and been at any height. (It could have also been in front of it, as the object is white anyway)

A poorly shot, out of focus still or video of an unknown object proves nothing except that there are people (too many of them) that will believe anything they can't readily identify is paranormal or otherworldly.

Why can't it be a bird, flock of birds, airplane, or just shit on the lens? (I'm speaking of poorly shot images in general). One expects to see a thread with "video proof" in the title to have a little green dude waving out of a little porthole..... but all we ever get here is a blurry, out of focus blob.

I'm reminded of UFOTheatre's silly postings of "proof."

Looks like a plane to me. From this footage it appears that the "lights" are just the reflection of the sun moving along the plane as it changes trajectory slightly. Just my opinion.

I would be keen to see the hi-res version tho. I noticed on the website they show a picture of a plane and say " taken in the same area". Funny how they managed to work out how to focus their camera for that shot... How bout some hi-res still shots from the footage then?

What's the mystery? It was clearly a passenger jet. In the first seconds, the wings and tail are briefly visible, until the camera is defocussed, and then we get disjointed reflections.

Talk of altitude, and clouds. The wispy clouds shown in the footage happen at all altitudes, and could have been in front of and behind the plane. I live on the approach to a civil airport, and see many jets passing over and couldn't tell you what altitude they were at by looking at the clouds they appear to be near.

So, it was a plane. It's been identified, and is no longer a UFO, case closed. NEXT!

Case is not closed, i really cant see how that could be interpreted as a airliner, especialy with similar photos that prove it isnt a plane/airliner

Q-theres a big diffrence between say a photo with a silver dot on which could be anything and a video showing something spectacular (I.E the video on this thread)

UfoHunter-Cool ill look forward to the program , what countrys will the program be shown in (is it just U.S)?

Originally posted by Star_One
Case is not closed, i really cant see how that could be interpreted as a airliner,

Simple, just look at the first couple of seconds, where the wing and tail are easily visible, it is plainly a passenger jet! Freeze the frames, it's OBVIOUS, and the focus gets worse as the footage goes on.


especialy with similar photos that prove it isnt a plane/airliner


Other photos have absolutely ZERO bearing on this footage!
This footage stands on it's own, and is merely an out of focus shot of an airliner. To believe it is anything else does your credibility no good whatsoever, if you cannot differentiate bad photography of the mundane from something else.



Q-theres a big diffrence between say a photo with a silver dot on which could be anything and a video showing something spectacular (I.E the video on this thread)


'Spectacular'? An out of focus airliner reflecting sunlight is 'spectacular' is it?

I live on a flight path for a civil airport. I see airliners every day, at varying altitudes, and in different weather conditions.

Often, on a bright day, the fuselage will reflect enough light, so all you can see if a bright blob in the sky. They are high enough up, that I can't hear the engines (they land about 12Km away). The brightness of the reflection makes gauging size impossible, as I'm not seeing the whole aircraft, just a bright spot. So a bright orb moving without making a sound, ... IS IT A UFO!!!!!????

Well, no, it does make a sound, it's just I can't hear it. It does have wings, it's just I can't see them. It's not really a bright prb of light, it's just a reflection.

Simple, and easily debunked.

NEXT!

Hmm....you have a point, although i cant freezeframe it (damm windows media player!).

But what about the red light braking away leaving 3 blobs intead of 4?

I said:
What does this evidence prove (other than the existence of UFOs which has already been proven)?

UFOHunter said:
I believe I answered your question when I made the post
UFO Video Proof, video proof of an UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT
Nothing more, nothing less

No... you didn't answer my question. If all this proves is that UFOs exist, then who cares? I thought everybody already agreed on that.

Please don't go off on other people for not reading when you're not reading.

But what about the red light braking away leaving 3 blobs intead of 4?

From the footage I saw (not sure if it was complete) I think it was just reflection from the wing furthermost from the viewer.

Its a plane, no, wait
it's superman!!! I can see his balls! :eek:

fyi
The pictures posted there are High res, the plane was shot as a picture through the camera, not footage. The plane was taken at around 200x zoom witch means that some of pixels may have come up digitalized, yet you can obviously see it is a plane.

The footage was taken with out the digital zoom and was in focus (you can check distance, focus, settings etc. by the tape signiture on the original VHS tape) the clouds are low cirrus clouds and the film was taken in the foothills of the White Mountains, or otherwise there was low cloud cover.

The Plane was at least 20,000 ft.

The objects change color, frame by frame, blue to red to white,
They also change in size. First getting bigger, and then change arrangement and size as they fly away from the camera. They seem to be perhaps transferring power.

They interact, disappear and reappear in less then a second You probably can't see it on the web version because of the compresion and that is also why you might think it is out of focus.
Similar objects have been taped but nothing this close or long enough to do a good analysis.

They were self luminosity orbs that changed formation at least five times showing
first three, then four then three and back to four again all the time changing color, brilliance and formation.

OH yes. Then there is that little thing of disappearing at the end. If you watch closely you'll see that the object changes direction and the lights go out one by one. It actually flew away so fast that it giver's the appearance that it's disappearing. Otherwise know as a hyperleap.

That's a pretty cool trick for an invisible airplane with movable reflectors that change size at will.....hmmmm I wonder if there is a patent on this thing, I'd like to get stock in the company that takes responsibility for building it.

try looking at it in fullscreen mode

Righty, so your VHS tape shows these 'Orbs' moving around in relation to each other does it? Somehow that motion isn't seen on the digitised version, ... how do you explain that. Mere 'resolution' differences will not, and as VHS records at a rather low resolution, I doubt the quality of your tape is that much better.

It doesn't 'disappear' at the end at all, let's talk ourselves through the footage, shall we?

Footage starts, a passenger liner is in fairly good focus, with wings and tail just visible, and there are some wispy clouds in shot.

The camera is zoomed, (this we can see from the way the clouds change size) and the frames go out of focus. At this point, we start to see burst of reflection along the sides of the craft, in a straight line (fuselage) and one lower at the back right, which appears to be coming from where the wing was previously visible.

These points relative positions remain constant throughout this footage, they do not more out of their arrangement. The only change is the size and brightness of the lower right reflection, as it angles into the sun more.

Towards the end, there is a lot of camera shake, and what appears to be a lessening of zoom. The object doen't make a 'hyperleap' it merely appears to lose brightness (so turns so that the reflections are no longer pointing at us, or a cloud occludes the sun) and we lose track of it and look at another area of sky.

It is so obviously a passenger jet, claiming anything else makes you sound like a desperate frothing UFOlogist low on credibility.

Ta ta.

NEXT!

Passanger liner, ha, that,s funny, the closest airport is boston, over 150 miles away, there is a small airport 30 miles from here and a no fly restriction for any other aircraft.

FAA says there where no planes in the are

What is this, the blind morons message board?

ta ta

by the way, there's a picture of an airplane posted underneath the video.... It looks absolutely nothing like the objects.....unless maybee your BLIND!!!!!!!!


you people drink too much coffee

strange your ET friends didn't stop by to have some coffee with you and do a friendly anal probing.

Originally posted by UfoHunter
Passanger liner, ha, that,s funny, the closest airport is boston, over 150 miles away,

Er, newsflash, jet liners are capable of travelling such vast distances!


there is a small airport 30 miles from here and a no fly restriction for any other aircraft.

'other' aircraft can't fly over an airfield 30 miles away. Big deal, that's 30 miles, which is a huge distance for air traffic controllers.


FAA says there where no planes in the are

Suddenly you have FAA confirmation that the skies were clear? Convenient this information is only offered now! Of course, if the aircraft was at 20,000ft, viewing it at a 45 degree angle puts it several miles away. So no, there woudn't have been an aircraft 'in your area' but there was one elsewhere!


What is this, the blind morons message board?


Blind, nope, I can clearly see an aircraft in that footage!



by the way, there's a picture of an airplane posted underneath the video.... It looks absolutely nothing like the objects.....unless maybee your BLIND!!!!!!!!

You mean, with wings, and a tail, like the ones clearly visible if you freeze frame the video footage right at the beginning? Of course, that other airplane is in focus, so it will look different. I live on a flight path, and see reflection from passenger aircraft fairly regularly, and it looks just like your footage, except I can seem them better because my eyes focus better than your camera did.


you people drink too much coffee

Oddly, my caffeine intake does not cause me to hallucinate UFOs. It seems to sharpen my senses and helps me see what is plainly in front of me. AIRCRAFT

Ta ta!

Originally posted by UfoHunter
FAA says there where no planes in the area


Who at the FAA said that? Did you interview them via telephone or written correspondance?

What was the lat/long of the sighting?

What was the date/time?

Who made the independent confirmation of this data?

UFOHunter... why did you post this?

When stepping the video frame by frame, i don't find it moves at variable speed. At the end it looks like it entered the cloud slowly rather than moving so faster that it disappeared from the view.

I dont think the plane disappears at the end of the footage. Just a quick tight zoom of the lense gives that appearance before the auto re-focus kicks in, which, I'm guessing, you would see if the footage was any longer. Just my opinion based on the evidence presented.

The local airport looked at the video and could not identify the object and pointed out that there is a hospital with a helicopter pad within 3 blocks of the building the video shot at. In other Words, a no fly zone.........it's was 3:30.......if you had botherd to actually read the article you'd know that

as far as putting this link up, I just wanted to see peoples reaction...... the people that really know what it is don't even post.....the curios, star one for example, thought they had an idea of what it is and then change their mind after the dissinformation campaign begins because they don't want to be prosicuted for their feelings in a room full of people saying the same thing.

and the people that don't have a clue and thoose who don't want the truth to get out say duuhhh... It's an airplane

That's like taken a picture of a house cat and saying it's an elephant.

p.s. The footage was shot during the day with autozoom,,,if you know anything about cameras you'd know that the olny time the camera will lose focus is at full DIGITAL zoom or at night when there is nothing to focus on.... It is not a portrait camera... it does not go out of focus
anyways I've had my fun........

watch out for Airliners

What has happend here is quit simple and intersting.

A UFO was caught on film and most people will just say whatever they can think of proving that dissinformation works.

When The real thing is sitting right if front of your face... you doubt it.

Congrats Big Brother

later

That's like taken a picture of a house cat and saying it's an elephant.

Why would I say it was an elephant if it looked like a cat?

as far as putting this link up, I just wanted to see peoples reaction......

If that were true, and it is not, then you would have approached each person’s reaction with the same level of understanding. Instead, you insulted those who offered rational explanations and lauded those who think the same way you do.

That was your real intent.

UFOHunter says:
A UFO was caught on film and most people will just say whatever they can think of proving that dissinformation works.

WTF? No one said that UFOs don't exist! You came here to pick a fight over a film of a dot in the sky. That's childish.

Originally posted by UfoHunter
The local airport looked at the video and could not identify the object and pointed out that there is a hospital with a helicopter pad within 3 blocks of the building the video shot at. In other Words, a no fly zone.........

Er, to what ceiling? Few helicopters are certified to above 20,000ft, so a commercial airlane that flies higher than this wouldn't be a problem. It would only be a problem if for some reason a helicopter is going to try and land on it's 'H' at the hospital from 20,000 feet up (Unlikely, surely it's an air ambulance, delivers people as quickly as possible, and therefore flies as low as possible) and the FAA impose a maximun ceiling limit (unlikely), and your estimate of altitude is correct (unlikely). Also, as has already been covered, it's not where the footage was taken that is important, get over that, it's where the other aircraft was. At tens of thousands of feet altitude, viewing at 45 degrees, it was several miles away! and NOT in your 'no fly zone' anyway, so stop throwing red herrings!

The fact that your local airport couodn't identify the aircraft doesn't mean anything either. It it was from/to their airport, it would have been much lower, and taking off or landing, which it didn't appear to be. Hard to say though, given the camera shake and poor focus.


p.s. The footage was shot during the day with autozoom,,,if you know anything about cameras you'd know that the olny time the camera will lose focus is at full DIGITAL zoom or at night when there is nothing to focus on.... It is not a portrait camera... it does not go out of focus

Autofocus usually only works for close up subjects, usually an IR or ultrasonic rangefinder are used. No way would it work for an object 20,000ft+ away!

The footage clearly shows an airliner in focus, and then it goes out of focus during the zoom. The camera may use some heuristic to keep focus (based on the fact that after a certain distance, only an approximate focus is needed, as light is approximately hitting the lense perpendicularly from a distant source, and this varies really negligeably over distance for a fixed magnification, so it only has to compensate for the zoom, but while the zoom is changing, so will focus, and that IS EXACTLY WHAT WE SEE!

Your 'elephant' and 'cat' analogy is flawed, as you are using two clearly recognisable items. Not a clearly visible aircraft being de-focussed into a bunch of reflections.

So, let's have some real objections to the aircraft explanation. Ones that stand up to analysis at least. IE, what does this craft do that an aircraft can't?

How do you explain there being 4 objects then one braking off leaving 3 then the one that has detached turning red????

I really cant see the object being a plane ,despite the first few frames (which wernt that clear anyway although ill have a look with a better playback program tonight)

????

Regardless of what it is, proof of a UFO is a pointless task.

that photo is not proof of anything. your emotional attachment to defending your ignorance IS.

it's just un-identified. it's not necessarily a flying object.

as such, time is better spent psychoanalyzing you, such that maybe we can help you overcome your apparent emotional problems.

why do you feel it so necessary to defend this picture?

Originally posted by wesmorris
tas such, time is better spent psychoanalyzing you, such that maybe we can help you overcome your apparent emotional problems.

getting kinda evil eh wessie?

Originally posted by spookz
getting kinda evil eh wessie?

LOL.

Moralism again eh spooky? Who said that - you or the troll?

When a person irrationally defends a picture - and you are aware of it, is not: "why do you feel it so necessary to defend this picture?" a fair and pertinent question?

by helping him with his emotional problems?
you dont know the fucker, you dont give a shit. you just look down condescendingly at the guy and pretend concern. who the fuck are you trying to fool here?

what about the rest of you fuckers here? what pathology drives you guys to analyse a goddamn blurry pic?

i suspect small penises and insecure minds

/by helping him with his emotional problems?

yes.

/you dont know the fucker

and you, apparently don't know me.

/you dont give a shit.

projecting spooky? how do you knew what I give a shit about?

/you just look down condescendingly at the guy and pretend concern.

apparently, you share some problems with him eh?

/who the fuck are you trying to fool here?

I'm getting sick of your paranoia induced retardation spookz. what is your malfunction?

If you sense a snide tone it's because I'm 99% sure this dude, or anyone in the same situation - such as yourself for instance, would NEVER admit to being irrational regarding this topic as they likley convinced themselves they had some form of a point before or as they posted. it's likely a fragile ego demands that they refuse to accept input contrary to their assertions for a number of defensive reasons. could be that to one perspective, another is wholly irrational, though it is perfectly rational to itself. I see in this thread where he has emotionally attached himself to the defense of this picture being a UFO. That is irrational, but he can't see it because in the context of his experience it seems perfectly valid. It technically is to him, but that doesn't do much to help him resolve why others are so critical of him. Instead of an honest inquiry of himself, he wards off reasonable questions in deference to this defense of why it's rational to him - avoiding the possibility to understand why it isn't rational to other people. That's a perfectly valid choice, but will inevitably incite criticism which incites more defense and around and around we go. Sure that's valid but not real productive in terms of understanding or growth.

but you know what i'm thinking don't you spookz?

you know you don't have the capacity that I do for some things, as you have stated it directly. I don't expect deference, but I do expect a tiny bit of fucking respect as a dude with a decent goddamn intent. my method is rough sometimes, but it could be that it just appears that way to you, because ultimately you really can't fathom what I'm thinking until I state it and even then you apparently have a really hard time.

/what about the rest of you fuckers here? what pathology drives you guys to analyse a goddamn blurry pic?

generally a retarded claim like "proof of UFO'S" serves as easy goddamn bait for people to come in for looksy. you can't figure that out on your own? maybe you don't want to as it's your troll in control rather than your purported peacemaker.

/i suspect small penises and insecure minds

spookz, shut the fuck up. your mental illness wears me slick. the first step spookz, is recognizing that you have a problem. i tell you this as a friend: you seem to have a problem.

go back and read our interaction spookz. generally it consists of you accusing me of some bullshit that your paranoid ignorance concocts and out respect, I have to spend half my life trying to explain why you've taken something wrong.

you are losing my respect, please cut the bullshit.

Its a fucking plane. It LOOKS like a plane. It travels like a plane. It IS a plane. Plane plane plane. I have the upmost respect for those seriously investigating the UFO phenonemon as I believe there is good reason to do so. But this footage is of a plane.

Originally posted by Star_One
[B]How do you explain there being 4 objects then one braking off leaving 3 then the one that has detached turning red????



They are not separate objects, the bright dots maintain their positions relative to each other for the entire clip, only varying in brightness and colour, exactly as you would expect reflections along the side of a nice shiny aircraft to do as it flies along.

I see similar things regularly, living on a flight path. IT IS A PLANE.

It is clearly a plane in the first few seconds, you can see a wing and the tail. freeze frame it, and look at what is there, note how the clouds go out of focus as the zoom is pulled. IT IS A PLANE.

what is your malfunction?

simple. to screw with you debunkers. it is quite obvious there is emotion and irrationality at play in both the kooks and pseudo skeptics. i see dogma and fanaticism on both sides. debunkers rant on the kooks. pardon me if i seize the opportunity to rant back. if you cant hack it......

generally a retarded claim like "proof of UFO'S" serves as easy goddamn bait for people to come in for looksy.

jeez, then stop whining when i bite into your bait
why the hell do you get so bent out of shape? in the end it is mostly rhetoric. i only see words. who is behind em is not my concern. youse way too fragile.

When a person irrationally defends a picture - and you are aware of it, is not: "why do you feel it so necessary to defend this picture?" a fair and pertinent question?

not really. once your point has been made, the evidence refuted, the case is resolved. delving into motivation and psycho analysis over a goddamn forum is what i construe as trolling for brownie points.

i in turn will question your sanity kapeesh?

Originally posted by spookz
simple ... kapeesh?

that's fine, but i disagree with your idea of "debunking".

besides that, I suppose that's fair enough. i appreciate your honesty.

not really. once your point has been made, the evidence refuted, the case is resolved. That's the problem. The poster completely refuses the obvious in the odd hope that it is something greater. He also doesn't seem to understand that any 3 year old can prove the existance of UFOs, and is afraid to say what he actually thinks it is (even though it looks like a plane).

Originally posted by wesmorris
that's fine, but i disagree with your idea of "debunking".

really? then tell me why when vrob and ives make the fucking case that the manmade hypo is the likeliest, you fucks insist on mischaracterizing their position? you call them believers simply because they do not commit themselves to categorically denying the et option? toe the line? blaspheme not? who the fuck is trolling who? they are the fuckers who are smart enough to leave their options open unlike you closeminded fools. hedge your bets, morons, just in case mr grey pops in and probes you up the ass!

i bet a few more chris beechams came in here with their crappy pics you fucks would be besides yourselves in giddy frikkin excitement.

lemme ask you wessie, do you know my position on ufos and their origins? just off the top of your head...hit me

i appreciate your honesty.

you are the strangest fucker i've encountered in the pseudo forum.

/really?

Yes, basically because of this:

/then tell me why when vrob and ives make the fucking case that the manmade hypo is the likeliest, you fucks insist on mischaracterizing their position?

Which is indicative of emotional attachment to the contrary of anyone you lump into this group. That is prejudice.

/you call them believers simply because they do not commit themselves to categorically denying the et option? toe the line?

If you had paid attention spooks, you'd notice your statement above is simply untrue. You see it this way because of your prejudice. Are you gonna make me quote myself? Vrob said some silly shit (as I took it) and then we came to an understanding and I didn't agree with some of what he said, but for the most part I don't think he's a complete quack like beachum, but he is a bit over the line for me. The only thing I've said about Ives is "yeah I pretty much agree with that" on one of his posts. I don't think I've reponded to him at all besides that. I explicitely stated earlier that I'm agnostic and as such I've NEVER completely ruled it out. Yet you dismiss me as a debunker because I try to correct your stupid bullshit and point out why certain things are more likely than others.

A serious investigation may suspect an outcome, but does not attempt to seriously support that conclusion without solid evidence. Due to your serious lack of comprehension regarding important related issues, you assume that it should be taken seriously given the current available evidence. While that may be true for you, that would make it indicative of an emotional attachment to the presumption of this conclusion, as supporting a conclusion is the antithesis of a serious investigation.

/blaspheme not? who the fuck is trolling who?

you and your paranoid ass, is trolling me because you don't know what you're talking about and think people are trying to fuck with you. that's indicative of poor mental health or a desire to invoke an emotional response for the childish satisfaction of having done so.

/they are the fuckers who are smart enough to leave their options open unlike you closeminded fools.

you are a prejudice fool for calling myself or persol closeminded. (i haven't followed everyone else, so I'm not sure if you're right).

/hedge your bets, morons, just in case mr grey pops in and probes you up the ass!

that you are serious here is simply pathetic and again, indicative of prejudice. oh wait, you're just fuckign with me. are you enjoying it? am i debunking hard enough for you? I have a hard time keeping track of who the moron is when you say things like that spooky.

/i bet a few more chris beechams came in here with their crappy pics you fucks would be besides yourselves in giddy frikkin excitement.

i see, so you think we're all sitting around just wainting to exploit morons? yeah, that's why I'm here. your projection of all your psychosis is revealing child. i don't think you're "fucking" with anyone, as you don't seem capable of controlling yourself.

/lemme ask you wessie, do you know my position on ufos and their origins? just off the top of your head...hit me

i've heard you propose several things any of which are about as probable (given reasonable assumptions and the wisdom of the all of what is currently known about the universe) be as possible as you sending me a check for a gazillion dollars.

you've said "maybe from a nearby star" and "maybe from inside the earth" and what seems to be a hundreds other things in the name of "fucking with debunkers". further, i don't care what you think the origins are, or what your position on ufo's is. I respond to what you post. if you post things that dont' make sense to me I'll likely point out why I think they don't make sense.

i appreciate your honesty.

/you are the strangest fucker i've encountered in the pseudo forum.

:bugeye:

i don't pay attention to what forum I'm in. you are the trollingest, most annoying paranoid that I've encountered on sci.

not too shabby:mad:

If you anything about filming an object that is flying you would know that if plane was at 2000ft it would be just about impossible to zoom in and keep the plane it the picture. I'll give 100 bucks to anybody that can take A film of a plane at that altitude and get the plane to stay in the frame. It would be impossible,,, that is why people are putting up idiotic posts,, its a plane plane plane,.,,, you are fucking....blind blind blind,,,,,, it's looks nothing like a plane.With over 5o billion pictures of aircraft on the internet I'd like to see one of you show me one that even looks simialar to this................. LISTEN UP......... THE OBJECTS WHER AT NO HIGHER THAN 1000 FEET FROM THE CAMERA....... THIS CAN EASILY BE PROVED BY SIMPILY LOOKING AT THE FUCKING FILM AND SEEING THAT THE CAMERE NEVER WENT INTO DIGITAL ZOOM MEANING THAT THE CAMERA WAS IN OPTICAL AUTO FOCUS AND THE OBJECT WAS EXTREAMLY CLOSE TO THE CAMERA............ THIS CAN ALSO BE CONFIRMED ON THE TAPE SIGNATURE OF THE ORIGINAL COPY........ IF THE OBJECT HAD BEEN ANY FARTHER THAN THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TO KEEP IT IN THE FRAME......... THE FILS WAS SHOT WITH A HANDHELD CAMERA WITH NO TRIPOD AND YET THE OBJECT STAYS IN THE FRAME THE WHOLE TIME............THE OBJECT ALSO LEAVES IN THE OPPISITE DIRECTION.... YET ANOTHER NEET STUNT BY AN AIRPLANE?........K

ONCE AGAIN.........SHOW ANY PICTURE OR VIDEO OR ANYTHING THAT LOOKS EVEN SIMILAR...particularly an AIRPLANE......'.....................


FUCKING PUT UP OR SHUT UP

I don't mind opinions at all.. I just cant stand little fucking pukes that just post stupid ass, senseless questions QQQQ because they think that someone is actully reading there the crap
and by the way,,,,,I don't need any help from some cum eating one handed typer...... go back to trying to pick up little girls in the chat rooms you frigin loser.......I DIDN'T EVEN READ YOUR IDOTIC POST SO SIT HEAR WASTE MORE OF YOUR TIME WHILE I GO GET LAID YOU LITTLE COCKSUCKER

LMAO. You are just toooo funny.

Oh wait... you were being serious..............

my eeenglis is bad. can you say agian in spanish?
gracias

regardless...

If you anything about filming an object that is flying you would know that if plane was at 2000ft it would be just about impossible to zoom in and keep the plane it the picture.
At 2000ft, correct. At 20,000 ft (like people are saying) it is quite possible.

it's looks nothing like a plane.
You mean besides the fact that it does?

THE OBJECTS WHER AT NO HIGHER THAN 1000 FEET FROM THE CAMERA....... THIS CAN EASILY BE PROVED BY SIMPILY LOOKING AT THE FUCKING FILM AND SEEING THAT THE CAMERE NEVER WENT INTO DIGITAL ZOOM MEANING THAT THE CAMERA WAS IN OPTICAL AUTO FOCUS AND THE OBJECT WAS EXTREAMLY CLOSE TO THE CAMERA
Do you even know how optical zoom works?

IF THE OBJECT HAD BEEN ANY FARTHER THAN THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TO KEEP IT IN THE FRAME
No. The farther away it is, the slower it moves, and the easier it is to keep in frame.

What are you? 12? or just emotionally insecure?

Spookz: you have to admit that Wes's comment sems to apply here.

A troll's mandate is to admit nothing unless it serves the troll.

Plane.

Originally posted by ScRaMbLe
Plane. I think you just caused him to seizure.

of course it does.
too bad wes has got so bent out of shape.

I don't know what kind of drugs all your skeptics are taking, but the object is clearly the private transport of Jocariah.

If you clean up the image you can see his head sticking out of the window of the saucer and waving at all you fools.

Now apologize to Ufohunter.

Damn, I didn't realize that Jocariah had a head shaped like a tail and arms shaped like wings. I am truely sorry UfoHunter. I don't know why I questioned you.

That's his head? The first time I saw it I thought it was a penis sticking out of the window there...

Hmm. Learn something new every day.

You were right. I did say it was his head after all.

spookz: "i bet a few more chris beechams came in here with their crappy pics you fucks would be besides yourselves in giddy frikkin excitement".

wesmorris:" but for the most part I don't think he's a complete quack like beachum",

Well, I just happened to visit this uninteresting thread of the children arguing with each other.....and they are thinking of me!! Why don't the both of you take a hike until you have something to discuss....

Originally posted by UfoHunter
If you anything about filming an object

I know a fair bit, as I used to make 8mm films when I was at school. Used a few different cameras, seldom used videotape, it was a rather new, and by comparison, bulky technology back then, compared to the compact 8mm Eumig which was my favourite. Also having spent a fair amount of time studying physics, and shooting (rifles) using telescopic sights, I'm fairly familiar with how cameras and lenses operate, especially at distance, and high zoom.



that is flying you would know that if plane was at 2000ft it would be just about impossible to zoom in and keep the plane it the picture.

2000ft? Assuming your guesstimate was correct. At 20,000ft or more, the relative motion of the aircraft would be small, making it easier to track.


I'll give 100 bucks to anybody that can take A film of a plane at that altitude and get the plane to stay in the frame. It would be impossible,,,

Game on! I live on a flight path, I can easily make that shot. I'll see what I can do. Hell, I was going to buy a DV cam anyway!


that is why people are putting up idiotic posts,, its a plane plane plane,.,,, you are fucking....blind blind blind,,,,,, it's looks nothing like a plane.

It looks exactly like a plane for the few seconds it's in focus.


LISTEN UP......... THE OBJECTS WHER AT NO HIGHER THAN 1000 FEET FROM THE CAMERA.......

Eh? It was 2000ft moments ago, when you construct a story, you must rehearse more and be consistent!


MEANING THAT THE CAMERA WAS IN OPTICAL AUTO FOCUS

Yeah, and like I pointed out, which you ignored, autofocus only works up close. If you manually focus on an object 100metres away at moderate zoom, you'll be in focus for everything beyond. At hundreds of metres the only thing to mess up focus would be zoom, and that's what we see in your footage, a zoom through the clouds, going from focussed to defocussed, ending up with the defocussed reflections in shot.


AND THE OBJECT WAS EXTREAMLY CLOSE TO THE CAMERA............ THIS CAN ALSO BE CONFIRMED ON THE TAPE SIGNATURE OF THE ORIGINAL COPY........ IF THE OBJECT HAD BEEN ANY FARTHER THAN THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TO KEEP IT IN THE FRAME.........

Quite the opposite! If it was close, and moving at speed, tracking it would be a problem. But what we see is camera shake, not merely tracking problems. Of course, camera shake gets magnified alongside the zoom. So I can tell the zoom was quite
full, meaning the object was quite high.


THE FILS WAS SHOT WITH A HANDHELD CAMERA WITH NO TRIPOD AND YET THE OBJECT STAYS IN THE FRAME THE WHOLE TIME............THE OBJECT ALSO LEAVES IN THE OPPISITE DIRECTION.... YET ANOTHER NEET STUNT BY AN AIRPLANE?........K

With such a tight zoom and camera shake, no claims about motion can be substantiated from the footage, as there are no objects in relation to judge motion by.

PLANE!

UFOHunter:

I had understood that autofocus usually used a range finder which was a tight beam, like a laser. Now, I want you to try a simple experiment.

Get a laser pointer.

Find a largish object, like a car. (Moving target would be good, but the experiment may be difficult to do chasing a dumptruck around.)

Stand 2000 feet away from the object. Hold the laser pointer in your hand, and point it at the object.

Have a friend stand at the other end and see if they can see where the laser hits the object.

You may find that you have trouble doing two things:
1) aiming the pointer at the distant object
2) finding the point of impact because even lasers tend to disperse across long distances.

With the results of this experiment in consideration, you should reconsider whether a camera can effectively autofocus on an object 2000 feet away, particularly when it is moving at high speed.