Tantalising Testimony

[zoser]

There's a very clear difference to the airliner that goes past later on, though. That's easily identifiable, and the Object really doesn't look as if it's moving at all. I really don't think, if it is real, that Plane or Aircraft is an adequate explanation.

One further thing. When the airliner is first visible at 2:50 , the wings are the wrong orientation. They should appear left wing down, but it appears left wing up. That airliner has not just completed a 90 degree banking manoeuvre.

[booNyzarC]

It's an airliner! It's bound not to be one of the fastest at making a right angled turn.

How do you know it's an airliner? What kind of plane is it exactly? How many different kinds of airliners are there and what are the maneuvering capabilities of each one?

All moot points in the grands scheme of things when you consider that it took at least 30 seconds for it to complete the banking maneuver anyway, but still if you're going to make a claim like that please back it up.

You still haven't answered the other points in my last post. I'm not saying you have to, but at least to acknowledge them as good points would be appreciated.

What other good points did you attempt to make? That it became invisible? No it didn't. The guy shooting the video panned the camera down. The aircraft was just as invisible as your mom was when you were playing peek-a-boo with her as a child.

No. It begins it's banking at 2:38. At 2:50 we clearly see the full profile of the airliner. It is already travelling in that plane (horizontal to the viewer). I totally disagree with your interpretation of the clip.

You can tell that it begins banking when it starts to tilt, and that happens well before 2:38. Plus, you can't see the full profile at 2:50, and in fact by 2:56 you can still tell the it is angled either away or toward, well short of being perpendicular. It may have become perpendicular prior to the 3:10 mark, but that is the first that we can see it being perpendicular.

I don't really care if you disagree with me, but it doesn't change the fact that my interpretation is correct.

[booNyzarC]

There's a very clear difference to the airliner that goes past later on, though. That's easily identifiable, and the Object really doesn't look as if it's moving at all.

What frame(s) of reference are you using to determine that 'the Object' isn't moving at all? If there is a specific section in the video in which you believe it isn't moving, please point out the specific time(s).

I really don't think, if it is real, that Plane or Aircraft is an adequate explanation.

It is still a plane regardless of whether you think this explanation is adequate.

[zoser]

What frame(s) of reference are you using to determine that 'the Object' isn't moving at all? If there is a specific section in the video in which you believe it isn't moving, please point out the specific time(s).

It is still a plane regardless of whether you think this explanation is adequate.

I hope you are enjoying these cases. I know we don't always agree on what the objects are, but you must agree it's interesting examining them?

[booNyzarC]

I hope you are enjoying these cases. I know we don't always agree on what the objects are, but you must agree it's interesting examining them?

If by 'interesting' you mean 'tedious' then yes, I certainly agree. But it does occasionally give me something to do when I'm bored I suppose.

Cheers.

[bee]

.

naughty booN

[booNyzarC]

.

naughty booN

[Space Commander Travis]

What frame(s) of reference are you using to determine that 'the Object' isn't moving at all? If there is a specific section in the video in which you believe it isn't moving, please point out the specific time(s).

It is still a plane regardless of whether you think this explanation is adequate.

The point is that it doesn't seem to move all through the viedo. It gets dark, and it's still in the same spot. With the winking lights, it might possibly be a Helicopter, but even then it would seem to be hovering in one spot for an exceptionally long time. and even at the point where it "dsappears" it really doesn't look as if it would be likely to be able to bank that quickly so it just disappears like that. The contrast with the Airliner couldn't be stronger; you can instantly recognise what that is.

[zoser]

If by 'interesting' you mean 'tedious' then yes, I certainly agree. But it does occasionally give me something to do when I'm bored I suppose.

Cheers.

I don't believe you. The last few cases must have caused you to think through your previous position on the subject even if by just a little.

I do value your contributions so please keep a check on what is happening here. Maybe we will be doing this over a beer one day?

Edited November 17, 2012 by zoser

[zoser]

How do you know it's an airliner? What kind of plane is it exactly? How many different kinds of airliners are there and what are the maneuvering capabilities of each one?

All moot points in the grands scheme of things when you consider that it took at least 30 seconds for it to complete the banking maneuver anyway, but still if you're going to make a claim like that please back it up.

What other good points did you attempt to make? That it became invisible? No it didn't. The guy shooting the video panned the camera down. The aircraft was just as invisible as your mom was when you were playing peek-a-boo with her as a child.

You can tell that it begins banking when it starts to tilt, and that happens well before 2:38. Plus, you can't see the full profile at 2:50, and in fact by 2:56 you can still tell the it is angled either away or toward, well short of being perpendicular. It may have become perpendicular prior to the 3:10 mark, but that is the first that we can see it being perpendicular.

I don't really care if you disagree with me, but it doesn't change the fact that my interpretation is correct.

The only thing that would cause me to think that the original object and the airliner are one and the same is if we could establish that there was missing footage in the video clip, enough time for the airliner to complete it's bank.

There is no direct evidence of that but it's not out of the question.

Even then there is still the issue of the bright lights to explain. What are they?

Edited November 17, 2012 by zoser

[booNyzarC]

The point is that it doesn't seem to move all through the viedo. It gets dark, and it's still in the same spot. With the winking lights, it might possibly be a Helicopter, but even then it would seem to be hovering in one spot for an exceptionally long time. and even at the point where it "dsappears" it really doesn't look as if it would be likely to be able to bank that quickly so it just disappears like that. The contrast with the Airliner couldn't be stronger; you can instantly recognise what that is.

I'm not sure if you have a really bad monitor or something, but it is moving through most of the video. It doesn't stay in one spot. Initially it is moving from the left to the right, then it appears to turn toward the camera (flying directly at the camera from the looks of it) and it continues through the bank until it is flying right to left. There are a few points of extreme zoom where there isn't anything that can be used as a legitimate frame of reference, but even in most of those you can see that it is changing position relative to the clouds (which are themselves moving, but so slowly that it is barely even perceptible) and tilting as if in a banking maneuver.

[Space Commander Travis]

I'm not sure if you have a really bad monitor or something, but it is moving through most of the video. It doesn't stay in one spot. Initially it is moving from the left to the right, then it appears to turn toward the camera (flying directly at the camera from the looks of it) and it continues through the bank until it is flying right to left. There are a few points of extreme zoom where there isn't anything that can be used as a legitimate frame of reference, but even in most of those you can see that it is changing position relative to the clouds (which are themselves moving, but so slowly that it is barely even perceptible) and tilting as if in a banking maneuver.

I don't know if you're looking at the same thing as me, but even if it does all that, that's hardly the kind of manueverings that an aircraft, either civilian or Military, would be likely to do for that length of time, would it? it's the length of time that's the significant thing; surely you couldn't say that something starting out in daylight and still in the same spot after it gets Dark would be just an airliner with its landing Lights on, would it? If it was anything, it might be a Helicopter, but again, why stay in the same spot (even if it did jiggle about a bit) for that length of time?

[booNyzarC]

I don't know if you're looking at the same thing as me, but even if it does all that, that's hardly the kind of manueverings that an aircraft, either civilian or Military, would be likely to do for that length of time, would it? it's the length of time that's the significant thing; surely you couldn't say that something starting out in daylight and still in the same spot after it gets Dark would be just an airliner with its landing Lights on, would it? If it was anything, it might be a Helicopter, but again, why stay in the same spot (even if it did jiggle about a bit) for that length of time?

Ah, I see what you're using a time reference now... the darkening of the footage. It appears to me as though he changed a setting on the camera to cause it to be darker. He turned down the brightness and increased the contrast or something like that.

[zoser]

I don't know if you're looking at the same thing as me, but even if it does all that, that's hardly the kind of manueverings that an aircraft, either civilian or Military, would be likely to do for that length of time, would it? it's the length of time that's the significant thing; surely you couldn't say that something starting out in daylight and still in the same spot after it gets Dark would be just an airliner with its landing Lights on, would it? If it was anything, it might be a Helicopter, but again, why stay in the same spot (even if it did jiggle about a bit) for that length of time?

I truly cannot believe that Boon believes that the two objects are the same. Nothing can explain the nature of the lights, the static apparent hovering of the object or the disparity with the timing of the manoeuvre.

It just seems to me like avoidance of the truth. Why I cannot imagine.

Then there is the Fraserburgh footage which is perhaps the most puzzling of all. The lights are similar. The same kind of effect is taking place.

There is no escaping this. Here we have several objects over different parts of the world for which there is absolutely no explanation.

[zoser]

Ah, I see what you're using a time reference now... the darkening of the footage. It appears to me as though he changed a setting on the camera to cause it to be darker. He turned down the brightness and increased the contrast or something like that.

Yes I believe that he did do that because the light levels suddenly drop around 1:39.

[zoser]

Can I ask another obvious question? At 2:04 we see a nice clear zoomed in image of the craft. If it is an airliner then where is the tail?

Maybe some skeptic would care to answer that one?

Edited November 17, 2012 by zoser

[Space Commander Travis]

Ah, I see what you're using a time reference now... the darkening of the footage. It appears to me as though he changed a setting on the camera to cause it to be darker. He turned down the brightness and increased the contrast or something like that.

i see where you're coming from, but even if he did do it for Devious and underhand purposes, I'm still not at all sure that it's an aircraft or Airliner seen head on. if it's anything it might be an Helicopter hovering seen side-on, but the lights I really don't think seem compatible with that either.

[booNyzarC]

Can I ask another obvious question? At 2:04 we see a nice clear zoomed in image of the craft. If it is an airliner then where is the tail?

Maybe some skeptic would care to answer that one?

The image is far from clear zoser. It is all blurry and out of focus. At this point in the footage the aircraft is moving primarily toward the camera, so the tail would be very slender if even visible at all. For the most part, the brightness of the lights drown out the camera's ability to capture the slender tail.

Plus, the nose appears to be up in relation to the POV of the camera. Compare to about the mid-point of this video, as the plane is beginning to lift off.

You can't see the tail at all after about the 23 or 24 second mark even though this footage is crystal clear, and that's because the nose and fuselage obstruct our view of it.

[booNyzarC]

i see where you're coming from, but even if he did do it for Devious and underhand purposes, I'm still not at all sure that it's an aircraft or Airliner seen head on. if it's anything it might be an Helicopter hovering seen side-on, but the lights I really don't think seem compatible with that either.

I don't think he did it for any kind of nefarious purpose, he was probably hoping that it would make the lights he was filming appear more distinctly. Although it is also possible that he was simply playing around with settings out of ignorance. I think we can tell by how erratic the footage is that he isn't very experienced with the camera.

At any rate, the footage on the whole is fully consistent with a plane that had recently taken off, gained altitude, and then banked into a turn toward the left.

It's unfortunate that we don't have an accurate location, date, and time for the footage. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that there is probably an airport or landing strip right over the horizon there.

[zoser]

The image is far from clear zoser. It is all blurry and out of focus. At this point in the footage the aircraft is moving primarily toward the camera, so the tail would be very slender if even visible at all. For the most part, the brightness of the lights drown out the camera's ability to capture the slender tail.

Plus, the nose appears to be up in relation to the POV of the camera. Compare to about the mid-point of this video, as the plane is beginning to lift off.

You can't see the tail at all after about the 23 or 24 second mark even though this footage is crystal clear, and that's because the nose and fuselage obstruct our view of it.

The image is clear enough to discern certain things. If it is moving away from us then where is the tail? If i's approaching where is the nose? Why do we not see a proper tapering of the wings either side? Instead we see a much larger height throughout the entire section with only a slight tapering on the rhs.

[booNyzarC]

The image is clear enough to discern certain things. If it is moving away from us then where is the tail? If i's approaching where is the nose? Why do we not see a proper tapering of the wings either side? Instead we see a much larger height throughout the entire section with only a slight tapering on the rhs.

Here's an animated GIF created with every 10th frame leading up to the 'disappearance' at around 2:38.

That is the slow banking maneuver of an aircraft.

[zoser]

Here's an animated GIF created with every 10th frame leading up to the 'disappearance' at around 2:38.

That is the slow banking maneuver of an aircraft.

Apart from the simple fact that it doesn't resemble an aircraft. There is enough detail to see what it isn't.

[booNyzarC]

Apart from the simple fact that it doesn't resemble an aircraft. There is enough detail to see what it isn't.

What do you mean it doesn't resemble an aircraft? It looks exactly like an aircraft flying generally toward the camera and banking to its right (to the left from the camera's POV).

[zoser]

What do you mean it doesn't resemble an aircraft? It looks exactly like an aircraft flying generally toward the camera and banking to its right (to the left from the camera's POV).

No tail, no nose, unexplained lights, unexplained hovering, insufficient banking time, incorrect cross section.............

Is the camera lying?

[freetoroam]

Another classic UFO case from 1964: Police officer Lonnie Zamora is pursuing a speeding car when he encounters a craft that lands. The craft leaves landing marks and an investigation is ordered.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m-g61zJ6I8[/media]

Isn`t that the voice of Joey grego from Cheaters?