4705 replies to this topic

[zoser]

747400, on 17 November 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

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]

zoser, on 17 November 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

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.

zoser, on 17 November 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

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.

zoser, on 17 November 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

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]

747400, on 17 November 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

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).

747400, on 17 November 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

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]

booNyzarC, on 17 November 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

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]

zoser, on 17 November 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

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]

bee, on 17 November 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

.

naughty booN

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

booNyzarC, on 17 November 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

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]

booNyzarC, on 17 November 2012 - 07:00 PM, said:

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 by zoser, 17 November 2012 - 07:08 PM.

[zoser]

booNyzarC, on 17 November 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

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 by zoser, 17 November 2012 - 07:18 PM.

[booNyzarC]

747400, on 17 November 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

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.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

booNyzarC, on 17 November 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

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]

747400, on 17 November 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

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]

747400, on 17 November 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

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]

booNyzarC, on 17 November 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

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.