Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
zoser

Tantalising Testimony

5,543 posts in this topic

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.

zoser34.jpg

This image isn't worth beans. The video camera is already digitally zoomed in to a great extent, then it has been blown up again in this view.

All it shows is a big mess of distortion.

Aircraft landing lights have narrow beams. In this video you are seeing an aircraft heading almost straight towards the camera...actually slightly to the right, which is why the image moves slowly to the right. It's not stationary at all. Look at the background clouds. When the aircraft begins to turn to it's right (our left) the landing lights quickly fade because they are no longer pointing at the camera. The aircraft then passes perpendicular to the camera's view from left to right.

There's only one object here and it's a plane.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

With so much blur in this crappy footage, you're not going to see a lot of detail and what is there is going to blend together an awful lot. There is absolutely no hovering in this footage, the aircraft is constantly in motion, and there was more than sufficient time for the banking maneuver to complete.

Is the camera lying?

No the camera isn't lying, you are just clueless when it comes to understanding what you're seeing in the footage. I'm sorry, but there is no better way to state it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser lines them up and Boon knocks them down

Edited by R4z3rsPar4d0x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

clip1.gif

That is the slow banking maneuver of an aircraft.

What kind of aircraft, though? That seems to have a very wide chord wing, no discernible fuselage and no vertical Tail. The only aircraft that could look remotely anything like that might be a B-2, or perhaps one of those secret Flying WIngs that we see about so much*. A high wing aircraft like a C-130? The wings look very much like they're swept. A B-52, then? It doesn't looks much like any regular kind of commercial aircraft, that makes it very clear.

Here's a B-2 from pretty much the same angle which gives a good view of the lights:

* :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser lines them up and Boon knocks them down

No at best he does 1 in 5. He still has Fraserburgh, Denbigh, Myrtle Beach and Yuma to solve. 4 out of 5 cases still unexplained where the footage has close similarities.

Stan Freidman himself says that he is happy with every 90% of sightings being hoaxes or misidentifications. He only needs 5-10% of unexplained to validate the phenomena.

PS I'm still not convinced about Okeechobee. Just saying that the footage is crappy solves nothing and is just a peg to hang one's coat on. It's just a get out clause. Even when not zoomed in fully the outline is discernable as something other than a plane.

The debate still rages and there is still much to discuss if anyone's up for it.

I'm enjoying it if everyone else is.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With so much blur in this crappy footage, you're not going to see a lot of detail and what is there is going to blend together an awful lot. There is absolutely no hovering in this footage, the aircraft is constantly in motion, and there was more than sufficient time for the banking maneuver to complete.

No the camera isn't lying, you are just clueless when it comes to understanding what you're seeing in the footage. I'm sorry, but there is no better way to state it.

No I looked at the whole thing again and I have to agree with Mr Omsk.

The object has absolutely no discernible tail, nose or wings. It has a consistent height across it's section that is not consistent with a plane regardless of the pitch angle.

If the footage isn't good enough to discern these things then neither is it good enough to tell whether it is approaching or departing; yet you claim emphatically that it is approaching. So there is a contradiction if ever there was one.

The people that blindly follow you may well be convinced about this but others are not; it's you who is clueless about interpreting the footage.

If you don't like the fully zoomed in image then look at the zoomed out image. The definition of the cross section and it's lighting arrangement is still there to be clearly seen.

Camera's don't lie and that is the virtue of hard objective evidence. It's difficult to accept I realise but that is the nature of objective truth. It is hard to face, and no one can make a case to say otherwise when we have footage like this.

The images in the footage are consistent. If the was at least one frame where a nose, tail or wing could be discerned I would acquiesce and agree with you but there is not even one.

The argument that the camera gives too poor an image does not wash and is wishful thinking in order to try and reinforce a biased viewpoint.

Right case closed what's next?

Time we looked at another classic case I think. See you later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Florida - August 1952

Here is a new case to me, an interesting experience recounted by a 'colourful' character named Sonny DesVergers.

The following account still stands as one of the best "physical trace" cases in UFO lore. The United States Air Force certainly took it seriously, and so should we.

Scoutmaster, D.S. “Sonny” DesVergers of West Palm Beach, Florida was driving three scouts home on the night in question. He turned off the coastal highway and down an inland blacktop to go where one of the boys lived.

After traveling about ten miles inland he noticed a bright light in the palmetto thickets. At first he passed by it, but then stopped down the road and turned the car around to go back. He hesitated in doing this, but could not help feeling that the light might have been a fire, perhaps indicating a crashed airplane.

DesVergers stopped the car, and got out to proceed to the scene of the bright lights. The scouts objected, afraid to be alone in the darkness, but the Scoutmaster headed toward the thick brush not far from the road. Nearby were the swamps, full of snakes, alligators, and who knows what other deadly creatures. About 50 yards or so from the road, Des Verges disappeared into the waist-high thicket. As he did, the first thing he noticed was a terrible odor.

Using his machete to clear his way with one hand, his other held his flashlight to show the way through the darkness. He carried a second flashlight on his person. The boys, waiting in the car, could clearly see the beam of their Scoutmaster's flashlight through the brush.

Knowing he was being tracked by his flashlight, he shined it up into the canopy of some of the trees as he proceeded toward the unknown source of the lights that had caused him to stop on the road.

As he reached an opening in the brush, he paused momentarily to signal back to the waiting boys. As he did, he was suddenly overcome by an intensely humid heat. He glanced up into the clear night sky to get his bearings, but to his surprise, the many stars he had seen only a few moments ago were gone directly above him. Something else was blocking the view.

It took a moment for his eyes to adjust to a large, oval object which was hovering about 30 feet above him. As he slowly moved away from the frightening sight, he shined his flashlight toward the object. He could now make out the concave bottom of a smooth, round craft with a dome on top.

He continued to slowly move back from the object until he heard a sound which froze him in his tracks. The sound he heard was a large metal door closing. He now found himself surrounded by a red mist. He then lost consciousness.

The three boys, Bobby Ruffing, Chuck Stevens, and David Rowan could see their role model surround by what they could best describe as a "big red ball of fire." Frightened, they left the car, and ran as fast as they could down the road to a house. Finding a farmer, they told him what they had seen. The farmer quickly called the State Police who soon arrived at the scene. Deputy sheriff Mott Partin picked the boys up and drove back to the car.

As they arrived, they saw DesVergers racing from the wooded area. Partin said that DesVergers was more scared than anyone he had ever seen.

The other officers who accompanied Partin ran into the area vacated by the frightened Scoutmaster, finding one of his flashlights still burning. They also noticed that the grass was flattened near the flashlight. The master's second flashlight would never be found.

Arriving at Police headquarters, the officers noticed that DesVergers' hands, arms, face, and cap were all burned. Although the officers were doubtful of the red mist account, they believed the rest of the Scoutmaster's account enough to call the Air Force.

Edward J Ruppelt was heading the Air Force's Project Bluebook at the time, and was impressed enough to take an investigative group to Florida to question DesVerges. He was accompanied by Second Lietenant Robert M. Olsson, and two captains, Hoey and Davis. Ruppelt would interview DesVergers several times, and remarked that the Scoutmaster remembered details very well, and did not respond in a rehearsed manner.

He felt that DesVergers was telling the truth.

An Air Force surgeon did an examination on DesVergers and determined that his wounds were indicative of mild sunburn. There were singed hairs, burns on his face and arms, and also his nostrils showed signs of being burned by a "flash heat source." At the scene of the event, Ruppelt could find nothing to invalidate the Scoutmaster's account.

Although there were no apparent signs of scorched earth or grass, later it was revealed after tests at Dayton, Ohio that the roots of the samples of grass taken at the scene were charred.

Also, DesVergers' cap showed signs of being damaged by "sparks of some kind."

The three boys confirmed that the cap had not been burned earlier in the day. After interviewing the three boys, Ruppelt was convinced that they too were being truthful. DesVergers' story stands today as a documented physical trace account of a UFO encounter.

More on the trace evidence:

http://www.ufohelp.c...Scoutmaster.htm

scoutmaster3.JPG

scoutmaster2.jpg

Florida%20Scoutmaster%20Fig.%202.jpg

scoutmaster.jpg

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes wonder how much crap the waters of UFOology can really take,...?

1275.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes wonder how much crap the waters of UFOology can really take,...?

It's all about establishing the truth Haz. Welcome back to the thread btw; not seen you in here for a while.

As long as you are enjoying it; that's the main thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about establishing the truth Haz. Welcome back to the thread btw; not seen you in here for a while.

As long as you are enjoying it; that's the main thing.

And keeping up the helpful contributions to the discussion.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly a major case by any means, but it looks so unique I thought I would share it. I don't know any more than what's on the box with this one so just see it for what it is:

my granddad took this UFO footage in america during 1963, it has been slowed down and zoomed in from the original footage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly a major case by any means, but it looks so unique I thought I would share it. I don't know any more than what's on the box with this one so just see it for what it is:

It says 0:07 in length, but what I'm seeing is probably less than 1/4 second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says 0:07 in length, but what I'm seeing is probably less than 1/4 second.

"Never mind the size, feel the quality ..."

Isn't that what they say?

Or if you prefer a more profound version:

multum in parvo (much in small)

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Never mind the size, feel the quality ..."

Isn't that what they say?

Or if you prefer a more profound version:

multum in parvo (much in small)

Ok...i managed to view the whole thing and froze it several times.

It's brief, and out of focus. I can't even determine if the background is sky.

I'm afraid I got nothing out of this.

Quality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of aircraft, though? That seems to have a very wide chord wing, no discernible fuselage and no vertical Tail. The only aircraft that could look remotely anything like that might be a B-2, or perhaps one of those secret Flying WIngs that we see about so much*. A high wing aircraft like a C-130? The wings look very much like they're swept. A B-52, then? It doesn't looks much like any regular kind of commercial aircraft, that makes it very clear.

Here's a B-2 from pretty much the same angle which gives a good view of the lights:

* :innocent:

It's pretty difficult to tell exactly what kind of aircraft it is, but it need not be a flying wing. Just because we can't discern certain details like a tail in much of the footage does not mean the aircraft is missing them. With the extreme zoom combined with the blurriness and with the lights (which appear to be full anti collision and/or landing lights) being the focal point, the tail can easily appear virtually invisible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok...i managed to view the whole thing and froze it several times.

It's brief, and out of focus. I can't even determine if the background is sky.

I'm afraid I got nothing out of this.

Quality?

Try seeing it in context; it's got flashing lights on it's tips and on it's dome, an incredibly slim profile, and the date is 1963. I'm not offering it as an exhibit 'A' rather it's just an interesting piece of footage and another piece in a huge jigsaw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty difficult to tell exactly what kind of aircraft it is, but it need not be a flying wing. Just because we can't discern certain details like a tail in much of the footage does not mean the aircraft is missing them. With the extreme zoom combined with the blurriness and with the lights (which appear to be full anti collision and/or landing lights) being the focal point, the tail can easily appear virtually invisible.

Hmmm, it looks much more, well, banana shaped than any traditional Aircraft, i have to say. There really doesn't look to be much of a Fuselage to it, let alone a Tail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about establishing the truth Haz. Welcome back to the thread btw; not seen you in here for a while.

As long as you are enjoying it; that's the main thing.

The jury is still out on that truth theory of yours, zoser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, it looks much more, well, banana shaped than any traditional Aircraft, i have to say. There really doesn't look to be much of a Fuselage to it, let alone a Tail.

What makes you think that we even should see the vertical stabilizer in footage like that?

Compare with this video of an RC Airbus A330 coming in for a landing with full anti collision and landing lights turned on.

Now look at this version which I've lowered the brightness of and increased the contrast in a similar way to the UFO video that is supposedly so tantalizing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0nlcVZLihk

At which point do you see the vertical stabilizer in either piece of footage?

Why do you suppose we can't see all of the aircraft details until it has almost landed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The jury is still out on that truth theory of yours, zoser.

All complaints to be in triplicate, signed and witnessed by at least 3 other confirmed skeptics please.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser lines them up and Boon knocks them down

No at best he does 1 in 5. He still has Fraserburgh, Denbigh, Myrtle Beach and Yuma to solve. 4 out of 5 cases still unexplained where the footage has close similarities.

Chasing after every single case you post would be a full time job. If our evil and secretive government paid me enough, I'd be more than happy to do just that, but unfortunately I don't have the time to debunk every single crappy UFO YouTube video that is out there.

Besides, "unexplained" is the best you'll ever get with these zoser, which does not mean "ET" as you seem to often think.

Stan Freidman himself says that he is happy with every 90% of sightings being hoaxes or misidentifications. He only needs 5-10% of unexplained to validate the phenomena.

PS I'm still not convinced about Okeechobee. Just saying that the footage is crappy solves nothing and is just a peg to hang one's coat on. It's just a get out clause. Even when not zoomed in fully the outline is discernable as something other than a plane.

The debate still rages and there is still much to discuss if anyone's up for it.

I'm enjoying it if everyone else is.

The phenomena is validated, people do see UFOs, and a big chunk of them will probably remain "unexplained" forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chasing after every single case you post would be a full time job.

The point is they cannot all be debunked.

Quoth Stan Friedman:

"This earth is being engaged by extra-terrestrial beings........"

There can be no other rational conclusion.

Mr and Mrs Brown from sleepy hollow UK have witnessed them (face to face in many cases), so have men connected with Royalty (Peter Horsely), the US military have experienced them, so have school children in Wales, Zimbabwe and Australia, as well as astronauts, the US and Soviet Navies, wood cutters in the US (Travis Walton), prospectors in Canada (Stephen Michalak), Farmers all over the US and people from just about every country in the world.

Hopefully we will not have long to wait before everyone in the world doubts it no longer.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is they cannot all be debunked.

Many of them can be and have been debunked, several of which you are still mystified over. Of the ones that haven't been debunked yet, neither can they be verified as extraterrestrial.

Quoth Stan Friedman:

"This earth is being engaged by extra-terrestrial beings........"

There can be no other rational conclusion.

Why does something unexplained have to be extraterrestrial in your opinion?

Mr and Mrs Brown from sleepy hollow UK have witnessed them (face to face in many cases), so have men connected with Royalty (Peter Horsely), the US military have experienced them, so have school children in Wales, Zimbabwe and Australia, as well as astronauts, the US and Soviet Navies, wood cutters in the US (Travis Walton), prospectors in Canada (Stephen Michalak), Farmers all over the US and people from just about every country in the world.

A lot of people tell stories, that doesn't make them true or factual.

Hopefully we will not have long to wait before everyone in the world doubts it no longer.

I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of them can be and have been debunked, several of which you are still mystified over. Of the ones that haven't been debunked yet, neither can they be verified as extraterrestrial.

Why does something unexplained have to be extraterrestrial in your opinion?

A lot of people tell stories, that doesn't make them true or factual.

I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you.

Take a look at post 4311 on the previous page; what do you think it is?

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a look at post 4311 on the previous page; what do you think it is?

Fake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.