Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

GIANT Black Triangle UFO Recorded


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, JesseCuster said:

There's plenty of examples online of objects silhouetted in sharp focus against the moon, despite the objects being miles from the photographer and the moon being hundreds of thousands of miles away.

Focused on the Moon at THAT level of zoom? Time to stop telling and start showing, eh?

But be sure your evidence also includes an explanation for the fluctuating motions the Shadow takes in sync with the Moon topography. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
54 minutes ago, AZDZ said:

Focused on the Moon at THAT level of zoom? Time to stop telling and start showing, eh?

But be sure your evidence also includes an explanation for the fluctuating motions the Shadow takes in sync with the Moon topography. 

 

That seems to be the easy bit... if I took a photo of a younger me...added it into 'whatever' effects program...then added a non existent hat on my head...and THEN....added some sort of distortion filter......everything in my photo would seem to distort....even the fake hat

 

Adding Distortion effects

http://blog.spoongraphics.co.uk/tutorials/how-to-create-a-distorted-vhs-effect-in-photoshop

 

lastly, its from Secureteam.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by seeder
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/06/2016 at 9:34 PM, AZDZ said:

But be sure your evidence also includes an explanation for the fluctuating motions the Shadow takes in sync with the Moon topography. 

I can't see that the object is in anyway "in sync with the Moon topography" in the OP video, so I have nothing to explain there.  It's a tiny blurry object on a blurry wobbly distorted video.  I simply don't know how you can see what you claim you can here.  

I don't need to explain the existence of something I don't see any evidence for the existence of.  It's your claim and I don't agree with it.

Here's an example of some things in silhouette in front of the moon which are far closer to the photographer than to the moon.   Is the object in the OP video any sharper or more in focus than these?  Granted the object in the video is obviously smaller and/or further away but the point still stands, there is no reason to think that because it is "in focus" that it must somehow be in outer space and closer to the moon than us.  Can you explain your reasoning in your own words just so we know exactly what your argument is here regarding why you think "at that level of zoom" means that the object must be close to the moon as opposed to close to the earth?  I don't know anything about telescopes so I might be talking through my rear end here, I just want to follow your rationale that lead to this conclusion.

*snip*

If a mod deletes those for copyright reasons, here's links to the pages they were on:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3179917/Blue-moon-horizon-Rare-phenomenon-two-moons-calendar-month-light-skies-Friday.html

http://www.space.com/14071-spectacular-silhouette-skywatcher-sees-plane-crossing-small-full-moon.html

http://imgur.com/gallery/tOvc1

Edited by Saru
Images removed due to copyright
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for trying JC, but I am not seeing the resemblance. The last image is closest but the zoom factor falls way short of where it needs to be. And it isn't video.  

And surely no one wants to make the claim a satellites shadow could make it to the Moon, right?

So unless someone adds some really good evidence which totally fits the parameters of the OP video, I am marking this one in my book as genuine and moving on.

Edited by AZDZ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a fuzzy spec with a corny soundtrack. Doesn't take much for you to get your jollies. Secureteam10 has better stuff than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, AZDZ said:

Thanks for trying JC, but I am not seeing the resemblance. The last image is closest but the zoom factor falls way short of where it needs to be. And it isn't video.  

And surely no one wants to make the claim a satellites shadow could make it to the Moon, right?

So unless someone adds some really good evidence which totally fits the parameters of the OP video, I am marking this one in my book as genuine and moving on.

1. Can you explain the relevance of the zoom factor and whether or not my example was video or photo as to the point you're trying to make?

2. No-one is claiming that what we are seeing is the shadow of a terrestrial satellite so who are you addressing with that point?

3. You've yet to demonstrate that the object is near the moon and that it's shadow follows the terrain on the moon's surface.  I maintain that the atmospheric distortion in the video is far too great and the size of the object far too small and low definition for that to be determined.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AZDZ said:

 And it isn't video.  

 

 

Is the clip you posted real video? Or still shots that have been videoed ?

But its STILL secureteam no matter the protests

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

It's a fuzzy spec with a corny soundtrack. Doesn't take much for you to get your jollies. Secureteam10 has better stuff than that.

Shows how much attention you are paying.

2 hours ago, JesseCuster said:

1. Can you explain the relevance of the zoom factor and whether or not my example was video or photo as to the point you're trying to make?

2. No-one is claiming that what we are seeing is the shadow of a terrestrial satellite so who are you addressing with that point?

3. You've yet to demonstrate that the object is near the moon and that it's shadow follows the terrain on the moon's surface.  I maintain that the atmospheric distortion in the video is far too great and the size of the object far too small and low definition for that to be determined.

Skeptic diversionary tactic # what-ever it is up to by now: ignore responses already given, innocently keep repeating the same old questions again and again as if it's the first time asking.

1 hour ago, seeder said:

Is the clip you posted real video? Or still shots that have been videoed ?

But its STILL secureteam no matter the protests

Hasn't been proven faked, remember?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, AZDZ said:

Hasn't been proven faked, remember?

 

nor has it been proved real... oh, did I mention its from secureteam? known fakers...  :lol:

and do read another very short thread here

 

Edited by seeder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AZDZ said:

Shows how much attention you are paying.

Skeptic diversionary tactic # what-ever it is up to by now: ignore responses already given, innocently keep repeating the same old questions again and again as if it's the first time asking.

Hasn't been proven faked, remember?

It's not fake; it is what it is, a fuzzy, blown up pixelated spot. There's absolutely nothing remarkable about the image until after it's been manipulated. It looks like something close to the camera, a moth bird or bat, perhaps. The triangle shape is the product of manipulation and enhancement, nothing more.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finally brought myself to watch this video to see what all the discussion was about. Afterwards it dawned on me that I need to quit drinking.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, AZDZ said:

Skeptic diversionary tactic # what-ever it is up to by now: ignore responses already given, innocently keep repeating the same old questions again and again as if it's the first time asking.

Hasn't been proven faked, remember?

1. I haven't ignored your responses.  I'm questioning them.  You raised the "zoom factor" objection to the examples of moon silhouettes I gave.  I'm asking you to explain why how much the video footage is zoomed is somehow relevant to the subject being discussed.

2. You maintain that the object follows the contours of the surface of the moon.  I can't see that in the OP video and I've watched it three times now.  You have yet to demonstrate it.  Asking you to show me what you claim is in a video when I can't see it myself isn't ignoring your responses, it's asking you to actually justify them.  You're being quite coy and vague with your assertions and objections.

3. Hasn't been proven faked?  Is that your standard for UFO videos?  Especially one from a source like Secureteam10?  Given the amount of garbage they post on their channel which are generally either hoaxes or videos of mundane things being claimed to be extraterrestrial, the burden of proof isn't on those who think it isn't a giant craft flying near the moon.  It's up to those who claim that's what it is to prove it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
5 hours ago, Kurzweil said:

I finally brought myself to watch this video to see what all the discussion was about. Afterwards it dawned on me that I need to quit drinking.

I quit drinking.  

It doesn't help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.  I started reading some of the earlier 'analysis' being offered on this thread.... There's way too much 'expert' opinion being posted... but without much actual support or proper maths.

May i suggest that those who seem to have a sudden newfound ability to analyse video and offer very authoritative-sounding comments about perspective issues (like impossible timings as things cross an image...) please support your claims and supply the maths.  For as you would know if you are truly experienced, the maths is fairly simple but handwaves like that are useless.  You need to put some numbers on your claims and show that you know enough of the required information to make those calls....

And the thing is, the maths isn't difficult - no calculus or fancy equations required, just simple multiplication and division...  But to do it, you'll need to understand properly how it all works - and you'll need to have the relative distances of the objects (this one in particular catches out many a pretender - f'rinstance an aircraft could be as close as a kilometer away, or it could be 50x or more further away if at high altitude.  This stuff is linear, so that means that the angular speeds (and therefore times to traverse an image field) could differ by.. you guessed it - 50x. Please think about that....  And yet above, someone just picked on a 4 second interval as if it means something?  Where's all the information necessary to determine those distances/speeds/timings?  Where was the distance factor even mentioned?

And that's just one aspect...  There are lots of ancillary issues like the magnification via the lens focal length and sensor size (determines the 'true' optical magnification) and then internal- (eg digital zoom) and post-processing like resizing for the video format, or cropping for still images.  However, as JesseC rightly points out, that is NOT relevant when you are simply comparing angular motion/speeds.  The whole magnification situation may be complicated further if it is a camera being used to re-photograph an eyepiece image or other type of display... etc.  I see other claims being made about what would or would not be in focus - again, where is the ACTUAL information about what the depth of field might be, and whether it is even an issue?  Does someone have the effective f-stop values and the focus distance that was set, and what CofC calculations did they do?  No, just some vague but impressive sounding handwaves about zoom settings.  Irrelevant.

My point is that while the maths is not difficult, if you don't know how to apply it and also properly consider ALL of the factors involved, then your calculations will be useless (let alone any wild guesses you may throw around).  There is a LOT to consider and if you don't pick out the right ones, and also consider what the error ranges might be, your 'analysis' is stone dead.  Frankly, a lot of the handwaving I'm seeing above - where various possibilities are being dismissed without proper consideration of the relevant issues - are not even worthy guesses, let alone a proper analysis.

In simple terms - we don't know enough to be dismissing some of the possibilities above.

I don't really want to waste my time wading back and pointing out every flaw in what has been said to date, BUT to prove that I'll put my knowledge where my mouth is, I would invite anyone who is convinced by any particular 'analysis' that has been rendered above to please say so and also say why you found it compelling.  I'll happily look at it in proper detail and explain what information is required, and I'll happily concede anything that is correct.  If it isn't correct, then I will show why, with maths or examples as required.

Anyway, do carry on folks.  And a quick shout-out / thanks to JesseC who has been spotting many of the issues and pointing them out. :tu:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.