The "Guardian" Footage

[zoser]

because its a chopper, or a truck, and has the same lights as a chopper or utility truck will have, simples

UFO landed indeed...

You know what I'm going to say next.

Show me one that looks like it.

[Hazzard]

Thats just the thing,... some see a disc where others see something mundane. As long as we keep getting this illusive stuff that is open to any ones interpretation we are getting no where.

That is where science and the scientific method comes in. I believe it is the best tool we have when investigating the world around us.

I need the scientific community to tell me that this is real,... until then I will remain skeptical.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Hazzard

[zoser]

Thats just the thing,... some see a disc where others see something mundane. As long as we keep getting this illusive stuff that is open to any ones interpretation we are getting no where.

That is where science and the scientific method comes in. I believe it is the best tool we have when investigating the world around us.

I need the scientific community to tell me that this is real,... until then I will remain skeptical.

Then where are they? Why do you suppose they abdicate from all this? Too petty for them?

Or could it be that there is no profit in it for them?

Could it be that their position of grandeur, their ivory tower is somewhat under threat?

When one boxer avoids another, he can't claim a victory. Science has done itself no favours at all by avoiding this subject.

Your in for a mighty long wait Hazz.

[Quaentum]

If I were to hazard a guess I would say we are looking at an out of focus video of a radio or relay station, including transmission tower. The video shows the arrival of a vehicle, two utility vehicles off to the left and one vehicle with a strobe in front of the station that could be there for repairs or adjustments to be made.

My reasoning is as follows:

The green we see in the first and third shots are clearly the leaves of trees or bushes so the pair of lights coming from the left in the first shot are at ground level and most likely the headlights of a vehicle on a road.

The two pair of lights in the second shot each have a yellow rotating (not strobe) light above them which is indicative of utility vehicles.

There is a flashing light that appears to be ascending above the strobe light. Quite similar to a series of lights on transmission towers that light and go out in sequence going up the tower.

The bright lights at the object are just normal lights outside the station that seem brighter and more diffuse because of the out of focus nature of the video.

I acknowledge that I am no expert in anything and before the "true believers" tear apart my post I ask them to answer these two questions: Since the video was supposedly taken on VHS, why, in the nearly 2 minutes of video does the videographer not once bring the objects into focus and why, if you are recording what you believe to be a UFO would you stop and restart the recording not once, but twice?

If I am correct in what is in the video then it would not be a video of the supposed event since the witness and investigators do not describe anything like a radio station or transmission tower.

[Spacenut56]

If someone has already posted this, sorry, but if not, isn't this what was referred to as Canadas' version of Roswell. I think it is. I can't totally dismiss it as a hoax.

t dismiss

[+DieChecker]

That's all we can do being removed from the case by several thousand miles and 20 years in time.

What do you suggest? Take a time machine and go back or something? Do you have one?

I agree it's very difficult to prove that this case is a hoax.

Just rambling on with heresay and opinion won't do it. This is what happens when people behave in an unscrupulous fashion during the early stages of a case.

Welcome to Ufology.

This goes back to Prooving a Negative. It is impossible to proove the case is NOT real, since no one was there, other then the cameraman.

Similarly it is impossible to proove the video is real also. But if it comes down to prooving that Aliens landed with flashing lights, or prooving that some kid made a fake video, I'd have to say the Preponderance of the Evidence is in favor of it being a hoax.

1) The kid goes by the name Guardian.

2) He is obsessed with UFOs.

3) The UFO landed in his aunts yard.

4) He drives a truck that fits the profile needed in the video.

5) Many personnal friends and family confirmed points 1 through 4.

So, then what are the points in favor of this being a real Alien UFO? I can't think of any. The arguement in favor is one of incredulity.

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.

Edited October 28, 2013 by DieChecker

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Who said that UFO's ever wanted to be stealthy? How do you know that the lights are not part of it's motive power?

Because I may be a scientific nincompoop, but I can imagine how vortex-impeller drives, and gravity inversion systems etc might work while "a flashing light" OTOH serves no imaginable purpose.

Flashing lights serve a purpose. On our craft it's so other people either on the ground or in other craft can tell where they are in relation to you - even if all you see is the lights (which is why they're different colours). The flashing lights on Daleks are so you can tell which one is speaking. The flashing lights on computers are so you can tell it's working.

The flashing lights on a UFO are there .... why?

That's what makes me think that it's a human craft, they're there, they're there in a human standard pattern.

[aquatus1]

Yes, I'm a novice to the UFO phantasmagoria, and I only know a black-backgrounded video of flashing lights morphing in and out of the frame when I see one, but somebody--please!--tell me: How does one debunk what has not yet been bunked? (a.k.a., "How does one prove a negative?").

And please, to all interested, concerned and/or opinionated--forgive my perceived impertinence.

That's an excellent question, actually. The key is proportionality. In other words, the reaction one receives is going to be proportional to the credibility of the claim which is being made.

Take, for instance, this video here. When all is said and done, we have a video of blurry lights. To claim that this is evidence of an extraterrestrial encounter is not really a claim that can be supported by this video alone. The evidence (this video) provided for the claim (extraterrestrial encounter) is not credible (i.e. extraterrestrial contact is an in-credible claim, and would require in-credible evidence to support it).

Now, while the average skeptic will refuse to accept this video as evidence of extraterrestrial contact, they would be willing to accept that this video shows something interesting but undefinable. In other words, instead of using the video as evidence of an incredible phenomena, we think of the video as the phenomena itself. At that point, we are capable of thinking a bit more rationally on the subject, since the claim is simply "What could this be on the video?" At that point, speculation regarding trucks, and hoaxes, and even aliens, are on a more level playing field.

In other words, where you run into problems is not on the video itself, but rather on how people treat the video. If all we are doing is trying to decide what is on the video itself, that's one thing. If, on the other hand, some people demand a priori that the video be considered legitimate evidence of something specific, particularly something that has never been shown to exist, such as extraterrestrials, then it can only be expected that the demand for greater evidence is going to be made, evidence beyond the ability of a video such as this can provide.

[CMan0928]

When I watch the footage I don't see a truck, nor do I see a helicopter. I see a disc shaped object. People have pointed out that the flashing lights on top of the object MUST signify a terrestrial aeronautical object. I say fine, you can have that. But what about the intense light emiting from underneath the object? Got any good explanations for that? Bottom line: You have a bunch of skeptics here who enjoy being contrarian. No matter what kind of evidence they see, legit or faked, their first inclination is to pass it off as a hoax. What did the three people in question stand to gain from putting all this together? The main argument I've heard so far is that Bob Oechsler was out to cash in on the Guardian case, so the entire thing must be contrived in order for him to do so. That's total BS. And you guys know that.

Edited October 29, 2013 by CMan0928

[CMan0928]

If someone has already posted this, sorry, but if not, isn't this what was referred to as Canadas' version of Roswell. I think it is. I can't totally dismiss it as a hoax.

t dismiss

I think that was actually the incident at Shag Harbour.

[Skep B]

Got any good explanations for that?

yes.....a light choppers often have spotlights, many trucks have lighting underneath them now too, because people think stupid things look cool.

That's total BS. And you guys know that.

Why do we know this?

What did the three people in question stand to gain from putting all this together?

people love attention

You have a bunch of skeptics here who enjoy being contrarian

HEY NOW.. you.....uh..eh, fair enough

Edited October 29, 2013 by SkepticalB

[DONTEATUS]

Well THats ,That ! "Z" Seems to of fingered it all out Again ! BUt wheres the Proof ?

[CMan0928]

This looks like a truck? Sure. Maybe an extraterrestrial truck.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

To me, that looks like a raised road/train track with something illuminating the gully.

Probably whatever's casting the round light at hte top - a spotlight while they're doing track works perhaps?

[CMan0928]

To me, that looks like a raised road/train track with something illuminating the gully.

Probably whatever's casting the round light at hte top - a spotlight while they're doing track works perhaps?

No.

[Skep B]

Why not

[psyche101]

This looks like a truck? Sure. Maybe an extraterrestrial truck.

LOL, yeah that looks heaps like a truck, is that the best pic of the beastie?

[psyche101]

It's a standard response to claim that it is some everyday object. If it was a hoax it was very elaborately put together. Then one has to ask to what end? No one really took a great deal of notice did they?

It was not elaborately put together, it looks like footage of a truck at night, in wet conditions. To what end? The YT account the OP linked to, and that which you should have read, said he found an old VHS tape with this on it, marked UFO, the internet identified the scenario, for all we know, he just found an old video tape recording of the TV show, people used to do it all the time, and as far as I know, still do.

There is no "end" and no wonder nobody took much notice considering that information.

From Youtube, the link in the OP:

Not real sure if this is real or fake. The only thing I know about this one is that it came off of a blank vhs tape I owned labeled "Strange UFO sighting".Doing a tad of reasearch on internet I find that is was called "The Guardian Tape" which had crushal evidence of a UFO Craft. Was also shown on "unsolved Mysteries" (one of my fav shows, never saw that ep. until last night). I don't know what to think of this one, seems fake to me but I don't know judge for urself.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

No.

I'm so glad you're here to tell me what it I THINK something looks like. Otherwise, I'd be terribly confused.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Sir Wearer of Hats

[zoser]

When I watch the footage I don't see a truck, nor do I see a helicopter. I see a disc shaped object. People have pointed out that the flashing lights on top of the object MUST signify a terrestrial aeronautical object. I say fine, you can have that. But what about the intense light emiting from underneath the object? Got any good explanations for that? Bottom line: You have a bunch of skeptics here who enjoy being contrarian. No matter what kind of evidence they see, legit or faked, their first inclination is to pass it off as a hoax. What did the three people in question stand to gain from putting all this together? The main argument I've heard so far is that Bob Oechsler was out to cash in on the Guardian case, so the entire thing must be contrived in order for him to do so. That's total BS. And you guys know that.

No one sees a truck. No one sees a helicopter.

They all know that really. The only things that muddy the water are the alleged antics of the original Ufologists that studied the case and The Guardian himself.

It all points to a misinformation attempt; someone knew that this footage was about to leak out and someone (The Guardian) got in there first by sending a package to a couple of investigators. The writings in that package were garbage to lay the seeds of doubt from the very outset.

It's a classic set up. That's the most likely explanation for this case. It has the hallmarks of Roswell over it. The object is a weather balloon etc.

There is no evidence that a lot of money was made by anyone or that the 3 witnesses were paid off. Their story has never changed over 20 years.

It's a done deal. A genuine event and someone tried to sabotage and confuse the facts.

Edited October 29, 2013 by zoser

[zoser]

To me, that looks like a raised road/train track with something illuminating the gully.

Probably whatever's casting the round light at hte top - a spotlight while they're doing track works perhaps?

There were no rail trucks in that area. The Ufologists apparently located the site and it was close to where the residents live. Did you read about a railway line there?

Please stop inventing for heaven's sake.

[zoser]

yes.....a light choppers often have spotlights, many trucks have lighting underneath them now too, because people think stupid things look cool.

Pure invention. No choppers. They have rotating blades don't they?

people love attention

They didn't get a lot did they? Two appeared briefly on a documentary and one remained anonymous. That's easily debunked.

One of them got no publicity!

One result of this case having been presented on Unsolved Mysteries in February, 1993 was that another witness came forward. This lady, called "Sarah" claims that she saw the UFO take off from the Labenek's field and then land on the road in front of her house where she saw aliens coming out.

"Sarah" has recently told a portion of her story on the "Encounter's" TV show (she wishes to remain anonymous and uses a pseudonym). I tend to believe her because she has passed a lie detector test. It was administered by a rather skeptical polygrapher who tested her twice.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_flyingobjects34.htm

Edited October 29, 2013 by zoser

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

There were no rail trucks in that area. The Ufologists apparently located the site and it was close to where the residents live. Did you read about a railway line there?

Please stop inventing for heaven's sake.

I just looked at the picture and told you what I saw.

[zoser]

I just looked at the picture and told you what I saw.

Suggestion: Take a snapshot, upload it and identify exactly where the chopper is so that we can all see please?

Edited October 29, 2013 by zoser

[seeder]

They didn't get a lot did they? Two appeared briefly on a documentary and one remained anonymous. That's easily debunked.

One of them got no publicity!

In direct conflict with your above statement is this snippet, ALREADY POSTED had you bothered reading

quote:

Tom was skeptical of Oechsler’s convenient claim and pressed Oechsler for an answer.

“What are you trying to pull here?” Tom asked.

Oechsler surprisingly answered, “What’s wrong with trying to make a buck? No matter how good the story is, 50% of the people will believe you, 50% won’t.”

http://ottawaricksha...n-myths-ottawa/

Now kindly stop cluttering this thread with your clearly wrong opinions and bogus links. This subject was a real video, but with with a hoax story attached that has been fully debunked earlier in the thread, so get over it.