UFO videos from Scotland

[johncbdg]

1 hour ago, Timothy said:

So, why UFO? 

Tim, we all have seen the footage of unknown triangle crafts filmed from all over the world this footage was filmed to show that most airplanes underside lights look like this and that most if not all the triangle crafts filmed are nothing more than Ordinary airplanes.

Here is a airplane not a ufo that was filmed as it went over Gorebridge it was lit up like a Christmas tree we never did find out the name of that airplane but Ordinary plane it must have been....

 

 

[stereologist]

35 minutes ago, johncbdg said:

Tim, we all have seen the footage of unknown triangle crafts filmed from all over the world this footage was filmed to show that most airplanes underside lights look like this and that most if not all the triangle crafts filmed are nothing more than Ordinary airplanes.

Here is a airplane not a ufo that was filmed as it went over Gorebridge it was lit up like a Christmas tree we never did find out the name of that airplane but Ordinary plane it must have been....

 

 

By far the best video you have posted. It is an ordinary plane with all of its lights on. You can even see the red and green  lights that show that the plane is pointed towards the person making the video.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation_light

The WTF I suppose refers to a plane with its landing lights on.

Thanks for posting such a good video.

As far as triangular craft being filmed. The most famous one of course was the Belgium hoax photo. The triangular craft is a long drawn out hoax as far as I know. Corrections welcome.

https://www.ibtimes.com/controversial-belgian-ufo-image-confirmed-hoax-after-two-decades-818981

[johncbdg]

23 hours ago, stereologist said:

By far the best video you have posted. It is an ordinary plane with all of its lights on. You can even see the red and green  lights that show that the plane is pointed towards the person making the video.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation_light

The WTF I suppose refers to a plane with its landing lights on.

Thanks for posting such a good video.

As far as triangular craft being filmed. The most famous one of course was the Belgium hoax photo. The triangular craft is a long drawn out hoax as far as I know. Corrections welcome.

https://www.ibtimes.com/controversial-belgian-ufo-image-confirmed-hoax-after-two-decades-818981

Great,i would agree with Belgium hoax picture...

[ufoscan]

On 9/28/2018 at 9:48 AM, stereologist said:

The triangular craft is a long drawn out hoax as far as I know. Corrections welcome.

As with everything in the UFO field, one must make a distinction between UFO photographs and UFO sightings.  I think the Belgian wave involves enough witnesses (and many multiple witness accounts) to suggest there was "something" going on.  That photograph really had very little to do with the course of events but was highlighted in the media since it could make magazine covers.

It was suspicious from the beginning (to me anyway but also to some in the European media who showed that it could easily be reproduced) but people who haven't studied the events closely are not aware that real attempts were made to photograph these objects - including by a pro photographer who witnessed them.  What he found was that, even though with his eyes he could see a dark object hovering, all he got on film was a tiny spot of light - nothing to make the news.

Just how many of you guys actually met and talked to UFO witnesses ?  You seem to get all your information from what you read or see on the internet.  Most people I have met that saw UFOs won't even talk to friends about it - let alone the media.  They just know its a loosing battle.

Edited September 29, 2018 by ufoscan

[stereologist]

3 hours ago, ufoscan said:

As with everything in the UFO field, one must make a distinction between UFO photographs and UFO sightings.  I think the Belgian wave involves enough witnesses (and many multiple witness accounts) to suggest there was "something" going on.  That photograph really had very little to do with the course of events but was highlighted in the media since it could make magazine covers.

It was suspicious from the beginning (to me anyway but also to some in the European media who showed that it could easily be reproduced) but people who haven't studied the events closely are not aware that real attempts were made to photograph these objects - including by a pro photographer who witnessed them.  What he found was that, even though with his eyes he could see a dark object hovering, all he got on film was a tiny spot of light - nothing to make the news.

Just how many of you guys actually met and talked to UFO witnesses ?  You seem to get all your information from what you read or see on the internet.  Most people I have met that saw UFOs won't even talk to friends about it - let alone the media.  They just know its a loosing battle.

The problem with things like the Belgium sightings is that it seems to become a fad to join in the reporting. The photo has become the thing that people report. Photos do encourage people to see particular things. The CGI on the cover of a newspaper assisted many people to report seeing a craft like that in Phoenix wen in fact few of the reports were based on actual sightings. As time went on more and more people reported seeing something like that photo. Did that also happen in Belgium? Probably.

It seems that the photographer you mention was prone to seeing what he wanted to see, but the camera corrected him and showed what was actually there - no craft.

I've talked to UFO witnesses. In fact, I've been two to places where people were witnessing UFOs. I pointed out what they were seeing but they went on believing that they were seeing something mysterious.

What we do learn about witnesses is that they are remarkably bad in reporting what they saw. I recently learned about a visual mechanism in the brain that matches what is being seen to what the person already has seen. It leads to strange connections. That is because what is matched to might be a poor match, but is a good match to what is known to the observer.

[ufoscan]

3 hours ago, stereologist said:

 

3 hours ago, stereologist said:

The problem with things like the Belgium sightings is that it seems to become a fad to join in the reporting. The photo has become the thing that people report.

Clearly, you know very little about the Belgium wave.  The photo came much after the majority of reports - several by police officers.  In fact the person who took that picture specifically explained that he did the picture based on some witness reports and he had no doubt that the reports were genuine.  The wave lasted only a few months - from November 1989 to April 1990 yet the picture was shown at the end of the wave - in April 1990. And no, after the picture was published, there wasn't another wave of reports.

As to how i looked into the Belgian UFO wave, I contacted the SOBEPS as soon as I heard of the first reports and kept in touch with the chief investigator.  They had such reports for several months.  Many of the reports were quite detailed in the descriptions and differed in the details.  Some craft were of very different design even though the media (that likes to make everything uniform) made it out that only triangles were seen.  The fact is that most people making such comments haven't actually read the number of very detailed reports.

3 hours ago, stereologist said:

The CGI on the cover of a newspaper assisted many people to report seeing a craft like that in Phoenix

Your assumption.

3 hours ago, stereologist said:

Did that also happen in Belgium? Probably

Did you actually read the reports ?  Probably not.

3 hours ago, stereologist said:

It seems that the photographer you mention was prone to seeing what he wanted to see, but the camera corrected him and showed what was actually there - no craft

Again, a groundless assumption.  Did you actually read the details of this case ?  Of course not.  The photographer was not the only witness and other people tried to photograph it with similar results. It also didn't help that he was trying to photograph in the evening an object with a non-reflective finish.

3 hours ago, stereologist said:

I've talked to UFO witnesses. In fact, I've been two to places where people were witnessing UFOs. I pointed out what they were seeing but they went on believing that they were seeing something mysterious.

Then they were not UFO witnesses.  I am not referring to people who see a balloon in the sky or misidentify a satellite.  I am referring to people who have seen things that cannot be explained once you've gone through the list of "rational" explanations.

3 hours ago, stereologist said:

What we do learn about witnesses is that they are remarkably bad in reporting

In other words, if someone describes anything else in detail, then they are good at it.  But if he describes a UFO, then he must be mistaken or else he is "seeing things" - essentially, he is crazy.  That's why most UFO witnesses prefer to keep silent.

Edited September 30, 2018 by ufoscan

[Minimalists]

9 hours ago, ufoscan said:

Clearly, you know very little about the Belgium wave.  The photo came much after the majority of reports - several by police officers.  In fact the person who took that picture specifically explained that he did the picture based on some witness reports and he had no doubt that the reports were genuine.  The wave lasted only a few months - from November 1989 to April 1990 yet the picture was shown at the end of the wave - in April 1990. And no, after the picture was published, there wasn't another wave of reports.

As to how i looked into the Belgian UFO wave, I contacted the SOBEPS as soon as I heard of the first reports and kept in touch with the chief investigator.  They had such reports for several months.  Many of the reports were quite detailed in the descriptions and differed in the details.  Some craft were of very different design even though the media (that likes to make everything uniform) made it out that only triangles were seen.  The fact is that most people making such comments haven't actually read the number of very detailed reports.

Your assumption.

Did you actually read the reports ?  Probably not.

Again, a groundless assumption.  Did you actually read the details of this case ?  Of course not.  The photographer was not the only witness and other people tried to photograph it with similar results. It also didn't help that he was trying to photograph in the evening an object with a non-reflective finish.

Then they were not UFO witnesses.  I am not referring to people who see a balloon in the sky or misidentify a satellite.  I am referring to people who have seen things that cannot be explained once you've gone through the list of "rational" explanations.

In other words, if someone describes anything else in detail, then they are good at it.  But if he describes a UFO, then he must be mistaken or else he is "seeing things" - essentially, he is crazy.  That's why most UFO witnesses prefer to keep silent.

 

Quote

 

Then they were not UFO witnesses.  I am not referring to people who see a balloon in the sky or misidentify a satellite.  I am referring to people who have seen things that cannot be explained once you've gone through the list of "rational" explanations.

 

Lots of people have seen things that cannot be explained not only in sky but on the ground as well....Ufology does not hold a patent on this stuff..UFO followers seem to have this notion that if it comes from a police officer or some one with a badge its got to be true...Not so...It's a known fact that human beings have this condition known as an argument from ignorance  ... We see things that we don't know what they are but yet we go on to claim alien or UFO....If you don't know what it is then shut up right there..There is no need to say anything else!

Neil Degrasse Tyson puts this into perspective very well I think...."The lowest form of evidence in Science is eyewitness testimony...Yet it's the highest form of evidence in a court of law!"  It's physical evidence that goes a long way in proving these things and corroborating eye witness testimony....Oh sure all these accounts are compelling in their own way but they do not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that any of this is ET related. All it proves is that people saw something in the sky they cannot explain and jump to conclusions that it's some how a craft from another galaxy.

Quote

In other words, if someone describes anything else in detail, then they are good at it.  But if he describes a UFO, then he must be mistaken or else he is "seeing things" - essentially, he is crazy.  That's why most UFO witnesses prefer to keep silent.

Describing something in detail is great but you seem to forget what the "U" in UFO stands for "Unidentified!" So even though these folks describe it in detail its still "Unidentified"...Just because the details are there and they some how wear a badge or they are an important person of stature does not make them anymore credible than anyone else.

[stereologist]

15 hours ago, ufoscan said:

Clearly, you know very little about the Belgium wave.  The photo came much after the majority of reports - several by police officers.  In fact the person who took that picture specifically explained that he did the picture based on some witness reports and he had no doubt that the reports were genuine.  The wave lasted only a few months - from November 1989 to April 1990 yet the picture was shown at the end of the wave - in April 1990. And no, after the picture was published, there wasn't another wave of reports.

As to how i looked into the Belgian UFO wave, I contacted the SOBEPS as soon as I heard of the first reports and kept in touch with the chief investigator.  They had such reports for several months.  Many of the reports were quite detailed in the descriptions and differed in the details.  Some craft were of very different design even though the media (that likes to make everything uniform) made it out that only triangles were seen.  The fact is that most people making such comments haven't actually read the number of very detailed reports.

Your assumption.

Did you actually read the reports ?  Probably not.

Again, a groundless assumption.  Did you actually read the details of this case ?  Of course not.  The photographer was not the only witness and other people tried to photograph it with similar results. It also didn't help that he was trying to photograph in the evening an object with a non-reflective finish.

Then they were not UFO witnesses.  I am not referring to people who see a balloon in the sky or misidentify a satellite.  I am referring to people who have seen things that cannot be explained once you've gone through the list of "rational" explanations.

In other words, if someone describes anything else in detail, then they are good at it.  But if he describes a UFO, then he must be mistaken or else he is "seeing things" - essentially, he is crazy.  That's why most UFO witnesses prefer to keep silent.

Apparently, it doesn't take a photo to trick people into also reporting the same shape of the craft. The hoax appeared at the height of the reporting.

Not my opinion. Posters right here at UM have also reported that the consensus was a triangular craft when originally the triangular craft came from Tim Ley. It's clear you know little about the Phoenix Lights.

It's clear that you know little about how people make reports and how more people claim to have been a part of the event than were actually witnesses to the event.

The non-reflective commentary is simply your fantasy and not based on anything other than your wishful thinking. The simple fact of the matter is that the photograph reveals that there was nothing there. It was an objective recorder that shows nothing was there. The existence of other witnesses does not mean anything other than other also were bad witnesses. You claim of groundless assumption is as meritless as the rest of your prattle.

Your definition of witness is meaningless. There is zero evidence that your definition applies to any reports. The remainder of your blather about witnesses is more dribble that has no merit The simple fact is that witnesses are bad at reporting what they see especially when it is something that confuses them.

[stereologist]

The idea that UFO witnesses prefer to remain silent is a story to cover up whatever the speaker wants to contend is correct or true.

Quote

n other words, if someone describes anything else in detail, then they are good at it.  But if he describes a UFO, then he must be mistaken or else he is "seeing things" - essentially, he is crazy.  That's why most UFO witnesses prefer to keep silent.

I don't buy this at all. Just because someone describes something in detail does not mean they are good at it. It could just as well mean that these people like to fill in the gaps of their observation.

I have watched people witnessing UFOs on two occasions and they were clearly making up details. I saw the same thing with a couple that showed me photos of Champ, the lake monster. Talking to each individually they told me details that conflicted with the other person.

Details often appear in false memories. That doesn't make the false events less fictional.

[johncbdg]

This ufo was reported many times over the month April 2011 then one night i was out in the back garden with two friends we just came back from a night of skywatching and the phone rang and i started talking to a old friend at the time, as i was talking on phone we all could see that object in the footage around 500 feet up moving at speed heading south above Birkenside Midlothian then on the 27 April 2011 we could see the object hovering and then move off.

 

 

Edited October 4, 2018 by johncbdg

[Mr.United_Nations]

Source?

[toast]

18 minutes ago, Mr.United_Nations said:

Source?

None.

[jmccr8]

On 9/1/2018 at 4:46 AM, johncbdg said:

We thought the same and with the hide and seek technology could well be army.

Sure blame it on the army, it's not like they can defend themselves. Why not the air force?

jmccr8 

[CryptidSeeker]

Yikes! Thats only an hour or so up the road from me! Hope i dont get abducted or something :s

I hope those of you saying its a drone are right so i can actually get to sleep tonight and not worry about aliens...

[johncbdg]

On 08/10/2018 at 7:24 AM, jmccr8 said:

Sure blame it on the army, it's not like they can defend themselves. Why not the air force?

jmccr8 

Yes your right we are not sure who it was,so it safer to say its a illegal alien craft in our airspace,i like that better.............

[johncbdg]

On 08/10/2018 at 6:19 PM, CryptidSeeker said:

Yikes! Thats only an hour or so up the road from me! Hope i dont get abducted or something :s

I hope those of you saying its a drone are right so i can actually get to sleep tonight and not worry about aliens...

You can sleep well any night you would never know anything about being abducted you may have some thoughts that some thing happened to you but you will put it down to having a bad dream like many millions do and never report there dreams about Aliens.....

I am 100% sure that everything will be alright with you......

Not got a clue as to what is going on here, but you could not see the orbs with the naked eye only when we used NV if you do know what was going on then let us know. Loch Ness Scotland when we went down to near to where the light activity was, there was no boats on the water at this place and no one near the bank that we could find but we will not rule out any thing so the footage is as it should be free for you to view and if any hard evidence shows up we will post the update as we do with all the footage on this site...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Timothy]

@johncbdg, that footage could just be of people flying drones around at night. 

Also, from the video description:

6 hours ago, johncbdg said:

we will post the update as we do with all the footage on this site...

What site are they talking about here?

[johncbdg]

12 hours ago, Timothy said:

@johncbdg, that footage could just be of people flying drones around at night. 

Also, from the video description:

What site are they talking about here?

Am sure they mean if any update new information comes in then a new video would be put out or new information posted below video.as for flying drones on Loch Ness was the easy one to rule out...........

But as you know all new information would have to be  looked into like the time line of the event and witness statements any pictures or video or both any one who would challenge the footage would have to come up with everything needed to challenge there findings so they at that site of video could do another investigation if they thought they needed to do so,Tim as you know in any investigation hear say means nothing it must be back up by hard facts and real names.....

White House to left nothing to with the activity,,this was as near as they could get to that activity that night they drove up to the point searched the area and there was nothing to be seen what was going on they did not know

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@57.1874321,-4.616687,2a,90y,20.03h,104.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPn2z7xeEZ1jmT2dCbcgehA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Edited October 14, 2018 by johncbdg

[freetoroam]

18 minutes ago, johncbdg said:

as for flying drones on Loch Ness was the easy one to rule out..

How did you rule it out. Drones pass over there all the time.

Looking at the video it could be a drone but also a helicopter, hence why it flashes at points, but the flashing could also be due to clouds.

at that distance it is difficult to know its height, but i would not say it was very high.

One thing we can be certain about, it is not a visiting spacecraft from outta space.

 

[freetoroam]

20 hours ago, johncbdg said:

Not got a clue as to what is going on here, but you could not see the orbs with the naked eye

Rubbish. 

Is this your video or did you find it on youtube? 

[johncbdg]

1 hour ago, freetoroam said:

How did you rule it out. Drones pass over there all the time.

Looking at the video it could be a drone but also a helicopter, hence why it flashes at points, but the flashing could also be due to clouds.

at that distance it is difficult to know its height, but i would not say it was very high.

One thing we can be certain about, it is not a visiting spacecraft from outta space.

 

Anything that is in the airspace is more than easy to find out about airplanes helicopters drones etc,on the Loch is as easy to find out what boats are in the Loch that night and with Car you can drive up and down the side of the Loch you can even stop and get out and take a good look around from the bank you can walk up along the bank in places as they did they asked people if they seen this but no one came forward.

You said {at that distance it is difficult to know its height, but i would not say it was very high} then i disagree the two lights that come up from right hand side then goes in to one light makes its way up over the mountain then up to clear sky then gone, the two objects where not that high above above the water when first seen they go out and then come back on,and there was no boat in that area it was looked into as it happened. 

You said {One thing we can be certain about, it is not a visiting spacecraft from outta space.} you see you are the first one to even think about a visiting spacecraft funny how some people make up silly replies when they do not know what it was they are looking at and it just shows you how certain some people think they are without being there and doing the ground work investigation as it was ongoing,and how they can be certain about anything by watching the video on the internet....

All we are saying we did not know what was going on there and we can not be certain as to what it was during the on going investigation and after.....

Edited October 14, 2018 by johncbdg

[johncbdg]

All the objects Filmed in earths shadow two very big bright Self illuminating Objects going over Easthouses Midlothian on the 2 Aug 2016

Filmed in NV color First object footage clip of the ISS,We did a check up on the rest of the objects and found nothing about them, the time and date of the rest of the objects is on video and they still ufos.

 

 

[Timothy]

@johncbdg,you can see at 0:07, the footage is simply reversed with different visual settings. 

What is your opinion of this footage?

[johncbdg]

19 hours ago, Timothy said:

@johncbdg,you can see at 0:07, the footage is simply reversed with different visual settings. 

What is your opinion of this footage?

Now Tim that first one is the ISS the next one is not and nothing is fake,my opinion is all about that second object what is that one moving above our heads in  low orbit or is that second one in a much higher orbit? now Tim your opinion and you know me by now none of the footage is fake so stop trying to bring up that card every time you do not understand or can not explain what it is you are looking at i can tell you this if you want to be Scully then come on board but do not put forward the spit the dummy out explanation when you see some thing that you have no idea as to what it was i can see what you see i am happy that you picked that up.......................

[johncbdg]

I took over 20 plus pix of the Northern Night Skies snapping with hand held Camera i know they are the not the best of pictures of the night sky but next time i will use the tripod, i took the pictures with a frame rate of 120 fps one picture posted here top quarter left side there is a black line and it only shows up in this one picture any one know what it is.