UFO caught on camera over Jackson, Wyoming

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Hark! Wings!!!

 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2019 by Earl.Of.Trumps
more wings!

[ChrLzs]

8 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Hark! Wings!!!

 

 

 

1. Close vs Far Away.  CLOSE vs FAR AWAY.  (I'm tempted to post the Father Ted sketch, but I suspect we are working with a sub-Dougal level of comprehension.)
The OP picture is taken of an aircraft far away.  Earl's ridiculous examples are clearly not.

2. Wide Angle vs Telephoto.
Adding to 1. the OP picture is a wide angle view from a webcam.  Even if the object were properly lit and resolved and not motion blurred, it would not be remotely comparable to Earl's useless and misleading examples taken using telephoto lenses. 

3. A motion-blurred composite time exposure image, vs a high quality sensor at a much higher shutter speed.
The OP image is 'bloomed' and smeared from motion-blurring time exposure, and Earl is ludicrously comparing that to images taken in much better light and at a shutter speed able to freeze the image.

4. Dark sky - no silhouette  vs  bright sky - silhouette.
Completely different lighting.  Earl may as well have posted a brightly sunlit African Elephant, and yelled "There, SEE!!!!!"

 

I think the list of things in photography that Earl hasn't a clue about is now equal to the full list of photography issues.

I'd suggest he takes up Dunning-Kruger Syndrome as a study topic..  Photography is proving to be so far out of his ballpark that it is now way, way beyond embarrassing.

 

Again, if anyone else agrees with any Earl's 'points', I'll be happy to explain in more detail, with examples.

Edited August 26, 2019 by ChrLzs

[Timothy]

14 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

No need for all that info, Timothy.  Try this. ADS-B Coverage

Clearly Jackson Hole is in coverage. No this is the end all, the end all is trying to locate this crafts wings!

Telling me I am an "idiot" and telling me I should be able to "work it out" tells me one thing... you don't know your ass from your elbow

Have a nice day, Timothy

Yes ADSB gives great coverage, it doesn’t mean an aircraft is surveillance (or radar) controlled. There’d be a filed flight plan somewhere, whether the pilot is flying their correct flight planned route etc. is a different story. 

And whether they talk to or are seen by ATC at all depends on the surveillance coverage at that location, their altitude, weather etc. The type of flight. 

I was addressing the fact that you seem to think every aerodrome has radar. Most do not. It’s amazing how much you miss the point. 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Timothy
Typo.

[Timothy]

On 8/23/2019 at 11:36 PM, Calibeliever said:

It definitely looks like lightning. It's just interesting that there were no lightning flashes for the 3+ minutes preceding that one which just happened to come from the direction the airplane (or whatever it was) flew off in. If we could get the 10 minutes before and 10 minutes after footage, as well as footage of a known aircraft covering that same air space I'm sure we could clear this up quickly  

If someone had time I’m sure you could see the same thing again. And in the daylight too!

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

7 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

1. Close vs Far Away.  CLOSE vs FAR AWAY.  (I'm tempted to post the Father Ted sketch, but I suspect we are working with a sub-Dougal level of comprehension.)
The OP picture is taken of an aircraft far away.  Earl's ridiculous examples are clearly not.

2. Wide Angle vs Telephoto.
Adding to 1. the OP picture is a wide angle view from a webcam.  Even if the object were properly lit and resolved and not motion blurred, it would not be remotely comparable to Earl's useless and misleading examples taken using telephoto lenses. 

3. A motion-blurred composite time exposure image, vs a high quality sensor at a much higher shutter speed.
The OP image is 'bloomed' and smeared from motion-blurring time exposure, and Earl is ludicrously comparing that to images taken in much better light and at a shutter speed able to freeze the image.

4. Dark sky - no silhouette  vs  bright sky - silhouette.
Completely different lighting.  Earl may as well have posted a brightly sunlit African Elephant, and yelled "There, SEE!!!!!"

 

I think the list of things in photography that Earl hasn't a clue about is now equal to the full list of photography issues.

I'd suggest he takes up Dunning-Kruger Syndrome as a study topic..  Photography is proving to be so far out of his ballpark that it is now way, way beyond embarrassing.

 

Again, if anyone else agrees with any Earl's 'points', I'll be happy to explain in more detail, with examples.

 

All talk,,,  no pics.  My examples really aren't...?  Well get some of your own. You've had the time now. 

Where are the wings, Chrlzs??  Can you answer that?? That are no protrusions, Chrlzs, just an object that *could* be a fuselage and that's it.

No wings=No airplane

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

2 hours ago, Timothy said:

Yes ADSB gives great coverage, it doesn’t mean an aircraft is surveillance (or radar) controlled. There’d be a filed flight plan somewhere, whether the pilot is flying their correct flight planned route etc. is a different story. 

And whether they talk to or are seen by ATC at all depends on the surveillance coverage at that location, their altitude, weather etc. The type of flight. 

I was addressing the fact that you seem to think every aerodrome has radar. Most do not. It’s amazing how much you miss the point. 

Huh??? 

Well what  is the point, Timothy? Isn't it "what is the object in the video"?  I think that is really the point. I didn't object when you introduced the idea that the alleged airplane had landing lights on. Don't matter to me because in the end, you still can't see the wings - and a lot of other things.

So shall we get to the point, Timothy?

Where are the wings???  

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

16 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Just verifying, as always, Timothy and I and the other numerous contributors EXCEPT Earl... are all correct.

 

Oh, and Chrlzs, as an extra assignment for you here: If I am the only one in here that is wrong, perhaps you can tell me and all your kewl friends what I said the object was!

Cheers and good luck, mate!  

[RoofGardener]

Wait.. WHAT ? 

I've just come across this thread, so my apologies for the late arrival. 

But I understand that the video was speeded up ? 

FOUL CHEAT FRAUD

What POSSIBLE "legitimate" reason is there to speed the video up ? 

It's one of those floating candle things. 

It it is a UFO, then it is setting a record for moving slowly. 

"Hey there Earthlings, we have traveled from Proxima Centaura at 0.2 MPH. It's taken us 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. Could we have a glass of water ? "

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

As we all know, most plane's wingspans are approximately equal to the craft's length. If this video shows us what appears to be a fuselage, then it must be able to show protrusions (wings) from the fuselage that together are as long as the fuselage. But it doesn't.  So....

Where are the wings, (tail section)?

It has been implied - but never demonstrated, that the alleged "airplane" has its landing lights on. The object is first seen  off in the distance, beyond the distance of "lights" that we see in the city. As the object gets closer, it surpasses those light sources but all through the travel, this craft's lights are not distinct objects but the city lights are distinct objects.

It's not the camera. There are NOT two landing lights on this craft.

One last word about the lights:   During the seen transit of the craft, the whole thing strobes twice - quite distinctly. (The final strobe is when the craft cannot be seen)
I challenge ANYONE in here to get a vid of an aircraft with blinking landing lights. Try it.

You people don't make very good detectives.

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Hey, @RoofGardener. Waz'up. Not used to seeing you in this forum. but keep posting like you did and you'll have plenty of buds in here

[RoofGardener]

1 minute ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Hey, @RoofGardener. Waz'up. Not used to seeing you in this forum. but keep posting like you did and you'll have plenty of buds in here

I visit from time to time, and mutilate your cattle ! 

[Dejarma]

8 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

1. Close vs Far Away.  CLOSE vs FAR AWAY.  (I'm tempted to post the Father Ted sketch, but I suspect we are working with a sub-Dougal level of comprehension.)

yep.... It's night vision. Every speck of light is highly amplified therefore something far away will not show any shape details...

Any reflections will also be highly amplified giving the impression of flashing...

Plus (& as always with rubbish like this)== the only sighting of this so-called amazing event is by the person who uploaded the video.

It seems a little strange that those in the town didn't see anything strange, especially considering 'whatever it was' was in the sky for much longer than the video suggests...

ya see= nothing gets past logic, rational thinking, basic common sense & the bleeding obvious.. But it's entertaining to see some try. 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

2 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

yep.... It's night vision. Every speck of light is highly amplified therefore something far away will not show any shape details...

LOLOLOL!! nice try dejarma. see my post on the lights.,

[Dejarma]

Just now, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

LOLOLOL!! nice try dejarma. see my post on the lights.,

no

[RoofGardener]

11 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

no

Awwwwww.... go on  

[Hazzard]

There is little doubt in my mind that what we see here is an aircraft caught on webcam. Im a helicopter flight instructor with a couple of thousand hours of nightflight, and this is exactly what it looks like. Sometimes you dont even see colors with the naked eye at night, especially at great distance. The reason we dont see color, wings and tailsection could of course be because of the crappy camera and the dark sky... but to tell you the truth, my first thought was actually a helicopter

Edited August 26, 2019 by Hazzard

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 hour ago, Hazzard said:

There is little doubt in my mind that what we see here is an aircraft caught on webcam. Im a helicopter flight instructor with a couple of thousand hours of nightflight, and this is exactly what it looks like. Sometimes you dont even see colors with the naked eye at night, especially at great distance. The reason we dont see color, wings and tailsection could of course be because of the crappy camera and the dark sky... but to tell you the truth, my first thought was actually a helicopter

Sorry, Hazzard, blaming the "crappy camera" doesn't work. It is clear that looking at other objects in the vid, the camera has given them decent definition. The object that goes drifting pass then, is likely self illuminated and blurry. Nothing to do with the camera

But... nice try

[Dejarma]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

It is clear that looking at other objects in the vid, the camera has given them decent definition.

where?

[toast]

5 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Where are the wings, (tail section)?

So you expect such details of an object that covers a section of approximately 20x8 pixels and was captured at night with a low quality cam? You have reached the edge of argumentation.

[ChrLzs]

So - no-one other than the now rabidly posting Earl, sees anything unusual?

No-one agrees with any of Earl's misinfo, no-one's buying the manure.  And Earl learnt nothing.  Situation normal.

Bye.

Edited August 26, 2019 by ChrLzs

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

2 hours ago, toast said:

So you expect such details of an object that covers a section of approximately 20x8 pixels and was captured at night with a low quality cam? You have reached the edge of argumentation.

Yes, I expect it because this camera had no problem giving clear definition to other lights in the video, small sharp, clear dots - not blurs of light. This object was at first quite distant - behind other lights in view. Then at the end of the viewing, the object was in front of the other lights. There is no doubt that the whole time in transit, there never was clear definition of the lights that allegedly are causing the object to glow, yet all the while,all other lights were crisp, well defined dots.

Where are the wings?  Clarity of the camera is no excuse. If we can see the fuselage of this airplane, we should absolutely see the wings. Where are they?
Where are the distinct lights making the glow effect? All we see is a blur. And how come the object's "lights" strobe three times while in transit?

It is not the camera's fault, that is clear.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

7 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

So - no-one other than the now rabidly posting Earl, sees anything unusual?

No-one agrees with any of Earl's misinfo, no-one's buying the manure.  And Earl learnt nothing.  Situation normal.

Bye.

Timothy calls me an "idiot", and you call me "rabidly" posting. Interesting way to talk to someone that brings up obvious evidences. 

And "Earl learnt nothing"...? Well, no. I did learn that you offered me nothing to learn! I also reinforced that which I already knew about you and other rude posters in here.

One thing I agree with you on,,  "Situation normal."  See ya, bully boy. 

[Dejarma]

18 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Where are the wings?

& the legs?

[Dejarma]

17 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Timothy calls me an "idiot", and you call me "rabidly" posting. Interesting way to talk to someone that brings up obvious evidences. 

i feel you may have missed this:

Quote

 

Plus (& as always with rubbish like this)== the only sighting of this so-called amazing event is by the person who uploaded the video.

It seems a little strange that those in the town didn't see anything strange, especially considering 'whatever it was' was in the sky for much longer than the video suggests...

 

do you have a rational explanation for the above quote?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

The video appears to be facing the city, north. That means the "object" is going towards the south east where there are no airports. Yet some posters in here believe that this "airplane" is flying with its landing lights on - landing lights that strobe. uh huh.