UFO caught on camera over Jackson, Wyoming

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 minute ago, Dejarma said:

i feel you may have missed this:

do you have a rational explanation for the above quote?

I didn't miss it, I find it irrelevant. I have never researched whether or not people in town saw it or not, have you? Do you expect me to fly to Jackson Hole and start interviewing town folk? The points I make can be viewed by any poster in here simply by viewing the vid. 

And tying this in with my concern of people insulting me is quite curious. If my posts are sincere and have a point, nobody should call me an idiot or say I am rabidly posting. 

But that's just my opinion.

[Dejarma]

1 minute ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I didn't miss it, I find it irrelevant. I have never researched whether or not people in town saw it or not, have you? Do you expect me to fly to Jackson Hole and start interviewing town folk? The points I make can be viewed by any poster in here simply by viewing the vid. 

And tying this in with my concern of people insulting me is quite curious. If my posts are sincere and have a point, nobody should call me an idiot or say I am rabidly posting. 

But that's just my opinion.

you're not an idiot & it is relevant... if this is not a CGI prank & there is something there then you do realise that whatever the thing maybe, it's in & around the area for much longer than in the vid.... the vid is sped up- you do understand this- do you?

i've looked into it & can't find any other reports of something strange weird & wonderful that refers to this sighting, can you?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

3 hours ago, Dejarma said:

you're not an idiot & it is relevant... if this is not a CGI prank & there is something there then you do realise that whatever the thing maybe, it's in & around the area for much longer than in the vid.... the vid is sped up- you do understand this- do you?

i've looked into it & can't find any other reports of something strange weird & wonderful that refers to this sighting, can you?

The vid is sped up, yes. I believe it really took some three minutes...?  So I figured the speed of the object to be about 60 mph - just a guestimate. Anyway, I never looked for any reports although MUFON may have something. If people actually saw this can we be sure they'd go to some reporting agency like MUFON? Not really.

Does establishing that there were eye witnesses change anything in the vid? No. We can see it better than they could. There are serious doubts of this object being an "airplane". Very serious. And I placed my concerns in here and everything I related can be seen in the vid. Nobody challenged my findings per se, but they did do a major league dump on me *personally*. 

Now,  just to make it official, I have never said what I thought it was mainly because I have no idea what it was. Meanwhile, I had one of the famous forum posters tell me I was wrong and then went stomping out of here in a huff like he was insulted just to talk to me. How's that for intellectual discourse.

The only one in here that actually took what I said and tried to make an explanation out of it was Toast. And of course, I responded to him and told him why his explanation of terrible camera does not make sense. Other than that, nothing of what I would call intellectual discourse.

c'est la vie!

 

Edited August 27, 2019 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Word for thought, peoples, 

If this object is so obviously an "airplane" how is it that the thread was started as a UFO thread (UFO caught on camera)? Somebody had to be thinking  that way, and a mod had to think of it that way, too. It is far from obvious that the object is an "airplane" to the casual observer.

[Dejarma]

4 hours 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.

it's unlikely anyone really gives a sh-t what this strange individual thinks= it's just the usual ramblings of a fantasy freak.

Now generally that's a 'Situation normal' ... Something the likes of myself & you no doubt have become accustomed to over the years- oh well, it's all good fun init

[Hazzard]

7 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

If we can see the fuselage of this airplane, we should absolutely see the wings. Where are they?

Tell me why this cant be a helicopter? In other words, no wings and zero chance of seeing the tail  at that distance, light and camera

Edited August 27, 2019 by Hazzard

[Dejarma]

3 minutes ago, Hazzard said:

Tell me why this cant be a helicopter?

I guess it depends on what side of logic & rational thinking you're on...

If you're on the fantasy freaky side; it can be anything you want:

it's torvil & dean surfing the skies on an ironing-board.. Prove it's not

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

54 minutes ago, Hazzard said:

Tell me why this cant be a helicopter? In other words, no wings and zero chance of seeing the tail  at that distance, light and camera

I have no explanation for how the whole entity is glowing white, nor can I readily think of how it strobes three times in transit.

I can see a pilot illuminating the cabin/fuselage. But the narrow boom going to the tail rotor has no lighting within it. 

It certainly has a better chance to be a chopper than an airplane, though.

[the13bats]

did i miss some actually useful better version of the op video?

[Farmer77]

Just now, the13bats said:

did i miss some actually useful better version of the op video?

I was wondering the same thing

[Timothy]

23 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

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???  

The type of image capture and distance of the aircraft would mean that you wouldn’t see wings. 

Maybe in daylight. 

That is all. 

[Calibeliever]

9 hours ago, Hazzard said:

Tell me why this cant be a helicopter? In other words, no wings and zero chance of seeing the tail  at that distance, light and camera

I lived in Los Angeles for many years and when I saw this slowed down my thought was also helicopter (or small plane). That's pretty much what one looks like crossing the valley at night. The only real interesting bit is the flash at the very end of the video but it looks exactly like lightning. The only thing that might make you question lightning is the lack of flashes in the preceding minutes, but that is most likely a coincidence which could be cleared up with a bit of footage before or after this snippet. It certainly isn't that unusual to have many minutes between strikes, especially if the storm is off in the distance. Without any further evidence this is going into my 'not much to see here' bin. Carry on.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

9 hours ago, Hazzard said:

Tell me why this cant be a helicopter? In other words, no wings and zero chance of seeing the tail  at that distance, light and camera

Epiphany!!  Hazzard, I've had a night to think it over. Here is what I think it is, thanks for the suggestion. YES, a helicopter. 
Think about it, I figured the speed to be about 60 mph, too slow for an airplane and I never heard of any UFO that went that slow over a sustained period of time. Helicopter works just fine.

Now, the continual glow - CGI. How hard would that be to do for just a few seconds of video? All they have to do is cover over the helo with a white glowing, indistinct blob. They don't even have to do any artwork and the enlarging of the object as it gets closer is already done for them just by carefully using the helicopter. Works!!

Now, the strobe. This is where you come in. Can a helicopter for some reason have a strobe light on it, because that looks quite real - especially the last one, which is quite bright. That may be the trailing white light, not sure. I thought the white light was not blinking. May be wrong here.

Whatch'ya think? 

I know one thing, I can't lose sleep on it anymore LOL. This is why I hate the "new" UFO vids. you never know but I am pretty sure in this case it is CGI that makes the object look so indistinct in shape and bright white. 

Either way, as far as I am concerned, this case is O-V-A over!  

[Hazzard]

10 minutes ago, Calibeliever said:

I lived in Los Angeles for many years and when I saw this slowed down my thought was also helicopter (or small plane). That's pretty much what one looks like crossing the valley at night. The only real interesting bit is the flash at the very end of the video but it looks exactly like lightning. The only thing that might make you question lightning is the lack of flashes in the preceding minutes, but that is most likely a coincidence which could be cleared up with a bit of footage before or after this snippet. It certainly isn't that unusual to have many minutes between strikes, especially if the storm is off in the distance. Without any further evidence this is going into my 'not much to see here' bin. Carry on.

I could not agree more.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

50 minutes ago, Timothy said:

The type of image capture and distance of the aircraft would mean that you wouldn’t see wings. 

Maybe in daylight. 

That is all. 

Timothy, all I can say is, we aren't really destined to debate with one another. 
We've had our differences but I was quite polite to you this time and made certain you knew I was not singling you out. I tried, Timothy.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

12 minutes ago, Calibeliever said:

The only thing that might make you question lightning is the lack of flashes in the preceding minutes,

Not quite right, Cali. There were two distinct strobes before the end one, three in total. With the capture being one-in- whatever, we really do not know how many strobes there were as the object got closer but for sure, there is a strobe effect coming from the object. Watch it again, closer

[Dejarma]

3 minutes ago, Hazzard said:

The only real interesting bit is the flash at the very end of the video but it looks exactly like lightning.

but it's not a flash. don't forget the vid is sped up. it's probably headlights from an out-of-shot vehicle, or something like that- it's all normal stuff IMO

[Hazzard]

5 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Now, the strobe. This is where you come in. Can a helicopter for some reason have a strobe light on it, because that looks quite real - especially the last one, which is quite bright. That may be the trailing white light, not sure. I thought the white light was not blinking. May be wrong here.

Whatch'ya think? 

Absolutely. Some of our helicopters even have two strobe lights. The ones we use when training the police even have search lights and a speaker for shouting to the people on the ground. The flash at the end kinda reminded me of a search light.

But who cares, Im pretty sure it wasnt a Borg drone though.

[Calibeliever]

2 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

but it's not a flash. don't forget the vid is sped up. it's probably headlights from an out-of-shot vehicle, or something like that- it's all normal stuff IMO

I was referring to the slowed down video someone was kind enough to post out here. Watch the very last second of that one and the hillside on the far end of the valley is completely lit up, exactly as it would be by lightning. I'm not arguing it absolutely HAS to be that but it sure looks like it to me. As for the strobing in the middle, that's what I would expect to see if the aircraft changed orientation slightly, nothing more. I'm not claiming any aeronautical expertise as some others are, but I've seen my share of low flying aircraft over the decades and nothing about this looks out of the ordinary. Just my .02

[Hazzard]

5 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

but it's not a flash. don't forget the vid is sped up. it's probably headlights from an out-of-shot vehicle, or something like that- it's all normal stuff IMO

Hrm... I never said that. 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

12 hours ago, Dejarma said:

it's unlikely anyone really gives a sh-t what this strange individual thinks= i

Apparently you do, d'head.  You post to me more than anyone, or is that just to throw insults and jabs,

I'd tell you to go ____________________ but UM has limits.

[Dejarma]

9 minutes ago, Hazzard said:

Hrm... I never said that. 

no you didn't... i quoted Calibeliever but for some reason it's put your name to it???

oh well, my apologies 

[Dejarma]

2 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Apparently you do, d'head.  You post to me more than anyone

well that's debatable but listening to you does get a little tedious after a while, Earl.Of.Farts

anyways I'm done wiv ya now

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Just now, Dejarma said:

well that's debatable but listening to you does get a little tedious after a while, Earl.Of.Farts

anyways I'm done wiv ya now

If my thoughts on a particular subject matter are so upsetting to you, put me on ignore, dejarma. very simple. 

Only two people that frequent the UFO forums now that can actually converse objectively with me, Trelane and Hazzard.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

35 minutes ago, Hazzard said:

But who cares, Im pretty sure it wasnt a Borg drone though.

Strangely enough people think that of me but I never once said in here what I thought it was because I simply didn't know. "UFO" was not really what I was thinking at all nor did I ever mention that it was. But ya know what...? even if I said that, does one's IDEA simply make them a pariah. It should not be the case if the idea is put forth in all earnestness.  

And Hazzard, with all the bulldashing going on in this thread I don't think the usuals in here ever made a play for CGI. Strange things! 

CGI is getting better and better and I really think that from now on, when footage from a security camera shows up in this UFO forum, I'm just going to skip it. 

See ya next thread.