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 -

UAP/UFOObject going over Wed 24 Nov 2021 around 5 30pm


johncbdg
 Share

Recommended Posts

 
48 minutes ago, johncbdg said:

 

Sorry my friend but I am not going to watch a video, it would great if you added some facts in the future then people may be interested enough to watch the video. 

Edited by Manwon Lender
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2021 at 10:46 AM, Manwon Lender said:

Sorry my friend but I am not going to watch a video, it would great if you added some facts in the future then people may be interested enough to watch the video. 

Sorry you do not need to watch the video it states the facts clear as day,,,UAP/UFOObject going over Wed 24 Nov 2021 around 5 30pm

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, johncbdg said:

Sorry you do not need to watch the video it states the facts clear as day,,,UAP/UFOObject going over Wed 24 Nov 2021 around 5 30pm

No offense intended but when someone posts a video with no information Provided I just don't bother. Maybe that's because I am not a curious person, you know curiosity killed the Cat and I am still not certain I am alive!:wacko::D

In addition let me say I seen many Satellites with naked eye, just laying on my back in the Middle East during the Gulf War. 

Edited by Manwon Lender
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2021 at 4:58 AM, johncbdg said:

 

What’s the story behind this video? How did you come across the objects in the sky? Did someone point it out or you noticed it yourself? How did it look off camera? Color? Shape? Speed? How long did you observe it for?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Dr. Mirdad said:

What’s the story behind this video? How did you come across the objects in the sky? Did someone point it out or you noticed it yourself? How did it look off camera? Color? Shape? Speed? How long did you observe it for?

It was a satellite that was pass at an altitude where it could be easily seen, nothing more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

It was a satellite that was pass at an altitude where it could be easily seen, nothing more. 

You shared your opinion on a video you didnt want to watch. So what ever you have to say on this topic I will take with a grain of salt. If you watch the video, you would’ve obviously seen that “satellite” becomes 2 “satellites”. I found that very interesting, so that why I asked more questions for john to answer. If you we’re there with him at the time of recording then sure your opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the object was one object initially, the brightness was creating the appearance of one object and as brightness reduced that allowed two lights to be seen. 

Its an effect of the camera and exposure. 

Edited by L.A.T.1961
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

I don't think the object was one object initially, the brightness was creating the appearance of one object and as brightness reduced that allowed two lights to be seen. 

Its an effect of the camera and exposure. 

That has definitely happened to me a few times when recording unidentifiable flying objects, planes, etc. Be it day or night. Though its nothing compared to experiencing it through human eyes imo. Cameras doesn’t always pick up exactly what was seen. I consider most videos as reference to help describe what was there not exactly how it was seen.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
3 hours ago, Trelane said:

Stealth planes flown by Bigfoot crossing over from parallel dimensions.

you forgot ghost & time traveler;)

 

here ya go: Bigfoot ghost from the future crossing over from parallel dimensions= now that sounds more believable..  just my opinion of course:D

 

Edited by Dejarma
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dr. Mirdad said:

You shared your opinion on a video you didnt want to watch. So what ever you have to say on this topic I will take with a grain of salt. If you watch the video, you would’ve obviously seen that “satellite” becomes 2 “satellites”. I found that very interesting, so that why I asked more questions for john to answer. If you we’re there with him at the time of recording then sure your opinion.

Well thank you for your opinion, and you are welcome to it. I explained why I chose not to watch the video, and if others are posted without somne information pertaining to why it was posted and its content I will do the same thing. I explained that to the OP, and now I have explained it you.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2021 at 2:47 AM, Dr. Mirdad said:

You shared your opinion on a video you didnt want to watch.

Well, I'm going to as well, but it's more because of the OP's history, and also the dismal quality of the title frame.

On 11/29/2021 at 2:47 AM, Dr. Mirdad said:

So what ever you have to say on this topic I will take with a grain of salt.

Do you not see irony in what you just posted?

On 11/29/2021 at 2:47 AM, Dr. Mirdad said:

If you watch the video, you would’ve obviously seen that “satellite” becomes 2 “satellites”.

Wouldn't *that* have been more useful in the title and description?  It might have swayed me..  As it was, with just a time and date but no location?  Hardly useful, and the OP's previous work has been less than stellar (pun intended)... 

But let me make a wild-donkey guess this was in the northern UK / Scotland?  If so, at around 5:30pm on Nov 24, a pair of satellites called NOSS 2-3 (C) were passing overhead (amongst quite a few others).  I can prove that if you want...  There was another NOSS pair a bit later..  At that time of the evening, there will be a lot of satellites to choose from, as any serious sky observer will know..  Is there something otherwise fascinating about the video?  I've got to observe that the comments above suggest I made the right decision not to bother, but if I'm in error, I'm happy to be told so..

 

:D 

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I learned a long time ago to quit clicking on the OP's videos. They are consistently awful, misidentified nonsense - that's if there's anything there to see in the first place. A lot of the time there's nothing there at all.

It also doesn't help that he insists on taking them all with a shaky potato cam. Seriously, if you're going to shoot video every day and post it, at the very least upgrade your camera to something that isn't absolute garbage. Even a tripod would be a massive upgrade.

Edited by moonman
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, moonman said:

I learned a long time ago to quit clicking on the OP's videos. They are consistently awful, misidentified nonsense - that's if there's anything there to see in the first place. A lot of the time there's nothing there at all.

It also doesn't help that he insists on taking them all with a shaky potato cam. Seriously, if you're going to shoot video every day and post it, at the very least upgrade your camera to something that isn't absolute garbage. Even a tripod would be a massive upgrade.

If I had a dollar for every time I've explained the *many* ways of reducing camera shake, but he has NEVER acknowledged the information and with every video it just gets worse.  Parkinson's?

And not once has any of his footage had sufficient resolution to determine even the vaguest shape, let alone details within that shape..  To summarise, bad technique, poor / inappropriate equipment, doesn't listen or learn, doesn't even know how to identify satellites*, which is rather damning if you are taking the time to record them......

 

* Interested?  Google "Heaven's Above".

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Against my better judgement, I looked .....

I know, I said I wouldn't, but I just got bored and .. it all went downhill.  Ah well, surely we can use this as a lesson for others.

1. Very shaky footage 
To avoid this, OBVIOUSLY you should use a good quality tripod.  They are not expensive.  If not, then at least lean the camera hard against something - a big lump of blu-tac is really useful to help stabilise the camera but still allow you to follow something moving.

2. Over zoomed
NEVER use digital zoom as it adds false detail and does NOT NOT NOT improve resolution.  The more you zoom in, the harder it is to keep the image steady, too.

3. Out of focus
Don't use auto-focus.  If you don't have manual focus, DON'T USE THAT camera as it is not suitable.  If you find it difficult to focus on Infinity, then step away from the hobby.

4. Over exposed
You should adjust the exposure so that object does not 'bloom' outwards into a fuzzy blob - the object should not be pure white, if you've got it right.  So yes, the blob resolving into two is very obviously due to a 2-3 f-stop change in the camera's exposure, with an adjustment to focus/zoom also.

5. Un-resolved
The object is too distant to be resolved into anything but a point source, so any shape you can see will be due to that over-zooming - false detail.  There is NO POINT zooming in on satellites, as even the best camera optics are nowhere near what is required.  Only very large telescopes have any hope of beginning to resolve the largest spacecraft, eg the ISS.

6. Completely inappropriate post processing
The bit of the video where he reverses the image, also involved him using some sort of 'posterising' effect.  Unless you 100% know what you are doing, you must NEVER do that sort of alteration to an image and expect to be taken seriously.  There are a few post-proc tools which can be used, eg very small tweaks to gamma (a more technical version of brightness), contrast reduction, perhaps some very light sharpening...  But the vast majority of editing tools will change (falsify or destroy) the data - they add false detail or remove real detail.  As another example, the last still image he has in the video is of a clearly digitally zoomed and out of focus image.  False detail.  It seems John thrives on the false stuff..

For comparison, take a good look at this:
http://www.astrophoto.fr/satellites.html   (scroll down to see his images of the ISS)
That's someone who knows what he is doing.. - here's one of his solar scopes:
halpha.jpg.61b202d294e484f62a03377cce41404c.jpg

 

  • Thanks 3
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.