• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Recent UFO video

Shame you can't D/L the whole video, and maybe have the chance to check out the raw footage.

Still, nice site - cheers for pointing it out ;)
 
The Rense site does warn against analysing the images due to the fact that they are compressed, but the three images do not look quite right to me.

1) Even though clouds are fairly nebulous things, the object looks a little too sharp.

2) It always appears to be in front of any cloud, and hence looks extremely close.

There are other things about the sequence that bother me, but I'll have a longer think about it.
:confused:
 
It doesn't look right to me. The u.f.o. looks a little computer generated to me. It could be real only the u.f.o. doesn't seem to look right in the pictures.


luce

p.s. If the ufo was between the clouds and the aircraft and the sun appearing to be coming from the direction of the bottom left of the pic. Would it be reasonable to say that a shadow of it might show up on the cloud, or would I be wrong.
 
Fortis said:
1) Even though clouds are fairly nebulous things, the object looks a little too sharp.

2) It always appears to be in front of any cloud, and hence looks extremely close.
Click to expand...

1) The camera was probably set at a high shutter speed to eliminate motion blur.

2) Maybe the object is above the clouds rather than in front of them.

I'm a wee bit sceptical though. I wonder what the Hungarian Ministry of Defence make of it.
 
Too good to be true, surely.

The pilot claims to shoot the object using the reconnaisance equipment on board the plane. Can these cameras be turned to one side - I would imagine they would be pointed downwards. Would the pilot be able to activate and realign the cameras in time to catch such a fast moving object? Does the recon plane in question typically shoot stills or video? Would it be in colour?

More questions than answers as usual.
 
The pilot obviously thinks he can sell it, so perhaps we won't get any more answers until he does. At a guess, the 3 shots shown cover the entire period of a pretty brief sighting. Still, it would be good to get some professional analysis of the original footage.
 
it's a better quality than some of the ones that are reported as good quality
 
Slacker said:
1) The camera was probably set at a high shutter speed to eliminate motion blur.

2) Maybe the object is above the clouds rather than in front of them.

I'm a wee bit sceptical though. I wonder what the Hungarian Ministry of Defence make of it.
Click to expand...

It's not so much the absence if motion blur, its more the sharpness relative to the cloud (if that makes any sense).

The horizontal viewing of the object also seems odd. Is this really the kind of thing that we would expect a Hungarian recce system to produce?

Any serving members of the Hungarian airforce out there?

;)
 
Hmmm. No-one seems to have estimated the size of the object yet, I guess that's up to the Hungarian MOD.
If the camera was set to a wide aperture, the depth of field would be quite shallow; in other words I think it could be possible for the object (however far way it was) to appear significantly sharper than the distant clouds if they were much further away.
I did wonder about the more or less horizontal orientation of the camera. And yes, the lighting looks a bit funny.
 
Slacker said:
Hmmm. No-one seems to have estimated the size of the object yet, I guess that's up to the Hungarian MOD.
If the camera was set to a wide aperture, the depth of field would be quite shallow; in other words I think it could be possible for the object (however far way it was) to appear significantly sharper than the distant clouds if they were much further away.
I did wonder about the more or less horizontal orientation of the camera. And yes, the lighting looks a bit funny.
Click to expand...

I suspect that a recce system would have quite a deep depth of field as this would make it less sensitive to focussing problems. (Its probably a fair guess that it is set to near infinity.)

Its a shame that we don't have more info on what the guy was flying. We don't even know if it was a fast jet or some wide bodied aircraft, or if the sequence was captured by a CCD or film based camera.

I recall seeing a show on Discovery with folks looking at film from a fast jet pod. As far as I recall the film was monochrome, presumably because the picture quality is better (grain sizes in the emulsion etc.) Does this make it less likely that the footage didn't come from a recce aircraft?

:)
 
These are all good points. Probably the most useful recce system would rely on getting everything in focus on the originals and then emphasising any 'important' stuff by digital manipulation at a later stage.
To be honest, the images on the site are pretty much impossible to analyse (as they point out). The CUs of the object look very jaggy as if captured by a CCD camera, but that's probably a result of them being GIF encoded and resampled/enlarged etc.

The most impressive 'UFO' footage I ever saw was when several residents of Mexico City (I think) filmed formations of lights over the city. I don't know what they were, but they appeared to be executing some pretty amazing maneouvers. Does anyone remember this? I'm sure it's a famous case and was no doubt covered in FT, but I can't remember the details.
And I call myself a Fortean! Doh!
 
I seem to recall claims that the mexican sightings had been 'debunked', but I don't recall why. I know the sightings sounded good at the time.
 
Debunked? Dammit, I was finding the experience of almost believing quite exhilarating. :(
 
Blur

There seems to be really slight blurring directly around the thing. It looks as if someone has *cloned* around the edges.
 
If the object is real, then it must be moving pretty slowly (as must the jet that took the pix). The cloud formation changes quite markedly from frame to frame. A great deal of time isn't necessary to achieve this, but it's surely a lot longer than you'd expect for a UFO flyby.

My opinion: dubious.

However, it brings to mind the question of what would constitute really good evidence - the kind that would break most people's conditioned disbelief? Is photographic evidence ever likely to serve this end? 'No' is my answer. If the shot is long range, it's deemed misidentification or inconclusive. If it's too close up, it's an obvious fake. It makes me think aliens really could land on the White House lawn and not be heeded (well, maybe up until a couple of months ago, perhaps).

As for the Mexico City sightings, I can't see they've all been debunked. There are too many witnesses - thousands, and hundreds of video sequences attesting to someone anomalous going on there.

Untimately, I feel most anomalous phenomena do their real work in attacking the witnesses' (and cultural) belief systems. To what end I'll leave it up to you to decide...
 
I think that these days the image (or image sequence) is only part of the evidence. It is too easy to improvise something in photoshop. We need to *know* the provenace as well as a *lot* of information context

Tricky...:(
 
i agree some of the graphics packages are now so good they can replicate the real thing dodgy quality as well theres nothing a kid on a pc with a copy of paint shop pro cant do as it comes with an animation pack too

cas
 
Better late than never(out of circ.due to bike smash)eh? These 3 photo's-if the pilot says the object was going too fast for him to follow,that black cloud was going at some rate as well........it kept pace with the ufo.Maybe the Hungarian A.F. should fly those instead.They'd save a bomb(no pun intended) on fuel.Regards to all.Rromarl:blah:
 
Hermes said:
As for the Mexico City sightings, I can't see they've all been debunked. There are too many witnesses - thousands, and hundreds of video sequences attesting to someone anomalous going on there.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I thought re Mexico (I know it's off thread - I'll get back to that) - lterally thousands of people saw it all first hand, and different footage taken simultaneously from different angles, which according to "Riddle of the Skies" (slightly sensationalist documentary on Ch5 last year, but with some good suff therein nonetheless) match each other in terms of differing viewpoints, perespectives, etc thereby ruling out a hoax unless a lot of people were in on it.

As for the Hungarian footage, it just goes to prove what Casio pointed out: cyber-evidence just ain't really worth a bean as anyone can fake it convincingly. Besides, as others have also said, the Hungarian MOD wouldn't, you'd have thought, even released this kind of footage if they believed for a minute it was genuine. Unless of course the Hungarian MOD are very liberal...:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top