On the Utah one I just think if you watch how it comes into view it seems to come from around the mountain ridge. And if that is the case then it seems it's possible to make some calculations (the deep dive video).
If the thing wasn't actually coming into view by flying from around the mountain then it's nothing but a seed or something going by the lens.
I like this case because the video quality they were originally captured is very high, it was a professional camera team shooting stock footage. Put it on a big screen if you can but still looks good on your phone. The story by my memory is later that day this stock footage team was having dinner at their hotel. One of them came down looking off after looking at what they shot and said he thinks they accidentally spotted something. This was in 2016, I don't know if they made any money off this.
I think a lot of UAP can be explained by space weather and atmospheric ionization. Lightning is the most common atmospheric ionization that humans can easily observe, but atmospheric ionization comes in many different forms. It can look like spherical luminescent balls or discs and can accelerate at hypervelocity and change colours. It can appear and disappear within seconds as well and sometimes seems to move away if something approaches it. It can also be affected by cosmic rays and radiation, as well as the Earth's own weather. It's quite possible that climate change could be responsible for increase sightings of UAP of this nature. And yes, radar and other detection instruments can pick them up.
I do think humans are experimenting with some pretty far out technology though. There is pretty advanced hologram technology with potential military applications meant to act as decoys.
Just imagine something like this placed in space that could project images into the Earth's atmosphere. You could simulate what seems to be advanced aircrafts without actually having them.
There are also mini-drones that are like floating beads that can produce images and the be programmed to scatter and reform. If you had a long series of these, you could create an image that appears to move at a hyper velocity.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 12-15-2021 at 02:24 PM.
Can't be that. The person shooting the video zooms in to the lights. If this were a reflection from the window the zooming in would have gone past the hyperfocal distance of the window, blurring out any window reflection.
Another thing that is strange, is there is no luminescence from the object as they "disappear" into the cloud. A light source disappearing into clouds generates a glow, which is missing completely as the objects disappear from the video, meaning they did not get lost in the cloud. The flare story also does not hold water as magnesium or phosphorus flares generate a very visible smoke trail. Not sure what is in that video, but the explanations to date do not stand up to scrutiny.
What an unconvincing job by Mick. I see another person who doesn't apply critical thinking skills to the cover story, or even bothering to understand the difference between the types of flares a plane will carry. He should have started out asking some simple questions. Why would a plane be deploying flares over this location? Why would THREE planes be deploying flares in this location, and flying in formation? You don't deploy flares except for evasion purposes or lighting the battle field, and you don't normally deploy flares in formation.
Here are flare deployments from different aircraft.
Mick seems to miss the fact that burning magnesium or phosphorus both generate very distinguishable and easy to see residual smoke and drift from the flares.
Starbursts - the flares used to light the battlefield are dropped from a low elevation, NOT at cruising altitude. Burn time for flares is relatively short and intense, leaving tell tale signs of deployment in the trail of smoke.
And why would the plane not be visible? If you can pick out the deployment of the flare, you will be able to see the aircraft, especially backlit like this. The flare deployment story doesn't fit. No reason to make the deployment in that location, no reason to do it in formation, and there is no residual evidence of it being a flare. No evidence of a plane being in the picture either.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Boy Mick West sure does rub you guys the wrong way by simply suggesting a reasonable explanation for UAP, doesn’t he?
I would think the aperture of the camera is stopped down because of the lighting conditions so the lights appear larger because of bokeh effect. That would mean they’re further away than they seem. Far enough away to obscure the plane(s) that dropped them and their smoke trail maybe? Who knows.
Anyway, don’t let me stop you from playing out your irrational fantasies.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DownInFlames For This Useful Post:
Are invisible planes reasonable? There isn't even a pixel speck of a jet there. No contrails either and it look like they're pretty high up, you would see that from 3 fighter jets dropping flares.
Unreasonable explanations packaged and sold as reasonable should rub you the wrong way too.
Are invisible planes reasonable? There isn't even a pixel speck of a jet there. No contrails either and it look like they're pretty high up, you would see that from 3 fighter jets dropping flares.
Unreasonable explanations packaged and sold as reasonable should rub you the wrong way too.
No but the crappy video was of the flares, auto focus on a cell phone would focus on the flares and blur everything else, standing on the moon the stars of the milky way would be incredible but yet the pictures from the apollo missions show no stars, there's also a possibility the aircraft could be long gone.
Why all these conspiracy theorists think aliens are flashing lights or dropping flairs is hilarious.
Boy Mick West sure does rub you guys the wrong way by simply suggesting a reasonable explanation for UAP, doesn’t he?
Naww, Mick West doesn't rub me the wrong way. Hell, I don't even know who or what Mick West is. To be quite honest, I don't care who or what Mick West is. The only thing that rubs me the wrong was is stupidity and not applying the same rigor to the explanation being used to explain the phenomena, leaving as many or more holes in the discussion as exist on the more fantastic.
Quote:
I would think the aperture of the camera is stopped down because of the lighting conditions so the lights appear larger because of bokeh effect. That would mean they’re further away than they seem. Far enough away to obscure the plane(s) that dropped them and their smoke trail maybe? Who knows.
See, here's where my pet peeve comes into play. Let's just dismantle this one statement to show how ridiculous it is.
"I would think the aperture of the camera is stopped down because of the lighting conditions so the lights appear larger because of bokeh effect."
First of all, stopping down a lens means you are engaging the aperture blades to allow less light into the sensor. Stopping down actually creates greater depth of field, not less, all but eliminating the bokeh effect.
For those who don't know what the bokeh effect is, it is the intentional/unintentional result of the foreground and background not sharing the same hyperfocal plane, and one being in focus while the other is out of focus. This is amplified greatly by the length of the lens as the compression factor of longer lenses make for tighter hyperfocal ranges, some times down to fractions of an inch. To create bokeh you need to shoot your subject at a range where there is a clear break in hyperfocal distance, which then causes the foreground/background distortion.
The video in question would not have the bokeh effect as an explanation, even with zooming in. You can look at the cloud bank and see there are miles of clarity and sharpness in frame. The lights appear before one of the ridges in the cloud bank, which is clearly in focus, and the foreground clouds are equally sharp. Only once you get well beyond the ridge the lights appear do you start to see the diffusion of the image causing the bokeh effect. The lights are clearly in the hyperfocal range of range as there is no distortion effect in lights associated with the bokeh effect.
Quote:
Anyway, don’t let me stop you from playing out your irrational fantasies.
Don't stop us from picking apart your contradictory use of terms and complete lack of understanding of the mechanics of these devices in making your smarmy comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus
No but the crappy video was of the flares, auto focus on a cell phone would focus on the flares and blur everything else, standing on the moon the stars of the milky way would be incredible but yet the pictures from the apollo missions show no stars, there's also a possibility the aircraft could be long gone.
So much wrong in one sentence. Again, we'll take this apart piece by piece.
"No but the crappy video was of the flares, auto focus on a cell phone would focus on the flares and blur everything else,"
Well, there goes the bokeh effect explanation. If the lens was focused on the "flares" then the depth of field is going to maximized around that distance eliminating bokeh. As we can see from the detail in the clouds in front of and behind the lights, the hyperfocal distance is in the miles range. Anything that was close enough to the flares would be clearly visible.
"standing on the moon the stars of the milky way would be incredible but yet the pictures from the apollo missions show no stars"
This has nothing to do with the star field in the background, the bokeh effect, or anything. It has everything to do with the light sensitivity of the film and the ability of the film to capture light from weaker light sources. The light reflected from the primary target of the photo is very powerful, while the lights from the stars would be very weak. Considering that the images captured from the Apollo missions were shot using Hasselblad 500EL cameras coupled with an 80mm and 250MM lens, using predominantly ISO 80 superfine grain film stock, the resulting lack of star field is expected. That does not mean they do not exist, just that they are very faint and when the primary subject is printed for clarity and proper exposure the star fields disappear. If a print was made focusing on the star field the primary image would blow out and be nothing but an over-exposed mess, but the star fields would then come into the visible range.
"there's also a possibility the aircraft could be long gone"
There actually isn't. As the video evidence from all those planes ejecting flares shows, the second the flare hits the air the magnesium or phosphorus ignites and begins its burn. This is instantaneous and there is no possible way from the plane to be "long gone". Again, there is also no clear smoke trail from the igniting chemical flare. This would be defying all we know about how flares react with the atmosphere and evidence of their use. If the "flares" are in frame and within the hyperfocal range, the planes would clearly be visible.
Quote:
Why all these conspiracy theorists think aliens are flashing lights or dropping flairs is hilarious.
What is hilarious is you bending over backwards to accept the explanation that clearly defies logic. When trying to explain away some phenomena that defies our understanding it is best not to rely on explanations that clearly defy what we do understand. Flares, weather balloons, and swamp gas behave in very specific ways, and can be easily recreated to determine if the explanation makes sense. The explanations are just as outlandish, and you have to suspend what we know about the world around us to accept what some of these skeptics are trying to sell. We don't know what these things are, but we can very quickly determine what they are not because of our understanding of the behaviors of the objects in the explanations.
Are invisible planes reasonable? There isn't even a pixel speck of a jet there. No contrails either and it look like they're pretty high up, you would see that from 3 fighter jets dropping flares.
Unreasonable explanations packaged and sold as reasonable should rub you the wrong way too.
Jets not being visible because of camouflage or the camera’s inability to resolve them are entirely reasonable.
I’d like to see any proof of what they actually are. Until then I’ll just assume Occam’s Razor applies and they’re flares.
Jets not being visible because of camouflage or the camera’s inability to resolve them are entirely reasonable.
Camouflage? That's some bad ass camouflage. Planes are easily visible, especially when dropping flares or chaff. Camouflage does not render objects invisible, especially if they are dropping signatures that would pinpoint their location. And why would the camera NOT be able to resolve a jet? It is able to resolve tiny "flares" so why not the whole plane?
Quote:
I’d like to see any proof of what they actually are. Until then I’ll just assume Occam’s Razor applies and they’re flares.
Yes, because Occam's Razor says that invisible fighters in formation drop flares at over 25,000 feet. Assume away. It only means one thing.
Camouflage? That's some bad ass camouflage. Planes are easily visible, especially when dropping flares or chaff. Camouflage does not render objects invisible, especially if they are dropping signatures that would pinpoint their location. And why would the camera NOT be able to resolve a jet? It is able to resolve tiny "flares" so why not the whole plane?
Yes, because Occam's Razor says that invisible fighters in formation drop flares at over 25,000 feet. Assume away. It only means one thing.
Flares are bright white. Jets are grey to blend in with the clouds. You know, camouflage.
You’re assuming the camera is close enough to see jets. As I mentioned the lights could be magnified by a small aperture, making them look closer than they are.
Flares are the only thing I’ve seen any evidence for, good or bad as it may be. They might be UAVs flying in formation but I don’t see any proof. I’m open to any facts people want to bring to the discussion.
Camouflage? That's some bad ass camouflage. Planes are easily visible, especially when dropping flares or chaff. Camouflage does not render objects invisible, especially if they are dropping signatures that would pinpoint their location. And why would the camera NOT be able to resolve a jet? It is able to resolve tiny "flares" so why not the whole plane?
Yes, because Occam's Razor says that invisible fighters in formation drop flares at over 25,000 feet. Assume away. It only means one thing.
Seems like there are two observers as well... presumably one filming and one not....you'd think its natural to scan the horizon prior to filming or during the filming by at least one of them.
also seems like the lights are organized symmetrically, ie in a 'formation'... begs the question of what purpose would there even be dropping flares at 25 000 feet...
I think it would exclude flares, but doesn't eliminate light effects of some kind.
if these guys are military, as noted in the report, its stands to reason they have seen flares before.
I think the idea they are flares is even more far fetched than aliens. Still going with my original thought, optical trick. The spacing is far to consistent and regular to be anything dynamic like a flare.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
The Pentagon’s report on UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) said nothing about the possibility that some might be alien spacecraft. Nonetheless, the report has generated heightened interest in figuring out what these UAPs are, and that interest extends to some scientists. We talk to two researchers who want an open and strictly scientific investigation of these phenomena. What should they do and what do they expect to find? And finally, will the possibility of alien visitors ever be resolved?
Guests:
Jacob Haqq-Misra– Senior Research Investigator at the Blue Marble Space Institute of Science
Ravi Kopparapu – Planetary scientist, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Flares are bright white. Jets are grey to blend in with the clouds. You know, camouflage.
You’re assuming the camera is close enough to see jets. As I mentioned the lights could be magnified by a small aperture, making them look closer than they are.
Flares are the only thing I’ve seen any evidence for, good or bad as it may be. They might be UAVs flying in formation but I don’t see any proof. I’m open to any facts people want to bring to the discussion.
Jets are grey to blend into their environment, but once they do something, like dropping a flare, they are very easy to see and track, especially on a background like the one in the video. Like the other posters have stated, these are trained observers and they are very likely to know how to pick out aircraft, especially those dropping flares. Once the flare is released they stand out like a sore thumb because of their brightness and the smoke trail they leave behind.
I fail to see how a small aperture would impact the magnification of the flares or objects around them? The aperture is a mechanism for controlling light and affecting the depth of field. Any zoom capability would be from the lens, and would then affect everything in the image. If it made the flare larger it would also make the jet that much larger. If the aperture were more open to make the lights more visible the same condition would apply to the plane.
Occam's Razor provides the most simple answer to questions, but is also easily crushed b follow up questions. Why would multiple planes, not visible to the camera or the trained observers, be dropping flares at 25,000+ feet? Why would those flares all behave in the exact same way when they are very susceptible to wind currents and jet wash turbulence?
