UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Bright object in the sky was observed standing still for 10 minutes over Melbourne Australia. Then it took off and flew away out of camera frame. Witness's comments vary from a planet, (before it moved) to a drone. What sayeth you?


https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/watch-odd-fast-moving-orb-mystifies-witnesses-in-melbourne/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you observe the video carefully you can see the uap passing in front of the buildings as it flies away. That rules out helicopter. And it seems to be moving too fast to be a drone. So for me it remains a uap.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Possible triangular uap captured by cellphone near Army base. The craft is stationary in the night sky and is clearly rotating. 3 lights are connected to a triangular structure. Definitely a UAP. Video appears to be authentic.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1895880540852606

 

Another cigar-shaped, or disk-shaped viewed from the side, uap. Video appears to be genuine and unfaked.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2211978192488194

 

Historical footage of British policemens' account of a hovering and bright cross-shaped ufo. Such adds a new detail to all the data we have on ufo shapes. Definitely not your standard flying saucer or oval-shaped craft.

 

So we're now trawling through the back-catalogue from the early 1960s, apparently. I suppose that's nice and safe, since there won't be any supporting information from that long ago to shed light on what was responsible.

 

LOL I didn't realize there's an expiration date on evidence for ufos,

 

The MoD investigated, and it was, as most of the sightings during October 1967 in the UK were, none other than our friend Venus. It's a classic of its kind.
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/flyingcross.html
If you look at the image of what it supposedly looked like, and knew nothing else about what it was thought to be, nearly everyone would probably just say that it looks like a star, or another bright object as seen in the sky. And that's what it was. Venus. A bright object in the sky. And this case displayed all the hallmarks you'd expect to see from Venus.
Unfortunately this one is a dead-end for you, MR.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

With the ease of faking such videos these days, you need something more than just bald assertion that they're genuine, more than just your wishful thinking. These days a video purporting to show a bona fide UAP needs to be proven to be genuine, or else it being faked is simply the far more likely conclusion.
To me, both of those videos look faked.

 

LOL Ahh yes..The old stand-by debunk of skeptics---it was just the planet Venus. Like the policemen couldn't tell the difference between that and the ufo.. Here's some other eyewitness reports of the cross-shaped ufo. Notice they describe it as moving. The skeptics dismiss this out of hand as an illusion, I think not..It was described as moving and then remaining stationary for 5 minutes. Illusions don't just suddenly stop like that.

"October 27 – another flying cross

Most celebrated of the cases was the famous ‘flying cross’ reported on the morning of 1967 October 24 by two Devon policemen and identified by astronomers and the MoD as Venus, which I deal with on a separate page. What is less well known is that, three days later, policemen in Cheshire also reported a bright cross-shaped UFO. The MoD report on this sighting can be found in file AIR 20/11890. What follows is a brief summary with my own comments.

At 4.15 am on 1967 October 27 two constables on beat duty in Stalybridge, Cheshire, made the first sighting of an object said to be bright, cross-shaped, and travelling at an estimated height of about 1,000 feet in a north-easterly direction.

Fifteen minutes later another PC at Mottram-in-Longdendale, about three miles south of Stalybridge, reported a hovering object moving from side to side over Glossop, a town another 3 miles or so away. Depending exactly where the officer was standing, the azimuth of the object would have been anywhere from the east to southeast.

‘The object then began an up and down movement and finally remained stationary for about five minutes,’ the report continues. Three officers were sent out by car from Chester to verify the incident, bringing the total of police witnesses to six.

The PC at Mottram-in-Longdendale was in touch by radio with one of the PCs at Stalybridge, so it is evident they were seeing the same thing. It is also evident that, despite the earlier report, it had not moved north-east at all, or else it would not have been hovering over Glossop.

The object disappeared into misty cloud at 5.30 am, over an hour after it was first spotted.

Spurious side-to-side and up-and-down movements of hovering celestial objects are common due to the autokinetic effect in the eye. In addition, passing clouds can give the illusion that stationary celestial objects are moving.

Evidently all this was well-known to the MoD investigator, who commented in a handwritten note on the teleprinter printout: ‘The facts are consistent with Venus being viewed through semi-transparent clouds.’--- http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/octoberflap.html

And furthermore it looks like that skeptic astronomer made some major mistakes in inferring it to be Venus::

"Skeptic Ian Ridpath was has featured this case in some detail on his skeptical website:

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/flyingcross.html

He is firmly of the opinion that it was the planet Venus and cites several academics who agree with this stance and Ridpath is at times less than complimentary about the Ufologist involved in this case. Well Mr Ridpath, you might have been wrong as over at Metabunk.org a forum member has been reevaluating this case and it seems Venus has been ruled out:

"Actually I got that totally wrong. The situation for Ian Ridpath is even worse...as I had set Stellarium for London, and not for Devon. On setting Stellarium for Devon, Venus does not rise until 3.40am and at 4am is a mere 3 degrees above the horizon. Atmospheric dimming would have reduced its brightness from the usual bright -4.6...down to a far less bright -2.7 ( i.e by about 85% ) so it would NOT have been the usual glaringly bright Venus that fools so many people.:"
https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...the-devon-police-the-flying-cross-1967.70621/

Two additional details mentioned in later reports:

"I was interested to read that there was an (apparent) corroborating sighting by "engineers at Hessary Tor". I'm guessing this refers to a transmitting station on North Hessary Tor. I'd not heard of this before.It's not much of a source given the proclivities of the author, but Arthur Shuttlewood in 'Warnings from Flying Friends' (in itself a nice, nostalgic snapshot of late 60s ufology) claims that the night was "cloudy over central Devon".

Another thing mentioned in one of the constables' interviews that he quotes was the claim the object was later joined by second one. If that's the case it does perhaps strengthen the argument that they were seeing Jupiter, later joined by Venus, but...who knows."

 

Sounds like your own wishful thinking to me. The videos show no signs of being fake. If they do then tell us what particular details tipped you off besides just a subjective impression that "it looks fake to me".

 

Good sleuthing. So the 60s indeed, though a bit later in the decade than I had thought from the black and white film and the car.

Venus is something of an old chestnut in the world of "UFO" sightings, I gather. Interesting psychology of the policemen, though. Their minds had selectively forgotten the rational explanation they had been given, in favour of the bonkers, Twilight Zone alternative

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

The pilot was Kenneth Collins, who later lived close to Linda Sheffield at Beale Air Force Base in northern California, where her father was another SR-71 pilot. She heard the same story first hand from Collins and says:

"...the program experienced its first loss when on May 24, 1963 "Article 123," piloted by Kenneth S. Collins, crashed near Wendover, Utah. Collins safely ejected and was wearing a standard flight suit, avoiding unwanted questions from the truck driver who picked him up. He called Area 51 from a highway patrol office. ( Ken was my neighbor at Beale Air Force Base. I used to babysit for his younger children. He told me in a text that he had memorized the number and always kept a dime in his pocket while flying in case he had to make a phone call) Two nearby farmers were told that the aircraft was carrying atomic weapons to dissuade them from approaching the crash site; Local law enforcement and a passing family were strongly warned to keep quiet about the crash. Each was also paid $25,000 in cash to do so;

https://twitter.com/Habubrats71/status/1784650055925809570

$25,000 was a lot of money in 1963. Linda calculates that it is the equivalent of $255,000 in 2024 dollars. It worked, both the deputy and the family never said anything.

(Graphic by Linda Sheffield)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

nsNS

 

Complete lack of signs of fakery is a big clue to it being genuine. So what are the signs of fakery?

I go thru lots of uap videos on Facebook and the fake CGI ones are easily identifiable by being too slick and Hollywoodish. That's why I only post the ones that look genuine,

And the object always looks photoshopped in and moves in a fake manner. Like when it suddenly zips off frame at the last moment. Inconsistent lighting and shadows are also a clue of fakery. Solid beams of light shooting out of them is a sign of fakery. Suddenly disappearing or going thru a portal is faked. Also, when magnified an authentic uap image should show more details that couldn't be seen. Also look for videos where the uap is caught as if by accident. That's why I like cellphone videos taken by passengers out of airplane windows. There are 1oo,ooo flights around the world every day. It is highly plausible, given the global sightings by the military of uaps recently reported by the AARO office of the Pentagon, that something's gonna turn up eventually. Further background information about the video, like its location, the person who took it, and the circumstances under which it was captured, also help confirm authenticity,

Now tell us how you and Sarkus ascertained the videos I posted were fake. I'm curious as to what I missed.

 

Yes,,it wasn't there.

Yes..it wasn't there.

If you actually watched both videos, you'd see in one that the uap was magnified for us, And the magnified image shows more details that weren't previously seen.

Couldn't find any,, Does that mean it's fake? No..

Come on! This isn't rocket science. It's like when a video starts out aimed and focused on an area in the sky and the uap suddenly appears from behind a cloud or some trees or a bldg. Also, a video is more plausible if it is being taken to see something else. Like a nice vacation scene or a person(s) in which the uap is seen in the background, A uap caught speeding by that wasn't originally seen is also a good sign it isn't fake. You should watch more uap videos. You might learn something. I've been doing it for years and continue to find some real gems.

I just told you all that.

You can just assume I analyzed it before I posted it. I'm not pandering to disingenuous trolls here.

 

I think that I'd prefer to say that complete lack of signs of fakery leaves open the possibility of it being genuine. Suggestions that it might be fake don't close out the possibility that it is genuine unless convincing evidence of fakery is produced. Otherwise it's just speculative over-reach.

So we are left with the possibilities both that it might be fake, and that it might be genuine. Which is consistent with our saying we don't know what it was, and hence that it was a UAP in the "unidentified aerial phenomena" sense.