UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

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.
 
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.

 
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.
 
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,
 
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.
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. ;)
 
Video appears to be authentic.
Video appears to be genuine and unfaked.
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.
 
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. ;)

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."
 
Last edited:
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.

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".
 
Last edited:
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. ;)
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 :biggrin:.
 
Witnesses apparently do like to tell their stories years or decades after the fact. But the old ones didn't risk the consequences while _X_ was actually transpiring, or were successfully discredited under tall-tale disinformation if they did.

(2010) Area 51 vets break silence - but no UFOs & aliens
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...ak-silence-sorry-but-no-space-aliens-or-ufos/

EXCERPTS: . . . [...] Noce remembers when “Article 123,” as one of the A-12s was called, crashed on May 24, 1963, after the plane stalled near Wendover, Utah. The pilot ejected and survived.

Noce says he was among those who flew to the crash site in a giant cargo plane loaded with several trucks. They loaded everything from the crash into the trucks.

He remembers that a local deputy had either witnessed the crash or had quickly arrived at the scene. There also was a family on a vacation car trip who had taken photos.

“We confiscated the camera, took the film out,” says Noce. “We just said we worked for the government.”

He says the deputy and the family were told not to talk to anybody about the crash, especially the press. “We told them there would be dire consequences,” Noce says. “You scared them.”

As an added incentive, he says, the CIA arrived with a briefcase full of cash. “I think it was like 25 grand apiece, for the sheriff and the family,” says Noce. Robarge says of cash payments to cover things up, “It was common practice.”

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)

GMRZxGyW0AAOmv4


nsNS


 
Last edited:
Magical Realist:
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
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.
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".
You started this. Tell us what particular details tipped you off to these videos being 'genuine' and 'unfaked', or 'authentic'.

Please outline for us what specific steps you took to check the veracity of the videos and to confirm to your own satisfaction that they are not fakes.

Did you, in fact, do anything at all, other than just decide that they probably aren't faked, based on how they look to you, at first glance? I doubt it.

You claim the videos "show no signs of being fake". Tell me: what signs did you look for, and how much time and effort did you put into searching for those signs? Could there possibly be any "signs" of fakery that you might have missed, or is that impossible, given your expertise as a UFO video analyst?

As far as I can see, all we have here so far is a clash of initial impressions. You're just saying that your first impression on watching these videos is that they aren't faked, and Sarkus is saying his first impression is that they look faked.

So, is there any way we could go beyond your respective first impressions and work out who is right? Or not?
 
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.
Exactly.

It reminds me of the time I walked you through another case (the Portage County UFO), where a different set of police officers mistook the planet Venus for an alien spaceship and 'chased' it across country.

Remember that?

You thought that UFO was an alien ship, too. You probably still think that. LOL.
 
Magical Realist:




You started this. Tell us what particular details tipped you off to these videos being 'genuine' and 'unfaked', or 'authentic'.

Please outline for us what specific steps you took to check the veracity of the videos and to confirm to your own satisfaction that they are not fakes.

Did you, in fact, do anything at all, other than just decide that they probably aren't faked, based on how they look to you, at first glance? I doubt it.

You claim the videos "show no signs of being fake". Tell me: what signs did you look for, and how much time and effort did you put into searching for those signs? Could there possibly be any "signs" of fakery that you might have missed, or is that impossible, given your expertise as a UFO video analyst?

As far as I can see, all we have here so far is a clash of initial impressions. You're just saying that your first impression on watching these videos is that they aren't faked, and Sarkus is saying his first impression is that they look faked.

So, is there any way we could go beyond your respective first impressions and work out who is right? Or not?

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.
 
Last edited:
Complete lack of signs of fakery is a big clue to it being genuine.
Or a big clue to it being a clever fake...

Anyhoo, what steps did you check to verify these particular videos? Apparently, you forgot to answer that question, when I asked it last time.
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,
So low quality, fuzzy footage is evidence that something isn't faked, in your opinion?

Are there any other criteria, or do you just go straight to your gut feeling after ruling out any slick-looking footage?
And the object always looks photoshopped in and moves in a fake manner.
Are you surprised that UFO fakers aren't more skilled at their craft, having had at least 70 years to hone their skills?

I mean, you are apparently able to tell at a glance whether footage has been faked. Any faker worth his salt should be able to fool you at least some of the time, shouldn't he?

Why are the UFO fakers so incompetent, Magical Realist?
Inconsistent lighting and shadows are also a clue of fakery. Also, when magnified it shows 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 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,
Okay. And you checked all of these things for the recent videos you provided, did you?

Did you check carefully for inconsistent lighting?
Did you check carefully for inconsistent shadows?
Did you magnify the videos to check for details that couldn't be seen? What did you find?
Did you look for further background information about the videos, like their location, the people who took them and the circumstances, to help confirm authenticity? If so, why didn't you post any of that background information for us?

Also, what is the alternative to filming a UAP 'by accident'? I don't really understand. Aren't all filmed UAPS 'accidental'? After all, you can't phone up the aliens and arrange an appointment in advance. What do you mean by videos in which the UAP is 'caught as if by accident'? What's the alternative?

And you say that, somehow other sightings affect whether this video is authentic? How? Aren't other sightings independent events? Should you not examine each case on its own merits?
Now tell us how you and Sarkus ascertained the videos I posted were fake.
I haven't claimed they are fake. All I have asked you is to provide me with the information you have that establishes that you are right about them not being fakes, while Sarkus is wrong.

So far, you haven't provided any extra information about them at all. Why not?

Why didn't you post your careful analysis in the first post in which you introduced each video? Why won't you give us all the benefit of your careful analysis of each sighting?
 
Did you check carefully for inconsistent lighting?

Yes,,it wasn't there.

Did you check carefully for inconsistent shadows?

Yes..it wasn't there.

Did you magnify the videos to check for details that couldn't be seen? What did you find?

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.

Did you look for further background information about the videos, like their location, the people who took them and the circumstances, to help confirm authenticity? If so, why didn't you post any of that background information for us?

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

Also, what is the alternative to filming a UAP 'by accident'?

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.


All I have asked you is to provide me with the information you have that establishes that you are right about them not being fakes, while Sarkus is wrong.

I just told you all that.


Why won't you give us all the benefit of your careful analysis of each sighting?

You can just assume I analyzed it before I posted it. I'm not pandering to disingenuous trolls here.
 
Last edited:
Complete lack of signs of fakery is a big clue to it being genuine. So what are the signs of fakery?

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.
 
Back
Top