USOs

[James R]

Doesn't mean the story is bogus. Could be a modified Mig 21. Could be a Mig something else.

Anything to save the appearance of fakery, right? Because your default assumption is that everything is real and nothing is faked.

The story is pretty self-evident. A military jet fighter video obviously tapes a ufo. How can you claim the story is incorrect based on one questioned detail?

When the details don't add up, it's reasonable to start doubting the entire thing.

I have no reason to doubt military jet video just because there is an equipment appendage that doesn't match the google image I found of other Mig 21 cockpits. The video looks real to me. The jet looks real to me. The story sounds real to me. End of story.

Typical.

Your gut feeling and wishful thinking trumps all common sense and critical thought, as usual. Never mind the evidence.

 

[Magical Realist]

Making up something based on no evidence would be like posting some grainy video with no established provenance, claiming it was "homeland security" footage of an alien spacecraft.

Wow..graininess as the new excuse for denying video evidence. I thought your excuse was they were all faked? Maybe the graininess means they are fake? lol!

 

[Magical Realist]

The story we are asked to swallow is that hundreds of people saw these alien craft and yet only one of them bothered to snap off a photo. Doesn't that strike anybody as a a little strange?

It doesn't matter how many videos or photos are taken. You will just lie and insist they are all faked. Thousands of people out there spending time faking photos and videos of ufos. Big conspiracy to deceive all the smug little science nerds. Right? lol!

 

[Magical Realist]

When the details don't add up, it's reasonable to start doubting the entire thing.

Oh? And what details don't add up that entails the whole story is made up?

Typical.

Your gut feeling and wishful thinking trumps all common sense and critical thought, as usual. Never mind the evidence.

Gawd...Just shut up. You don't know me or what my gut feelings are or how uncritically I think.

 

[James R]

Magical Realist:

Wow..graininess as the new excuse for denying video evidence.

Why is your "compelling" footage of UFOs always poorly shot, so that you can't see any details of the objects being shown? Why are so many of them so blurry and of such resolution that the objects in the videos could be just about anything?

Graininess doesn't mean it's not an alien spaceship. But if graininess means you can't really tell what it is, then you can't call it an alien spaceship. Understand?

I thought your excuse was they were all faked?

A few points:
1. I don't need to make excuses. You are usually the one doing that. What is your excuse for the poor quality of these videos? What is your excuse for the fact that the claimed Mig-21 cockpit is not in fact the cockpit of a Mig-21?
2. You know very well that I have never claimed that all purported UFO footage is faked. All I have said is that none of it convincingly shows alien spacecraft. Some of them, of course, are fakes - some better fakes than others.

Maybe the graininess means they are fake? lol!

If you're on a low budget and you want to cover up cheap fakery, graininess is certainly one way to do it.

It doesn't matter how many videos or photos are taken. You will just lie and insist they are all faked.

You will notice that I have not made any claims about the videos in this thread being fakes. They may be, but it is not up to me to show that. It is up to you to establish that they are real.

Thousands of people out there spending time faking photos and videos of ufos.

Yes, there are. Do you really not know this?

Big conspiracy to deceive all the smug little science nerds. Right? lol!

Us science nerds have never been deceived by this nonsense. You are the one being deceived. And worse - you're deceiving yourself.

Oh? And what details don't add up that entails the whole story is made up?

One detail was pointed out to your previously. The footage was claimed to have been taken from a Mig-21 jet. Any yet, the cockpit controls shown in the video do not match those of a Mig-21 jet. Did you not understand that point?

Gawd...Just shut up. You don't know me or what my gut feelings are or how uncritically I think.

Sure I do. I've seen your posts here. You're so gullible and so desperate to believe the woo that it's almost impossible to convince you that something is a fake even when the evidence is right there in front of you.

Look. This is what you wrote above:

I have no reason to doubt military jet video just because there is an equipment appendage that doesn't match the google image I found of other Mig 21 cockpits. The video looks real to me. The jet looks real to me. The story sounds real to me. End of story.

The fact that the equipment is wrong in the video is precisely a reason you should be skeptical about the authenticity of the video. But you're not. You're desperate to believe it is real. Based on what? Because "It looks real to me." I've seen all your comments here. Everything looks real to you, no matter how obviously faked it is. Everything is "compelling" to you, because you never stop for a minute and turn your brain on. What's more, you're hooked on these anecdotes you keep throwing up. Somebody tells a story, and it just has to be true, because why would the person make it up?

I mean, here's a guy wearing a hat and other labels all over him saying that he's a UFO nut, going on a woo TV show all about woo, and apparently being taken seriously while he tells third-hand stories that probably aren't true. The navy denies the events talked about in the opening post, but of course that can't be right, because Mr UFO Believer is telling us they happened. And we all know that there's a big government/military conspiracy to hide the "truth". We know that because the government and the military say that alien spaceships aren't visiting Earth. But we know they are. Because. Because videos can't be faked. Because people never tell lies for notoriety or monetary gain. And what are the chances of hundreds of people all making faked videos for notriety and/or monetary gain? Surely such a thing would be impossible. Nobody makes money out of selling the story of aliens visiting Earth. It's not like there is money to be made from selling TV shows or videos, or books or magazines about UFOs. It's not like anybody could make money selling UFO Believer hats or t-shirts. Nobody makes money from holding a convention for UFO believers. No. All these people are just ordinary, honest, hard-working Americans (almost always Americans - don't you find that weird?) who see alien spaceships about 100 times as often as anybody else. But we all know that nobody can take a clear photo or video of a UFO. Alien spaceships invariably make photos blurry and videos jumpy and granulated.

Remember those crop circles, and the guys that came out saying they faked them all? Well, of course it's true that some crop circles are faked, but that doesn't mean all of them are. No, clearly there are lots of real ones. And we know this. Because. Because there just can't be that many fakers out there. And once there was a guy with a metal detector that beeped in just the right way when he waved it around over a crop circle. So that proved it was caused by an alien spaceship. Obviously. What's more, one of his friends said he saw a strange light in the field the night when the circle appeared. It couldn't have been flashlights of people making the circle. It must really have been an alien spaceship. Because, you know, flashlights don't make the same kind of light as alien spaceships. And people never lie or make mistakes about what they see.

Let's face it: if it looks real to you, then it's real. "End of Story". That's what you wrote above, and that really is the maximum investigation you do on these things, isn't it? "Oh, that looks real. Must be real, then. End of Story."

Do you think Star Wars is real? It looks real to me. Why would anybody make it up?

 

[paddoboy]

Magical Realist:


Why is your "compelling" footage of UFOs always poorly shot, so that you can't see any details of the objects being shown? Why are so many of them so blurry and of such resolution that the objects in the videos could be just about anything?

Graininess doesn't mean it's not an alien spaceship. But if graininess means you can't really tell what it is, then you can't call it an alien spaceship. Understand?


A few points:
1. I don't need to make excuses. You are usually the one doing that. What is your excuse for the poor quality of these videos? What is your excuse for the fact that the claimed Mig-21 cockpit is not in fact the cockpit of a Mig-21?
2. You know very well that I have never claimed that all purported UFO footage is faked. All I have said is that none of it convincingly shows alien spacecraft. Some of them, of course, are fakes - some better fakes than others.


If you're on a low budget and you want to cover up cheap fakery, graininess is certainly one way to do it.


You will notice that I have not made any claims about the videos in this thread being fakes. They may be, but it is not up to me to show that. It is up to you to establish that they are real.


Yes, there are. Do you really not know this?


Us science nerds have never been deceived by this nonsense. You are the one being deceived. And worse - you're deceiving yourself.


One detail was pointed out to your previously. The footage was claimed to have been taken from a Mig-21 jet. Any yet, the cockpit controls shown in the video do not match those of a Mig-21 jet. Did you not understand that point?


Sure I do. I've seen your posts here. You're so gullible and so desperate to believe the woo that it's almost impossible to convince you that something is a fake even when the evidence is right there in front of you.

Look. This is what you wrote above:

The fact that the equipment is wrong in the video is precisely a reason you should be skeptical about the authenticity of the video. But you're not. You're desperate to believe it is real. Based on what? Because "It looks real to me." I've seen all your comments here. Everything looks real to you, no matter how obviously faked it is. Everything is "compelling" to you, because you never stop for a minute and turn your brain on. What's more, you're hooked on these anecdotes you keep throwing up. Somebody tells a story, and it just has to be true, because why would the person make it up?

I mean, here's a guy wearing a hat and other labels all over him saying that he's a UFO nut, going on a woo TV show all about woo, and apparently being taken seriously while he tells third-hand stories that probably aren't true. The navy denies the events talked about in the opening post, but of course that can't be right, because Mr UFO Believer is telling us they happened. And we all know that there's a big government/military conspiracy to hide the "truth". We know that because the government and the military say that alien spaceships aren't visiting Earth. But we know they are. Because. Because videos can't be faked. Because people never tell lies for notoriety or monetary gain. And what are the chances of hundreds of people all making faked videos for notriety and/or monetary gain? Surely such a thing would be impossible. Nobody makes money out of selling the story of aliens visiting Earth. It's not like there is money to be made from selling TV shows or videos, or books or magazines about UFOs. It's not like anybody could make money selling UFO Believer hats or t-shirts. Nobody makes money from holding a convention for UFO believers. No. All these people are just ordinary, honest, hard-working Americans (almost always Americans - don't you find that weird?) who see alien spaceships about 100 times as often as anybody else. But we all know that nobody can take a clear photo or video of a UFO. Alien spaceships invariably make photos blurry and videos jumpy and granulated.

Remember those crop circles, and the guys that came out saying they faked them all? Well, of course it's true that some crop circles are faked, but that doesn't mean all of them are. No, clearly there are lots of real ones. And we know this. Because. Because there just can't be that many fakers out there. And once there was a guy with a metal detector that beeped in just the right way when he waved it around over a crop circle. So that proved it was caused by an alien spaceship. Obviously. What's more, one of his friends said he saw a strange light in the field the night when the circle appeared. It couldn't have been flashlights of people making the circle. It must really have been an alien spaceship. Because, you know, flashlights don't make the same kind of light as alien spaceships. And people never lie or make mistakes about what they see.

Let's face it: if it looks real to you, then it's real. "End of Story". That's what you wrote above, and that really is the maximum investigation you do on these things, isn't it? "Oh, that looks real. Must be real, then. End of Story."

Do you think Star Wars is real? It looks real to me. Why would anybody make it up?

Nice post.

 

[James R]

This one, by the way, seems to be a "compelling" video of a shadow of a plane on some clouds. Never mind the voiceover.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This one, by the way, seems to be a "compelling" video of a shadow of a plane on some clouds. Never mind the voiceover.

Lord no. It can be seen against clear blue sky for a moment. Additionally, the contrast between the object and the clouds in the background is too great.

See, this is what makes me nuts. Everyone is happy with any bs answer that comes to mind on either side of the debate. I was watching something tonight where it was claimed by an astronomer that Col Halt and his merry men at Bentwaters saw Sirius - the object that began dripping something that looked like molten metal. I could only think, "You can't be serious!". Either he never bothered to read the report or he simply ignored anything he didn't like.

 

[James R]

Lord no. It can be seen against clear blue sky for a moment.

Just because a patch of that sky looks blue, it doesn't mean there's no cloud in there.

Additionally, the contrast between the object and the clouds in the background is too great.

How did you decide that, just from the video?

See, this is what makes me nuts. Everyone is happy with any bs answer that comes to mind on either side of the debate.

Please notice that I have proposed a hypothesis. This is not the same as saying I've solved the problem of what the video shows. If you can convince me that we're not looking at a shadow, I'm quite willing to change my mind. On the other hand, I'm sure that MR will be quite unwilling to consider any possibility other than the object being an alien spaceship.

 

[Magical Realist]

Lord no. It can be seen against clear blue sky for a moment. Additionally, the contrast between the object and the clouds in the background is too great.

See, this is what makes me nuts. Everyone is happy with any bs answer that comes to mind on either side of the debate. I was watching something tonight where it was claimed by an astronomer that Col Halt and his merry men at Bentwaters saw Sirius - the object that began dripping something that looked like molten metal. I could only think, "You can't be serious!". Either he never bothered to read the report or he simply ignored anything he didn't like.

Good point. The object is obviously not a shadow. It was pursued by several Migs. You're telling me trained pilots pursued the shadow of one of the jets across the sky? Also, the shadow is clearly cylindrical shaped, not jet shaped. It also is seen against the clear blue sky. This is an example of skeptics making up shit that don't fit the details of the sighting, Happens all the time.

 

[Magical Realist]

The fact that the equipment is wrong in the video is precisely a reason you should be skeptical about the authenticity of the video.

Because there is a difference in equipment configurations between Mig 23's means the story is fake? That doesn't follow at all.

 

[Magical Realist]

On the other hand, I'm sure that MR will be quite unwilling to consider any possibility other than the object being an alien spaceship.

Quote where I have said it is an alien ship. I haven't said anything about what it is. It is obviously a cylindrical shaped craft flying thru the sky. That's self-evident to me.

 

[Magical Realist]

Let's face it: if it looks real to you, then it's real. "End of Story". That's what you wrote above, and that really is the maximum investigation you do on these things, isn't it? "Oh, that looks real. Must be real, then. End of Story."

So what isn't real about this account? With your superpowers of discernment, tell us all what was faked? The jet? The video? The object itself? How can you tell these aren't real? What tipped you off? Oh that's right. All videos and photos of ufos are faked. You just know this for a fact. Why? Because you know ufos don't exist. Or, you just don't believe they exist. Which for you is the same thing.

 

[Magical Realist]

RADAR operatives patrolling the skies over the US and Canada track an average of 1,800 UFOS every five years it has emerged.
By JON AUSTIN
PUBLISHED: 10:19, Fri, Jul 1, 2016 | UPDATED: 11:17, Fri, Jul 1, 2016

GETTY

There were 1,800 UFOs tracked by NORAD radar over five years.
That equates to around 360 UFOs officially tracked by radar each year.

And as many as 75 - 15 EACH YEAR - have been intercepted as a result, according to information released by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

UFO investigators have hailed the statistics proof that the UFO phenomena is real and taken seriously by military leaders.

But there remains a veil of secrecy over what happened when they were intercepted or if any have been confined as not coming from Earth, with national security reasons being cited.

The figures were revealed to UFO investigators following a Canadian Access to Information Act request.

But officials refused to reveal any further data or specific details about individual UFO interceptions.

Candian UFO expert Victor Viggiani requested information on the tracking and intercepting of UFOs by NORAD after obtaining secret documents which detailed a case of jets being scramble to "three UFOs".

A response from NORAD said that requests for "unknown track reports" are classified and cannot be released on grounds of national security and espionage.

YouTube


It said the information was not to be released to the public or media because they do not have a "valid need to know".

But the response did confirm the extent of UFO activity caught on radar.

It said: "The NORAD commander has approved the release of the following information regarding tracks of interest (TOI) and unknown tracks.

"The yearly average in the past five years has been 1,800 TOIs and 75 intercepts."

Intercepts are when NORAD scrambles a pair of fighters, which are on alert at sites around the US, to locate and attempt to identify the unknown object.

The fighters are armed and ready to take off within minutes of receiving a scramble order.

NORAD has refused to detail any of the 75 intercepts in the five year period, so it is unclear if any went off to be identified.

Although Mr Viggiani received some of the information using access to information laws, he claimed he was not permitted to share it or release it publicly and he had threatened with indictment if he did so."===-=http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird...racked-by-radar-system-but-details-suppressed

 

[Kittamaru]

of course NORAD tracks hundreds of ufos a year... anything they don't have a positive ID on is, by definition, a UFO. That doesn't make it alien any more than drinking water makes me a fish

Them not detailing interceptions seems like simple good practice - after all, we wouldn't want possibly hostile nations knowing all our SOPs, would we?

 

[James R]

Magical Realist:

Good point. The object is obviously not a shadow.

That's not obvious, or I wouldn't have mentioned the possibility.

It was pursued by several Migs.

How do you know?

Do you have any more information on this other than the single blurry video you posted? If so, why haven't you posted that information? Why keep it to yourself?

You're telling me trained pilots pursued the shadow of one of the jets across the sky?

I have no evidence that these pilots pursued anything across the sky. You have provided nothing to say they did.

Also, the shadow is clearly cylindrical shaped, not jet shaped.

Nothing is "clear" in that video. It is of typically low quality.

Are you aware that a circular shadow, for example, viewed at an angle, appears elliptical? The shadow of an aeroplane, viewed at an appropriate angle, can certainly look like a cylinder.

It also is seen against the clear blue sky.

So you claim. It is not obvious to me that any portion of the sky is clear in that video - a point that I made previously.

This is an example of skeptics making up shit that don't fit the details of the sighting, Happens all the time.

Nothing I have said so far doesn't fit the details.

If you have any further information that backs up any of your story regarding this video, please post it so we can examine that further evidence. If not, I'll happily conclude that you're just "making up shit".

Because there is a difference in equipment configurations between Mig 23's means the story is fake?

Have you investigated the cockpit configuration(s) of the Mig jets in the video? I'm guessing you haven't. What you're doing is making shit up. Aren't you?

If it turns out that the video doesn't show a Mig cockpit, and it is claimed that it does, then we have established fakery, or at least a mistake somewhere. Do you agree?

Quote where I have said it is an alien ship. I haven't said anything about what it is. It is obviously a cylindrical shaped craft flying thru the sky. That's self-evident to me.

What kind of cylindrical shaped craft do you have in mind, then, if not an alien space ship? Be specific as to what you think it is.

So what isn't real about this account?

What account? I haven't seen any account yet. Just a video with a voice-over speculating about what is being shown. Do you have an account? If so, please post it.

With your superpowers of discernment, tell us all what was faked? The jet? The video? The object itself? How can you tell these aren't real? What tipped you off?

I make no claim at this point that the footage has been faked, though that remains an open possibility. I am merely raising reasonable questions about the interpretation of what is seen in the footage. I have already suggested one possible alternative interpretation, but you are dismissing that out of hand without really examining it seriously. Why is that? Is it because you will only admit one possible explanation? Bias, anybody?

The objection to the jet was not originally raised by me, but it should be of some interest to you if you are interested in the authenticity of the video. Why are you not interested in getting to the bottom of that issue? Is it because you've made up your mind in advance?

The object is blurry. The video is of poor quality. I have suggested that the object may be a shadow. That possibility has not yet been ruled out to my satisfaction. I am, of course, happy to discuss any problems with that hypothesis. The only one that has been raised so far is the claim that the bluer sky in the video is "clear" of cloud. I don't know how you know that this is not just a relative thing - the "blue" parts of the sky having less cloud than the whiter/greyer parts. Perhaps you can explain that for me. How do you know? Or did you just jump to a conclusion, because you've already made up your mind what the video shows?

What is the provenance of the video? Where did the original come from? Who is vouching for its authenticity? What analysis has been done on the footage itself to establish that it hasn't been faked? I assume you have investigated all these matters, ruling out the possibility of fakery. Have you? Or did you make up your mind from the start that it wasn't faked?

Oh that's right. All videos and photos of ufos are faked. You just know this for a fact. Why?

The bigger "why" question is why you feel the need to continually erect this straw man. I have repeatedly told you that I do not believe that all videos of UFOs are fakes (although some are). Some show real footage but are cases of mistaken identity in that they show mundane things that are not alien spacecraft. Some remain unexplained, usually due to lack of appropriate supporting evidence.

Why are you not interested in investigating whether any given UFO photo or video is faked? Is it because you have already made up your mind from the start that they're all real?

Because you know ufos don't exist. Or, you just don't believe they exist. Which for you is the same thing.

Let us be careful here. I believe that UFOs exist, where a "UFO" is an unidentified flying object. That is, I believe that there are photos and videos of unidentified objects in the sky. I do not believe that any of those videos or photos show real alien spacecraft. The reason I do not believe that is that the evidence put forward for that conclusion is typically of poor quality. Moreover, there is no other evidence that aliens have ever visited Earth in the past, or are doing so now.

However, once again I remind you that I have repeatedly told you that I keep an open mind on these things. I am quite open to concluding, for example, that the video under discussion shows an alien spaceship, if you can eliminate other reasonable possibilities and provide other supporting evidence on which it would be reasonable to draw that conclusion.

So, what have you got? Anything other than your wishful thinking?

 

[James R]

Here's an alternative hypothesis about the same video:

The "cylinder" is a water droplet on the canopy window.

We are not shown footage from the first appearance of the object. Rather, in the very first footage we see of it, it is already in view. So, the question arises: where did the object start off? Did it suddenly appear? Did it appear gradually? Was it, in fact, there from the time the plane left the runway? We don't know.

The apparent increase in speed as the object leaves the frame of the image would be consistent with a water droplet moving upwards on the canopy and gradually increasing speed as it encountered airflow at a different angle.

It could even potentially be a water droplet inside the canopy, rather than outside.

So, now we have two plausible alternative hypotheses:

1. The object is a shadow on a cloud, some distance in front of the plane.
2. The object is a water droplet on the canopy, relatively close to the camera.

And we've barely scratched the surface on investigating this video properly.

 

[Magical Realist]

Magical Realist:


That's not obvious, or I wouldn't have mentioned the possibility.

It would if you mentioned it and later retracted it for another so-called "possibility". Now it's a water droplet? Wait? You said it was a shadow. Which is it now? It can't be a shadow AND a water droplet.

How do you know?

Do you have any more information on this other than the single blurry video you posted? If so, why haven't you posted that information? Why keep it to yourself?

It was mentioned in the account given in the video. Or didn't you watch that? What are babbling on about blurry btw. The video isn't blurry in the least.

Nothing is "clear" in that video. It is of typically low quality.

Clear enough for you to call it a shadow of a Mig 21 jet.

Are you aware that a circular shadow, for example, viewed at an angle, appears elliptical? The shadow of an aeroplane, viewed at an appropriate angle, can certainly look like a cylinder.

Are you aware a jet doesn't cast a circular OR a cylindrical shadow? You can change angles all day long and it's still going to look like a jet shape.

I have no evidence that these pilots pursued anything across the sky. You have provided nothing to say they did.

The video provided that account. If you think it didn't happen, prove it.

So you claim. It is not obvious to me that any portion of the sky is clear in that video - a point that I made previously.

I see clear video of clouds, the sky, and the cylindrical object, which is seen to accelerate. You see enough to claim it's shadow. That's pretty damn clear to me.

Nothing I have said so far doesn't fit the details.

If you have any further information that backs up any of your story regarding this video, please post it so we can examine that further evidence. If not, I'll happily conclude that you're just "making up shit".

No..that's not how this works. I provided the account in the video, and you are the one who makes up the shit about it not being real. The burden lies on you to support that claim. Or is it a claim? One can never tell if you are just speculating about possibilities or actually arguing for a point based on evidence.

Have you investigated the cockpit configuration(s) of the Mig jets in the video? I'm guessing you haven't. What you're doing is making shit up. Aren't you?

Why yes I have. I even provided a pic of a Mig 23 jet cockpit that looks nothing like the other one. So again, the only one making up shit here remains you.

If it turns out that the video doesn't show a Mig cockpit, and it is claimed that it does, then we have established fakery, or at least a mistake somewhere. Do you agree?

Go ahead and prove it's not a Mig cockpit then. I'll wait.

What kind of cylindrical shaped craft do you have in mind, then, if not an alien space ship? Be specific as to what you think it is.

Cylindrical shaped craft will suffice until we actually see one land and interrogate it's pilots.

What account? I haven't seen any account yet. Just a video with a voice-over speculating about what is being shown. Do you have an account? If so, please post it

Don't be an idiot. The film gives the account of what happened. Or are you now deaf?

I make no claim at this point that the footage has been faked

Great. Then you have nothing to offer but baseless speculation. Move on then.

The objection to the jet was not originally raised by me, but it should be of some interest to you if you are interested in the authenticity of the video. Why are you not interested in getting to the bottom of that issue? Is it because you've made up your mind in advance?

No evidence so far has been presented suggesting this video or the account given is faked at all. I'm still waiting for that.

The object is blurry.

No it isn't. It's a sharply defined moving cylinder that speeds up.

The video is of poor quality. I have suggested that the object may be a shadow. That possibility has not yet been ruled out to my satisfaction. I am, of course, happy to discuss any problems with that hypothesis. The only one that has been raised so far is the claim that the bluer sky in the video is "clear" of cloud. I don't know how you know that this is not just a relative thing - the "blue" parts of the sky having less cloud than the whiter/greyer parts. Perhaps you can explain that for me. How do you know? Or did you just jump to a conclusion, because you've already made up your mind what the video shows?

Show me how a cylindrical shadow is cast from a jet on blue sky and we'll take your absurd speculations seriously.

What is the provenance of the video? Where did the original come from? Who is vouching for its authenticity? What analysis has been done on the footage itself to establish that it hasn't been faked? I assume you have investigated all these matters, ruling out the possibility of fakery. Have you? Or did you make up your mind from the start that it wasn't faked?

I'm not the one claiming it is faked. That'd be you, and so on you to establish that with some evidence. Don't make claims you can support with evidence.

The bigger "why" question is why you feel the need to continually erect this straw man. I have repeatedly told you that I do not believe that all videos of UFOs are fakes (although some are). Some show real footage but are cases of mistaken identity in that they show mundane things that are not alien spacecraft. Some remain unexplained, usually due to lack of appropriate supporting evidence.

Right..unevidenced speculation that it COULD be fake. Not good enough. We'll need evidence for the probability that it is faked to consider your claim seriously. Got none? Then you have no argument do you?

Let us be careful here. I believe that UFOs exist, where a "UFO" is an unidentified flying object. That is, I believe that there are photos and videos of unidentified objects in the sky. I do not believe that any of those videos or photos show real alien spacecraft. The reason I do not believe that is that the evidence put forward for that conclusion is typically of poor quality. Moreover, there is no other evidence that aliens have ever visited Earth in the past, or are doing so now.

Just as I said. You don't believe in ufo craft and therefore you dismiss all evidence as either fake or mistaken.

However, once again I remind you that I have repeatedly told you that I keep an open mind on these things. I am quite open to concluding, for example, that the video under discussion shows an alien spaceship, if you can eliminate other reasonable possibilities and provide other supporting evidence on which it would be reasonable to draw that conclusion.

I didn't claim it was an alien spaceship. Remember when I told you that?

 

[Magical Realist]

Here's an alternative hypothesis about the same video:

The "cylinder" is a water droplet on the canopy window.

We are not shown footage from the first appearance of the object. Rather, in the very first footage we see of it, it is already in view. So, the question arises: where did the object start off? Did it suddenly appear? Did it appear gradually? Was it, in fact, there from the time the plane left the runway? We don't know.

The apparent increase in speed as the object leaves the frame of the image would be consistent with a water droplet moving upwards on the canopy and gradually increasing speed as it encountered airflow at a different angle.

It could even potentially be a water droplet inside the canopy, rather than outside.

So, now we have two plausible alternative hypotheses:

1. The object is a shadow on a cloud, some distance in front of the plane.
2. The object is a water droplet on the canopy, relatively close to the camera.

And we've barely scratched the surface on investigating this video properly.

LFMAO! Water droplet now. This is getting rich. I can't wait to see what you change your mind to next.

 

[paddoboy]

Quote where I have said it is an alien ship. I haven't said anything about what it is. It is obviously a cylindrical shaped craft flying thru the sky. That's self-evident to me.

You constantly claim that, in every UFO you flood this forum with.
Proof in my opinion of your obfuscation and vagueness...just as what you offer as evidence.

It would if you mentioned it and later retracted it for another so-called "possibility". Now it's a water droplet? Wait? You said it was a shadow. Which is it now? It can't be a shadow AND a water droplet.

Could be either, we don't...that's why it's a UFO...could be a myriad of other possibilities also, that you and others just havn't thought of.

It was mentioned in the account given in the video. Or didn't you watch that? What are babbling on about blurry btw. The video isn't blurry in the least.

Calm down, you appear to be getting over excited. The video is certainly restrictive and in no way reflects on any certain possibility of an Alien UFO...a UFO, yes, so we leave it at that..

Clear enough for you to call it a shadow of a Mig 21 jet.

Maybe anything.

The video provided that account. If you think it didn't happen, prove it.

Dumb. The onus is on you to prove what you are claiming, or pretending to claim.

No..that's not how this works. I provided the account in the video, and you are the one who makes up the shit about it not being real. The burden lies on you to support that claim. Or is it a claim? One can never tell if you are just speculating about possibilities or actually arguing for a point based on evidence.

Maybe in your dream world and Fat Freddy's, but not in the scientific world.

Don't be an idiot. The film gives the account of what happened. Or are you now deaf?

Wow!...Take it easy! You'll have a coronary.

I'm not the one claiming it is faked. That'd be you, and so on you to establish that with some evidence. Don't make claims you can support with evidence.

No, you are pretending that that its an Alien craft. The reasonable people are saying its unidentified and could possibly be other things. It is though a UFO.

Right..unevidenced speculation that it COULD be fake. Not good enough.

That's not for an amateur like to to decide.

I didn't claim it was an alien spaceship. Remember when I told you that?

Yes, yes, this is all a game of pretense!