Since this is an opinion poll, I'll take the spacraft option. I see no blinking lights, and can think of no reason for any lights to be on a secret military craft. Of course it is a UFO if it is not a hoaxers video. For a hoaxer, it seems a lot of work for little return.

A triangular spacecraft appeared over Dublin?

Meh, wouldn't worry about it too much.

Amazing how far away a glow stick showes up at night. Cool kite though.

Amazing how far away a glow stick showes up at night. Cool kite though.

#3 | Posted by STIRSUMUP at 2010-01-26 05:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

Interesting. How do you think they got it to appear so far away and to move so fast? Why didn't you vote for the hoaxer?

How do you think they got it to appear so far away and to move so fast?

How fast was it moving? How far away is it? There is no way of knowing, so yours is a meaningless question based on assumption

How fast was it moving? How far away is it? There is no way of knowing, so yours is a meaningless question based on assumption

#5 | Posted by goatman at 2010-01-26 06:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

It is so far away that it can't be seen without a zoom, and moving fast enough to see background stars moving past like a picket fence. Do you think you could do that with a kite and glow sticks?

Being that the Wright Brothers flew here, we attract a lot of stunt kite fliers. At night some attach glow sticks to the wings and tail, or tails. On a dark night they show up rather well.

People are used to looking at things close up. Most people go through their lives staring at the ground. In the sky, like over water and large expanses of land, people don't judge distances or size well. Perception is everything. A fly, passing in front of your face appears incredibly fast and very large. At a distance of ten feet, much slower and smaller. Now look at it again.

It is so far away that it can't be seen without a zoom, and moving fast enough to see background stars moving past like a picket fence.

How do you know it is being seen through a zoom? (I presume you mean telephoto -- a zoom lens is irrelevant). How do you know it's moving fast?

Even if both assumptions are correct (and you have nothing to base those assumptions on) you argue against yourself. The more powerful a telephoto lens, the more an illusion of speed exists. I can barely touch my telescope when viewing and the stars "race" by. The higher the magnification, the greater the "speed" of the moving plane or satellite in the FoV.

It's so sad that concepts of basic geometry and optics escapes you bOoB.

A fly, passing in front of your face appears incredibly fast and very large. At a distance of ten feet, much slower and smaller. Now look at it again.

You are right of course, stirs. Same as I was saying with the appearance of speed through a telescope.

Note also that as the cameraman attempts to bring the object into focus that the background stars go out of focus. This is a clear indication that the object is relatively close. Anything more than a couple of hundred yards away would focus at infinity, same as the stars, even with the large fstop necessary to catch dimly lit objects.

Once, just once, I wanna see one of these videos in HD.

And Spud, thanks SO much for reminding me of my age.

Asteroids! Harumph.

A fly, passing in front of your face appears incredibly fast and very large. At a distance of ten feet, much slower and smaller. Now look at it again.

#7 | Posted by STIRSUMUP at 2010-01-26 06:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

Agreed--placing your thumb in front of your face with the moon behind it, your thumb can appear as big as the moon. However, this object was shown to be far away by the zooming in of the lens---it was invisible until zoomed in on, and invisible again when zoomed out. You can't get that effect with a fly close to your face. In addition, the stars are seen to be passed very fast in the background---a kite far away couldn't be passing stars that fast. Why don't you mark the hoaxer box?

And Spud, thanks SO much for reminding me of my age.

Asteroids! Harumph.

Truly Spud has offended thee mightily.

Only one possible solution then.

Tommorow at dawn.

Note also that as the cameraman attempts to bring the object into focus that the background stars go out of focus. This is a clear indication that the object is relatively close. Anything more than a couple of hundred yards away would focus at infinity, same as the stars, even with the large fstop necessary to catch dimly lit objects.

#9 | Posted by goatman at 2010-01-26 06:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

You are correct in your statement, but not the facts. The video is never in focus---not the object or the stars. It is always blurry. A close object would have a clear focus. Notice the plane in the first seconds of the video, and its movement in relation to the star behind it. The object in question appears to be further away than the plane, since a zoom is necessary to distinguish it, and it moves by the stars much more quickly. Why haven't you checked the hoaxer box?

It's so sad that concepts of basic geometry and optics escapes you bOoB.

#8 | Posted by goatman at 2010-01-26 06:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

It is sad you can't have a decent conversation without name calling.

And I asked you for a promise that you'd respond like and adult and not play your usual games -- a promise you are unwilling to make. Therefore, I am unwilling to engage you.

When you decide to leave your childlike ways behind, let me know and we'll talk. Simple, isn't it? I'm sure this is the part where you go off and cry as you always do when I throw your childishness at near sonic speeds into your face. Now tell us how you are going to bed after three posts. LOL

What a baby. Grow up for fuck's sake, boy(d)

#41 | Posted by goatman at 2010-01-25 12:39 AM | Reply | Flag

You need to take a closer look at yourself before accusing others of childish behavior, and being a baby.

Why haven't you checked the hoaxer box?

A hoax is in the eye of the beholder. If you take a picture of something flying that you don't know what it is, it's a UFO. If it turned out to be a kite, and the guy flying it didn't set out to trick anyone, there is no hoax.

How about a don't jump to conclusions box?

However, this object was shown to be far away by the zooming in of the lens---

(third time)

How can you tell it is far away and zooming? You claim it "is shown" to be so. Is there part of the story I am missing?

If it is simply an assumption on your part, be a man and admit it. Otherwise demonstrate how it "is shown".

The video is never in focus

As is always the case with these UFO videos strangely enough. LOL

At any rate, I never claimed it to be in focus. I said, "...as the cameraman attempts to bring the object into focus ..." And it is true. The more the cameraman attempts to bring it into focus, the more the stars go out of focus. As usual, you refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

Well, have fun with your current game of denial, bOoB. For the life of me, I can't figure out why denial of the reality thrills you so.

How about a don't jump to conclusions box?

#15 | Posted by STIRSUMUP at 2010-01-26 07:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

If you think it is a UFO--check that box----that is the same as a don't jump to conclusions box or an I don't know box. If it is a kite and unidentified---it is a UFO.

It is sad you can't have a decent conversation without name calling.

I've always called you bOoB and you've always called me dummy. Just now you are pretending that this bothers you? LOL Spare me the faux indignation, bOoB.

Well, have fun with your current game of denial, bOoB. For the life of me, I can't figure out why denial of the reality thrills you so.

#16 | Posted by goatman at 2010-01-26 07:13 AM | Reply | Flag

It is sad you can't have a decent conversation without name calling.

And I asked you for a promise that you'd respond like and adult and not play your usual games -- a promise you are unwilling to make. Therefore, I am unwilling to engage you.

When you decide to leave your childlike ways behind, let me know and we'll talk. Simple, isn't it? I'm sure this is the part where you go off and cry as you always do when I throw your childishness at near sonic speeds into your face. Now tell us how you are going to bed after three posts. LOL

What a baby. Grow up for fuck's sake, boy(d)

#41 | Posted by goatman at 2010-01-25 12:39 AM | Reply | Flag

You need to take a closer look at yourself before accusing others of childish behavior, and being a baby.

I've always called you bOoB and you've always called me dummy. Just now you are pretending that this bothers you? LOL Spare me the faux indignation, bOoB.

#18 | Posted by goatman at 2010-01-26 07:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

Some of us grow up.

It is sad you can't have a decent conversation without name calling.

And I asked you for a promise that you'd respond like and adult and not play your usual games -- a promise you are unwilling to make. Therefore, I am unwilling to engage you.

When you decide to leave your childlike ways behind, let me know and we'll talk. Simple, isn't it? I'm sure this is the part where you go off and cry as you always do when I throw your childishness at near sonic speeds into your face. Now tell us how you are going to bed after three posts. LOL

What a baby. Grow up for fuck's sake, boy(d)

#41 | Posted by goatman at 2010-01-25 12:39 AM | Reply | Flag

You need to take a closer look at yourself before accusing others of childish behavior, and being a baby.

If it is a kite and unidentified---it is a UFO.

So for this thread you are using the literal meaning of UFO. In other threads you have chastised someone using the literal usage of UFO and saying something like, "You know I mean extraterrestrial". You would give yourself more credibility if you were consistent, bOoB.

So bOoB has entered the spam phase of the thread. The frustration in dealing with the truth came a little earlier than usual didn't it, bOoB? LOL

Spam away, bro. That's what losers do.

Goatman
When you can talk like an adult you will be treated like an adult. You simply call names and lie. Your #21 post is a complete lie. I have never said any such thing---ever. Grow up. Learn to discuss in an adult manner, and get back to me.

Learn to discuss in an adult manner, and get back to me.

Says the guy who rarely posts without the word dummy or condescending remark or spamming the thread. I guess you put on this 'new' face when you can't answer my questions and back up your assertions with logic? Is that how it works? LOL

Be a man for once and admit that you can't dispute what others say. At least it's more honest than pretending to be offended by being called bOoB, bOoB.

How do you think they got it to appear so far away and to move so fast?

Remember, that's fast relative to a fixed background. A kite at 100m will have the same apparent motion as a supersonic aircraft at several km. Batshit Bob apparently forgets that we're floating around in three spatial dimensions.

I remember reading a paper once on target ranging in WW II submarines (odd, but it was kinda interesting). One of the 'tricks' they used for determining range of an object was the apparent size in the periscope. If you know that an Soryu class aircraft carrier is XXX-ft/yards/meters long, then you can use the apparent size in the scope to determine distance with some degree of accuracy. If you don't know the size of the object, then determining distance becomes a guessing game.

Sounds like the same thing in the video. We don't know the zoom settings of the camera (which would help determine range & size), we don't know the size of the object ... and without good range/size then apparent speed is another guessing game.

Zombiehunter

I guess you think this thread is about me----it isn't. Goatman thinks the thread is about him--it isn't. You seem to think that zooming in on an object has no bearing on its distance, you are mistaken.

There are severalfactors visible in the video that indicate the distance of the object. First, there is an aircraft's blinking light clearly visible without a zoom. Unless you think that aircraft is flying 100 feet above the camera, it gives an indication of being several thousand feet away. Next, the camera is shown to zoom in to its extreme capability, another indication that the object is even further away than the aircraft. In the extreme close up, the object can be seen to be
moving rapidly against a starry background. An object thousands of feet away that moves past the star field that fast gives an indication of its speed, especially when compared to the aircraft in the beginning of the bideo which is shown to be closer, and not moving vast the visible star very fast at all. Last, there can be seen telephone or electrical cables that appear large in the viewing field on extreme zoom, which gives another indication as to how far away the object is. Of course if you think this is a kite 100m away, I would be glad to hear your reasoning, and you should mark the Hoaxer box. Or you can go back to your name calling childish behavior like Goatman. But until you can talk like an adult, you are to be ignored.

Sounds like the same thing in the video. We don't know the zoom settings of the camera (which would help determine range & size), we don't know the size of the object ... and without good range/size then apparent speed is another guessing game.

#26 | Posted by AKat at 2010-01-26 11:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

True on all counts. There is no way to tell exactly how far away it is or how large it is. But in this case exact measurements aren't necessary. What we can tell is that it is much further away than the airplane, and that airplanes typically fly pretty high. We can tell that the object is moving much faster than the plane, since the plane is shown to be moving slowly against the visible star in the backgoung, and the object is moving very fast against the stars in its background at a far greater distance. The last is the size. If the object were 3 feet by 4 feet, I doubt even zooming in from several thousand feet away would allow us to see it. If it were hundreds of feet long, I doubt we would need a zoom to see it. At extreme zoom, the object seems small, so I estimate it to be about the size of a jet. But there are no blinking lights, and the light pattern is not like any other aircraft I have seen, and the object is moving very fast, as shown by the star field behind it. Did you vote on what you think it is?

What we can tell is that it is much further away than the airplane,

I keep asking. You keep ignoring. But that's fine. Your refusal to answer indicates the lack of conviction you have in your statement. So allow me to allow you to ignore it again:

How can you tell it is further away than the airplane? How can yoiu tell it is moving fast? (absolute, not relative speed). HOw big is it? To know one, you HAVE to have at least one non-variable. It is impossible to determine any of those without one of them being known. So either you know the size of the object (if so, how big is it and how did you determine it?) the distance it is from the camera (if so, what is the distance and how did you determine it?) or the speed it is moving (if so, how fast is it going and how did you determine it?) And remember, it is algebraically impossible to say, "I know it is x meters away because it is moving y mps and I know that it is moving y mps because it is x meters distant"

So tell us what the constant is in your equation, please.

I love making you look ignorant, bOoB. LOL I hope I get to ask for a fifth time so you can ignore it again. I'd rather have silence for an answer as it is a certain indication that you don't know and that you are making wild suppositions you pulled out of your ass.

Bob,

You're not taking the brightness of the lights involved. The bright light of the passing plane will appear closer than the dim lighting on the object when the operator 'zooms' in and out.

Hey...It's the Goat and Bob show!

It's a UFO. There is not enough data to identify this object. Interesting footage. Need more data to correlate it. Speculate all you want you can't determine anything from here.

Spud! Joust? Asteroids? If only I could all those quarters back. I could retire now.

You're not taking the brightness of the lights involved. The bright light of the passing plane will appear closer than the dim lighting on the object when the operator 'zooms' in and out.

#30 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2010-01-26 12:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Who is to say that the lights of the object are dimmer than that of the plane? They may appear dimmer because they are further away. Did you vote yet?

Well, bOoB, still waiting to hear what the one known constant of your speed/size/distance equation is.

Don't know even one of them? Then it is impossible to know the rest.

You are too gullible, bOoB. You'll believe anything as long as it is wacked out enough, won't you?

However, this object was shown to be far away by the zooming in of the lens---it was invisible until zoomed in on, and invisible again when zoomed out.

You argue against yourself, bOoB. Your argument indicates the object is close, not far as you claim. Point a zoom lens sset at the lower focal length at something far away like a star. Now zoom in to max focal length. Does the star look any bigger? Now point at something closer and do the same. Did the object appear closer unlike the further star? Of course it did.

IOW, the closer an object is, the larger its angular size at any given focal length of the lens. Any photographer can tell you that. If you think I'm wrong, prove it. I can prove I am right with simple HS trig, but you have in the past demonstrated a complete ignorance of even the most basic math, so I won't waste my time just to have you pooh-pooh it. However, if you step outside and perform my simple experiment, you'll see I'm right without all that "complicated" (LOL) math

You should really think your arguments out before you present hem. Self-contradiction is not a desirable strategy in a debate -- in case you didn't know.

Hay....you guys still arguing over the kite.....?

Bbob, I voted UFO for Unidentified Flying Object. Unless and until we know at least one of the three necessary things (speed, distance, size) there is no way to calculate any of the three accurately.

I knew someone who spent a fair amount of time guarding military aircraft years back. The only thing he would ever admit about experimental flying stuff was that as soon as they left they runway, they turned off all external lights. He did get to see the famed SR-71 taking off and landing in Turkey and thought it was truly breathtaking.

Akat

With that criteria, this couldn't be an experimental aircraft since the lights were on. It couldn't be a regular aircraft because the lights were not blinking, and were in an unknown pattern. Though we can't know the speed, we know it was traveling faster that a closer aircraft against a background star field.

Much faster

we know it was traveling faster that a closer aircraft against a background star field.

Cool. You are giving me a 5th opportunity to show you and the DR how stupid you are. How do you know it is traveling faster than the aircraft?

Let's see -- I point my camera at a commercial jet and move my finger at arm's length in front of the camera and it actually passes the jet! According to bOoB, my finger is moving faster than 550 MPH.

Honestly, bOoB, can't you make it must a little challenging for me? LOL
Still waiting to hear what the single constant in the speed/size/distance equation is, btw.

Bob,

exactly... we don't know the relative brightness of the lights, so we can't judge relative distance of the object and the plane based on the lights alone, which you were doing.

Maybe it's my browser or OS, but I only see the voting results and not a way to vote.

and I tend to agree with the "you know what I mean" where UFO is interpreted as an extraterrestrial craft, and not the generic unidentified flying object it originally meant. I can't say with a high certainty it's a kite, but I'd vote kite like object.

Nothing beyond the normal means of explanation. I see very low flying, small object. It has the illusion of speed due to this size/height proximity to the camera and the still starfield. That's what I think I'm seeing there at least. lock down a variable and my opinion could change.

I can't say with a high certainty it's a kite, but I'd vote kite like object.

#40 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2010-01-26 02:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

I could accept the kite like object, except for the apparent speed of the object. It seems to be moving very fast in relation to the background stars as compared to the speed the aircraft is moving to the background star when it is in frame.

Also, the zoom would make any moving object move slower in relation to the background stars, and the zoom has been shown to be several thousand feet, because without the zoom an aircraft is seen that must be several thousand feet away.

I don't know why you can't vote, it must be a glitch. Usually, you get a vote, and then it always shows the results without showing the voting option again.

and the zoom has been shown to be several thousand feet, because without the zoom an aircraft is seen that must be several thousand feet away.

It has? How did you determine that?

Oh, you made it up? You don't have any idea and you pulled the several thousand feet number out of your ass? Just what I thought.

What a bOoB, but thanks for the opportunity to prove you a ly ing idiot who makes up things to suit his story.

Gonna give me another chance to do it? Can we go for six times? I love rubbing your nose in the dirt! LOL

I don't know why you can't vote,

???

So do what you always do --- make something up! LOL

#41 Bbob> and the zoom has been shown to be several thousand feet,

Nope. In post #27 you said "Next, the camera is shown to zoom in to its extreme capability," but that is a guess on your part. Yes, it appears to be zooming in, but how much can not be determined (once again, we need an object of known size/speed/distance to work out the rest).

> because without the zoom an aircraft is seen that must be several thousand feet away.

We can only guess that because we know the average size of a jet airliner (I'm ASSUMING it's a passenger carrying jet ... could be a bit larger or a bit smaller). That still does not tell us if the object in question is larger than the jet because we cannot tell from the video if it is closer to the camera than the jet or farther from the camera than the jet. I see no reason the object could not be a four-inch diamond shape and the video would not tell us otherwise.

In post #28 you said, "If it were hundreds of feet long, I doubt we would need a zoom to see it." Again, distance comes into play. I know someone who took a fabulous shot of the space shuttle docked at the ISS when it came overhead. It took a decent telescope and a good DSLR camera to produce a tiny, fuzzy, but easily recognizable image of an object several hundred miles overhead.

Addendum to post #44:

Bbob, here is an example of what I was talking about, the ISS photographed from earth with the sun as the background.

Akat

The size of the aircraft in the first frames is not important--whether it is a two seater prop or a passenger liner. The important part is that it is a plane, and planes fly at several thousand feet. That being a starting point, it is logical to conclude that the object in question is several thousand MORE feet away since a zoom is necessary to see it. Also, it is logical to conclude that the zoom is at its maximum, because it is simply against human nature to use a zoom and not use it to get the most detail out of what you are trying to see. The object is still tiny after max zoom---if the camera had any more capability, the operator would have used it to its fullest.

The aircraft that is seen is moving slowly past the one star visible in its frames, and the object in question is moving past the stars in its frame of field very quickly, so it must be moving MUCH faster than the plane. Think of a person close to you walking in front of several buildings in the background by several hundred yards. The person close to you is seen to pass two buildings in thirty seconds. There is another person a hundred yards further from you, and that person appears to pass in front of ten buildings in the same time. The person further away is traveling faster. That is the case with this scenario. The closer plane isn't moving by its star very fast---the further object is moving by its stars very fast.

In post #28 you said, "If it were hundreds of feet long, I doubt we would need a zoom to see it." Again, distance comes into play. I know someone who took a fabulous shot of the space shuttle docked at the ISS when it came overhead. It took a decent telescope and a good DSLR camera to produce a tiny, fuzzy, but easily recognizable image of an object several hundred miles overhead.

#44 | Posted by AKat at 2010-01-26 04:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think we can rule out various limits to distance. I don't think the aircraft in the first few frames is 100 feet away--I don't think the object we are questioning is in orbit.

Skydiving wingsuit record: Jumpers mistaken for a UFO

#46 Bbob> That being a starting point, it is logical to conclude that the object in question is several thousand MORE feet away since a zoom is necessary to see it.

Nope. You could still have a small object much closer to the camera than the jet ... and it would look exactly like the video shows us. We cannot say definitely one way or the other based on the video.

#46 Bbob> The aircraft that is seen is moving slowly past the one star visible in its frames, and the object in question is moving past the stars in its frame of field very quickly, so it must be moving MUCH faster than the plane.

No. In one of Goatman's posts, he showed that one can move their finger across the sky faster than a jet can move across the sky -- because it depends on the angle of view AND distance from the viewer. An object closer to the camera can quickly traverse from horizon to horizon without being faster than an object farther away from the camera that actually has a higher speed. Again, without knowing speed/size/distance one cannot reach the logical conclusions you are attempting.

#47 Bbob> I think we can rule out various limits to distance. I don't think the aircraft in the first few frames is 100 feet away--I don't think the object we are questioning is in orbit

LOL!! We'll agree on that. Well, if the UFO was in orbit it was going incredibly faster than any manmade object and was incredibly huge too.

#48 | Posted by STIRSUMUP at 2010-01-26 04:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you really think your examples look like the video in question? Your kites are all going back and forth, and need no zoom--none of them track across the sky to the horizon in a relatively straight line

Skydiving wingsuit record: Jumpers mistaken for a UFO

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk

#49 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2010-01-26 04:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Until they were identified--they were UFO's.

"If it were hundreds of feet long, I doubt we would need a zoom to see it. No wonder you called it MicroSoft"

-That's what Mrs. Gates said.

I saw a UFO once... Really... until it landed.

Turned out to be a water heater from the trailer park next door - they were trying to replicate a Mythbusters episode.

I love NC>

"If it is a kite and unidentified---it is a UFO."

So for this thread you are using the literal meaning of UFO. In other threads you have chastised someone using the literal usage of UFO and saying something like, "You know I mean extraterrestrial". You would give yourself more credibility if you were consistent, bOoB.
#21 | Posted by goatman at 2010-01-26 07:18 AM

Are you willing to label the thing an extra-terrestrial craft? As in, you can believe that such a thing exists and are seen by people?

I saw 4th Kind the other night - if that footage is real it's obviously implying an alien project. That's what it implies, not what it means.

Using scientific reproducibility isn't possible in the sense of what's somewhat obvious about the nature of alien contact (the secrecy for one) isn't entirely explaining anything particularly useful. We need to extrapolate, envision and squeeze our itty-bitty beans together and formulate the best possible explanations from our common resources - each other. An "official" scientific inquiry is the only thing inhibiting further public study because our military deny their existence?

"they were trying to replicate a Mythbusters episode."

Or making meth.

Zat,

Hmmm.... could be.... We've become accustomed to things exploding in the TP. I'm counting the days until NC sees another tornado.

46 Bbob> That being a starting point, it is logical to conclude that the object in question is several thousand MORE feet away since a zoom is necessary to see it.

Nope. You could still have a small object much closer to the camera than the jet ... and it would look exactly like the video shows us. We cannot say definitely one way or the other based on the video.

The aircraft at the begining of the video shows a clear precise point of light. If the object in question were closer, the lights would be clear and precise also, and there would be more definition of the object.

#46 Bbob> The aircraft that is seen is moving slowly past the one star visible in its frames, and the object in question is moving past the stars in its frame of field very quickly, so it must be moving MUCH faster than the plane.

No. In one of Goatman's posts, he showed that one can move their finger across the sky faster than a jet can move across the sky -- because it depends on the angle of view AND distance from the viewer. An object closer to the camera can quickly traverse from horizon to horizon without being faster than an object farther away from the camera that actually has a higher speed. Again, without knowing speed/size/distance one cannot reach the logical conclusions you are attempting.

I agree that one can easily move their finger across the sky faster than a jet can fly, and it does depend on the angle of view and distance. In this case, I conclude that the object in question is further away than the plane. If you give the plane the position of your finger, it should be moving faster than the object behind it if both were planes traveling at approximately the same speed. However, in this scenario the object further away is moving faster---much faster. That would be like moving your finger across the sky and having a jet beat you to the horizon---that would be a FAST moving jet, and that is what we see here. The further object is moving faster across the sky than the nearer object.

#47 Bbob> I think we can rule out various limits to distance. I don't think the aircraft in the first few frames is 100 feet away--I don't think the object we are questioning is in orbit

LOL!! We'll agree on that. Well, if the UFO was in orbit it was going incredibly faster than any manmade object and was incredibly huge too.

It doesn't even have to be in orbit to be shown to be moving incredibly fast. That was the point of whoever posted this was making. "Experts" have said it was moving incredibly fast according to the link. Who the experts are, I don't know. But either this object is moving incredibly fast, it's an optical illusion, a spacecraft, or somebody's hoax. Either it is a good effect, or we are in lots of trouble if it isn't fake.

#50 | Posted by AKat at 2010-01-26 04:50 PM | Reply | Flag

Do you really think your examples look like the video in question? Your kites are all going back and forth, and need no zoom--none of them track across the sky to the horizon in a relatively straight line

#51 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

The videos I posted were all taken near the individuals flying the kites. I suspect the one you posted was taken from a distance upwind or downwind from the individual flying it. At about 500 ft high with about 250 ft of lateral movement.

"Experts" have said it was moving incredibly fast according to the link

Glad you put "experts" in quotes. I have seen the Sun (the American equivalent to the National Enquirer) call a member of a local UFO club an "expert". LOL (that aside, are you admitting that you actually think The Sun has any journalistic integrity? LOL You pretty much clinch your insanity if you are suggesting that.

BTW, still waiting for you to provide that single constant in your speed/size/distance equation. Without it you have nothing to support argument. Literally -- zero to go on. "If you look at the video" is not anything of substance, bOoB.

Waiting on you! LOL

**%)($]}#

did anyone see the video of the balloon boy here in colorado? it looked like that thing was hauling ass across the sky. the helicopter pilot said he was at minimum 1000 feet away per order of the police. in actuality the balloon was only going about 20 miles per hour.

actually the harvested crop fields is what made it look like it was really moving.

The videos I posted were all taken near the individuals flying the kites. I suspect the one you posted was taken from a distance upwind or downwind from the individual flying it. At about 500 ft high with about 250 ft of lateral movement.

#59 | Posted by STIRSUMUP at 2010-01-26 05:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

The object in question has been shown to be thousands of feet away. The aircraft shown that was nearer obviously travled at least 250 feet when in the camera viewing field. Since the object in question was further away, traveling in a straight line, and traveling much faster than the plane, it traveled much further than 250 feet. You have not taken into consideration the stars in the background of both the aircraft and the object in question.

how do you explain the balloon boy then bob. the pilot stated on air he was 1000 feet away, the balloon against a background of harvested fields looked like it was going 100's of miles per hour, maybe faster. then the news studio people explained that because of the close up of the balloon it appeared to be traveling very fast when actually it was going to 20mph. shit when it finally landed a sheriffs deputy caught it.

The object in question has been shown to be thousands of feet away

Once again . . . .

shown by whom?

You can keep saying it over and over, but until you tell how "It has been shown to be. . ." by providing one constant to the size/distance/speed equation, nothing has "been shown". Deal with it, bOoB. We who live in the world of reality will accept nothing less than facts.

But keep repeating it! LOL

Waiting on you

*$="@]&

Sung to Warren Zevon's "Poor, Poor, Pitiful Me":

Well I saw a video with lights
Screamin' to and fro
Don't care what others think
'Cause I know it's a UFO

Poor, poor, poor bOoB,
Poor, poor, pitiful bOoB.
Thinks it's true if it's on youtube
Poor, poor, pitiful bOoB

I don't care about basic math
That 'proves' they are earthly bound
The voices in my head tell me
My logic is perfectly sound

Poor, poor, poor bOoB,
Poor, poor, pitiful bOoB.
Thinks it's true if it's on youtube
Poor, poor, pitiful bOoB

Stick to your day job.
(If you actually have one)

at least he quit calling you punkboy goat, god that was stupid

Bob, you are free to believe what you want. We all have seen things shot on video or still photos that were not real or not an accurate representation of what really happened. I attempted to video the blue flash in the Caribbean in the 90s. Under perfect conditions. We saw it but it barely showed up on film. Things appear different when seen with the naked eye and since all I've seen of this is some poor quality shots I'll leave it to your expert opinion.

actually The article from The Sun is misleading. This was shot in 12/05/08 in Fremont, California. Not in Ireland

"For a hoaxer, it seems a lot of work for little return."

Some hoaxes end up being remarkably simple. And of course many hoaxers do go through a lot of trouble for no return.

Not saying that makes this a hoax. You just can't dismiss that it might. The next UFO sighting that isn't a misidentification or a terrestrial aircraft/natural occurance or a hoax will be the first.

how do you explain the balloon boy then bob. the pilot stated on air he was 1000 feet away, the balloon against a background of harvested fields looked like it was going 100's of miles per hour, maybe faster. then the news studio people explained that because of the close up of the balloon it appeared to be traveling very fast when actually it was going to 20mph. shit when it finally landed a sheriffs deputy caught it.

#65 | Posted by cjk85 at 2010-01-26 05:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

I haven't seen that video, and this thread isn't about that video. Why not post that video and we'll discuss it. Was the balloon moving against a star background? Was the video taken from a stationary point? Did the video have an airplane flying against a star background for comparison? Post the video and let's see what you are talking about.

The next UFO sighting that isn't a misidentification or a terrestrial aircraft/natural occurance or a hoax will be the first.

#71 | Posted by Sully at 2010-01-26 08:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

The man who ran Project Blue Book and was as sure as you are in your statement became a believer. I doubt you have done any investigation at all, and simply believe your point of view because you haven't seen anything. Of course, not looking helps.

actually The article from The Sun is misleading

Pretty much everything from The Sun is erroneous. That's why da bOoB get's most of his stories from them. He has severe allergies to reality.

Was the balloon moving against a star background?

balloon against a background of harvested fields

My guess would be 'no' since stars that close to a harvested field would probably ignite them. (Maybe later on I'll explain how big they are to you, but we'll leave that story for another day) That's how things work in our little corner of the universe we call "reality". Check it out sometime, bOoB.

PS, bOoB -- those of us in the real world are still waiting for word from you or one of your spokesmen in fantasyland on what the constant element is in your size/distance/speed equation.

Waiting on you.

**$+]{^

actually The article from The Sun is misleading. This was shot in 12/05/08 in Fremont, California. Not in Ireland

#70 | Posted by zozz at 2010-01-26 08:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Link?

Link?

I'll bet he provides it after the one you provide to back up your claim that the object is moving very fast and is further away from the cameraman than the jet.

Oh, I forgot, you don't give links -- only demand them.

Link?
I'll bet he provides it after the one you provide to back up your claim that the object is moving very fast and is further away from the cameraman than the jet.
Oh, I forgot, you don't give links -- only demand them.
#78 | Posted by goatman at 2010-01-26 11:45 PM

#79 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2010-01-27 03:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

It looks as if you are correct and that the Sun misspoke. It is interesting that the posts on your link are arguing for the object to be birds rather than a kite. How people can think that the object/birds/kite is a close object is not logical to me. At the end of the video, you can see electrical or telephone wires, and a large tree for perspective. If it is close, it must be very very small.

"#79 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2010-01-27 03:21 AM"

It looks as if you are correct and that the Sun misspoke. It is interesting that the posts on your link are arguing for the object to be birds rather than a kite. How people can think that the object/birds/kite is a close object is not logical to me. At the end of the video, you can see electrical or telephone wires, and a large tree for perspective. If it is close, it must be very very small.
#80 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-01-27 03:36 AM

Saucers do not have an apparent nose, tail or wings. This object follows it's nose. Saucers do not behave in regard to inertia, the object in the video does. Imo, it's probably black ops.

It looks as if you are correct and that the Sun misspoke

No kidding? Color me shocked. Sort of puts your slicin' and dicin' sky fairies into doubt too, doesn't it, bOoB? LOL

How people can think that the object/birds/kite is a close object is not logical to me.

Of course it's not logical to you. You have a very well established record demonstrating your inability to use your brain in a realisitc manner. Because of that major flaw in your head, it is inconcievable that the object is close and gives the appearance of speed.

It must really suck living with such a horrible handicap. I'd rather lose both legs and arms than my mind as you have.

Imo, it's probably black ops.

#81 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2010-01-27 04:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

You may be correct---it makes more sense than birds or a kite. What do you make of the lights? Why have them on?

Let's see -- The Sun lies about the story and da bOoB can't reason or do simple mind geometry.

Don't forget to vote! LOL

What do you make of the lights? Why have them on?

Generally lights on aircraft are used to avoid collision.

Think of all the things you could figure out for yourself if you only had a brain, bOoB.

What do you make of the lights? Why have them on?

Because they didn't know their invisible cloak was on the fritz?

Goatman

True--Lights on aircraft are generally used to avoid collision--so why not have the standard lights on this aircraft to do the same thing and not draw attention to the peculiar pattern? Your thinking is shallow as usual. You bore me with your childich attacks and poor logic. When you can act like an adult, get back to me. You are incapable of debate or logical thinking. You simply lie and throw out childish attacks like your "point" about the lights on this object. To use your words once again.

And I asked you for a promise that you'd respond like and adult and not play your usual games -- a promise you are unwilling to make. Therefore, I am unwilling to engage you.

When you decide to leave your childlike ways behind, let me know and we'll talk. Simple, isn't it? I'm sure this is the part where you go off and cry as you always do when I throw your childishness at near sonic speeds into your face. Now tell us how you are going to bed after three posts. LOL

What a baby. Grow up for fuck's sake, boy(d)

#41 | Posted by goatman at 2010-01-25 12:39 AM | Reply | Flag

so why not have the standard lights on this aircraft...

On what aircraft?

Your thinking is shallow as usual

But accurate. You've yet to accurately dispute one point of mine and I've disputed several of yours such as your inability to prove size, speed, or distance without knowing one of the three.

Waiting on you. LOL

[}($*&

Oh, I get it Dublin California is right to Fremont.

Here you go bob, this should keep you busy.

To use your words once again.

Thank you bOoB, because they certainly apply to someone who is always condescending, constantly calls someone duMMy, and spams all the time. Take a lesson from my words when you post them. LOL

Oh, yea, waiting on you. Simple isn't it?

*]{+#%%

Oh, I get it Dublin California is right to Fremont.

Funny how that acme of journalism, The Sun, has "experts" that say the object was moving fast, but don't have an expert on staff who can place it in the right continent. LOL

I don't know what it is, so it is a UFO. UFO simply means "unidentified flying object." The object has not been identified, so it is a UFO. This does not mean it is flown by aliens, as Bob always seems to suggest.

Given a couple of assumptions, that (1) the object really is at a distance (which it appears to be) and (2) that the object actually exists and hasn't been added via computer (it appears genuine enough), then I have to vote this as a military aircraft. I say that after flying them for 23 years. If you watch the characteristics of the triangle of lights and apply it to current military aircraft, you'd notice that the aircraft is in a high-G left turn (bottom toward the camera) and that near the end of the video, the triangle "flattens out", indicating the aircraft has begun to come wings level as it nears the end of it's turn.

The speed the aircraft is moving is indeterminate without knowing the previously argued range from the camera, but if it was subsonic and used baffled engines, it's possible that there would be limited acoustic signature. What I didn't see was visual indication of jet exhaust as the aircraft pulled away.

Goatman kicked boOb's ass all over another thread.

It's almost as severe as the ass kicking Boob received when he was claiming the cop and the CO found bigfoot.

God damn bob, you're a punching bag.

Mustang---what is your take on the lights of the aircraft? This aircraft seems to be moving at a much higher rate of speed than the much closer aircraft in the beginning of the video. The speed of the object in question was described as "incredible" in the link, and compared with the speed of the closer aircraft, I agree.

The speed of the object in question was described as "incredible" in the link...

And its location was described as Ireland when it was really California. LOL

I don't know what it is, so it is a UFO. UFO simply means "unidentified flying object." The object has not been identified, so it is a UFO. This does not mean it is flown by aliens, as Bob always seems to suggest.

#92 | Posted by JOE at 2010-01-27 10:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

Someone has to take a counter position---that's what makes a discussion. Are you saying that it absolutely could not be aliens? Is that your position?

Someone has to take a counter position---that's what makes a discussion.

#97 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Ok Bob, I think your a sane, rational person....

Bob,

you base assumption that this is far away is based on the comparison of the lights. bright on the plane = close and dim on the object = far.

But you don't know the relative size and brightness of the lights to start.

I could mount very small, very dim lights on a small object...and create exactly what you are seeing.

You claim to always question all angles, but yet you seem unwilling to accept this possibility and dismiss it outright.

I'm not, and therefore the base assumption that this object is 1000's of feet isn't a lock. given the variables there is not enough to say factually that the object is higher than the airplane.

Hell, other than a flashing light in the sky...there isn't enough to say that's a plane, though I am willing to accept that it most likely is.

Are you saying that it absolutely could not be aliens? Is that your position?

Nope. I'm saying it's a UFO, because it is at this point "unidentified." I'm also saying that just because something is "unidentified" does not mean it is aliens. Anything else is just a strawman from you.

you base assumption that this is far away is based on the comparison of the lights. bright on the plane = close and dim on the object = far.

Not at all--I don't know where you get that assumption from. I have stated that the flashing light is on clear focus, and the object in questions' lights are not in focus. But I judge the distance on the ZOOM---not the lights.

But you don't know the relative size and brightness of the lights to start.

There are limits---the size and brightness of the airplanes lights are relatively common and known. The object in question is another matter. However, I think it is safe to assume certain restrictions---the questionable lights are not thousands of feet in diameter, and are not emitting millions of lumens---neither are they tiny LED'S. But the brightness of the lights is not a factor in my judging its distance---the zoom tells me it is far away.

I could mount very small, very dim lights on a small object...and create exactly what you are seeing.

Is that what you are saying is happening here?

You claim to always question all angles, but yet you seem unwilling to accept this possibility and dismiss it outright.

I have questioned this angle, and accept the possibility and do dismiss it. Do you accept that is the situation here? Are you saying there is a small object as close as the airplane with very dim lights, and it is necessary to use a zoom on full power to see it? If that is your point, you need to explain how the stars in the background of the object are seen to be passed very quickly, and the star in the background of the airplane is seen to go past very slowly.

I'm not, and therefore the base assumption that this object is 1000's of feet isn't a lock. given the variables there is not enough to say factually that the object is higher than the airplane.

I say the airplane is thousands of feet high---I haven't said this object was higher than the airplane---I have said this object is further away than the airplane by several thousand feet. I believe the object in question is several thousand feet high, just like the airplane. I doubt seriously that either the airplane or the object is a few hundred feet off the ground. The FAA has rules about how high airplanes can fly in certain areas, and if the object in question were low flying, there would probably have been several other reports and videos of it. I say the object is moving fast because of the speed it passes through the star field as compared to the closer plane and the speed it passes the star in its background. I believe the object is higher than the plane because of lack of corroborating video from other sources, but the height of the object isn't critical to my point about its speed.

Hell, other than a flashing light in the sky...there isn't enough to say that's a plane, though I am willing to accept that it most likely is.

Anything can be dismissed as computer generated.

#99 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2010-01-27 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag

Are you saying that it absolutely could not be aliens? Is that your position?

Nope.

#100 | Posted by JOE at 2010-01-27 04:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

So then---you are saying it could possibly be aliens?

If that is your point, you need to explain how the stars in the background of the object are seen to be passed very quickly, and the star in the background of the airplane is seen to go past very slowly

Um, actually no, bOoB. You keep forgetting, so feel lucky I am here to remind you: It is you making the extraordainary claim. Therefore it is up to you to prove your claim, not for others to disprove it.

And yes, I'll tell you the same thing for the 132nd time if necessary. I understand your memory is really fucked up.

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, and especially a positive claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven

"Imo, it's probably black ops.
#81 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2010-01-27 04:11 AM"

You may be correct---it makes more sense than birds or a kite. What do you make of the lights? Why have them on?
#83 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-01-27 05:53 AM

There are a number of sightings of this craft - if they are lights they coincide with nothing aerial. More than likely used for ground-based operations as the thing hovers or it's designed to abduct airplanes in flight. It's hard to know if black ops they have the same ray technology as the grayliens. Perhaps it a drone and stacks like lego blocks, dunno.

Goatman - you can't be serious - just because the Sun misreported the location doesn't poke any holes in the data itself, merely the Sun's credibility.

So then---you are saying it could possibly be aliens?

Yes, Bob. It could also be a flying spaghetti monster, or a living pack of cigarettes, because I haven't seen what's inside the plane. I suppose anything's possible - but what does the fact that something is "possible" prove?

Nothing.

So then---you are saying it could possibly be aliens?

#102 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-01-27 04:28 PM | Reply

It's possible somebody may visit you in the retirement home, but not at all likely.
Do you see where this is going, BoOb?

da bOoB's 'proof' always seem to include:

I think it is safe to assume
I believe
I doubt seriously
I say
lack of corroborating video

LOL

BTW, do you know how many major airports are near Dublin, CA? (san jose, Oakland, SFO, to name a few) Therefore it is VERY likely there would be low flying aircraft nearby. Look on a map, bOoB.

What an idiot

but what does the fact that something is "possible" prove?

#105 | Posted by JOE at 2010-01-27 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

You are correct---it "proves" nothing. However, it opens up discussions. Would you like to discuss your view that it could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a pack of cigarettes?

Goatman - you can't be serious - just because the Sun misreported the location doesn't poke any holes in the data itself, merely the Sun's credibility.

Exactly. And remind me who is reporting it again? Oh yea, The Sun. LOL

bOoB, still waiting on that ONE constant in the speed/distance/size equation, without which it is literally (get it? -- LITERALLY) impossible to prove speed/distance/size.

Waiting on you! LOL

^#+=]{@**

Would you like to discuss your view that it could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a pack of cigarettes?

About as much as I'd like to discuss your view that it could be aliens.

#101 Bbob> and it is necessary to use a zoom on full power to see it?

Once again, your post has many ASSUMPTIONS that you make.

1. We don't know how far away the UFO is.
2. We don't know how high the UFO is.
3. We don't know the speed of the UFO.
4. We don't know the zoom range of the video camera (or even what kind it is).
5. We don't know how large the UFO is.
6. We don't know the height of the jet -- which as Goatman pointed out, could be rather low due to landing or taking off at a nearby airport.

About as much as I'd like to discuss your view that it could be aliens.

#111 | Posted by JOE at 2010-01-27 04:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Then wouldn't you say that you should have had a nice cup of STFU instead of talking to me?

Once again, your post has many ASSUMPTIONS that you make.

#112 | Posted by AKat at 2010-01-27 04:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

True---and the same could be said for your points. All that can be said is from APPEARANCES. I take things at face value, and factor in the opinions of professionals---in this case Nick Pope.

True---and the same could be said for your points.

Big difference however is he said, "It could be". You are making absolute statements like, "It has been shown to be moving fast" when that hasn't been shown at all .

See the difference?

Without one known and proven constant, you've got nothing, bOoB. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? Just name one of the things akat listed in 112 and you have something to talk about. Until then -- nothing. Sorry.

I take things at face value...

#114 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-01-27 05:01 PM | Reply | Flag Was absolutely certain there were Wookies after seeing Star Wars

"Would you like to discuss your view that it could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a pack of cigarettes?"

About as much as I'd like to discuss your view that it could be aliens.
#111 | Posted by JOE at 2010-01-27 04:49 PM

I don't understand. Do you believe the object is a remote drone operating invisibly to the naked eye yet visible to night-vision? Invisible objects seems like Star Trek compared with the technology involved on September 11th. Perhaps we really do need to re-think everything we understand about warfare, exploration and military intelligence?

Does the idea of "piloted by aliens" make less or more sense when compared with genetically modified pigs or cigarettes? One seems a particularly dangerous habit to the other two. I would never argue my case isn't about questionable intelligence methodology, but somehow aliens can fly star-to-star and want to do what with our bodies? It makes sense that I'd like to understand why the anal probe had to be invented for us. Why not the paradise cherry icecream sundae or an extravagant lunar day spa? But no. Instead, they abduct us in our sleep, perform medical studies involving our privates and continue prevent global military interference of any kind. I'd say that warrants a couple of lingering doubts as to your theory they are a pack of cigarettes. Not ruling it out entirely because I'm going to kick this can a couple more times as a literal sarcastic metaphor for your implied sarcastic metaphor.

The object appears to move unnaturally swift giving the illusion of a radio control toy much closer-up - this might imply frictionless flight, ie UFO. Fremont is near a couple of small landing strips, we had news helicopters, black helicopters and that object appears to be circling into the direction from where the first object (helicopter lights?) had come - a nearby landing strip. At the distance it appears between 18-20k feet, the helicopters at 15-18k. It's large, unless they are all small.

If that first bright object is a commercial flight at it's assigned 30k then the UFO is quite a bit larger.