Sharp low flying UFO in daylight on video - however,

[Creepy Green Light]

During my best daylight sighting, my cameras were in the house, and if I had run in there to grab it, the object would have been gone.

And I could see exactly how that would happen. That's why it makes Paul Trent's case super weak in my opinion. So to date, and correct me if I am wrong, but any structured flying saucer picture that has circulated the rounds since way back when, are known fakes. So what are the chances that Paul Trent is the one guy ever - to capture such pics? People can't accomplish what he did nowadays - when everyone's got a camera in their pocket. Yet we are supposed to believe that Paul Trent saw a flying saucer hovering in the distance above his farm, got startled, but thought to run back in the house, ransack around looking for the camera, finds the camera, makes sure the camera has film in it, runs back outside, and conveniently the flying saucer is pretty much in the same place allowing Trent to get the photos he did? No way (IMO).

But you are right - you'd pretty much have to have the camera right on you - and in the case of that nature photographer in Kansas - that's exactly what happened; he was taking nature photographs and looked up saw a strange triangle craft flying in broad daylight (which is not the B-2);

 

[Dejan Corovic]

And I could see exactly how that would happen. That's why it makes Paul Trent's case super weak in my opinion. So to date, and correct me if I am wrong, but any structured flying saucer picture that has circulated the rounds since way back when, are known fakes. So what are the chances that Paul Trent is the one guy ever - to capture such pics? People can't accomplish what he did nowadays - when everyone's got a camera in their pocket. Yet we are supposed to believe that Paul Trent saw a flying saucer hovering in the distance above his farm, got startled, but thought to run back in the house, ransack around looking for the camera, finds the camera, makes sure the camera has film in it, runs back outside, and conveniently the flying saucer is pretty much in the same place allowing Trent to get the photos he did? No way (IMO).

But you are right - you'd pretty much have to have the camera right on you - and in the case of that nature photographer in Kansas - that's exactly what happened; he was taking nature photographs and looked up saw a strange triangle craft flying in broad daylight (which is not the B-2);
View attachment 4580 View attachment 4581

That pic is so obviously fake. First lighting on the plane is off, highlights and shadows are completely wrong. Second there is a quite a big angle between the line left by contrail and the central axis of the triangle. Third, UFOs don't leave contrails. He just took a pic of an everyday passinger plane and photoshoped some triangle into it.

 

[pepe]

Is Egypt missing a pyramid ?

 

[APIGuy]

And I could see exactly how that would happen. That's why it makes Paul Trent's case super weak in my opinion. So to date, and correct me if I am wrong, but any structured flying saucer picture that has circulated the rounds since way back when, are known fakes. So what are the chances that Paul Trent is the one guy ever - to capture such pics? People can't accomplish what he did nowadays - when everyone's got a camera in their pocket. Yet we are supposed to believe that Paul Trent saw a flying saucer hovering in the distance above his farm, got startled, but thought to run back in the house, ransack around looking for the camera, finds the camera, makes sure the camera has film in it, runs back outside, and conveniently the flying saucer is pretty much in the same place allowing Trent to get the photos he did? No way (IMO).

But you are right - you'd pretty much have to have the camera right on you - and in the case of that nature photographer in Kansas - that's exactly what happened; he was taking nature photographs and looked up saw a strange triangle craft flying in broad daylight (which is not the B-2);
View attachment 4580 View attachment 4581

I believe that one has been tentatively identified as a stealth bomber in development. I recall the posts on it by the aviation geeks, who were very excited. The contrail makes it clear this is a conventional, if advanced, aircraft.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

That pic is so obviously fake. First lighting on the plane is off, highlights and shadows are completely wrong. Second there is a quite a big angle between the line left by contrail and the central axis of the triangle. Third, UFOs don't leave contrails. He just took a pic of an everyday passinger plane and photoshoped some triangle into it.

The photos and object are real. And yes, it is a UFO - just by definition alone. It is a flying object, and there is no such object with that shape that we, the general public know about. But you already knew what UFO stood for.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

I believe that one has been tentatively identified as a stealth bomber in development. I recall the posts on it by the aviation geeks, who were very excited. The contrail makes it clear this is a conventional, if advanced, aircraft.

Correct, its very man made. My only point was that a guy that's not interested in UFO's was in fact taking nature photographs when he noticed something in the sky - that's how he got the pictures.

 

[Thomas R. Morrison]

And I could see exactly how that would happen. That's why it makes Paul Trent's case super weak in my opinion. So to date, and correct me if I am wrong, but any structured flying saucer picture that has circulated the rounds since way back when, are known fakes. So what are the chances that Paul Trent is the one guy ever - to capture such pics? People can't accomplish what he did nowadays - when everyone's got a camera in their pocket. Yet we are supposed to believe that Paul Trent saw a flying saucer hovering in the distance above his farm, got startled, but thought to run back in the house, ransack around looking for the camera, finds the camera, makes sure the camera has film in it, runs back outside, and conveniently the flying saucer is pretty much in the same place allowing Trent to get the photos he did? No way (IMO).

But you are right - you'd pretty much have to have the camera right on you - and in the case of that nature photographer in Kansas - that's exactly what happened; he was taking nature photographs and looked up saw a strange triangle craft flying in broad daylight (which is not the B-2);
View attachment 4580 View attachment 4581

Correct, its very man made. My only point was that a guy that's not interested in UFO's was in fact taking nature photographs when he noticed something in the sky - that's how he got the pictures.

Sure but this is one of those cases where the exception proves the rule.

The photographer, Jeff Templin, just happened to have a camera in his hand with a 400mm telephoto lens on it - no smartphone can hold a candle to that kind of long-range resolving power. And given its height and terrestrial nature, it would be moving slow enough to get it into focus and take some reasonably clear pics.

Now imagine if that airplane were at a similar altitude but moving at hypersonic velocity, with no contrail. It would take a miracle to zoom in on it and get a clear shot before it was gone - if you noticed it at all.

So to date, and correct me if I am wrong, but any structured flying saucer picture that has circulated the rounds since way back when, are known fakes.

I don't know what qualifies as "circulated the rounds," but this has to be an overstatement.

For one thing, people like Philip Klass have been making a name for themselves by claiming that every UFO photo or report ever made, was a fake/hoax. So any case which grabbed any attention, is leapt upon by people like this. Ergo, for every case, there's somebody out there calling it a hoax. Does that mean that it is a hoax? In some cases, I'm sure they're right - lots of people are aholes and will hoax anything. But in other cases, they could be wrong. People like Klass tend to be total fanatics who will resort to lies and subterfuge to prevail in a debate.

So there's a difference between cases that have been proven to be a hoax, and cases that have been alleged to be a hoax. If the allegation is sufficient to qualify for dismissal, then yeah you're not going to find any photo or case that hasn't been called a hoax by somebody out to make a name for themselves as a "debunker."

When I dig through photo inventories like this one, I think it's quite likely that at least some of them depict genuinely anomalous structured craft - but I'm not a photo analyst so I have no idea which ones are legit and which ones aren't (and even photo analysts have been shown to make wrong assessments, so ultimately we're all groping in the dark):

The Best UFO Pictures Ever Taken, Page 6, 2000-2003

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Sure but this is one of those cases where the exception proves the rule.

The photographer, Jeff Templin, just happened to have a camera in his hand with a 400mm telephoto lens on it - no smartphone can hold a candle to that kind of long-range resolving power. And given its height and terrestrial nature, it would be moving slow enough to get it into focus and take some reasonably clear pics.

Now imagine if that airplane were at a similar altitude but moving at hypersonic velocity, with no contrail. It would take a miracle to zoom in on it and get a clear shot before it was gone - if you noticed it at all.

Agreed. My point is only there should be SOME - at least a handful of photo's where you can make out a structured craft (as in the Kansas photos). But the only pictures of structured flying saucers to date are fakes. The numbers don't ad up; there's been a bajillion sightings/stories/abductions etc. and there isn't one legit picture. Something doesn't add up. I'm saying there should at least be one.

 

[Thomas R. Morrison]

Agreed. My point is only there should be SOME - at least a handful of photo's where you can make out a structured craft (as in the Kansas photos). But the only pictures of structured flying saucers to date are fakes. The numbers don't ad up; there's been a bajillion sightings/stories/abductions etc. and there isn't one legit picture. Something doesn't add up. I'm saying there should at least be one.

I just appended my last response while you were posting this reply (you've got me digging through UFO photo archives now, haha).

Like I was saying, I think there must be some genuine photos out there, and probably a few legit videos as well. But anything compelling is going to be called a hoax by somebody - but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

I'm probably in the minority on this one, but that object in the FLIR footage released by TTSA looks weird to me; that could be an actual AAV. The guys at Metabunk argue that it's a jet seen from the rear, but I've never seen a jet bank all sudden and jerky like that - it looks more like a rotation to me, as the pilot described at the time. Granted, it's a crappy image, but it sure looks "off" to me.

They say that a couple of dozen more DoD clips are working their way through the declassification pipeline now - perhaps by this time next year we'll have the kind of sharp and compelling video evidence that we'd all like to see. If anybody has that kind of thing, it's the military - those $3M gun camera pods are ideally suited for collecting that kind of evidence. The trick is going to be getting them to share it with us.

 

[APIGuy]

Agreed. My point is only there should be SOME - at least a handful of photo's where you can make out a structured craft (as in the Kansas photos). But the only pictures of structured flying saucers to date are fakes. The numbers don't ad up; there's been a bajillion sightings/stories/abductions etc. and there isn't one legit picture. Something doesn't add up. I'm saying there should at least be one.

I agree it is puzzling, but we need to examine the assumptions carefully - I'm not aware anyone has done this properly. There are for example, at least two points at which bias creeps in - in the sampling of photos or videos made public (a small subset of the total, in my experience), and then the sampling of these which any one commentator has seen (again a subset, and probably a small one). Part of the problem is the sheer volume. If you go through the MUFON database, you will see countless images and videos, nearly all of which are of poor quality or are obviously explainable - birds, lens flare, Chinese lanterns, etc.

Of the good photographic cases, I have at least four, but these aren't Hollywood flying saucers. They are barely more than specs, and they aren't doing impressive maneuvers. I recently had a 2017 case in which there were two such specs, but two separate, independent and credible photographers, which is rare. Not highly strange, but highly probable.

Witnesses tell me the same thing over and over, including a 2017 case in which a couple in Utah saw a structured craft fly straight overhead. They stood there rooted, not thinking to try to get a picture. If they had, it would probably have been overexposed, as nocturnal light pictures nearly always are.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

I just appended my last response while you were posting this reply (you've got me digging through UFO photo archives now, haha).

Like I was saying, I think there must be some genuine photos out there, and probably a few legit videos as well. But anything compelling is going to be called a hoax by somebody - but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

I'm probably in the minority on this one, but that object in the FLIR footage released by TTSA looks weird to me; that could be an actual AAV. The guys at Metabunk argue that it's a jet seen from the rear, but I've never seen a jet bank all sudden and jerky like that - it looks more like a rotation to me, as the pilot described at the time. Granted, it's a crappy image, but it sure looks "off" to me.

They say that a couple of dozen more DoD clips are working their way through the declassification pipeline now - perhaps by this time next year we'll have the kind of sharp and compelling video evidence that we'd all like to see. If anybody has that kind of thing, it's the military - those $3M gun camera pods are ideally suited for collecting that kind of evidence. The trick is going to be getting them to share it with us.

I do wish that someone gets Billy Meier-like quality of a flying saucer but have it be the real deal instead of a model on a string. Also, I can't speak for all military aircraft and their camera systems - but the plane I flew in (which was hardly new at all) captured quality like this (see below), so I'm not sure why the video from TTSA is so crappy.

 

[Thomas R. Morrison]

I do wish that someone gets Billy Meier-like quality of a flying saucer but have it be the real deal instead of a model on a string. Also, I can't speak for all military aircraft and their camera systems - but the plane I flew in (which was hardly new at all) captured quality like this (see below), so I'm not sure why the video from TTSA is so crappy.

In an interview a few weeks ago, the USS Nimitz CSG radar operator named Trevor described the gun camera footage that they saw following an intercept attempt, and he said that they could very clearly see a domed craft with a flat bottom, and the footage showed the craft changing position so quickly that the transition wasn't visible. Evidently it would require a high-speed camera to capture the motion of the craft that he saw in that footage.

So the DoD has that footage. God only knows how many clear pics, videos, and films that they have of these things.

The TTSA footage is so crappy precisely because that footage has zero intelligence value. That's why it was declassified for public release.

The problem with showing us the good stuff, where the craft are clearly visible, is two-fold:

1.) A close examination of that kind of footage could provide critical clues to the operation of the field propulsion system, which our geopolitical adversaries might benefit from as they attempt to replicate those capabilities. This is a very serious and legitimate concern - a lot of very useful information could potentially be extracted from clear footage of these things in operation, and if that information helps Russia or Iran or anyone else that we're not on friendly terms with, replicate these kinds of performance characteristics, then they could use it to develop a warhead delivery system that would vastly outperform our best defensive technologies. Imagine how dangerous it would be if one of our foes suddenly got first strike capability.

2.) People would be scared shitless if they saw an alien craft radically outmaneuvering our top jet interceptors. It's one thing to hear about it - it's another thing to see the irrefutable proof that the DoD is totally powerless to defend us against a foreign adversary of any kind. And it's especially terrifying if that foreign adversary isn't even human. I don't know if people are ready to face that. If it were up to me, I'd start by releasing some blurry and disputable video clips, and very slowly provide slightly clearer footage over a long term program, to see how well people acclimate to it. And if people didn't freak out, I'd show them slightly clearer and better footage, incrementally, and ease off once people started to get nervous. Perhaps that's what's happening right now - the first steps of that program.

 

[Dejan Corovic]

2.) People would be scared shitless if they saw an alien craft radically outmaneuvering our top jet interceptors. It's one thing to hear about it - it's another thing to see the irrefutable proof that the DoD is totally powerless to defend us against a foreign adversary of any kind. And it's especially terrifying if that foreign adversary isn't even human. I don't know if people are ready to face that. If it were up to me, I'd start by releasing some blurry and disputable video clips, and very slowly provide slightly clearer footage over a long term program, to see how well people acclimate to it. And if people didn't freak out, I'd show them slightly clearer and better footage, incrementally, and ease off once people started to get nervous. Perhaps that's what's happening right now - the first steps of that program.

That is exactly it. Gov. is just keeping an interest alive, so that it is not too much of suprise if one day everything is released.

Problem is us, not the aliens. At least half of people would rise a question of teritorial soverngty and ask aliens to ask for permission to enter country's airspace. It's prety certain aliens would just laugh at that, because that would restrict their acces to populated areas they are intersted in. They are so technologically supperior they don't expect to ask for anybody's permissions. There is a constant conflict of interests, at least till the time that we can match their technologicall capabilities.

 

[Thomas R. Morrison]

That is exactly it. Gov. is just keeping an interest alive, so that it is not too much of suprise if one day everything is released.

Problem is us, not the aliens. At least half of people would rise a question of teritorial soverngty and ask aliens to ask for permission to enter country's airspace. It's prety certain aliens would just laugh at that, because that would restrict their acces to populated areas they are intersted in. They are so technologically supperior they don't expect to ask for anybody's permissions. There is a constant conflict of interests, at least till the time that we can match their technologicall capabilities.

I'll have to disagree on one point: we don't have to match their technological capabilities in order to force them to the negotiating table - we just need a mechanism to knock them out of the sky. And that might be a whole lot easier than we think. If we can understand even the most basic aspects of their propulsion technology, then we should be able to figure out a way to defend against it. Imagine, for example, an area-of-effect weapon like a somewhat focused EMP, or even a high-power wide-angle laser. No physical technology is immune to all manner of attack, especially if the defensive weapon on hand propagates at the speed of light and delivers a high magnitude of disruptive power. Nothing is impervious. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we've already gotten lucky a couple of times, and brought a few of these babies down.

But that's not sufficient. What we need to do, imo, is to place broadcasting beacons in orbit that explicitly provide an official channel to gain authorized access to our airspace, plus an array of effective defensive measures in place to enforce that official channel of access.

Then we'd be in a position to defend our airspace, while preserving a civilized contact protocol to avoid conflict with alien races that could probably wipe us all out with the push of a button.

 

[Dejan Corovic]

I'll have to disagree on one point: we don't have to match their technological capabilities in order to force them to the negotiating table - we just need a mechanism to knock them out of the sky. And that might be a whole lot easier than we think.

Yeah, lets play geopolitics (as some ufologists call it).

OK, so we knock them out of with strong radar beams. So what? That is exactly like bLack Africans shooting arrows at European colonists. Africans shot arrows, colonists responded with rifles, cannons and even Gatling guns.

They are here for some reason. If that reason is strong, they won't accept being interrupted by somebody much weaker than themselves. Europeans wanted industrial commodities from Africa, so that was a strong reason and arrows were not enough. If reason is weak, arrows would be a plenty, aliens would just leave and come back later, when we would have grown up a little more or when they can do some serious business with us, like trade, partnership in war etc.

Anyhow, the reason why they are here seems to be weak. They are obviously not extracting ore or not setting up some highly polluting industries they don't want at their own planet. It seems they are here mostly to do science, remotely possibly to genetically manipulate us into something they want, but that's a guess from a wild alley.

But than, what do we know. There is a remote possibility that we might as well be some kind of clones aliens developed for their own purposes. That would make their reason very strong. But that is unlikely, because apparently there is more than 50 species of aliens reported. They would start quarreling over to whose liking should clones be made. At any rate it's difficult to say.

The only real way to deal with aliens is to give them open access everywhere (because you can't stop them anyway) and work hard on developing commercial and cultural relationship. We can manufacture things for them and then buy from them their low tech stuff. We can offer them space-port facilities to replenish their ships and rest their crews etc. There is plenty mutually beneficial stuff we can do. Both our business, science and culture can enormously benefit from that exchange.

Let's say that in 20th century we developed more wealth than in all previous centuries combined multiplied by 10. If right today we established cooperative exchange with aliens, in the next 100 years, we would advance our wealth ten times faster than in 20th century. By the end of 21st century we would be 1,000 years ahead in wealth, science, culture etc. etc, not just 100. Some of us will be even sent as envoys and be able to pass on how other civilizations live so our soap operas and reality TV would improve imensly.

Defending some countrys territory is right down stupid animalism, when on other hand one has a whole universe to dig into.

For aliens we are their past. For us aliens are our future. Both sides can only benefit from each other.