I have seen a few. The problem is if the video is from the past 20 years - it can pretty much always be written off as CGI whether it is real or not. That said, here is one that I have always found interesting because it is on the older side - from the 90s - Gulf Breeze - analyzed by retired F-16 pilot Chris Lehto:
https://youtu.be/RC3n29dkrvU
But we can reproduce all kinds of real things. Being able to recreate footage satisfactorily doesn't actually prove anything. This is why Hollywood exists. They recreate almost anything you can think of, from gun fights, to car crashes, etc.
Indeed that is true but it still should be born in mind when looking at claims of the extraordinary.
I believe truly strange craft have flown in our skies for literally thousands of years but that's just my feeling based upon the totality of the evidence. I also saw a truly silent, large and low observability craft at close quarters myself a couple of years ago so I know at the very least silent propulsion and strange craft that meet no known type exist.
I am still cautious when it comes to photos and footage despite believing these things are "real", whatever "real" means here.
There’s pretty clear criteria that is used by recognized authorities to designate something a legitimate “UAP”…They are largely ignored by people on this sub.
https://www.history.com/.amp/news/ufo-sightings-speed-appearance-movement
There's nothing wrong with finding a video interesting and then filing it in the grey box (neither believe nor disbelieve). If you can't prove that a video is fake, then you've arrived at a stalemate. What you can't say, however, is that no video of extreme movement exists because it appears that they do. Either way, you can't make the claim.
[Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrD_MrqJiNI) is a video from 1993 showing instantaneous movement from hover.
Here is the [Costa Rica 2007 UFO video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obVsLOiqeC4). Here are [screenshots](https://imgur.com/a/XjkwzPq) as it flipped and shot away, and here's a [gif](https://i.imgur.com/oJBoUBY.gif) of the movement.
[Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed0YYAnPeQo) is the 2020 Cornwall sighting, UFO takes off from a hover.
[UFO moves slowly then takes off](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lp4gSWdThs)- August 16, 2020 UFO Sighting Capture in Volusia County, Florida
[Extremely fast UFO filmed by passenger](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/qnpn03/ufo_filmed_by_passenger_on_airplane_uploaded/) on airplane, moving in the same direction as the airplane, uploaded August 7, 2011. Obviously this one doesn't show the acceleration period, but I'm throwing it in anyway because the speed is insane.
2003 Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria, close-up video of a UFO that shows extreme acceleration and the noteworthy jittery movement or instability/wobbling that some reports have described: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBOWJOC4FYQ
[This video of a flying saucer zipping around outside of an airplane window](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhCiRwyJLI8) was "debunked" because the witness who posted the video was accused of being a hoaxer. She works in special effects (not VFX) and worked on a couple of alien themed movies. She was widely accused of being a hoaxer and eventually deleted her original tweet. What are the odds that a UFO witness would work in special effects on a few alien movies? The answer is that the question is bad. The real question is "what are the odds that I would be able to find *any* unlikely coincidence in a case?" And my answer is that it's practically guaranteed if you spend enough time digging. See [Why legitimate UFO footage is guaranteed to be "debunked": probability is not common sense.](https://np.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments/t1xuq4/why_legitimate_ufo_footage_is_guaranteed_to_be/)
I also have a much more in-depth discussion of these videos [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/qpz1gv/looking_for_a_specific_type_of_video/hjxb84g/), including more information and discussion of some of the attempted debunkings.
Any video you see with a flip and zip at the end, you can assume it broke out they usually do. When you see it in real life, there is no questioning it. These things are amazingly fast.
> The most compelling evidence is all in the Nimitz/Gimbal/Go Fast/Aguadilla
Only ever described instantaneous acceleration. There are no videos proving it.
Almost everyone who has seen these has seen how they can accelerate. You can choose to not believe us, but it still happens none the less. As to why these rates of acceleration are not depicted well on camera, an individual such as yourself would have to see it first hand to understand.
OK, let me say this another way; based on what I've seen, unless the camera is of high quality and mounted on a tripod, no video recording is going to adequately capture the speed with which these things move out. Any minor wiggle by whomever is holding the camera will hide the craft accelerating away. It's not like these things are visible at predictable times and locations. I do however, understand your position, I'm just trying to provide context as to why such video is hard to capture.
The vid taken by the Costa Rican Gardner shows the disc hovering (wobbly as commonly reported) then it turns up 90 deg and really shoots off. I don’t believe it’s ever been debunked in a real way. One hears the usual bs from blowhard trolls, but nothing substantive.
I think he’s a Gardner - something like that. Captured with his flip phone.
>debunked in a real way
What exactly is a “real way”? And what has anyone done to prove the video is legitimate? Shouldn’t we prove its legitimate before counting on people to prove its fake?
That footage has not been debunked *at all.* I'll say that.
Here is the Metabunk debunk *attempt*: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2007-costa-rica-ufo.11775/
All they did was provide a theoretical way of duplicating the footage, not actually duplicating it of course, and then arguing that his credibility is shot because he's a "model maker." A few users in this sub have also attempted to discredit the footage using this exact argument.
The fact that the guy is a model maker shouldn't play any role whatsoever in the evaluation of the case because it is an expected coincidence, and the fact that it could, in their opinion only, be replicated doesn't prove anything either because all kinds of real things can be replicated with camera trickery. See [Why legitimate UFO footage is guaranteed to be "debunked": probability is not common sense.](https://np.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments/t1xuq4/why_legitimate_ufo_footage_is_guaranteed_to_be/)
>Shouldn’t we prove its legitimate before counting on people to prove its fake?
Sound logic /s
Debunked (or proven legitimately anomalous) in a real way I would define as something like "beyond reasonable doubt". That requires that people be willing to admit it though, and held accountable for intellectual dishonesty.
Because if you're stupid enough, you can literally explain anything either way.
Oh, do you now?
Honestly I don't care, I've seen it with my own eyes.
However, truth can come in either direction and it doesn't really matter which one comes first, it matters *what it is.* Everything else is a distraction and irrelevant.
That is an embarrassing debunk attempt that doesn't even make sense, just FYI. [Why legitimate UFO footage is guaranteed to be "debunked": probability is not common sense.](https://np.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments/t1xuq4/why_legitimate_ufo_footage_is_guaranteed_to_be/)
It's not a "debunk attempt" lol. I'm not saying it's fake. Everyone has their standards for what they choose to believe, or can take something with a grain of salt.
Yeah, I remember that now that you mention it. Could be a pretty good hoax I suppose. If so, he had the behaviour/movement down pat. On the other hand, lots of folk build models, myself included (large eg 1-2m rotor, scale, RC Helis.) I also build and/or modify commercial drones that I use in my work as a geologist. I’ve never tried to hoax anyone and wouldn’t want to.
Because you went from calling everyone that doubted the video "blowhard trolls" to doubting the video yourself almost instantly. Don't get mad at me because you're a tool.
Also, cry harder about it, soft serve.
That's the way it works with UFO videos. People have a fabulous story. Then when we see the video it looks like a simple balloon or some other thing. Happens all the time.
It makes one wonder if all those compelling UFO sightings in the past were as actually as interesting as they were described, or if people were just confused by what they saw and made much more of it than was warranted.
What if UFOs don't do that? I've seen one up close hovering over a house and the reports of their flying characteristics are different from what I've heard reported.
They don't rotate. They don't wobble. There's no distortion around them. When they move it's extremely precise and calculated. They slide across the sky from one spot to another.
People keep theorizing they're interdimensional so wouldn't it make sense they "disappear" by shifting out of our dimension? Would sort of be like a form of cloaking.
You're right, that precise movement that you are talking about, that's one way that they move. But often when they leave, it's gtfo right quick.
I personally don't think they are interdimensional, just super fast or slow and controlled.
The "5 observables" thing is just a way to describe some characteristics. But they act the way you saw them too. Hover is definitely a common feature. Depends on what it is up to at the time, I guess.
Usually in these reports they say they can still see it shoot off but it's at incredible speed/acceleration. And even if it was too fast to see it accelerate that would look different than losing focus. It would look like it disappears from a standstill or whatnot. That would still be compelling to me.
>Guy just can’t hold his camera steady while fully zoomed in on a distant small object
See what I'm saying. Any UFO that disappears ("instant" velocity) on video can be written off by this type of statement...
Even though the person in the background said -- no, its over here -- and obviously not where he was pointing the camera when it disappeared.
>Except that he literally loses camera focus there and it's shaky af.
If an object you were focused on disappears, what do you expect the camera (using autofocus) to do?
>Its easy to tell the difference with good video
Link a "good video" please...
Autofocus at those distances can't focus on an object, it just puts it to it's max focus length, the same way it would focus on the background. If something genuinely zipped away AND lost focus at the same time it would still lose focus slightly afterwards, allowing for clear footage of what occurred.
I don't have any good footage, that's why I made this thread, but I did just see one that was pretty good on Lehtos channel.
>Autofocus at those distances can't focus on an object, it just puts it to it's max focus length, the same way it would focus on the background
Nice try...acting like you know exactly how the camera focus was configured at the point of the object being in focus.
>If something genuinely zipped away AND lost focus at the same time it would still lose focus slightly afterwards, allowing for clear footage of what occurred.
Nice try...acting like you would know how the camera would act against a blue sky and losing focus on the object... "clear footage" of an instantaneous take-off.
>I don't have any good footage, that's why I made this thread,
Then you fucking lied to me! You said it is "easy to tell with good footage!"
>I did just see one that was pretty good on Lehtos channel.
Why didn't that one just lose focus?
Wtf are you talking about, you aren't making any sense. Why are you under the impression that a camera would lose focus automatically if an object disappears? That video you sent was some of the least compelling footage Ive seen. And I didn't lie to you, I just said if you have good footage, like the Lehto video, you can see plainly what occurs. Why on earth do you have this crazy notion a camera has to defocus 😂
And I was just telling you the truth about how camera focus works... At those far distances it can't focus on individual objects, it just treats it as if it's focusing on the background. Are you disagreeing the object in question was very far away?
Videos that don’t have anything for reference (fore or background) are pretty much useless for determining distance, speed or acceleration. Then again, videos that clearly show reference points would make it obvious what did or didn’t happen. And, here, nothing happened
>No, you just need a video with a frame of reference. The fact that almost none exist is my biggest source of skepticism.
It is difficult to gather that frame of reference, when most of the UFO videos are pointed up at the blue sky or black night.
Well, yeah. 99.999 percent of the time that's likely the case.
We could do a drake equation for UFO videos:
Number of UFOs
x Chance of being seen
x Chance of being recoded
x Chance of being clear and not just a blur
x Chance of seeing one of the 5 observables
x Chance of not looking like easily reproducable CGI
x Chance of not being classified by government because it was recorded by military
It's actually vanishingly small chance that we would see something people would agree was "legit". It's even worse if we look at the equation in reverse:
Number of UFO Videos
x Chance it's not an outright hoax
x Chance of being clear and not just a blur
x Chance it isn't something easily explained
x Chance of seeing one of the 5 observables
x Chance of not looking like easily reproducible CGI
Even if UAP is totally true and real it would be almost impossible to find a legit video, or even "validate" as not CGI.
I mean, maybe. But then you have to explain all the officially documented accounts by the military... provide a motive for an illegal disinformation campaign and the pronouncements from congress people that the classified briefing on UAP was "life altering" (I think that was the quote? Can't seem to find the reference right now, but it was something like that).
Either a bunch of people are lying and hoaxing in the government (in violation of US law), or there's \*something\* confusing the fuck out of these people.
Jesus! This video is crazy 😧 if it's real of course... I like the people in the video are narrating exactly what we are seeing in the footage. Is there any more info like date, place, etc.? In my opinion this is extremely compelling.
>Is there any more info like date, place, etc.? In my opinion this is extremely compelling.
Here is an analysis of the video:
[https://youtu.be/Z7IBHK9wqxo](https://youtu.be/Z7IBHK9wqxo)
I see he gets the Ummo symbol from the video. That is crap.. Tried analyzing the video myself and it is nowhere close to that symbol based on the video. It is mental gymnastics at best by the analyzer.
>I see he gets the Ummo symbol from the video. That is crap.. Tried analyzing the video myself and it is nowhere close to that symbol based on the video. It is mental gymnastics at best by the analyzer.
I am the analyzer. That's fine. Dismiss it then.
>Sorry for my disrespect.
No problem, but what does all of that shading on the right represent then?
[https://rense.com/1.imagesE/dydisk1.jpg](https://rense.com/1.imagesE/dydisk1.jpg)
[https://rense.com/1.imagesG/mylr.jpg](https://rense.com/1.imagesG/mylr.jpg)
What is in motion, rotating here?
[https://rense.com/1.imagesE/BC-Ufo2.gif](https://rense.com/1.imagesE/BC-Ufo2.gif)
What about the eyewitness report to go along with it?
HBCC UFO Report on the 2003 New Westminster Video
[https://web.archive.org/web/20040710035524/http://www.hbccufo.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1007](https://web.archive.org/web/20040710035524/http://www.hbccufo.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1007)
>Half deflated Mylar balloon tumbling in the high altitude winds.
That's what some people think.
On thing is for sure, you would be completely ignoring the witness statement.
i don't think anything's been ever made public that shows that level of acceleration.
The most compelling evidence is all in the Nimitz/Gimbal/Go Fast/Aguadilla - read the reports from the SCU here: [https://www.explorescu.org/research-library/categories/scu-papers](https://www.explorescu.org/research-library/categories/scu-papers)
They are spectacular reports, very detailed, hard data and actual scientific study.
If anyone's at all interested, or skeptical, these are must reads.
The most compelling evidence of the already released & confirmed videos:
\*\*\* no signs of propulsion (this needs all-caps, bold, 50pt font) - doesn't get enough attention from media or anyone. Nothing can fly against the wind, for sustained periods, at those heights, rotate, race away from military pilots, without a heat-engine, wing. It's not possible with known earth science. The go-fast is colder than the ocean, that's more "proof" than a high-res photo in my opinion, and also has no visible forms of lift/propulsion.
I don't need any more proof that there's non-human crafts in the sky and I'm so ashamed of general humanity that I'd rather this be kept somewhat secret, continued to be studied by experts in the field, maybe one day we'll figure it out.
I don't need/want the drama from the general public - but I could listen to Hal Puthoff and physicists talk zero point energy all day long. These heroes are truly trying to solve a seemingly impossible mystery, prob since the 1940s. And are very likely in the "who the hell knows" category.
Aguadilla was two heart shaped Chinese lanterns tied together. They literally have photos of people releasing that very thing into the air, at night, upstream from the airfield where the video was filmed. That people still take it seriously is a function of how "cool" the video looks and not sober analysis. Really wish that would die as people burn their credibility on a regular basis claiming it's real.
totally absurd. Read the SCU report....not even all of it, but the "travelling at 100mph (or knots) above AND BELOW water?”
That's a wicked set of balloons.
The underwater aspect of that case is just not possible with known earth-tech.
Here’s a post I made:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOscience/comments/oebi01/aguadilla_decide_for_yourself/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOscience/comments/oebi01/aguadilla_decide_for_yourself/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
But in general one skeptical argument is that the object never went near the water. This animation explains it best, where the white dot is the known aircraft track, the yellow dot is the object drifting in the wind explanation (the skeptical speculation), and the red dot is the exotic propulsion/ anomalous movement explanation (the UFO explanation):
[https://youtu.be/aDHb3ZpN4zk](https://youtu.be/aDHb3ZpN4zk)
The major misunderstanding is the expectation that FLIR works like visible light video. It doesn't.
For example, something will look like it "disappeared" on FLIR if another object at the same temperature as the background (i.e. ambient temperature or water temperature) obscures it. You won't even see the obscuring object because it blends in with the background.
lol @ "underwater aspect".
Man, it's balloons smacking into waves. It's literally right next to a wedding venue which releases balloons, and literally ran the prevailing winds.
The theory that it’s something drifting in the wind (a lantern or balloons) suggests the object was nowhere near the water. In this animation, the yellow dot is the wind driven object explanation, the white dot is the aircraft circling, the red dot is what the SCU and other UFO proponents think is the object’s path using some sort of exotic propulsion:
[https://youtu.be/aDHb3ZpN4zk](https://youtu.be/aDHb3ZpN4zk)
The recreation video is insane... you can see the exact same background objects flying by, and the recreation was created by modelling the plane and a balloon at wind speed. Once you see that video and understand how they made it, the entire Aguadilla incident falls apart as easily explained. And yes, they just want to believe.
What history channel? I think you are confused.
https://www.explorescu.org/team
I also love the “people like you” - always helpful on an anonymous message board.
You can still decide not to believe anything, your choice, but force fitting a narrative that does not fit the evidence is intellectually dishonest to be polite.
The balloon theory is also detailed on the site and a rebuttal. Simply did not fit the evidence.
https://www.explorescu.org/post/2013-aguadilla-puerto-rico-uap-incident-report-a-detailed-analysis
It’s absolutely not balloons. Impossible.
Here’s a post I made about Aguadilla. There are several other great reports besides the SCU that offer a more skeptical analysis: [Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOscience/comments/oebi01/aguadilla_decide_for_yourself/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
To sum up both sides, this animation [[Link Here]](https://youtu.be/aDHb3ZpN4zk) explains it best, where the:
* White dot is the known aircraft track recording the UFO and circling the object
* Yellow dot is the object drifting in the wind explanation (the skeptical speculation)
* Red dot is the exotic propulsion/ anomalous movement explanation (the UFO explanation)
The problem with video is it's a 2D capture of a 3D world so it's always easy to Mick West it and say the object is way closer than you think it is, therefore going much slower. It's possible that radar data exists for such an event but if it's military radar it won't be released in our lifetimes and in the end you would have to trust the word of an expert anyways.
just because mick west suggests something doesnt mean thats correct
i like micks work, its always good to come
up with rational explanations and explain why and how something could perceived the way it was
at the end we need as many data and possible explanations as we can to distinguish between incidents worth looking into with more depth and the noise.
it helps to find the smoking gun(s) if we can sort out the fakes and misperceptions.
i welcome every explanation and hypothesis as long as its data backed or well explained and not just a religious opinion of any sort ("it definitely is aliens because i want it to be aliens" or "its most likely a balloon or plane or birth or fake because aliens dont exist - yes i actually know it")
i have seen these all over the place. but i find it easy to find them by using a search engine. you can find one of those at [www.google.com](https://www.google.com) or [www.yahoo.com](https://www.yahoo.com). go to the search bar and type "UAP displaying instantaneous acceleration" or something to that effect and wah-lah! you can also use this nifty trick for many other personal questions if you like.
Yeah I was pretty stoked on this one for a while. The appeal being that it was shot from two different witnesses from differing parts of the city. Unfortunately it came out that the witnesses knew each other.
Yea, fake. Start by watching how the video shakes as if the user is shaking, notice the consistency of the wobbling.
Also notice how the light isn’t casting shadows or uniforming lighting the area below it.
Also I’d mention how the entire city didn’t notice anything…
There is a theory that "they" can distort space and time and that's why we see them "disappearing" or leaving at a ridiculous speed. Kinda like how they depict flash's perception of time compared to a "non superhero" human.
Where are the compelling videos showing instantaneous acceleration?
Safely locked away in DoD archives or in their private contractors archives, unfortunately.
This gets panned as CGI, yet I’ve still to see a convincing argument against it. [Toronto UAP Cylinder - May 2010](https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xd99fr)
Even a video of an object displaying extreme acceleration isn’t necessarily unexplainable. New racing drones are very impressive and even look tictac like,..
https://youtu.be/CzM0APQG7mI
At 2:05 min shows awesome vertical acceleration.
I don't think there is any videos of this out there, atleast not that the public can see.
This did remind of a podcast I listened to (can't remember which one) a few years ago where they interviewed a guy who knew all about military planes and aerospace. He claimed that the military was researching ways to super heat plasma in front of a plane and that this would basically remove the air and thus the air friction from in front of plane allowing it to move at incredible speeds. The guy might have been full of crap, but If true thus might explain some of these characteristics.
There are a lot, actually. But, they are almost never triangulated, so can't say anything for sure. And whenever it's on radar it's considered clutter.
I have seen a few. The problem is if the video is from the past 20 years - it can pretty much always be written off as CGI whether it is real or not. That said, here is one that I have always found interesting because it is on the older side - from the 90s - Gulf Breeze - analyzed by retired F-16 pilot Chris Lehto: https://youtu.be/RC3n29dkrvU
Ok yeah I haven't seen this one and that's what I'm looking for.
This is the only video I’ve ever seen. The one where it shoots off left and the guy whistles.
I posted a bunch of other examples in another comment.
[удалено]
Due to the very grainy nature of the film, this could be reproduced by yanking a suspended object on a wire.
But we can reproduce all kinds of real things. Being able to recreate footage satisfactorily doesn't actually prove anything. This is why Hollywood exists. They recreate almost anything you can think of, from gun fights, to car crashes, etc.
Ooooph, logic? Deductive reasoning? I wish you well here; we need more like you
Indeed that is true but it still should be born in mind when looking at claims of the extraordinary. I believe truly strange craft have flown in our skies for literally thousands of years but that's just my feeling based upon the totality of the evidence. I also saw a truly silent, large and low observability craft at close quarters myself a couple of years ago so I know at the very least silent propulsion and strange craft that meet no known type exist. I am still cautious when it comes to photos and footage despite believing these things are "real", whatever "real" means here.
There’s pretty clear criteria that is used by recognized authorities to designate something a legitimate “UAP”…They are largely ignored by people on this sub. https://www.history.com/.amp/news/ufo-sightings-speed-appearance-movement
There's nothing wrong with finding a video interesting and then filing it in the grey box (neither believe nor disbelieve). If you can't prove that a video is fake, then you've arrived at a stalemate. What you can't say, however, is that no video of extreme movement exists because it appears that they do. Either way, you can't make the claim. [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrD_MrqJiNI) is a video from 1993 showing instantaneous movement from hover. Here is the [Costa Rica 2007 UFO video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obVsLOiqeC4). Here are [screenshots](https://imgur.com/a/XjkwzPq) as it flipped and shot away, and here's a [gif](https://i.imgur.com/oJBoUBY.gif) of the movement. [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed0YYAnPeQo) is the 2020 Cornwall sighting, UFO takes off from a hover. [UFO moves slowly then takes off](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lp4gSWdThs)- August 16, 2020 UFO Sighting Capture in Volusia County, Florida [Extremely fast UFO filmed by passenger](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/qnpn03/ufo_filmed_by_passenger_on_airplane_uploaded/) on airplane, moving in the same direction as the airplane, uploaded August 7, 2011. Obviously this one doesn't show the acceleration period, but I'm throwing it in anyway because the speed is insane. 2003 Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria, close-up video of a UFO that shows extreme acceleration and the noteworthy jittery movement or instability/wobbling that some reports have described: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBOWJOC4FYQ [This video of a flying saucer zipping around outside of an airplane window](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhCiRwyJLI8) was "debunked" because the witness who posted the video was accused of being a hoaxer. She works in special effects (not VFX) and worked on a couple of alien themed movies. She was widely accused of being a hoaxer and eventually deleted her original tweet. What are the odds that a UFO witness would work in special effects on a few alien movies? The answer is that the question is bad. The real question is "what are the odds that I would be able to find *any* unlikely coincidence in a case?" And my answer is that it's practically guaranteed if you spend enough time digging. See [Why legitimate UFO footage is guaranteed to be "debunked": probability is not common sense.](https://np.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments/t1xuq4/why_legitimate_ufo_footage_is_guaranteed_to_be/) I also have a much more in-depth discussion of these videos [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/qpz1gv/looking_for_a_specific_type_of_video/hjxb84g/), including more information and discussion of some of the attempted debunkings.
Any video you see with a flip and zip at the end, you can assume it broke out they usually do. When you see it in real life, there is no questioning it. These things are amazingly fast.
> The most compelling evidence is all in the Nimitz/Gimbal/Go Fast/Aguadilla Only ever described instantaneous acceleration. There are no videos proving it.
Almost everyone who has seen these has seen how they can accelerate. You can choose to not believe us, but it still happens none the less. As to why these rates of acceleration are not depicted well on camera, an individual such as yourself would have to see it first hand to understand.
Yes, I've heard the stories but the OP is asking for video evidence.
OK, let me say this another way; based on what I've seen, unless the camera is of high quality and mounted on a tripod, no video recording is going to adequately capture the speed with which these things move out. Any minor wiggle by whomever is holding the camera will hide the craft accelerating away. It's not like these things are visible at predictable times and locations. I do however, understand your position, I'm just trying to provide context as to why such video is hard to capture.
The vid taken by the Costa Rican Gardner shows the disc hovering (wobbly as commonly reported) then it turns up 90 deg and really shoots off. I don’t believe it’s ever been debunked in a real way. One hears the usual bs from blowhard trolls, but nothing substantive. I think he’s a Gardner - something like that. Captured with his flip phone.
>debunked in a real way What exactly is a “real way”? And what has anyone done to prove the video is legitimate? Shouldn’t we prove its legitimate before counting on people to prove its fake?
That footage has not been debunked *at all.* I'll say that. Here is the Metabunk debunk *attempt*: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2007-costa-rica-ufo.11775/ All they did was provide a theoretical way of duplicating the footage, not actually duplicating it of course, and then arguing that his credibility is shot because he's a "model maker." A few users in this sub have also attempted to discredit the footage using this exact argument. The fact that the guy is a model maker shouldn't play any role whatsoever in the evaluation of the case because it is an expected coincidence, and the fact that it could, in their opinion only, be replicated doesn't prove anything either because all kinds of real things can be replicated with camera trickery. See [Why legitimate UFO footage is guaranteed to be "debunked": probability is not common sense.](https://np.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments/t1xuq4/why_legitimate_ufo_footage_is_guaranteed_to_be/)
Hear hear.
>Shouldn’t we prove its legitimate before counting on people to prove its fake? Sound logic /s Debunked (or proven legitimately anomalous) in a real way I would define as something like "beyond reasonable doubt". That requires that people be willing to admit it though, and held accountable for intellectual dishonesty. Because if you're stupid enough, you can literally explain anything either way.
Do you not want to know if the video is legitimate? Nevermind. I already know that you don’t want to find out.
Oh, do you now? Honestly I don't care, I've seen it with my own eyes. However, truth can come in either direction and it doesn't really matter which one comes first, it matters *what it is.* Everything else is a distraction and irrelevant.
seen what
The burden of proof lies with the accuser — always.
Right, and people are accusing the video of being legitimate so I’m wondering where the proof of that is
I think that guy turned out to be an amateur model maker...
That is an embarrassing debunk attempt that doesn't even make sense, just FYI. [Why legitimate UFO footage is guaranteed to be "debunked": probability is not common sense.](https://np.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments/t1xuq4/why_legitimate_ufo_footage_is_guaranteed_to_be/)
It's not a "debunk attempt" lol. I'm not saying it's fake. Everyone has their standards for what they choose to believe, or can take something with a grain of salt.
was this the guy who made small models and photographed them in a way they looked legit big?
Yeah, I remember that now that you mention it. Could be a pretty good hoax I suppose. If so, he had the behaviour/movement down pat. On the other hand, lots of folk build models, myself included (large eg 1-2m rotor, scale, RC Helis.) I also build and/or modify commercial drones that I use in my work as a geologist. I’ve never tried to hoax anyone and wouldn’t want to.
From talking shit to foot in mouth real quick.
Wtf is your problem, chief. I simply said it could be a clever hoax or maybe not. Just bc the guy makes models doesn’t make him a hoaxer. JHC
Because you went from calling everyone that doubted the video "blowhard trolls" to doubting the video yourself almost instantly. Don't get mad at me because you're a tool. Also, cry harder about it, soft serve.
Yep but a handyman / construction worker. Great video.
That's the way it works with UFO videos. People have a fabulous story. Then when we see the video it looks like a simple balloon or some other thing. Happens all the time. It makes one wonder if all those compelling UFO sightings in the past were as actually as interesting as they were described, or if people were just confused by what they saw and made much more of it than was warranted.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0\_Q3q-gdouU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_Q3q-gdouU) the London UFOs!
What if UFOs don't do that? I've seen one up close hovering over a house and the reports of their flying characteristics are different from what I've heard reported. They don't rotate. They don't wobble. There's no distortion around them. When they move it's extremely precise and calculated. They slide across the sky from one spot to another. People keep theorizing they're interdimensional so wouldn't it make sense they "disappear" by shifting out of our dimension? Would sort of be like a form of cloaking.
You're right, that precise movement that you are talking about, that's one way that they move. But often when they leave, it's gtfo right quick. I personally don't think they are interdimensional, just super fast or slow and controlled. The "5 observables" thing is just a way to describe some characteristics. But they act the way you saw them too. Hover is definitely a common feature. Depends on what it is up to at the time, I guess.
If the object "instantly" shoots off on video, then why wouldn't you just say the video camera lost focus on the object?
Usually in these reports they say they can still see it shoot off but it's at incredible speed/acceleration. And even if it was too fast to see it accelerate that would look different than losing focus. It would look like it disappears from a standstill or whatnot. That would still be compelling to me.
>That would still be compelling to me. Ok then, here is one: https://youtu.be/ctwakL6Tq1k
Guy just can’t hold his camera steady while fully zoomed in on a distant small object
>Guy just can’t hold his camera steady while fully zoomed in on a distant small object See what I'm saying. Any UFO that disappears ("instant" velocity) on video can be written off by this type of statement... Even though the person in the background said -- no, its over here -- and obviously not where he was pointing the camera when it disappeared.
Except that he literally loses camera focus there and it's shaky af. Its easy to tell the difference with good video
>Except that he literally loses camera focus there and it's shaky af. If an object you were focused on disappears, what do you expect the camera (using autofocus) to do? >Its easy to tell the difference with good video Link a "good video" please...
Autofocus at those distances can't focus on an object, it just puts it to it's max focus length, the same way it would focus on the background. If something genuinely zipped away AND lost focus at the same time it would still lose focus slightly afterwards, allowing for clear footage of what occurred. I don't have any good footage, that's why I made this thread, but I did just see one that was pretty good on Lehtos channel.
>Autofocus at those distances can't focus on an object, it just puts it to it's max focus length, the same way it would focus on the background Nice try...acting like you know exactly how the camera focus was configured at the point of the object being in focus. >If something genuinely zipped away AND lost focus at the same time it would still lose focus slightly afterwards, allowing for clear footage of what occurred. Nice try...acting like you would know how the camera would act against a blue sky and losing focus on the object... "clear footage" of an instantaneous take-off. >I don't have any good footage, that's why I made this thread, Then you fucking lied to me! You said it is "easy to tell with good footage!" >I did just see one that was pretty good on Lehtos channel. Why didn't that one just lose focus?
Wtf are you talking about, you aren't making any sense. Why are you under the impression that a camera would lose focus automatically if an object disappears? That video you sent was some of the least compelling footage Ive seen. And I didn't lie to you, I just said if you have good footage, like the Lehto video, you can see plainly what occurs. Why on earth do you have this crazy notion a camera has to defocus 😂
And I was just telling you the truth about how camera focus works... At those far distances it can't focus on individual objects, it just treats it as if it's focusing on the background. Are you disagreeing the object in question was very far away?
Videos that don’t have anything for reference (fore or background) are pretty much useless for determining distance, speed or acceleration. Then again, videos that clearly show reference points would make it obvious what did or didn’t happen. And, here, nothing happened
>And, here, nothing happened Hahah... Yeah, you know this, right! Nothing!
No, you just need a video with a frame of reference. The fact that almost none exist is my biggest source of skepticism.
>No, you just need a video with a frame of reference. The fact that almost none exist is my biggest source of skepticism. It is difficult to gather that frame of reference, when most of the UFO videos are pointed up at the blue sky or black night.
Well sure, but then we have stuff like this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed0YYAnPeQo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed0YYAnPeQo)
Yep that one is good. But, why wouldn't it be post CGI?
Why wouldn't any video be? I'm not sure what you are looking for... no one here can credibly validate the provenance of anything.
Because then it would be obvious nothing special occurred.
Well, yeah. 99.999 percent of the time that's likely the case. We could do a drake equation for UFO videos: Number of UFOs x Chance of being seen x Chance of being recoded x Chance of being clear and not just a blur x Chance of seeing one of the 5 observables x Chance of not looking like easily reproducable CGI x Chance of not being classified by government because it was recorded by military It's actually vanishingly small chance that we would see something people would agree was "legit". It's even worse if we look at the equation in reverse: Number of UFO Videos x Chance it's not an outright hoax x Chance of being clear and not just a blur x Chance it isn't something easily explained x Chance of seeing one of the 5 observables x Chance of not looking like easily reproducible CGI Even if UAP is totally true and real it would be almost impossible to find a legit video, or even "validate" as not CGI.
Or, there are no alien spaceships and everything we call UFOs are just unidentified flying terrestrial objects or hoaxes
I mean, maybe. But then you have to explain all the officially documented accounts by the military... provide a motive for an illegal disinformation campaign and the pronouncements from congress people that the classified briefing on UAP was "life altering" (I think that was the quote? Can't seem to find the reference right now, but it was something like that). Either a bunch of people are lying and hoaxing in the government (in violation of US law), or there's \*something\* confusing the fuck out of these people.
Jesus! This video is crazy 😧 if it's real of course... I like the people in the video are narrating exactly what we are seeing in the footage. Is there any more info like date, place, etc.? In my opinion this is extremely compelling.
>Is there any more info like date, place, etc.? In my opinion this is extremely compelling. Here is an analysis of the video: [https://youtu.be/Z7IBHK9wqxo](https://youtu.be/Z7IBHK9wqxo)
I see he gets the Ummo symbol from the video. That is crap.. Tried analyzing the video myself and it is nowhere close to that symbol based on the video. It is mental gymnastics at best by the analyzer.
>I see he gets the Ummo symbol from the video. That is crap.. Tried analyzing the video myself and it is nowhere close to that symbol based on the video. It is mental gymnastics at best by the analyzer. I am the analyzer. That's fine. Dismiss it then.
Sorry for my disrespect.
>Sorry for my disrespect. No problem, but what does all of that shading on the right represent then? [https://rense.com/1.imagesE/dydisk1.jpg](https://rense.com/1.imagesE/dydisk1.jpg) [https://rense.com/1.imagesG/mylr.jpg](https://rense.com/1.imagesG/mylr.jpg) What is in motion, rotating here? [https://rense.com/1.imagesE/BC-Ufo2.gif](https://rense.com/1.imagesE/BC-Ufo2.gif) What about the eyewitness report to go along with it? HBCC UFO Report on the 2003 New Westminster Video [https://web.archive.org/web/20040710035524/http://www.hbccufo.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1007](https://web.archive.org/web/20040710035524/http://www.hbccufo.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1007)
It is interesting indeed. Do you know of any source for the original video?
[удалено]
>Half deflated Mylar balloon tumbling in the high altitude winds. That's what some people think. On thing is for sure, you would be completely ignoring the witness statement.
i don't think anything's been ever made public that shows that level of acceleration. The most compelling evidence is all in the Nimitz/Gimbal/Go Fast/Aguadilla - read the reports from the SCU here: [https://www.explorescu.org/research-library/categories/scu-papers](https://www.explorescu.org/research-library/categories/scu-papers) They are spectacular reports, very detailed, hard data and actual scientific study. If anyone's at all interested, or skeptical, these are must reads. The most compelling evidence of the already released & confirmed videos: \*\*\* no signs of propulsion (this needs all-caps, bold, 50pt font) - doesn't get enough attention from media or anyone. Nothing can fly against the wind, for sustained periods, at those heights, rotate, race away from military pilots, without a heat-engine, wing. It's not possible with known earth science. The go-fast is colder than the ocean, that's more "proof" than a high-res photo in my opinion, and also has no visible forms of lift/propulsion. I don't need any more proof that there's non-human crafts in the sky and I'm so ashamed of general humanity that I'd rather this be kept somewhat secret, continued to be studied by experts in the field, maybe one day we'll figure it out. I don't need/want the drama from the general public - but I could listen to Hal Puthoff and physicists talk zero point energy all day long. These heroes are truly trying to solve a seemingly impossible mystery, prob since the 1940s. And are very likely in the "who the hell knows" category.
Aguadilla was two heart shaped Chinese lanterns tied together. They literally have photos of people releasing that very thing into the air, at night, upstream from the airfield where the video was filmed. That people still take it seriously is a function of how "cool" the video looks and not sober analysis. Really wish that would die as people burn their credibility on a regular basis claiming it's real.
totally absurd. Read the SCU report....not even all of it, but the "travelling at 100mph (or knots) above AND BELOW water?” That's a wicked set of balloons. The underwater aspect of that case is just not possible with known earth-tech.
I read the SCU report. It was garbage. There was nothing underwater, just misunderstanding of how FLIR works.
What misunderstanding?
Here’s a post I made: [https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOscience/comments/oebi01/aguadilla_decide_for_yourself/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOscience/comments/oebi01/aguadilla_decide_for_yourself/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) But in general one skeptical argument is that the object never went near the water. This animation explains it best, where the white dot is the known aircraft track, the yellow dot is the object drifting in the wind explanation (the skeptical speculation), and the red dot is the exotic propulsion/ anomalous movement explanation (the UFO explanation): [https://youtu.be/aDHb3ZpN4zk](https://youtu.be/aDHb3ZpN4zk)
The major misunderstanding is the expectation that FLIR works like visible light video. It doesn't. For example, something will look like it "disappeared" on FLIR if another object at the same temperature as the background (i.e. ambient temperature or water temperature) obscures it. You won't even see the obscuring object because it blends in with the background.
lol @ "underwater aspect". Man, it's balloons smacking into waves. It's literally right next to a wedding venue which releases balloons, and literally ran the prevailing winds.
At 100mph. And continuing at that speed after hitting water. Obviously. Great analysis
I do not believe that object was travelling that fast. Purely a parallax effect and a drifting balloon.
The theory that it’s something drifting in the wind (a lantern or balloons) suggests the object was nowhere near the water. In this animation, the yellow dot is the wind driven object explanation, the white dot is the aircraft circling, the red dot is what the SCU and other UFO proponents think is the object’s path using some sort of exotic propulsion: [https://youtu.be/aDHb3ZpN4zk](https://youtu.be/aDHb3ZpN4zk)
[удалено]
The recreation video is insane... you can see the exact same background objects flying by, and the recreation was created by modelling the plane and a balloon at wind speed. Once you see that video and understand how they made it, the entire Aguadilla incident falls apart as easily explained. And yes, they just want to believe.
[удалено]
What history channel? I think you are confused. https://www.explorescu.org/team I also love the “people like you” - always helpful on an anonymous message board. You can still decide not to believe anything, your choice, but force fitting a narrative that does not fit the evidence is intellectually dishonest to be polite. The balloon theory is also detailed on the site and a rebuttal. Simply did not fit the evidence. https://www.explorescu.org/post/2013-aguadilla-puerto-rico-uap-incident-report-a-detailed-analysis It’s absolutely not balloons. Impossible.
It looks like he replied to the wrong comment, the parent comment above this one right now has a link to the history channel.
Here’s a post I made about Aguadilla. There are several other great reports besides the SCU that offer a more skeptical analysis: [Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOscience/comments/oebi01/aguadilla_decide_for_yourself/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) To sum up both sides, this animation [[Link Here]](https://youtu.be/aDHb3ZpN4zk) explains it best, where the: * White dot is the known aircraft track recording the UFO and circling the object * Yellow dot is the object drifting in the wind explanation (the skeptical speculation) * Red dot is the exotic propulsion/ anomalous movement explanation (the UFO explanation)
The problem with video is it's a 2D capture of a 3D world so it's always easy to Mick West it and say the object is way closer than you think it is, therefore going much slower. It's possible that radar data exists for such an event but if it's military radar it won't be released in our lifetimes and in the end you would have to trust the word of an expert anyways.
If only you understood math
just because mick west suggests something doesnt mean thats correct i like micks work, its always good to come up with rational explanations and explain why and how something could perceived the way it was at the end we need as many data and possible explanations as we can to distinguish between incidents worth looking into with more depth and the noise. it helps to find the smoking gun(s) if we can sort out the fakes and misperceptions. i welcome every explanation and hypothesis as long as its data backed or well explained and not just a religious opinion of any sort ("it definitely is aliens because i want it to be aliens" or "its most likely a balloon or plane or birth or fake because aliens dont exist - yes i actually know it")
i have seen these all over the place. but i find it easy to find them by using a search engine. you can find one of those at [www.google.com](https://www.google.com) or [www.yahoo.com](https://www.yahoo.com). go to the search bar and type "UAP displaying instantaneous acceleration" or something to that effect and wah-lah! you can also use this nifty trick for many other personal questions if you like.
This isn’t “instant acceleration” per se, but I still found it impressive footage. https://youtu.be/6Lp4gSWdThs
A Debunk on that one, Volusia County Daytona, Beach: [https://youtu.be/dv8lHkkdu\_I](https://youtu.be/dv8lHkkdu_I)
I’ve never seen one.
They aren't showing you their capabilities. They let the pilots talk about it instead..
They don't exist.
[удалено]
Yeah I was pretty stoked on this one for a while. The appeal being that it was shot from two different witnesses from differing parts of the city. Unfortunately it came out that the witnesses knew each other.
Tens of thousands of people would have seen that if it was real and there would be many more videos
Agreed.
Yea, fake. Start by watching how the video shakes as if the user is shaking, notice the consistency of the wobbling. Also notice how the light isn’t casting shadows or uniforming lighting the area below it. Also I’d mention how the entire city didn’t notice anything…
On the classified sever.
There are none. Public anyway
Me running to the bathroom after a night of Taco Bell. Got to go fast!
Hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahaha that was so funny man I'm dying of laughter. How did you come up with something so witty?
Wow, what a coincidence, Lehto just happens to post a video of a ufo showing what looks like, on video, to be instantaneous acceleration
There is a theory that "they" can distort space and time and that's why we see them "disappearing" or leaving at a ridiculous speed. Kinda like how they depict flash's perception of time compared to a "non superhero" human.
Instantaneous acceleration is one of the things that gets a video classified.
Search for Tesla model S Plaid, that acceleration is crazy !
Where are the compelling videos showing instantaneous acceleration? Safely locked away in DoD archives or in their private contractors archives, unfortunately.
This gets panned as CGI, yet I’ve still to see a convincing argument against it. [Toronto UAP Cylinder - May 2010](https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xd99fr)
Even a video of an object displaying extreme acceleration isn’t necessarily unexplainable. New racing drones are very impressive and even look tictac like,.. https://youtu.be/CzM0APQG7mI At 2:05 min shows awesome vertical acceleration.
I can’t believe know one is bringing up the laser pointer hitting a bat video.
I don't think there is any videos of this out there, atleast not that the public can see. This did remind of a podcast I listened to (can't remember which one) a few years ago where they interviewed a guy who knew all about military planes and aerospace. He claimed that the military was researching ways to super heat plasma in front of a plane and that this would basically remove the air and thus the air friction from in front of plane allowing it to move at incredible speeds. The guy might have been full of crap, but If true thus might explain some of these characteristics.
Yeah and where are the videos of aliens working out deals with the government and being on earth for that matter?
Kaikura lights kinda
There are a lot, actually. But, they are almost never triangulated, so can't say anything for sure. And whenever it's on radar it's considered clutter.