Cigar shaped UFO filmed over Colorado

[karl 12]

Strange cyndrical object filmed over Salida,Colorado - there also appears to be several spherical objects flying about:

Footage:
[/URL]

Witness testimony (begins at 2:21):
<A href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57YK7KT0EbY" target=_blank>
Cheers.

 

[TClaeys]

FYI - The first 3 videos don't work due to disabled embedding. and the last 3 are of the same thing. Did you mean to include some others as well??

Either way, the cylindrical thing is interesting. What is it guys and girls??

 

[skunkape]

Either way, the cylindrical thing is interesting. What is it guys and girls??

Tampons of the Goddess.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[Gareth]

Hmmm

That actually is kinda interesting. My first thought was blimp. It could also be a balloon as there is no reference points to gauge size/distance.

 

[Stillborn]

There was a flap there at the time. Multiple people saw and recorded whatever the object is. I didn't re-watched the vids, but know it from memory. Hopefully the "Sightings" show was posted on it.

There's balloons that look similar to the main object, however it still remains a ufo imo. Perhaps, bugs flying around account for the smaller "discs", but there's some aspects of the vid, (and reports of it leaving) that don't match up with the mundane. The object/s is still somewhat a mystery to me, and to my knowledge one of the better ufo vids of the 90s.

 

[Gareth]

So in UFO lore, the cigar ships commonly sighted:

Typically they appear to be non-uniform in shape right? I.E the object in the videos above looks long and skinny, but more cigar sightings actually decrease and increase in thickness at the ends right?

And one end is usually thicker than the other?

Its possible I just have Adamski's shit imprinted in my brain clouding my judgement.

 

[skunkape]

So in UFO lore, the cigar ships commonly sighted:

Typically they appear to be non-uniform in shape right? I.E the object in the videos above looks long and skinny, but more cigar sightings actually decrease and increase in thickness at the ends right?

And one end is usually thicker than the other?

The one I saw was a uniform cylinder with rounded tips, a white light at each end and two small red lights on the top. The proportions were similar to what I'm seeing here...maybe a little thicker and it was made of a darker metal.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[TClaeys]

The one I saw was a uniform cylinder with rounded tips, a white light at each end and two small red lights on the top. The proportions were similar to what I'm seeing here...maybe a little thicker and it was made of a darker metal.
<INPUT id=gwProxy type=hidden><!--Session data--><INPUT id=jsProxy onclick=jsCall(); type=hidden>

As many of these experiences as you seem to have, have you ever tried to or succeeded in photographing any of these anomalies?? Or do you carry a camera with you?? It seems that anytime someone describes some kind of anomaly you have seen it. While I don't discount your experiences, I just wonder if you have any corroboration (photos, vids, other people) to help demystify these things.

 

[skunkape]

As many of these experiences as you seem to have, have you ever tried to or succeeded in photographing any of these anomalies?? Or do you carry a camera with you?? It seems that anytime someone describes some kind of anomaly you have seen it. While I don't discount your experiences, I just wonder if you have any corroboration (photos, vids, other people) to help demystify these things.

Most of these experiences were condensed into about a 1 year time-frame in the mid 90's. I didn't own a camera. I took photos at Garner with a disposable camera and brought it to Wal Mart to be developed. They told me none of the photos "came out." I asked for the photos that didn't "come out" and told them that I would pay for them. I was told they had been thrown away. I have a couple of shots I took with a digital camera, but they prove nothing. It's just a couple of squiggly lines. I'll post one, but please don't laugh. To my eyes it was just a couple of unusual points of bright light.


<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[skunkape]

I'm going to discredit myself. It's the Moon and Venus and shaky hands. Go back to your television.
Maybe.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[Gareth]

WTF?

Before reading the text I thought that was a photo with marks added in paint or photoshop.

So youre saying this is what you were seeing in the sky? Were they moving?

 

[skunkape]

WTF?

Before reading the text I thought that was a photo with marks added in paint or photoshop.

So youre saying this is what you were seeing in the sky? Were they moving?

What I was seeing when I took this was just a couple of bright, twinkling lights. They weren't moving.
Here's another squiggly lights photo that proves nothing. It was taken with a Minolta Z1 on auto.
Please do not hold my feet to the fire over these. They are just bad pictures of what I thought were odd bright lights.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[Gareth]

Ahh, so you left the shutter open?

What the hell are they?

 

[skunkape]

Ahh, so you left the shutter open?

What the hell are they?

Weather balloons inflated with swamp gas. I didn't leave the shutter open. This is what the camera did on auto setting.
Please understand, I am not risking one ounce of credibility on these shots.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[Gareth]

Weather balloons inflated with swamp gas. I didn't leave the shutter open. This is what the camera did on auto setting.
Please understand, I am not risking one ounce of credibility on these shots.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

No not at all. Dont worry about that (from me at least). Its not like youre saying look at this flying saucer or anything.

I find them fascinating for the sole fact that to me they are unexplainable. Maybe David knows of a photographic process that may cause that, but since you said you saw something with your eyes anyway, it seems doubtful.

 

[karl 12]

FYI - The first 3 videos don't work due to disabled embedding. and the last 3 are of the same thing. Did you mean to include some others as well??

Either way, the cylindrical thing is interesting. What is it guys and girls??

Thanks for the reply-yes sorry about that (was one of my first posts) -hopefully this one will work:

Image analyst opinion (including an expert from the United States Military Academy):

Inside Edition not only presented the digital analysis work done by Jim Deletosa, which states the UFO is a real solid object approximately 1/2 mile long and 75,000 feet in the air, they obtained a second opinion.John Deturo, a computer scientist at the United States Military Academy who has uncovered several UFO hoaxes was interviewed. His conclusions after analysis were:

"It appears to be an object flying in the sky. They object either emanates light or reflects light.The Craft moves at incredible speeds"."

Further analysis of the footage by optical physicist (and Ufologist)
Bruce Maccabee:

ENORMOUS SIZE= ESTIMATES SO FAR RANGE FROM A LIKELY MINIMUM LENGTH OF 700 ' (DR, BRUCE MACCABEE/MUFON), TO A RANGE OF 1/2 MILE TO AS MUCH AS A MILE IN LENGTH AND FLYING AT AN ALTITUDE OF AT LEAST 60,000'

AEROBATICS= DISPLAYING RAPID, ULTRA HIGH-SPEED, DARTING MOVEMENTS THAT ARE INDEPENDENT OF THE CAMERA ("AT LEAST 10,000 M.P.H.") AND THAT ARE TYPICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH ONLY SMALL UFOS, THE EDWARDS "MAIN CRAFT" FOOTAGE IS TOTALLY UNIQUE AMONG UFO IMAGES IN THIS ASPECT ALONE.

COMPANION OBJECTS= THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO SUSPECTS POINTS OF LIGHT AT OR NEAR THE SUBJECT ON THE RAW, UNENHANCED VIDEO THAT MAY WELL CORROBORATE THE WITNESSES' DESCRIPTION OF "FRISBEES" OR "BOOMERANGS" COMING OUT OF AND FLYING AROUND THE MAIN OBJECT

Links:
http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/newsc/inside.html
http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/news2/drb.html
http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/tim.html

Cheers.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEnd-->

 

[Xylo]

Interesting video. My first thought was of a blimp or other dirigible type craft. I am glad to see that there is credible analysis rather than "some guy that worked at JPL" or unnamed "scientists."

As to what it is, I have no clue.

 

[TClaeys]

Wait a minute.... Jim Dilettoso?? Like THIS Jim Dilettoso?? The one who endorses the Billy Meier stuff?? Hmmmmm.

Now Bruce, ... well thats a different story. I'll have to do some reading up on this sighting. But it isn't as if Bruve hasn't been fooled in the past. Video and pictures are of course are very difficult to analyze and prove a case alone. Either way, thanks for posting the information.

 

[karl 12]

Wait a minute.... Jim Dilettoso?? Like THIS Jim Dilettoso?? The one who endorses the Billy Meier stuff?? Hmmmmm.

Now Bruce, ... well thats a different story. I'll have to do some reading up on this sighting. But it isn't as if Bruve hasn't been fooled in the past. Video and pictures are of course are very difficult to analyze and prove a case alone. Either way, thanks for posting the information.

Thanks for the replies - the link states the footage was also analysed by John Deturo:

John Deturo, a computer scientist at the United States Military Academy who has uncovered several UFO hoaxes was interviewed. His conclusions after analysis were:

"It appears to be an object flying in the sky. They object either emanates light or reflects light.The Craft moves at incredible speeds".

It would also be interesting to see how he arrived at his conclusions.
Cheers.

 

[Gareth]

Wait a minute.... Jim Dilettoso?? Like THIS Jim Dilettoso?? The one who endorses the Billy Meier stuff?? Hmmmmm.

Now Bruce, ... well thats a different story. I'll have to do some reading up on this sighting. But it isn't as if Bruve hasn't been fooled in the past. Video and pictures are of course are very difficult to analyze and prove a case alone. Either way, thanks for posting the information.

No, Jim Dilettoso has indicated that he does not endorse the Meier stuff, and not surprisingly Horn has been using his name without permission.

Dont hold that Meier stuff against Dilettoso because not true at all.