Compelling HD UFO video

[DavidRavenMoon]

OMG, I can't believe she said "It looks like a flying peni$". Landfill and golf course was a huge tip, so I checked google maps with the satellite view and she is about 10 mile give or take from a major airport (which would have been off to her left in the last video) and near a couple of major roads.

The fact that there is an airport in the area is meaningless. Is that a flight path? You can't just fly an aircraft willy nilly where you want to, especially near an airport. They would know about it. And people see UFOs near airports... did you forget about the O'Hare sighting?

Besides, if you listen to her running commentary on the last video link, she sounds fucking nuts. Also, do a google for murrysville, pa and ufo's and her name is the only one that comes up. Not what I would expect if there a were a major UFO flap happening in her vicinity.

Sure, if you can't attack the data, attack the person making the claims. That's typical Skeptical behavior like you would find james Randi using.

And how many people report UFOs? Not very many. Look at dB's huge cigar sighting as a kid with his family. Many people saw that, and yet he can't find anything about it in the newspapers from back then.

So why do you expect anything different?

Why don't you call that airport and ask them if they had any planes with search lights flying over the wooded area?

You are doing a lot of debunking with little to back it up. I'm not picking on you, but that kind of reasoning is flawed.

I don't know if this video is a UFO, but no one has been able to answer any of my concerns on why it doesn't seem like a conventional aircraft.

 

[Red]

Sure, if you can't attack the data, attack the person making the claims. That's typical Skeptical behavior like you would find james Randi using.

Man I just said she sounded nuts and you are comparing me to James Randi. Ouch! That hurt, a lot!
I am going to withhold further comment until some serious analysis of the data is done. I think in this day and age with CGI and goofy lens effects it is prudent to assume that the footage is aircraft until the analysis and the data say otherwise.

I am only giving my opinion, I don't expect anyone to take it for more than what it is. I am the first person willing to admit that I am not an expert; I think I have some valid concerns over the legitimacy of the footage, but I realize that you don't share my views. I am okay with that, but please don't consider my skepticism an attack of your views or opinions.

 

[Red]

I found this thread at Above Top Secret and found some of the analysis done on the footage interesting.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread511995/pg1

Also, the government is reputed to have been working on stealth helicopters for awhile now:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/mh-x.htm

http://www.reviewjournal.com/webextras/area51/1995/special/stealthcopter.html

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Here's a thread on the rest of her videos:

Interesting YouTube Channel - seeingUFOsPA, page 1

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Here's a good comparison video of a chopper at night from the ATS thread.


So I'm not crazy after all.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Also from the ATS thread:

 

[Schuyler]

Still looks like a helicopter to me. I'm not insisting on it. I can't prove it, but it just does. I have no special observing skills, though I am a private pilot, and as we have all been told countless times, "pilots are more observant than others," so take that for what it's worth.

The discussion is interesting, if a bit polarized, and it brings up a question: Where does anyone expect this to go? It is either a human-made aircraft of some sort--or it's not. If it's not, what have you got? A light in the night sky, and that's just about it. If it is CGI, OK. If it's a 'real' UFO, OK. If no one can definitively tell the difference, we don't have much. There's no corroborative evidence, no sudden crop circles beneath it, no reported abductions, no sightings of aliens in the woods, no missing time. The USAF hasn't admitted they were flying stealth craft around that night. It's just a light in the sky and that's all it ever will be. Call it an unexplained UFO if you want.

That's nice.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

I think it's unusual. It does look like a helicopter, or at least it moves like one. And near the end you can see another small strobe flashing. That makes it look like a helicopter too.

But there is just as much in the video that doesn't fit, as that does.

It would be nice if she'd let someone study the raw footage, but I kind of doubt that's ever going to happen.

I posted it here because I felt it wasn't so cut and dry, and from the reactions of people here and at ATS, I guess that's a common sentiment with many.

In the end, we wont really know, will we?

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Ironically, tonight I saw a small prop plane flying over my house with a front facing pulsating white light, like the kind seen on choppers! I've never seen one of those before. Of course it also had the wing tip lights.

Maybe it wasn't a real plane!

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

This thread's debate in certain ways proves the point made by some observers: we really can't learn much about the phenomena at this juncture from mere sightings, or apparent sightings. So what can we use to potentially meaningfully advance our thinking, if anything? Perhaps crop circles? Abductions or encounters? Mutilations? Structures on the Moon or Mars? Advanced physics? It is tough to see where the next leap in theory or understanding comes from. The field needs another lateral thinker like Vallee or Tonnies.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

This thread's debate in certain ways proves the point made by some observers: we really can't learn much about the phenomena at this juncture from mere sightings, or apparent sightings. So what can we use to potentially meaningfully advance our thinking, if anything? Perhaps crop circles? Abductions or encounters? Mutilations? Structures on the Moon or Mars? Advanced physics? It is tough to see where the next leap in theory or understanding comes from. The field needs another lateral thinker like Vallee or Tonnies.

I agree. The phenomenon seems experiential in nature. I'm sure it's physical, but at the same time doesn't have to be. If you perceive something, you have had an experience.

I think this is where it takes a turn in a direction many people are not comfortable with. What is real? Some would say the material world, but there's more to reality than that. We just do not yet have means to quantify it. Material science will tell you something is a rock, but not why it's a rock. It's like the Big Bang. They say before the Big Bang there was nothing. So where did that single point come from, and why?

Problem is we can't answer these types of questions. But that doesn't mean we should stop thinking about them. It's the same with UFOs. We can talk and conjecture and share experiences. We don't need proof. What purpose will that serve? Convincing those who don't accept the reality of such things? Who cares?

People who experience this stuff know what they experienced. Convincing those that haven't is pointless. And I'd bet if you got 100 random people in a room, at least half of them will have had some kind of experience with the paranormal. Why? Because it's just part of our existence. And we know nothing about what any of this is all about. We only know what things are made from, and some of the the mechanics behind it, but not the reason behind it.

When asked if it was possible that evolution of some intelligent life got to a level that we usually consider typical of "God", Scientist Max Tegmark has said:

I certainly believe the laws of physics in our universe allow life forms way more intelligent than us, so I'd expect that they have evolved (or been built) somewhere else, even at Level I. I think many people wouldn't be happy to call them "God", though, since they would be outside of our cosmic horizon and thus completely unable to have any effect on us, however smart they are (assuming there are no spacetime wormholes). However, perhaps they can create their own "universe", for instance by simulating it, playing God to its inhabitants in a more traditional sense. And perhaps we ourselves live in such a created/simulated universe...

That would certainly explain a lot.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

David, thanks for your reply. I personally have not had any experiences, nor do I really want to, so it is difficult for me to comment on the sense of 'reality' of an experience. I believe that advances in our understanding of and perspectives on these phenomena over the next decade will come from modern (principally theoretical) physics -- the work of a David Bohm or the like -- while I tend to discount the likelihood that NASA will disclose detailed photos of the moon or release alien technology. You may be interested in the work of Thomas Campbell, a physicist who formally was affiliated with the Monroe Institute and who has views on what 'reality' is given his past OBE experiences (which are manifold).