• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Footage over Phoenix by Jeff Willes

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

L

Lavarat

Skilled Investigator
REMEMBER the beginning of this video starts with boring news coverage,,

its not the flares I am talking about, but towards the middle they went on a hill and filmed this thing

check out how it moves up and down very fast

The beginning of this video is boring but it gets good in the middle

enjoy



http://youtube.com/watch?v=xIh_EBjscfM
 
I think its interesting what you see when you really want to see it. I would class myself as a UFO skeptic which as David is always keen to point is different to a debunker. There are very few videos or pictures that i have seen that convince me that what i am seeing does not have an earthly explanation. I don't always know what that is but it doesn't mean that it has to be supernatural or alien.

In the case of the video above it is not clear what we are watching. If i was witnessing this myself i am not even sure i would have tagged it as being alien. There are to many unknowns, for example how far away are the lights, how many objects are we watching, what is their relative motion wrt to the camera. All three of these questions, unanswered make it almost impossible to come to any conclusion wrt to the observed objects. For example on the video they comment on the apparent trajectory and speed of the craft. Well perhaps its more than one object we are watching and when the lights of one switch off and then the lights of another switch on it could appear that original craft has moved to a new spot at hight velocity (also the apparent velocity of the craft very much depend on how far they are wrt the observer).

In UFOology people are always very keen to jump to conclusions, in general people need to be far more critical of what they are seeing. More skepticism as a whole can only help the credibility of this field.

I will say however even though i do not jump to the conclusion that the above video shows alien spacecraft, it is compelling, better than the majority of garbage i see on the net. I think that a real breakthrough will occur when someone can post a similar video observed from multiple locations allowing for better estimates of distance.

cheers

Clive
 
Personally, I am not really impressed by the footage because it is just too vague.

And now, a rant:

If you are going to go out and try to get UFO (or monster or girls gone wild) footage, be smart. Use the best equipment you can get. A 3CCD camera is a good idea, although I realize that will be out of some people's reach. Still, a cheap mono or tripod would have eliminated some of the trouble with that footage. You can't just hold the camera and use Steadyshot style technology (which may have been on during this footage). That leads to a "jump" in the footage whenever the buffer of the Steadyshot is full and creates the illusion of movement that is not necessarily there. Also, if you know you are skyfishing for object probably at a height of thousands of feet, get a telescopic lens. They can be pricey, but the 10X optical zoom doesn't cut it and digital is worthless.

If you get a pole and mark off the distance along it and then attach it to the center of the tripod or monopod with a rope or chain that is a set distance (say 2 meters), then it can be placed in the shot with at a known distance to help determine position of the objects (afterwards, height and angle of the camera should be noted as well). The more inventive can create something that will hang in view of the camera at a set distance attached to the shoe on top of the camera. If you have a few extra bucks, get a second camera and measure the difference between the two lenses to help triangulate the position of mysterious objects. It may be cheaper to invest in a good still camera with a telescopic lens as a second camera. The telescopic lens will probably be cheaper and as long as the photographs are audibly noted as they are taken so that the video camera footage can be matched, triangulation is still possible. Also, if the camera is film it would be nice to have digital and analog evidence.

There's more but I am done for now. It's just that this footage seems pretty useless because they didn't take enough time to plan out how to get really useful information.
 
Yessiree, more shaky lights in the sky, and a stoner telling us that you can't drop flares over a city. Riiiight...

When I see the kind of rapid movement I've seen in my life - things moving faster than our tech allows - then I'll be impressed. This footage is not impressive.

I agree with Michael L. - a tripod would sure help things out. A three-chip camera would be great as well.

And Clive, welcome to the forums!

dB
 
I've seen the vid before, looks like flares.

Jeff has better looking videos. I'm not real big on him due to some things I've read about him in the past though.
 
You guys are looking at the wrong part of the video that is if you even watched the whole darn thing.

The only part thats convincing is near the end

use the tree as your reference point

the object drops at considerable speed
then lifts at considerable speed (again all behind a tree)
then it does a flip and spins down to the right then stops

if you think that a flare can do that I wonder what your seeing
 
a flare does not have 3 lights on it
a flare does not drop at high speed
go back up and stop at high speed

sorry but your flare theory is a bit troubling
 
The Pair of Cats said:
The flares excuse is just weak. You could come out with better dismissals than that!
Click to expand...

Ok, it's lights in the sky.

I watched the whole vid. My comments were directed toward the first vid btw. Jeff talking bored me, so I initially didn't view the whole thing, I had seen the first vid before etc.
 
It's not just lights in the sky, it is lights in the clouds. That makes it murky, at best. Without something like radar or or IR to match up with it, you are just seeing lights in a cloud... so evidence like this is never good. Maybe interesting, maybe part of an overall pattern of evidence, but not much as a stand alone piece of video!

Is it even that interesting? Well, I guess you have to determine how personally excited you get for lights in a cloudy sky. The movement might not be as interesting as you think, though. I am not exactly a video analysis expert, but I recognize a Sony Handycam when I see one. They come equipped with Sony's Steadyshot (in an earlier post I think I referred to it as Steadycam... which is a pro camera support rig that reduces shaking externally that was the last thing I had been looking at in an equipment catalog... I can't afford one) technology, or Super Steadyshot technology, that "locks" on an image to reduce the milder shaking caused by holding a camera by hand (and using the screen tends to make the shaking worse). When the movement is too great and the Steadyshot cannot compensate anymore, the picture 'jumps' to the current live view and re-locks onto it. This results in a strange, jerky movement being seen in the final product. Other brands have their own version and they all look slightly different depending on the brand, background, version and playback quality. Add to it the compression for YouTube and you can't really be sure if what you are seeing is what was happening or what the Steadyshot combined with moving the camera creates. If the cameraman is watching the viewscreen and not the real objects, he is going to remember an altered view as well.

Now, Steadyshot may not have been on but we don't know. We do know that this was not the best thought out shot ever made! When they say "Here come the F-16s" and show the plane, can you actually tell that it is a plane? And it is NOT in the clouds... just keep in mind that is the quality of footage you are seeing the entire time! It is just too poorly made and then compressed for YouTube to be very useful.

I wish it was better. UFOs are cool.
 
Please with this crap. Willes was hooked up with Brian Bessent of UFO theater. Anyone remember Bessent, the guy who hoaxed the footage out of Phoenix then wrote an admission taunting everyone about how he used all the money he made off his footage to get stoned and buy weed? Hello???
 
jritzmann said:
Please with this crap. Willes was hooked up with Brian Bessent of UFO theater. Anyone remember Bessent, the guy who hoaxed the footage out of Phoenix then wrote an admission taunting everyone about how he used all the money he made off his footage to get stoned and buy weed? Hello???
Click to expand...

Yes, thats one of the things I read that I mentioned earlier that made Jeff lose credibility in my eyes:). I wasn't 100 percent sure if it was Bessent or another fraud Mike Hawkins, so I left out the details. It was a good while back when I found it out, and my memory isn't good enough to recall the details, only the bottom line.
 
Back
Top