Question about the Catalina Island UFO video (Leland Hanson)

[Creepy Green Light]

I remember a long time ago (proll like 20 years ago) I saw something in a magazine that said that Leland Hanson's Catalina Island UFO video was sent to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and it was debunked. They even showed a screen shot of the "UFO" and overlayed on top of it was a Cessna aircraft (forgot which model - 152 maybe?). And you could see where it made sense - (it showed the fuselage, wings, wing struts, etc.).

Does anybody know where I can find information about what I'm talking about? It seems like ever since that day, I've never seen it again - and I've looked. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong area's? Thanks

 

[Randall]

I remember a long time ago (proll like 20 years ago) I saw something in a magazine that said that Leland Hanson's Catalina Island UFO video was sent to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and it was debunked. They even showed a screen shot of the "UFO" and overlayed on top of it was a Cessna aircraft (forgot which model - 152 maybe?). And you could see where it made sense - (it showed the fuselage, wings, wing struts, etc.). Does anybody know where I can find information about what I'm talking about? It seems like ever since that day, I've never seen it again - and I've looked. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong area's? Thanks

Quote:

"Clarke had the film analyzed at the JPL labs in Pasadena, California. Dr Robert Nathan, a top expert in the computer enhancement of photographs, scanned each film frame and turned them into numbers (old computer speak!). He added each photo to the next successive photo. The end result being that the blurry "UFO" resolutioned to a Piper Cub-type aircraft." Source​

The video you're looking for seems to have been deleted. Too bad. But then again, it's just another blurry object off in the distance that's been hyped as a UFO. We don't know what it really was, but chances are, if it didn't act like something other than an aircraft, then it probably was an aircraft, and it seems to fly along like an aircraft, so why jump to the conclusion that it's a UFO? That makes little sense to me. It doesn't get my vote as compelling evidence.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Quote:

"Clarke had the film analyzed at the JPL labs in Pasadena, California. Dr Robert Nathan, a top expert in the computer enhancement of photographs, scanned each film frame and turned them into numbers (old computer speak!). He added each photo to the next successive photo. The end result being that the blurry "UFO" resolutioned to a Piper Cub-type aircraft." Source​

The video you're looking for seems to have been deleted. Too bad. But then again, it's just another blurry object off in the distance that's been hyped as a UFO. We don't know what it really was, but chances are, if it didn't act like something other than an aircraft, then it probably was an aircraft, and it seems to fly along like an aircraft, so why jump to the conclusion that it's a UFO? That makes little sense to me. It doesn't get my vote as compelling evidence.

Thank you for the info Ufology. It's just another disappointment as I get older. When I was around 12 or so and would watch "UFO's Are Real" - the documentary opens with that footage. It's funny how the human brain works. I saw an object move across the screen from right to left with no unusual movements (which you are absolutely correct; act's like man made airplane or helicopter) - but I let the narrator paint the rest of picture, which is his job. He mentions that there are "no wings, no tail section, no visible means of propulsion." He then goes on to say that "Hanson observed the objection hovering stationary before starting to move." So where did that piece of info come from? That the object was stationary? For all I know the narrator could have made that up on the spot. Did Leland really say that? How do we know? So right there, in my mind, UFO's are indeed real (UFO meaning flying saucer from another world).

So when I would show my UFO documentary to non believers or agnostics, I would say something like "So see? This film has been on for 2 minutes and already it has been proven that there are such things as flying saucers." When in reality - I'm looking at an airplane flying with no unusual flight characteristics. In fact, it's the most basic form of flight for a pilot - straight and level. Something I learned on my first day of flying lessons.

I'd say within the last 12 mos or so that my bubble has been burst for the following cases that turned out (either outright proven or just in my mind) as hoaxes/misidentifications; Rex Heflin's photos, Trindade photos, Trent/McMinnville photos and now the Leland Hanson footage.

Thanks again for the info

 

[Randall]

Thank you for the info Ufology. It's just another disappointment as I get older. When I was around 12 or so and would watch "UFO's Are Real" - the documentary opens with that footage. It's funny how the human brain works. I saw an object move across the screen from right to left with no unusual movements (which you are absolutely correct; act's like man made airplane or helicopter) - but I let the narrator paint the rest of picture, which is his job. He mentions that there are "no wings, no tail section, no visible means of propulsion." He then goes on to say that "Hanson observed the objection hovering stationary before starting to move." So where did that piece of info come from? That the object was stationary? For all I know the narrator could have made that up on the spot. Did Leland really say that? How do we know? So right there, in my mind, UFO's are indeed real (UFO meaning flying saucer from another world).

So when I would show my UFO documentary to non believers or agnostics, I would say something like "So see? This film has been on for 2 minutes and already it has been proven that there are such things as flying saucers." When in reality - I'm looking at an airplane flying with no unusual flight characteristics. In fact, it's the most basic form of flight for a pilot - straight and level. Something I learned on my first day of flying lessons.

I'd say within the last 12 mos or so that my bubble has been burst for the following cases that turned out (either outright proven or just in my mind) as hoaxes/misidentifications; Rex Heflin's photos, Trindade photos, Trent/McMinnville photos and now the Leland Hanson footage.

Thanks again for the info

No problem. The field needs all the credible believers we can get

 

[Creepy Green Light]

If anyone is interested in seeing the Catalina Island "UFO" debunked as a single engine airplane, click on the link and then fast forward to the 15 minute mark;

 

[Ron Away]

I loved this programme and used to have all Arthur C Clarke's "Unexplained"magazines.