• 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!

Strong ev. UFO?

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Goggs Mackay

Goggs Mackay

Administrator
Staff member
On first look/think, this vid seems more compelling and interesting than any other UFO vid in a long time. If the news report is true then there are a few very vital aspects to this case:

1. More than a single event
2. Apparently even predictable
3. About as good an independent witness (former captain and now air safety official) cannot identify the object.
4. The TV report was initially skeptical and then their own 'control' video taping captured similar evidence.
5. There was a lot of data

There are a few negatives such as the cameraman wishing to stay anonymous but if this is a hoax overall then it is as good as it gets. If this sighting did happen then really it should be front page news but it's amazing how cut off from the world we all could be if we were not told about certain events thru the media?
 
goggsmackay said:
On first look/think, this vid seems more compelling and interesting than any other UFO vid in a long time. If the news report is true then there are a few very vital aspects to this case:

1. More than a single event
2. Apparently even predictable
3. About as good an independent witness (former captain and now air safety official) cannot identify the object.
4. The TV report was initially skeptical and then their own 'control' video taping captured similar evidence.
5. There was a lot of data

There are a few negatives such as the cameraman wishing to stay anonymous but if this is a hoax overall then it is as good as it gets. If this sighting did happen then really it should be front page news but it's amazing how cut off from the world we all could be if we were not told about certain events thru the media?
Click to expand...

Interesting video. It may be "by definition" an unidentified flying object, but it's not "by definition" a UFO. At least not yet:

"A sighting is considered unidentified when a report apparently contains all pertinent data necessary to suggest a valid hypothesis concerning the cause or explanation of the report but the description of the object or its motion cannot be correlated with any known object or phenomena."​
​
At this point we still don't have "all pertinent data necessary to suggest a valid hypothesis". We've only seen select clips from a news story and nobody has actually seen the object with their own eyes. Although an object is free to move quickly in the sky, when it nears the ground it should come to a rest or at least slow down, otherwise it would crash into the ground. Yet we have no reports from people on the ground in the residential area it's presumed to be frequenting. The shape of the objects also appear sort of random and more like grains of sand than a structured craft. On some places in the video they also seem to leave traces behind. Given these factors, my initial impression is that what we're seeing is some kind of video artifact, perhaps specks of dust on the CCD or CMOS sensor that are shifting around, possibly as part of the cleaning system, static buildup, or image stabilization. Or perhaps it's some kind of electronic or software artifact. So far, too little is known to rule these possibilities out. So we're not even sure we're actually looking at an "object" yet. Therefore we're not even into the realm of UAPs let alone UFOs. However it is intriguing and I hope to see more investigation done on this. Excellent post!
 
MANY apologies - did I forget to post the link?

it's at AnonymousFO.com and the video title is 'UFO over Denver baffles aviation experts' or 'UFO mystery in sky over Denver'.

This site should be bookmarked by everyone with an interest in UFOs. No site can claim to have proof positive but they do claim to try and check out footage as best they can to weed out the chaff.

They post monthly worldwide round-ups of best UFO vids and I always check them out. I found they had a vid taken only 30miles from me last month and I had heard nothing about it. So my point above about being cut off seems to be valid. If i can be so interested in UFOs but not even know of a good sighting in my own backyard then what else in the world am I not getting to know about?
 
@Ufology - an artefact would be ruled out by the fact a second 'unrelated' camera (bigger and more expensive) was set up on the same spot as the original, pointed in the same direction, ostensibly to debunk or provide a control - and yet it too captured a solid object in the distance moving at very high speed.

I've thought for a long time that there may be far more UFOs buzzing about than anyone might have thought in the past but they are mostly missed due to the incredibly high speeds.
Usual UFO 'lore' has it that they seem to be able to defeat inertia as well as gravity often displaying near-instant acceleration etc and if that is the case then there could indeed be lots of UFOs in the sky that are just too fast to be seen by the naked eye?
 
goggsmackay said:
@Ufology - an artefact would be ruled out by the fact a second 'unrelated' camera (bigger and more expensive) was set up on the same spot as the original, pointed in the same direction, ostensibly to debunk or provide a control - and yet it too captured a solid object in the distance moving at very high speed.

I've thought for a long time that there may be far more UFOs buzzing about than anyone might have thought in the past but they are mostly missed due to the incredibly high speeds.
Usual UFO 'lore' has it that they seem to be able to defeat inertia as well as gravity often displaying near-instant acceleration etc and if that is the case then there could indeed be lots of UFOs in the sky that are just too fast to be seen by the naked eye?
Click to expand...

Actually camera artifacts can be very similar. A good example is when some of the early Gulf Breeze videos started showing up, followed by a number of other similar videos from other locations. They were always of a bright object off in the distance that had to be zoomed in on to see it. It turned out that nearly all cameras in those days had a similar iris motor that at high zoom produced the artifact.

What would help establish the validity of the video in this case is for a real control situation to be setup. Two different cameras at different times with different images don't count as a control ( even if the results are similar ). To establish a baseline, a before, during, and after comparison where first a control screen is used using the same camera and settings, then the same camera and settings on-location, then same camera back on the the control screen, then have all three videos compared using the same process. This wouldn't be perfect, but it would be better than no baseline.

A virtually foolproof way would be to use three sets of two cameras in a triangulated position around the location the phenomena is said to be taking place. The chances of all six cameras producing exactly the same moving artifact in a triangulated setting would be sufficient evidence to believe we are seeing a real object and not an artifact. Even two simultaneously operated cameras side by side would add significant evidence either way.

On your comment about missing UFOs due to their high speeds; I completely agree. One morning I saw a large meteor streak across the eastern horizon during rush hour. It wasn't even mentioned on the news. Plus the UFO I saw moved so fast when it took off that unless you had been watching it when it came up out of the forest, there is little chance you would have seen it go by. Then there is the possibility that they also have some stealth technology. So sure, it's very possible that there is more activity than we are aware of with our senses.
 
Anyone live in Denver from the forum?

The location of the shoot and the direction are all available from the report and the witness claimed that the events happened around lunchtime a couple of times a week. It should be easy enough for someone to go there and try again?

Of course it would mean someone taking the time (few hours a day) to get there, set up and shoot and then all the time to check the footage afterwards. A tall order for folks who have work to go to etc but it's not often we get a tip on precisely where to shoot to maybe catch UAP.
 
goggsmackay said:
Anyone live in Denver from the forum?

The location of the shoot and the direction are all available from the report and the witness claimed that the events happened around lunchtime a couple of times a week. It should be easy enough for someone to go there and try again?

Of course it would mean someone taking the time (few hours a day) to get there, set up and shoot and then all the time to check the footage afterwards. A tall order for folks who have work to go to etc but it's not often we get a tip on precisely where to shoot to maybe catch UAP.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised to find that the skeptics and the hoaxers are already running the kinds of tests I mentioned above to determine the possibility of artifacts or that others are also trying to get more of the same kind of video. Unfortunately I don't have the funds to travel on short notice or buy a new video camera to play with ( still waiting for that lottery win to come in ) ;).
 
goggsmackay said:
I've often thought if I won the lottery I would donate to some research into UFOs or other phenomena (and charity).
Click to expand...

Well don't forget USI if you get lucky :D

If I won I'd hire some people to help finish the projects I'm working on, and help out some more people in other ways too.
 
Great of you to even consider it FastEddie. I am as guilty of anyone of pontificating from the comfort of home on all things UFO. But, to date I've not seen one and I certainly have never investigated one.
You have to give anyone, even a bad researcher, some credit for actually going out and investigating cases in person. We know how much information is kept from the public and more so anything to do with Ufology so we know that we cannot trust the little we do hear in mainstream media.

If you do try FastEddie check the item once again cos there is some certain time window supposedly giving highest chance of capturing anything on film.
 
Chris O'Brien, in another thread, I think maybe possibly debunked this case? Anyway, I might be wrong but I think he said that with new digital cameras, it's possible to have both infinity or long distance focussing, whilst having small, close objects look in focus too (like insects).

In summary basically, at this moment, there is not much to show this is anything than insects? That's not to say it's not something else but at present there is nothing pointing to anything weird if insects explain the video.

I suppose I'd want to see if there is something more precise about the trajectory or something that would not be present in typical insect flight. If insects are the explanation, then it will be the case that any decent digital camera will capture the same thing?

Need more info basically..
 
Some follow-up on the Denver UFO video from November 2012​

​
Still no opinions on a sensor or software artifact.​
 
Despite their appeal to authority, it looks like a very small, but very close, insect. No explanation was given for why the object couldn't be an insect. Explanation was given for why it couldn't be a drone, only. A single entomologist simply having "never seen that" isn't a useful piece of data.

Regardless, it seems too mundane and aesthetically "nuts and bolts" to generate any good lore. That said, does anyone know of any follow-ups or possibly related paranormal phenomena in the area?

George
 
Sure looks like insects to me. Anyone hear what shutter speed the cameras are being set at... I would bet they are at a very fast/high setting... One experiment Eddie would be to use a standard 30 to 60 fps and then use your highest/fastest setting. Use autofocus and different variations with your manual focus. What kind of video camera do you have btw?
 
Christopher O'Brien said:
Sure looks like insects to me ...
Click to expand...

I tend to agree that we're not seeing UFOs and that insects can't be ruled out. The reason I proposed dust on or near the sensor is because of the shape and movement of the object. To me it looks more like a dust grain, especially in some of the closeups, and it doesn't seem to move like a typical insect. The insect expert also seems reluctant to call it an insect. I also did some comparing to other sensor/software artifacts. I didn't find anything identical, but I did run across enough info to think it's possible, if not likely, especially if video stabilization is active. I'm not saying with any certainty that it is a dust sensor/software artifact, but at least it's a theory that could be ruled out if anyone wanted to do the tests. I also suspect that tests for the possibility of insects might also lead to some very similar results. Unfortunately I don't have the proper equipment or facilities to do it myself. Maybe we need those fact or faked paranormal files people on this one!
 
What I find interesting is:

The shape although admittedly, it's not a good enough picture to deduce much. But it could be weird as opposed to definitely an airplane/chopper/etc.

The reported repeatability.

The trajectory - if I understood the reporting correctly, there have been multiple video captures. Not all the exact same trajectory but I think I've seen a few shots and the ascending particularly seems quite controlled. All that does the is maybe rule out more haphazard explanations.

Also :-
I wonder if the same cameraman and equipment, pointed the camera in other directions and/or captured some known insects for comparison? Autumn in Colorado can be more than mild enough for insects so the must be around anyway.
 
Back
Top