Has this russian ufo clip been debunked yet?

[Azael]

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4468185100897567649&q=ufo

Looks scetchy to me, the cylinder thing doesn't even look solid. Almost transparent like some kind of shadow.

 

[Rach3]

Why bother? If crackpots want to make extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on them, not us.

 

[Rach3]

It looks like someone took preexisting footage and drew in blobs frame-by-frame. Not too sophisticated, you can see the object jumping around unphysically.

 

[Rach3]

Note that the object is not an airfoil, and that at airplane-like speeds it should be falling like a rock relative to the clouds. Actually, the airspeed velocities are clearly bogus - the object is at one point moving perpendicular to the camera's flight path!

I didn't bother watching the fake interview, no comment there.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have this on video tape which is much clearer and I don't see anything that looks fake based on picture quality alone. In fact, I find this to be one of the most impressive videos to be found. The first time I saw it my jaw about hit the floor.

...in fact, one of the most striking qualities is the motion, which looks very real.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Why bother? If crackpots want to make extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on them, not us.

I don't see how the presentation of a video constitutes a crackpot claim.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof is on them. So far we have a shadow-like disk that moves off. There are many inconsistancies and the disk seems to disobey physical laws, not only that but after it goes off screen they continue that "estimated speed" display to accentuate something accelerating exponentially, something 'alien'.

 

[Azael]

thanks for the replies. I posted it because it poped up on a board I am a moderator on and became curious. I wish I could se the tape of it because on this clip when it passes by the clouds on second 16-18 in the clip it looks like the clouds are semi visible through the cylinder?

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see how the presentation of a video constitutes a crackpot claim.

There are a number of claims made in the linked video. Whether they are crackpot claims or not is a matter of opinion.

For one thing, their description of the motion of the object does not match with what the cockpit video shows. As Rach3 pointed out, they are not flying parallel to each other, but perpendicular. Also, the plane is clearly in a steep bank, so there is no way to ascertain what the object was doing.

The linked video doesn't say very much of value, but I'm sure there is a lot more information available on this, though...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Rach said that he didn't watch the rest of the video. And beyond that, encounters with UFOs by the military are well documented.

The vehicles were not flying perpendicular to each other. The plane was making a turn.

A video is not a crackpot claim, it is evidence.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

thanks for the replies. I posted it because it poped up on a board I am a moderator on and became curious. I wish I could se the tape of it because on this clip when it passes by the clouds on second 16-18 in the clip it looks like the clouds are semi visible through the cylinder?

As near as I can tell, the anomalies mentioned are due to the conversion to digitial. The video tape shows no such anomalies.

You can't judge something like this based on an internet mpg. If you are really interested you will need to find a good video from the original tape.

Also, the first question to be answered here is that of the source. Did this really come from declassified Soviet military footage? In the past I have found that such claims about US military encounters were true as I found the files at the NSA myself; hence the UFO Napster.

 

[russ_watters]

The vehicles were not flying perpendicular to each other. The plane was making a turn.

Closer to perpendicular than parallel, but in any case, the claim in the video was that they were flying in the same direction. No mention was made of the obvious fact that the plane was turning.

A video is not a crackpot claim, it is evidence.

We're talking about two different things here. I (and Rach too) am talking about the video linked in the OP, which is made by a UFO enthusiast and contains claims about the object, as well as clips from the cockpit video. You seem to be talking about the actual cockpit video shot during the flight. Clearly, one is just evidence, the other contains claims.

So again, the video linked in the OP contains claims, some of which may be considered crackpot claims by some people.

When a claim is made that is very clearly wrong, such as "You'll notice the cylinder seems to be traveling at about the same speed with the migs" - while showing the migs in a 70+ degree banked turn, nowhere near the axis of the cylinder, the video meets my criteria for crackpottery.

Also a good indicator of crackpottery is specious claims: such as the 3d animation showing the size of the object. The Mig-21 does not have radar, so they could not have known how far they were from the object, so they could not have known how big it was. That's very much like the Mexican Air Force UFO video (where they chased oil rigs that were something like 40 miles away). We all know how impossible it is to judge distances and sizes from the air - experienced pilots even make the mistake - and yet people continually just pull information like that, well, out of the air.

Since all of this is just guesswork, my guess is just as good as anyone else's: I'm going to guess that this is an American recon drone. However, without more contextual information, I can't rule out a simple hoax. And I don't mean a faked video - I'm sure the video is real - but all the contextual "facts" are provided by the narrator, not the video. We're told by the narrator that the planes were launched to pursue this object, but we don't really know that that is true. This could well be a random piece of dirt on the canopy that slides of while the plane is flying, found by a hoaxter who built a story around it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't pay much attention to TV interviews unless they include the individuals involved. As for the interpretations, these only carry as much credibility as the people who made the show. Much of the trouble with this stuff is that either critical information is left out, say perhaps that the position was known by those who originally dispatched the migs which would allow extropolation later to estimate size, or, wild guesses, or information that is flat out wrong is presented.

Also, again, Rach said that he didn't watch the "fake interviews", so I had to assume that he meant the video.

I wouldn't say that I think the video is real but the version that I have is extremely compelling. If it is real, I think it may be a genuine video of an alien spacecraft . Note that I have never said this before. Also, this assumes that this is declassified military footage, and next, that the object was never identified. edit: Also, it assumes that alien spacecraft s exist, which I never assume to be true in fact. But if they do exist...

This does fit the standard model for [black] cylinders which have been reported since...well...perhaps since Moses. I have probably seen thousands of hours of this stuff and not much really gets my attention, but as I said, when I saw this I was shocked. Maybe it is a secret US aircraft but that would seem to require a fantastic leap in technology as what we see does not appear to be an airfoil. In my own mind I seem to have rule out smart missiles but I don't know why I felt so sure about this at the time. Maybe this was sloppy reasoning on my part.

There is a real question about material coming out of X-Soviet countries. I have no doubt that some is legitimate but also that this creates a huge opportunity for fakes. What does seem to be true is that some KGB offices were abandoned when the Soviet collapsed, and the materials within sold to the highest bidder. This has created a virtual gold rush for UFO enthusiasts.

Oh yes, I believe that this can be found on the show called "UFOs, Best Evidence II". The recording found is much better and is the source, or one of the sources for the video seen here.

I have always meant to find the owner of the original film and to see if a proper analysis has been done. I don't know who owns it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm out of town right now, but when I get back I'll verify a source for this.

 

[robinson]

That footage was debunked years ago

Quick reason: The camera footage is from the backseat of an american fighter. Not a MIG. So everything else is suspect after that.

The show came out in 1998, and was debunked then.

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1998/sep/m15-005.shtml

And hello. My first contribution here.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Thanks robinson and welcome to PF.

Has this claim been verified? This should be relatively easy to confirm.

As for the first claim in the link"

"A UFO encountered by a Russian MIG during military
maneuvers."

clearly shows an American McDonald Douglas F-15A or
C Eagle in flight not a MiG (unless the F-15 *was* the
UFO:-)"

That video is also very striking as a flying saucer seems to be clearly visible beyond the other aircraft. When I saw this, it was immediately obvious that the fighter jet in view was a US plane. I thought that perhaps this was footage of a US plane from the cockpit of a MIG, but I am in no position to judge regarding the Mig. However, the big fat USAF symbol on the other plane is pretty much a gimme.

The fact that your alleged debunker doesn't even mention the flying saucer is somewhat telling.

 

[robinson]

Hello Ivan.

I didn't bother to post the dozen other links that would show you just how fake that footage is. I was just answering the question in the thread header. "Yes, that footage was debunked."

MiGs don't have backseats, (unless they are trainers). [Addendum: Yes, there was a two seat Mig, the Mig-15SP-5, but it hasn't been used in many many years.]

That footage is from an american fighter.

The "UFO" is fake, added into the original footage.

The show it is from was using faked footage to make the show interesting.

The Russians may have seen something, but that footage is not real.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You or other people insisting is not evidence; well, it is anecdotal.

Also, I happen to know for a fact that there are Mig 21,25,29s, and SU 30s that have back seats as I plan to fly in one of these next summer.
http://www.incredible-adventures.com/migs/

 

[robinson]

Yes, there are plenty of MiGs with two seats. The trainers. The kind you get to ride in. (and that is way cool that you are doing that!).

Here are some links to see how that footage is from the backseat of an american fighter, probably an F-15.

http://www.xflight.de/f16/pe_org_par_ace.htm

http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/Guest/219/

http://xflight.powerweb.de/original/...i/0004_002.jpg

And here are some reviews of the show -

http://www.csicop.org/cmi/reviews/TNT-KGB.html

http://www.rr0.org/Dossier/1998_Sverdlovsk/index.html

Enjoy!

 

[russ_watters]

I don't pay much attention to TV interviews unless they include the individuals involved. As for the interpretations, these only carry as much credibility as the people who made the show. Much of the trouble with this stuff is that either critical information is left out, say perhaps that the position was known by those who originally dispatched the migs which would allow extropolation later to estimate size, or, wild guesses, or information that is flat out wrong is presented.

Fair enough, but it is often tough to even know what you are looking at without the context provided by the narrator. Ie, time, date, location, altitude, what kind of aircraft...

I wouldn't say that I think the video is real but the version that I have is extremely compelling.

Just to make sure we are on the same page, by "real", I presume you mean nothing more than that the video itself was not doctored or the scene staged? Does that also include the accuracy of the contextual information provided with (not in) the video?

If it is real, I think it may be a genuine video of an alien spacecraft . Note that I have never said this before.

Well, like the Mexican Air Force video, I think there is a loooooong... road between being real and actually showing an alien spacecraft . Indeed, I almost always accept (even sometimes just for the sake of simplifying an argument) that such videos are "real" (under my definition above).

There are lots of things that that "object" could be and not be an alien spacecraft . In fact (and I'm not sure if I articulated it this way before), I'd almost go so far as to say such a video cannot be used to prove the existence of anything. Ie, because of the inherrent low-quality of such videos, the only thing that can be positively matched to it is a well-known/understood pre-existing object. Think about it this way: it is tough enough to positively ID any object in such a video, so how can you use it to positively ID something that you don't already have independent confirmation that it exists?

I suspect you will find that limitation to be unfairly stringent, but I think it fits with the scientific method to require a very high quality of evidence for something that is extremely out of the ordinary.

 

[DaveC426913]

Ie, because of the inherrent low-quality of such videos, the only thing that can be positively matched to it is a well-known/understood pre-existing object. Think about it this way: it is tough enough to positively ID any object in such a video, so how can you use it to positively ID something that you don't already have independent confirmation that it exists.

Oh, I don't know. If there were a bug-eyed-monster waving a thrice-bifurcated tentacle from the payload door, or if the craft's exhaust spat lightning soap bubbles, I think we could positively identify it as of non-Earth origin.

My point is that usually these videos are filmed of obects with very little detail on them.

"OK, Lt., we got the 'large, black cylinder' part the first fifty times. What other details did you see?"
"Ah, did I mention it was large?"


But that doesn't have to be so.

 

[russ_watters]

I think we're on the same page, Dave - my problem with such videos is that they are never unequivocably clear in what they are. It does put the pro-flying-saucer crowd on the short end of a catch-22, but I think that suggests a logical conclusion all its own: if flying saucers exist only in poor signal-to-noise ratio data, the inevitable conclusion is that they are an artifact of that poor data.

If a clear photo of a bug-eyed-monster showed up in a dozen videos on the same day, that would change the equation - but existing data fits a different equation. I once read in a book that little short of a flying saucer landing on the White-House lawn would suffice as unequivocable proof...

 

[russ_watters]

Regarding the motion of this "cylinder", I've cited the Mexican Air Force incident several times already. Here's a transcript of an interview with the flight commander:

It's just a guess, but perhaps there was a connection in that sense because it is very strange that we first pursued them, but when we canceled that and made a completely opposite turn. The objects then also turned themselves - but now in OUR direction and began following us. I think it could be posible that in some way these objects were aware that we have been following and observing them.

http://www.rense.com/general53/mextt.htm

With an utter lack of depth perception, it is impossible to accurately discern distance or motion from such data, as this experienced - but mistaken - flight commander shows.

In this case, since the objects were distant and bright (oil rigs), any change in direction or speed from the planes yielded no change in the appearance of the "objects". If you are flying toward them and think they are 5 miles away, then turn and fly away from them, it appears that they rapidly circled around behind you.

 

[PIT2]

Finally i get to see this thing, but i see the quality isn't the best. One of the first things i thought i noticed was that the ufo shakes along with the camera movement a little. At least it bounces up and down somewhat, look at the last few seconds of the video where it shows a closeup.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm stil trying to figure out what the highlight (time marker 0:31 - 0:36) is actually highlighting. It highlights - not the cylindical object - but what appears to be a tiny bright object above the cylinder which is just visible for a moment between clouds against the blue of the sky.

(try turning the sound off, which is how I've been listening to this mostly)

It's almost as if the producers of the show had this footage with a highlight in it, and the original highlight was referring to something that mgiht explain the object, yet the show producers decided that they liked the footage, but not the narrative. So they dubbed a different narrative in.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Fair enough, but it is often tough to even know what you are looking at without the context provided by the narrator. Ie, time, date, location, altitude, what kind of aircraft... Just to make sure we are on the same page, by "real", I presume you mean nothing more than that the video itself was not doctored or the scene staged?

]

Yes, by real I mean that whatever we see, it appears to be a genuine film [originally] that has not been doctored. Of course without a proper analysis, who knows? But it lacks any obvious flaws as nearly as I can tell.

Does that also include the accuracy of the contextual information provided with (not in) the video?

No. As I said, the contextual information is only as realible as the producers of the show. Even if they believed that they were talking to X-KGB agents or whatever, how much effort went into verification is another story. It certainly doesn't look good for source reliabililty.

There are lots of things that that "object" could be and not be an alien spacecraft . In fact (and I'm not sure if I articulated it this way before), I'd almost go so far as to say such a video cannot be used to prove the existence of anything. Ie, because of the inherrent low-quality of such videos, the only thing that can be positively matched to it is a well-known/understood pre-existing object. Think about it this way: it is tough enough to positively ID any object in such a video, so how can you use it to positively ID something that you don't already have independent confirmation that it exists?

Even though I have said it many times I'll say it again: A photo or video can never serve as proof of ET. However, if the context was accurate the event would be much more interesting. Also, the video is much clearer than the mpg. They obviously weren't chasing a balloon or ball lightning. Additionally, we can consider the evidence for a claim without making absolute assumptions of proof. In other words, evidence is allowed. Why do you feel that you must argue that evidence for any alleged ETs is not proof? We already know this.

Were it genuine within the context described, the field of possiblities quickly narrows. Generally and in the most compelling cases, if it can be verifed, the sheer speed or maneuvers observed reduces the field of known possibitlites to a few, or even none. We don't always require visual identification to make things interesting. Also, there are cases in which the description given by pilots leaves little room for interpretation. Either the story is true or not, and if true, it seems that there is nothing on Earth to account for what was seen.

I was only really interested if this was geniuine declassified military footage of a Soviet encounter with an object that was never identified. At this point, that seems unlikely.

If anyone has a link and explanation for the other video mentioned in robinson's link, I would sure like to see it. It appears to show a flying saucer pacing two military aircraft; at close range and from the cockpit of one of the aircrafts. The object passes behind clouds a couple of times, and then it drops out of the shot in what looks like free fall.

late edit

 

[Gokul43201]

No. As I said, the contextual information is only as realible as the producers of the show. Even if they believed that they were talking to X-KGB agents or whatever, how much effort went into verification is another story. It certainly doesn't look good for source reliabililty.

Ivan, are you aware that there is commentary happening before we get to the interviews? You don't have to get to the interviews to hear the claims that the footage was shot from a MiG-21 or that the UFO was matching the speed of the MiG.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan, are you aware that there is commentary happening before we get to the interviews? You don't have to get to the interviews to hear the claims that the footage was shot from a MiG-21 or that the UFO was matching the speed of the MiG.

Yes. As with most any news broadcast, interpretations are always suspect. Hopefully the sources and basic facts are at least cited correctly but in this case it seems unlikely.

If the point is that the narration is inaccurate, then this goes with the turf. Generally, this may or may not discredit the actual footage. In much the same way, any Discovery Channel science show may or may not accurately present information that is basically true.

 

[robinson]

Ivan,

if you like ufo videos, try youtube

this one has several versions posted, and if you believe what you see on a video, it is a real ufo

[MEDIA=youtube]FtKuBKIaVvs[/MEDIA][/URL]

lots of fun there

like
[PLAIN][MEDIA=youtube]QDdcCM3w4YE[/MEDIA][/URL]
or
[PLAIN][MEDIA=youtube]-qYl1OMM0fk[/MEDIA][/URL]

enjoy

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan,

if you like ufo videos, try youtube

this one has several versions posted, and if you believe what you see on a video, it is a real ufo

[MEDIA=youtube]FtKuBKIaVvs[/MEDIA][/URL][/quote]

Thanks

That one comes with a funny story. The Sci Fi channel made this as a commercial. About a year later a news agency was snookered into running this as a genuine video. It caused quite a fuss, and even a die hard debunking friend of mine was completely taken in by it. The fact that a news agency bought into it caught him off guard.

[quote]
[PLAIN][MEDIA=youtube]QDdcCM3w4YE[/MEDIA][/URL][/quote]

Who knows...

[quote][PLAIN][MEDIA=youtube]-qYl1OMM0fk[/MEDIA][/URL][/quote]

A well known and solidly debunked shot of ice crystals being pushed by the shuttle's thrusters. Note the flash from the thrusters just before the crystal changes direction. :biggrin:

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One thing that I was thinking recently is how there was a sort of golden age of UFOs. When we do find good film of something anomalous, there are experts who can say with reasonable degree of certainty if the film is credible. But computer animations are so good now [and getting better] that I wonder if a good faked video can be debunked by analysis.

 

[robinson]

Thanks Ivan for the info on those clips. The SciFi channel one I debunked just based on the clip, the first time I saw it. But I didn't know where it came from.

Do you know about the NASA Tether experiment clip? The "swarms" of UFO's?

 

[DaveC426913]

Do you know about the NASA Tether experiment clip? The "swarms" of UFO's?

Oh this one is easy. I've debunked this one myself, and I've no special training. I'm not trying to be arrogant - you need not take my word for it. I can give you detailed timestamps and pointers and once you see them, you'll say "Oh yes. That's is totally right."

I could post it for you if you want. I could also simply http://www.astronomyforum.net/forum.html?db=&topic_number=3336&lastpost=2006-06-2316:28:38", but it's a bit of a long read.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yep, Phil Klass debunked [explained] that one for me over ten years ago. The key feature of the "unknown objects" passing behind the tether is an artifact of the technology.

...although IIRC, there was an additional effect of saturation of some of the CCD array elements involved. I used to have a NASA link on this that explained the camera technology, but I lost it somewhere along the line.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yep, Phil Klass debunked [explained] that one for me over ten years ago. The key feature of the "unknown objects" passing behind the tether is an artifact of the technology.

...although IIRC, there was an additional effect of saturation of some of the CCD array elements involved. I used to have a NASA link on this that explained the camera technology, but I lost it somewhere along the line.

Ah. It isn't even that technical.

1] Out-of-focus objects produce an image of a large disk that is semi-transparent. When that out-of-focus object passes in front of a bright object, the bright object can be seen through the disk. If you didn't know better, you'd think the disc object passed behind the bright object. This becomes quite obvious when you see ALL the 'swarm' objects change shape - it is actually a camera focus change!


2] All the 'changing directions instantly' stuff is due to camera movement. They used some sleight-of-hand editing to disguise this, which I can draw attention to.