Has this russian ufo clip been debunked yet?

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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'.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 spacecrafts 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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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"

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.

 

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 in to 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.

 

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/

 

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 [Broken]

http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/Guest/219/ [Broken]

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

And here are some reviews of the show -

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

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

Enjoy!

 

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.

 

Finally i get to see this thing, but i see the quality isnt 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.

 

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.