Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Has this russian ufo clip been debunked yet?

  1. Aug 20, 2006 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 20, 2006 #2
    Why bother? If crackpots want to make extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on them, not us.
     
  4. Aug 20, 2006 #3
    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.
     
  5. Aug 20, 2006 #4
    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.
     
  6. Aug 20, 2006 #5

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2006
  7. Aug 20, 2006 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't see how the presentation of a video constitutes a crackpot claim.
     
  8. Aug 21, 2006 #7
    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'.
     
  9. Aug 21, 2006 #8
    thanks for the replies. I posted it because it poped up on a board Im 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?
     
  10. Aug 21, 2006 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

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

    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...
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2006
  11. Aug 21, 2006 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2006
  12. Aug 21, 2006 #11

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2006
  13. Aug 21, 2006 #12

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2006
  14. Aug 22, 2006 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2006
  15. Aug 22, 2006 #14

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm out of town right now, but when I get back I'll verify a source for this.
     
  16. Aug 27, 2006 #15
  17. Aug 27, 2006 #16

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2006
  18. Aug 28, 2006 #17
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2006
  19. Aug 28, 2006 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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/
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2006
  20. Aug 29, 2006 #19
    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!
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2006
  21. Aug 29, 2006 #20

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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? Does that also include the accuracy of the contextual information provided with (not in) the video?
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2006
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Has this russian ufo clip been debunked yet?
  1. Pi has been solved! (Replies: 26)

Loading...