]russ_watters said: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.
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.Does that also include the accuracy of the contextual information provided with (not in) the video?
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.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?
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.