Has this russian ufo clip been debunked yet?

[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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay, found it. This is the video that I was thinking of. Unfortunately it is not nearly as clear here as on my VHS copy. On tape, one can clearly see that the background object is saucer shaped... at least it sure seems clear enough. And like the first video, whatever it is, it looks completely real to me. The high quality video can be seen on the Best Evidence II show.

Note that I'm not saying that this is an alien spacecraft or proof of anything, I am saying that it stands out as a very interesting video and worthy of scrutiny. I have never seen the film analyzed or debunked, nor do I know where it came from.

 

[grant9076]

From what I see, that could not be a Mig 21 cockpit here is why:

The video was taken from a cockpit where there is plenty of room behind the ejection seat (clearly not a trait of the Mig 21). Also, the 2 pitot tubes on the ejector seat indicate that it is an Aces II ejector seat which is used on American built fighter aircraft.

I conclude that the video is a hoax.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You are referring to the first video, and if you read the thread you will see that we already know about the seat.

Something else: That does not explain what the object is in the video. It still might be worth checking to see if the size of the object can be determined. It's probably just a smart missile...

In the video posted just above, the object of interest does not appear to be a standard craft or a missile.

 

[Harbinger]

Geez, this is obvious bunk. The 'object' appears to move uniformly with the jet rather than with the clouds behind it. The rough camera quality makes it hard to tell what it really is but, it looks to me like a pen cap stuck on the tip of a long skinny wire- made invisible by the poor camera quality. The front pilot is holding the 'pen cap' against the inside of the canopy while the rear pilot shoots the bunk video- probably coaching the front pilot no how to move.

I think there is a frame or two in the video in which, as the jet turns, you can just bearly see a dull reflection off of that wire.