4 ms·

Excuse me, I am generally a naive person. But what is your take on this video? Do you think this is legitimate? Do you think this “proves ” there are UFOs? Or

by 0xFFC 9y ago

Excuse me, I am generally a naive person. But what is your take on this video? Do you think this is legitimate? Do you think this “proves ” there are UFOs? Or this could be just a strategy for another goal? For example, somebody mentioned they are trying hard to redirect attention from something else? Update: I put the word prove in quotations.

dkersten 9y ago
The video quality is terrible, so who knows, but I've never seen any UFO footage that had any kind of decent quality video. Hell, a 2004 camera phone would be almost as good as this video. Yes, yes, its in the dark and moving fast and whatnot, but I thought that the military would have had much better imaging tech, even back in 2004, than this grainy low res thing. May as well be someones camcorder. The only thing it has going for it, in my opinion, is that the pilots would have been pretty used to seeing stuff in their cameras and would know the difference between something ordinary and something extraordinary. I do think its more likely that it was some military test plane than something extraterrestrial though, personally.
- forgotpassagan 9y ago
  They intentionally degrade the quality of to avoid giving competitors data. I'm sure Congress has seen the original, and it's pretty startling that they still think the object is a legit UFO
  - dkersten 9y ago
    > I'm sure Congress has seen the original, and it's pretty startling that they still think the object is a legit UFO This is just conjecture though. Its pretty difficult for us to have a meaningful discussion about whether Congresses reaction is noteworthy without knowing for sure what they did or didn't see. Based on what we have to work with, I'm not seeing anything noteworthy here besides some ATC/pilot folks conversation looking at a black smudge on a grainy sky. I guess unless we got to see the original video, its impossible to tell, really. > They intentionally degrade the quality of to avoid giving competitors data. Do we know this for sure? Is there a source for that?
    - forgotpassagan 9y ago
      It's been precedent for a long time. For example, we could have much better satellite photos but it's illegal to sell footage with resolution better than 1 pixel/meter. If they're doing it publicly for commercial satellite imagery I have zero doubts similar secret restrictions for video quality exist for military footage taken with optics
lucozade 9y ago
Others have said this but it's probably worth re-iterating. When the military call something a UFO, they mean it literally. It's an unidentified flying object i.e. an object moving through the air that they can't identify. It's a popular culture thing that this term is used to mean "of extraterrestrial origin". So, is it a UFO? Absolutely, pretty much by definition until someone identifies it. Is it of extraterrestrial origin? Almost definitely not. It just doesn't make sense that there are aliens hurtling around and occasionally buzzing rural folk in Alabama, and the occasional fighter pilot, for larks. They might be doing that but it's much more likely that they're not. This is, of course, entirely unrelated to the question of whether or not there is extraterrestrial life (probably) and extraterrestrial civilisation (no idea).
r3bl 9y ago
> But what is your take on this video? Do you think this is legitimate? Yes, they legitimately saw something that they could not explain at the time. > Do you think this proofs there are UFOs? Of course there are flying objects that haven't been identified by someone. That doesn't mean they are extra terrestrial though. > Somebody mentioned they are trying hard to redirect attention from something else? Who's "they"?

by 0xFFC 9y ago

dkersten 9y ago

The video quality is terrible, so who knows, but I've never seen any UFO footage that had any kind of decent quality video. Hell, a 2004 camera phone would be almost as good as this video. Yes, yes, its in the dark and moving fast and whatnot, but I thought that the military would have had much better imaging tech, even back in 2004, than this grainy low res thing. May as well be someones camcorder. The only thing it has going for it, in my opinion, is that the pilots would have been pretty used to seeing stuff in their cameras and would know the difference between something ordinary and something extraordinary. I do think its more likely that it was some military test plane than something extraterrestrial though, personally.

forgotpassagan 9y ago
They intentionally degrade the quality of to avoid giving competitors data. I'm sure Congress has seen the original, and it's pretty startling that they still think the object is a legit UFO
- dkersten 9y ago
  > I'm sure Congress has seen the original, and it's pretty startling that they still think the object is a legit UFO This is just conjecture though. Its pretty difficult for us to have a meaningful discussion about whether Congresses reaction is noteworthy without knowing for sure what they did or didn't see. Based on what we have to work with, I'm not seeing anything noteworthy here besides some ATC/pilot folks conversation looking at a black smudge on a grainy sky. I guess unless we got to see the original video, its impossible to tell, really. > They intentionally degrade the quality of to avoid giving competitors data. Do we know this for sure? Is there a source for that?
  - forgotpassagan 9y ago
    It's been precedent for a long time. For example, we could have much better satellite photos but it's illegal to sell footage with resolution better than 1 pixel/meter. If they're doing it publicly for commercial satellite imagery I have zero doubts similar secret restrictions for video quality exist for military footage taken with optics

lucozade 9y ago

Others have said this but it's probably worth re-iterating. When the military call something a UFO, they mean it literally. It's an unidentified flying object i.e. an object moving through the air that they can't identify. It's a popular culture thing that this term is used to mean "of extraterrestrial origin". So, is it a UFO? Absolutely, pretty much by definition until someone identifies it. Is it of extraterrestrial origin? Almost definitely not. It just doesn't make sense that there are aliens hurtling around and occasionally buzzing rural folk in Alabama, and the occasional fighter pilot, for larks. They might be doing that but it's much more likely that they're not. This is, of course, entirely unrelated to the question of whether or not there is extraterrestrial life (probably) and extraterrestrial civilisation (no idea).

r3bl 9y ago

> But what is your take on this video? Do you think this is legitimate? Yes, they legitimately saw something that they could not explain at the time. > Do you think this proofs there are UFOs? Of course there are flying objects that haven't been identified by someone. That doesn't mean they are extra terrestrial though. > Somebody mentioned they are trying hard to redirect attention from something else? Who's "they"?