|
Post by dbh on Nov 12, 2012 17:12:24 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by dbh on Nov 21, 2012 17:11:10 GMT 1
In what I think to be one of the most interesting cases this year.... Follow up to this story... source - Fox 31 - Denver news report can be seen here... kdvr.com/2012/11/20/insect-expert-ufos-over-denver-not-bugs-images-on-video-remain-a-mystery/Insect expert: UFOs over Denver not bugs; images on video remain a mysteryDENVER — It’s a story that’s captured worldwide attention. UFOs caught on camera that appear to be launching and landing in the Denver metro area. An aviation expert could not identify it but we’ve heard from hundreds of viewers who think they can. So we talked to more experts, and asked an entomologist to analyze the video, but the answer is still anything but clear. We first told you about the strange sightings in the mile high skies, after a Denver man, who does not want to be identified, brought us his home video. The flying objects are too fast to see with the naked eye, but when we slowed down his footage frame by frame, we saw something there. Aviation expert Steve Cowell could not identify it. “That is not an airplane, that is not a helicopter, those are not birds … I can’t identify it,” he said. The images were captured on camera from a hilltop in Federal Heights, looking south toward downtown Denver. That location just off of 84th Ave. and Federal Blvd. has now become a popular place for UFO sightseers, “I wanted to come out and get some footage for myself,” Jon Gardner of Broomfield told us. And we have been inundated with phone calls and emails from across the country and as far away as Greece, Croatia, Japan and Korea. Many people have sent us pictures of similar looking objects. Others believe they have “solved our mystery.” The top 3 answers we have received are: remote controlled aircraft, military drones or insects. A remote controlled aircraft seems like a possible explanation, but the man who shot the video has spent several days in the area near 56th Ave. and Clay St. where the UFOs appear to be launching and landing. He hasn’t seen anyone flying a remote controlled toy, nor have any of the neighbors. Aviation expert Steve Cowell also suspected we had captured military drones until he watched the video, “I don’t think it’s a drone,” he said. He has never seen an unmanned aircraft that flies so erratically. In order to fly drones, the FAA must issue a certificate of authorization. The FAA has issued hundreds of COAs to the University of Colorado to fly drones north of Boulder, but it says no drones are authorized to fly over the Denver metro area. But by far the most popular theory is bugs. Many of you wrote to tell us the object in our video is most likely a fly. We showed the footage to entomologist, or insect expert, Mart Ann Hamilton. “This is a toughie. I’ve never seen anything like this,” she said. Hamilton watched the video over and over again, then she gave us her professional opinion. “After watching the various shots, I do not believe it’s an insect. The shape is inconsistent with an insect,” she said. But that won’t convince skeptics, like Bret Dallas. “The UFOs aren’t UFOs anymore, we’ve identified them as insects,” he said. What do you think these UFOs are? Join the conversation on our Facebook page. Send your UFO pictures to tips@kdvr.com. Want to see more UFO reports? National UFO Reporting Center
|
|
|
Post by meldrew on Nov 21, 2012 17:26:59 GMT 1
its being said that bugs are the culprits, according to reddit who have done some research on this www.reddit.com/r/Denver/comments/13da3k/this_is_the_denver_ufo_meeting_followup_post/due to the denver case another interesting thought occurred to the heretical notions. SO FAST IT’S INVISIBLEIf a UFO is moving too fast for your eyes to notice it, your video camera probably won’t catch it either. Since reading about the Denver UFO the other day — this is the supposed air/space-craft that supposedly cavorts over a crowded metro area too swiftly for nearby people to see — I’ve been wondering: how fast would a flying saucer have to be moving, to be effectively invisible to unaided eyes? There’s no single, simple answer, of course. The “invisibility speed” would depend on the ambient light level, the relative size of the object in one’s visual field, the relative direction of motion, the presence of other sensory cues such as whooshes or flashes, the direction of your visual attention, and a host of other factors. You can’t see a speeding rifle bullet, for example, but you can see a much larger military jet moving at the same speed. This treatment here, in the bulletin of a medical research institute, gives a good overview of the problem. It isn’t hard to come up with a seat-of-the-pants estimate, though. The binocular field of view of a person with normal vision is about 120 degrees. Let’s imagine an airplane-sized object that speeds straight across this binocular field of view, with a closest approach of one mile. How quickly must it get across to be effectively invisible? The human visual system starts to lose its ability to distinguish stimuli — even under optimal conditions — when they are separated by less than about 1/50th of a second. That isn’t strictly relevant to this problem; the question here is whether you can detect a single novel stimulus moving against an ordinary background. But the 1/50 sec figure gives us a rough idea of the effective “refresh rate” of the human visual system, and I think we can all agree that just about anything crossing our visual field in 1/50 sec. would be invisible, unless it is highly luminous against a dark background. In bright daylight even a much slower object — even at airplane scale, at an easy, one-mile viewing distance — could still be unnoticeable to most or all viewers if it is not luminous. Human eyes frequently dart around (saccade) for about 1/5 sec at a time, during which the visual feed is interrupted; also our eyes blink a lot, for intervals that can be even longer. These interruptions are effectively random, so they wouldn’t blind everyone at once. Also, like other mammals we have a visual system that is highly sensitive to moving objects, even if we can’t perceive them with sharp resolution. But surely the effective FOV-crossing limit is higher than 1/50 sec. What’s the upper limit on this transit time? I think that if I were staring out onto a clear, sunlit expanse of ground or water, an airplane-sized object speeding across my binocular visual field a mile away would have to cross in well under a second, to go unnoticed. Let’s say 1/2 second. (Count ‘one-mississippi’ but stop halfway — it’s a longer interval than it might seem.) I’m pretty sure that an object of that size, moving that fast, at that distance, would still be perceptible to a significant fraction of onlookers. I’d bet that even a 1/4 sec transit would be noticed by some people, especially if they’re expecting to see something. But let’s stick with 1/2 sec to be (I think) conservative. What speed does that represent? If you work out the simple trigonometry of it, you come up with a figure just shy of 25,000 mph — which is faster than low-earth-orbit satellites move. It’s also faster than a simple, earth-technology aircraft could move through the lower atmosphere without quickly burning up. And again, I believe that’s conservative. The real speed for effective invisibility of a large object before a multitude of onlookers could be double or triple that figure. At closer ranges, the same object would be larger and in that sense more perceptible, but also would spend less time crossing people’s fields of view, so it could well have a lower invisibility-speed. Clearly invisibility-speed is neither static nor simply linearly varying with distance. But even if you were to halve the distance and assume a halved invisibility-speed, you’d be talking about something that has to move at more than 10,000 mph. These calculations are relevant, I think, to video-only UFO incidents like the Denver one. Such incidents tend to bring with them the assumption that ordinary, non-zoomed video cameras can catch stuff that unaided eyes can’t detect. In the recent Denver case, for example, the “UFO” was caught from a distance on camera with minimal blur (at presumably 1/100 shutter speed) but supposedly was moving too fast to be visible to people who were closer to it. My suggestion is that the real, too-fast-for-people-to-notice speed for airplane-sized objects, at modest ranges in full daylight, is going to be so high that they would show up only as blurs on ordinary video. An object at 10,000 mph, for example, would move about 150 ft during a typical (1/100 sec) video shutter interval. That would be all blur, even for a 747-sized craft. Conversely, an airplane-sized object that is moving slowly enough to appear with minimal blur on a camera one mile away should be easily noticeable to most people at closer range. The Denver case is hard to judge definitively at this point, for a number of reasons: the object (or objects) is small compared to the video image field, we don’t know whether the camera operators used zoom, we don’t know whether they tried to perceive the object without a camera, and of course we don’t know the true distance of the object from the camera. But count me among the dubious. As many have suggested, the object might be only a bumblebee-like insect in the near-field (or medium-field viewed with zoom). If so, that would explain why no one downrange sees it. It also would account for the blunt, tubular appearance of this “UFO” on film: that would be the insect’s body, the wings being too fast-moving (and probably too transparent) to show up at all. bug. hereticalnotions.com/2012/11/19/so-fast-its-invisible/food for thought there.
|
|
|
Post by dbh on Nov 21, 2012 17:54:19 GMT 1
Thanks for the information Mildrew!
One of the things that I noticed that the updated news report was lacking was... at the " ... location just off of 84th Ave. and Federal Blvd. [that] has now become a popular place for UFO sightseers,"
Have the other witnesses also captured evidence or have the sightings stopped? That is very important information being left out of the updated report...so...
I have emailed the reporter asking her for this information and to please follow up again indicating that the sightings are still continuing.
This story has become very popular so I am expecting at least one more follow up story.
|
|
|
Post by meldrew on Nov 25, 2012 0:42:10 GMT 1
|
|
uforn
Administrator
Investigator In Training
In Search For The Truth
Posts: 5,400
|
Post by uforn on Nov 25, 2012 14:08:21 GMT 1
Here's the image
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2012 16:28:41 GMT 1
Hello uforn,
Sure looks like a bee to me but if someone can make a bee look like an UFO it can probably work in reverse. Someone can make an UFO look like a bee. I don't really have a point to what I'm saying but it just a stupid thought that popped into my head. I mean where's the advantage in making an UFO look like something more mundane? It does give a kind of point to the reason perhaps folks fake stuff though. Number one it's easy and number two there isn't a good enough reason not to.
|
|
|
Post by meldrew on Nov 25, 2012 17:00:04 GMT 1
hiflier you have reminded me with your last post of a horrible topic that made me rant big time, it was UFOs disguised as clouds I vote an instant ban for any member that posts that. I replied to one thread on that subject saying "well if thats the case then trees are actually ufos, and why don't ufos disguise themselves as commercial aircraft, please don't go down that path.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2012 17:11:51 GMT 1
Hello meldrew, Wouldn't dream of it! Back in the 70's I worked with a guy that said that UFO's HIDE in clouds and that is as close as I'd dare come to the subject of your earlier rant my friend.
|
|
bazmatic
Researcher
I'm watching
Posts: 195
|
Post by bazmatic on Nov 25, 2012 19:10:46 GMT 1
UFO's disguised as commercial aircraft ? Does anybody remember the reports of mystery aircraft, normally of very old origin flying at very low level and making no sound, and. performing manoeuvres not capable of the original aircraft? NO, they weren't crashing
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2012 19:14:27 GMT 1
Hello bazmatic,
Sounds like the Philadelphia Experiment gone haywire.
|
|
|
|
Post by meldrew on Nov 25, 2012 19:33:24 GMT 1
Hello bazmatic, Sounds like the Philadelphia Experiment gone haywire. I think I have the low down on that, it came to me a little while ago when researching something else, as is usually the case, its in my head so I will have to dig about to make it look a bit sensible, it wont take long.
|
|
|
Post by meldrew on Nov 25, 2012 20:28:08 GMT 1
off on a tangent again, could this be what the Philadelphia experiment was really all about ? DegaussingThe original method of degaussing was to install electromagnetic coils into the ships, known simply as coiling. In addition to being able to bias the ship continually, coiling also allowed the bias field to be reversed in the southern hemisphere, where the mines were set to detect "S-pole down" fields. British ships, notably cruisers and battleships, were well protected by about 1943 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degaussing
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2012 21:17:25 GMT 1
Hello meldrew,
I have no doubt that's pretty much what the PE was. Sounds as though, along with the UFO biz, that the U.S. had plenty to psyche out their enemies with. Pseudo-science at it's most useful stage.
|
|
|
Post by dbh on Nov 26, 2012 17:26:19 GMT 1
morning friends...
just a quick update...
on November 21... I emailed the reporter on the Denver UFO sighting the following...
From:XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:24 AM To: KDVRTips Subject: Denver - UFO
Hello Heidi,
You mentioned in your follow up report on the Denver UFO sightings, that “The location just off of 84th Ave. and Federal Blvd. has now become a popular place for UFO sightseers, “I wanted to come out and get some footage for myself,” Jon Gardner of Broomfield told us“
What you have failed to mention is… have these UFO sightseers also captured evidence or have the sightings stopped?
If the sightings still continue and can be verified by multiple witnesses this could be a very significant sighting. If they have stopped then it is most likely either a bug or human. Can you please verify this information and please update again?
Here was her response....
I don’t know, I didn’t get to do the interview and I watched the whole thing and no one mentioned if they got anything or not.
The guy I put in the story was a debunker.
We may go out there again after the holidays and follow up.
Heidi Hemmat Investigative Reporter KDVR/KWGN TV News heidi.hemmat@kdvr.com 303-566-xxxx cell: 720-448-xxxx
|
|
|
Post by meldrew on Nov 26, 2012 17:50:27 GMT 1
at least you got a reply mate.
|
|
|
Post by dbh on Dec 28, 2012 22:33:52 GMT 1
so much for my sighting of the year.... thank God 2013 is around the corner.... source huffington post www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/02/denver-ufos-flying-insects_n_2168247.htmlFor some reason, recent UFO reports over Denver still have legs, or antennae, depending on your point of view, belief or personal bias. In early November, FOX TV affiliate, KDVR presented a series of videos, taken by an anonymous source, which purported to show UFOs buzzing around, maneuvering up and down, right and left at dazzling speeds -- all allegedly not visible to the naked eye, only by video after it was slowed down. Theories, including alien ships, military drones and insects have buzzed around the Internet in the past few weeks, and oddly, there still seems to be a mystery surrounding the identification of these objects -- despite the fact that, upon first glance, the videos appear to show flying bugs. "I watched their video and slowed it down, and it took me a good three hours to get through it at the speed I was playing it," said Bryan Bonner, co-founder of the 15-year-old Rocky Mountain Paranormal Research Society. "It seems to be a combination. Yes, there are bugs, but there are some obvious birds in there, too. You can see wings flapping." Bonner and his team approach their investigations of things like UFOs, Bigfoot, ghosts, psychics and urban legends with a totally skeptical focus. "We've branded ourselves as paranormal claims investigators. A lot of people go in and look for UFOs. Well, not much research can be done when you've already decided what's there," Bonner told The Huffington Post. "This Denver case is a great example. If I went in knowing that those were UFOs in the video, I shouldn't have even bothered going down there. But if I go in there with a completely open mind, a little critical thought goes a long way. We just want the truth," Bonner said. When the story first broke, KDVR news reporter Heidi Hemmat presented videos reportedly shot from a hillside looking toward downtown Denver. Even though she said the alleged UFOs were "flying too fast to see with the naked eye," nobody seems to have asked the basic question: If that's true, what, in fact, was the anonymous videographer doing there in the first place? What was his original motivation for bringing his video equipment to that location? Did he have a premonition that told him he'd be able to videotape UFOs if he showed up every day? KDVR also presented an aviation expert, Steve Cowell, who said he couldn't identify the strange objects on the videos, and Hemmat suggested that Cowell didn't think they were bugs. Then, KDVR did a follow-up report: "Insect Expert: UFOs Over Denver Not Bugs; Images On Video Remain A Mystery." Entomologist Mary Ann Hamilton was brought in to look at the videos and told KDVR, "This is a toughie. I've never seen anything like this. After watching the various shots, I would have to say no, I do not believe it's an insect." Hemmat told her audience that people had suggested she go back out to the field where the UFOs were originally videotaped, take two cameras and triangulate the shot in order to finally determine if the objects are insects or something else. But it's not known if the news staff has attempted that technique. In his Bad Astronomy blog on the daily Slate web magazine, astronomer and skeptic Phil Plait said flat out, "Those aren't UFOs. Those are bugs. Insects flying around in front of the camera. Insects that can hover, change direction, zip away. Insects that look like blobs because they're close to the camera ... Insects which were lit by the sun so they flash a bit when they change direction." But how does Plait really feel about all of this? "I know: UFO means Unidentified Flying Object, and since no one could identify them, these are by definition UFOs. Except they aren't. They're insects." Bonner's Rocky Mountain Paranormal Research Society was one of the first groups that actually went to the field early on where the UFO videos were shot. "The 'UFO' people were very offended because we showed up with a bunch of HD cameras, still cameras, insect and bird identification books and a bug net," Bonner said. "People were like, 'Seriously, you're bringing a bug net?' And we said, 'Yes, because we think that's probably what it is, so we're gonna look.'" Watch this Rocky Mountain Paranormal Research Society video of a possible insect UFO www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ACO49yO5LPk#! The group's website clearly shows the types of insects it found out there, and how it visually experimented with a fly to determine if it could be mistaken for a UFO under the right photographic conditions. When he contacted KDVR to offer his opinion on the bug theory, Bonner said he wasn't received with enthusiasm. "We called them and apparently they were offended because we told them it was bugs. I think they want somebody that will come in and confirm that it's not bugs. Because it would make them look really silly if we come in and tell them we've pretty much proven what this is." Bonner also has some advice to others interested in exploring the Denver UFO-bug mania. "Anytime there's a report of any bizarre happening, don't just take it at face value. Use some critical thinking, go in and investigate it and find out what the facts are."
|
|