Fake Looking UFO Filmed From Airplane Window

[taurusclover21]

Is this the 50' away video from an F-18?

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFObelievers/comments/pnowyq/the_better_quality_version_of_the_philippines_ufo/

 

[flarkey]

Looking at the F-18 wing position, and the wing vidoed from the cockpit in the video, it doesnt match,,

 

[DavidB66]

Is this the 50' away video from an F-18?

I've got one of those in my kitchen.

[Just to be clear, I mean the saucepan lid, not the jet fighter. ]

 

[Scaramanga]

The give-away of what the video actually is occurs when the black orb on top of the UFO exactly overlaps the black object at the end of the F-18 wing tip. That's when one knows that the whole effect is simply an illusion caused by the angle of the sun causing the wing tip to be reflected off the F-18 cannopy.

 

[SkepticSteve]

If you would be an F18 pilot and you would spot such an object flying ridiculously close to your jet, wouldn't it be the most rational thing to initiate an evasive manouver to avoid any damage from a collision? There is a strong cartoonish element to this video which makes it somewhat as if it was intentionally crafted for an external audience to look at. Still, if this would be a passenger jet this would be a much more reasonable pilot behavior.

 

[386]

Initial thoughts:

Why does it have such a shallow depth of field? The scratches and reflection of the lens are sharp but the wing's out of focus? The narrow depth of field would suggest a very open aperture, but surely for the brightness up there you'd need to use a much smaller aperture to get a manageable exposure? (noticeable throughout the clip)

That aside, it looks remarkably like the lid of a clay teapot or perhaps that of other glazed cookware. Based on the underside and "handle" of the object I ruled out standard metal lids. I'm just brainstorming here, not making any claims.




Additionally, the audio is very suspect. If you listen to this version here: at ~4 seconds there's no apparent audio edit when switching video clips: Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogHb5diJkus

 

[megafeps]

Lue was right, they can't keep the lid on it much longer.

Those reflections and scratches as opposed to the blurriness do indeed look all wrong to me, unless it's due to haze or quality of 90s cams I would expect there to be lots of reflected glare even off the glazed earthenware lid that might have been used here. The ridges and small knob remind me of a kyusu teapot lid. Then again, if it's been around that long, how would one go about faking it with what was available decades ago..?

 

[Mendel]

The give-away of what the video actually is occurs when the black orb on top of the UFO exactly overlaps the black object at the end of the F-18 wing tip. That's when one knows that the whole effect is simply an illusion caused by the angle of the sun causing the wing tip to be reflected off the F-18 cannopy.

I doubt it's the jet's own wingtip: the camera, the canopy and the wings are fixed, so the reflection ought to be fixed as well. I expect it could be the reflection of another fighter off to the left maneuvering around, though; it's distorted because the canopy is curved.

Comparing the images in flarkey's #18, I don't think it's the same aircraft type, because the cracks on the wing (for the control surfaces) don't seem to match.

 

[JMartJr]

I get the impression that many folks are seeing the plane wing seen in the video as the leading edge of a fighter's wingtip... to me it looks more like the trailing edge of a pre-winglet passenger jet, similar but not identical to this picture but flying the other way.

I do not think the video is genuine -- so ultimately it may not matter. But it interests me that some people are seeing the wing backwards from how I interpret it.

 

[flarkey]

I get the impression that many folks are seeing the plane wing seen in the video as the leading edge of a fighter's wingtip... to me it looks more like the trailing edge of a pre-winglet passenger jet, similar but not identical to this picture but flying the other way.

Some people on Reddit suggest it looks more like a 737-300 or 737-400 wing. I agree.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/po3qpv/the_ufo_fly_by_clip_does_not_look_like_an_f18e/

 

[Leonardo Cuellar]

The problem is the source. We have no elements to establish this. It can be a video reproduced by a government source, in which case it could be a military version of an airliner such as the C-40 Clipper, or a simple civilian passenger. The view completely excludes any single or two-seater aircraft.

 

[Leonardo Cuellar]

I don't quite understand the reflection you see of a circular structure. Can anyone help me identify it? If it were a porthole, it is evident that it is a military aircraft.
P-3C Orion has exactly a bubble porthole where the wingtips would be seen that way.

 

[DavidB66]

The object does look uncannily like a pot lid of some kind. My saucepan lids have a metal rim, a plastic knob in the centre, and a Pyrex-type transparent lid. The obvious problem with interpreting the object as a pot lid is that it appears to go behind the wingtip of the aircraft. If it really does, it would be much too large, and in an impossible location, since a pot lid could hardly be dangled outside a jet plane in flight. But does it? I may be imagining it, but as the object reaches the edge of the wing it looks to me as if for a moment the object (and especially the 'knob') are in front of the wing before disappearing and then emerging from the other side. With pre-CGI technology it would probably require quite a lot of work to doctor the film of the object frame-by-frame, to make it appear to go behind the wing. but not impossible. Three seconds of film would be less than 100 frames, and a determined hoaxer might find it worthwhile to make the effort.

 

[taurusclover21]

I don't quite understand the reflection you see of a circular structure. Can anyone help me identify it? If it were a porthole, it is evident that it is a military aircraft.
P-3C Orion has exactly a bubble porthole where the wingtips would be seen that way.

Are you referring to the reflection of the lens?

 

[Mendel]

I don't quite understand the reflection you see of a circular structure. Can anyone help me identify it? If it were a porthole, it is evident that it is a military aircraft.
P-3C Orion has exactly a bubble porthole where the wingtips would be seen that way.

There arealso what looks like interior lights reflected in the image.

The fact that the video stops when the window starts facing a dark part of the sky makes me suspect that we're dealing with some kind of sunlight reflection?

 

[Mendel]

Are you referring to the reflection of the lens?

If this was a lens reflection, shouldn't it be in the center of the shot? And how do you explain the small lights, then?

If this is a hemispherical bubble window, this might be a reflection of the opposite rim.

 

[Mick West]

With pre-CGI technology

Do we know it's pre-cgi? The description says "filmed in the 90s". The earliest version I can find is from May 14 2008
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogHb5diJkus


Is there reference to it before this?

 

[Leonardo Cuellar]

If this was a lens reflection, shouldn't it be in the center of the shot? And how do you explain the small lights, then?

If this is a hemispherical bubble window, this might be a reflection of the opposite rim.

indeed. I am referring to the reflection of the largest ring that is seen. Two white rings and a brown outer one. It is compatible with an observation porthole and its external frame.

 

[Leonardo Cuellar]

The U.S. Navy has had a P-3C Orion-equipped patrol detachment at Clark Air Force Base / International Airort for many years.

 

[Easy Muffin]

That's the reflection of the camera lens, isn't it? It becomes more obvious with crazy contrast settings. You can also make out what appears to be the operator's hand holding it.



See this head-on view of a lens for reference, note the light bouncing off it as well.



It's also similar to this image from the shape-changing artifact we had here a while ago: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/sh...ith-nikon-p900-polarizing-filter-venus.11904/

With higher contrast:


What might be interesting is that in the latter picture, as well as in random similar pics I did a quick search for, there are usually two reflections visible due to the double-paned nature of these plane windows - a smaller primary reflection off the inside pane and another larger one off the outside one. I'm not sure I see that second reflection in the video in this thread. If it's not there then it might point towards the video being shot through something like a scratched single layer sheet of plastic, filming a scene off a computer monitor. Just a guess though.

 

[Mick West]

a scratched single layer sheet of plastic, filming a scene off a computer monitor.

This type of thing?
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEMUkyUjmu8


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfQahQZ_ng4

 

[Easy Muffin]

This type of thing?

Exactly.

 

[DavidB66]

Do we know it's pre-cgi?

I was just going by the reference to the 90s and thought that was probably too early for a hoaxer to be using CGI. But I may be quite wrong about that. And I don't know if the reference to the 90s is correct.

Also, I was thinking 'if this really is what it looks like (i.e. an actual pot physical lid), how could that be done?' But on further thought, my suggestion of frame-by-frame doctoring was probably wrong. I was assuming that the shot through the plane window was genuine, and that footage of a pot lid had somehow been worked into the genuine footage, maybe using a green screen to shoot the lid and editing the results to fit into the genuine footage.

But we don't really know that the view from the 'porthole' is genuine at all. It only shows a bit of the plane's wing, which would be relatively easy for a model-maker to fake. Since we don't know the scale, it might even be from a commercial Airfix-type model. Add some background noise and some footage of the sky, wave the pot lid around and behind the fake wing, film everything through a dirty plastic 'porthole', and voila, a better than average view of a UFO.

 

[Leonardo Cuellar]

Today everything would be possible. It would be brilliant to have used a video taken of a particular aircraft, from a particular position and which was probably filming nothing.
Or having reproduced in CGI a particular plane, from a particular position, from a particular porthole.

 

[megafeps]

Besides Easy Muffin's pointing out the missing double window pane reflection, shouldn't the movements of the scratches and camera and reflection relate differently to one another through a plastic pane that's possibly not even fixed like in Mick West's video?

I don't recall ever seeing such a spiderweb of scratches on porthole glass panes either.

 

[Leonardo Cuellar]

Besides Easy Muffin's pointing out the missing double window pane reflection, shouldn't the movements of the scratches and camera and reflection relate differently to one another through a plastic pane that's possibly not even fixed like in Mick West's video?

I don't recall ever seeing such a spiderweb of scratches on porthole glass panes either.

hello!
I believe that the video can be deciphered above all by analyzing the reflections rather than by the identification of the aircraft itself or by the way in which it was reproduced.
Not all windows have double glazing.
The web of scratches can appear, especially if the plane is often prone to traversing areas of ice or hail formations.
This is a screenshot of the view out from a patrol aircraft's observation porthole.

Unfortunately I must consider myself incompetent in optics and photography. I notice for example that there are two fixed lights that appear to come from a ceiling. There is a series of central lights, including a red one, which I cannot decipher. There is a reflection of something wrinkled towards the end of the movie.
There are many interesting things to solve this video.

 

[Easy Muffin]

Thinking about it again I believe I should have called the windows 'triple-paned' since the two panes I had in mind are those of the actual window, but that window itself is shielded from the cabin by a third pane. Here's a schematic view from a Boeing 737-100/-200 maintenance manual:


These are the two load-bearing panes that make up the actual window. An outer pane exposed to the outside and a middle backup pane.

The manual also provides some further information:


This is the complete assembly with inner pane:


So plenty of opportunities for more than one reflection. I wouldn't take this as proof for anything though as maybe they are really there but invisible because of the terrible video quality, or maybe they're hard to see because the camera is so close to the window, or maybe the lens only has one ring and the second one is the second reflection etc.

 

[Mythic Suns]

I was just going by the reference to the 90s and thought that was probably too early for a hoaxer to be using CGI. But I may be quite wrong about that.

The question is when in the 90s; from what little I know of CGI history it wasn't impossible to CGI a simple UFO together in the early 90s but the ability to make a 3D model from a typical home computer wouldn't have been until the mid to late 90s.

My best guess is that it could've been put together in the late 90s through a strategy similar to what Mick showed earlier and then uploaded to whatever website could host videos at the time. Though really I'm only basing this on the fact that the video is low quality and short which would make it easier to upload on a low spec computer with a low speed internet connection.

The only thing I can see that might poke a hole in the idea that it was made on a basic home computer is how curved and smooth the UFO looks; on todays computers you can pretty much render a shape with a massive amount of vertices through a real time render engine without it putting much pressure on the CPU and RAM whilst in the 90s it wouldn't have been anywhere near as easy. Mind you, the video is low quality so there might be less vertices on the UFO than there appears to be.

 

[Daves!]

About the Jetplane theory .. in the reflection i can see bare hands. Almost every fighterpilot wears gloves for many reasons. So i think we can eliminate that it was onboard a jetplane.

2nd the wingtip doesnt move at all.. the passanger and the window do but the whole wing is perfectly straight not bumping.
In my travels i always look how the wings of the airplane go up and down bumpy. But this one doesnt.

 

[JMartJr]

I think this thread could now be renamed "Fake Looking UFO filmed from fake looking airplane window."

 

[Ravi]

This very video gets some traction again over at reddit. I encourage all metabunksters to look at this case again!

 

[jarlrmai]

This very video gets some traction again over at reddit. I encourage all metabunksters to look at this case again!

We've likely done all we can, there will never really be a 'real' UFO vid where there's' no source file, chain of custody, corroboration etc etc

This vid could very easily be faked, shows some signs of being so, has no custody, no original file so.

We can't solve every case. So they will get reposted every 6 months or so on Reddit.

 

[Ravi]

We've likely done all we can, there will never really be a 'real' UFO vid where there's' no source file, chain of custody, corroboration etc etc

This vid could very easily be faked, shows some signs of being so, has no custody, no original file so.

We can't solve every case. So they will get reposted every 6 months or so on Reddit.

Gotcha.

I am also pretty convinced of the fakey looks / cgi etc.. How it just darts in mid air, you cant ignore aerodynamics..

 

[KilliK]

Someone mentioned in the reddit topic, that the video was first uploaded in 2004 and was recorded in late 90s. i had the impression it was uploaded in 2009, 2 months after the FLIR1 leak. I asked him how he knows that.

 

[jackfrostvc]

This is an earlier version of the video someone on reddit found

Someone also IDed the jet as a commercial 737, which if the description in the video below is true , cooborates that

There is also an old AboveTRopSecret thread on it, very interesting reading: https://test.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread345127/pg1

Along with this original ATS post about it: https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread339918/pg5

HEre is a pertinent post on ATS alleging the flight noted in the video description never existed. It also notes an italian CGI guys responce to the video saying he could have done better and then shows his CGI effort: https://test.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread345127/pg1#pid4172067

That said, in this post, someopne said it did exist and Blue may have been referring to BLUE Express. That said the links proving it are dead: https://orioneye2012.freeforumzone....RAMA-passeggero-filma-un-ufo/discussione.aspx

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/u3ju2f/found_plane_in_flying_saucer_video_boeing_737/


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVEIGLz-mbs

 

[386]

If you look at the other videos posted by the channel which is currently known as the earliest source (linked above - Mar 6, 2008), you can see a few short/demo animated and camera-trick videos uploaded by the same user during that time:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/user/frossani/videos

 

[KilliK]

the earliest source is 4CHAN in 2007, 2 months after the FLIR1 leak. there is info about it in one of the older reddit topics.
but someone else said in the new topic, that it surfaced in 2004. I asked for more information but he hasnt answered yet.

i think that youtube channel is a collection of videos. the sexy dancing robot is an old meme.

 

[jackfrostvc]

the earliest source is 4CHAN in 2007, 2 months after the FLIR1 leak. there is info about it in one of the older reddit topics.
but someone else said in the new topic, that it surfaced in 2004. I asked for more information but he hasnt answered yet.

i think that youtube channel is a collection of videos. the sexy dancing robot is an old meme.

"the earliest source is 4CHAN in 2007"

Got a link to this?

I have not seen any link or mention of this

 

[KilliK]

it was in one of the UFO reddits, 1 or 2 years ago, in one of the topics discussing this video. there was a screen grab of the 4Chan with the video and the name of the uploader. It stuck to me, because the date was 2 months after the FLIR1 leak in ATS, which I found interesting. the uploader posted this video and was never heard again from what I remember from the comments.

But in the recent reddit topic, someone said the video was surfaced in 2004 and got recorded earlier than that, in the late 90s. i asked him how he knows that, but he has not replied yet.

 

[Max Phalange]

There's a usenet discussion from it.discussioni.ufo starting on March 11 2008 - https://groups.google.com/g/it.discussioni.ufo/c/j33WQc__iRg/m/CRLU-q0RrSwJ?hl=en

It quotes an exchange from the YouTube comments under the video uploaded by "frossani", "A UFO captured from the window of a Blue Panorama flight from Rome to Paris, on april the 29th, 2006".

MARAMAU72:
Molto bello! ... Ma mi vengono due domande:
Perché dura solo '20 secondi? A mio parere se fosse stato vero mi sarei
consumato la betteria fino all'ultima goccia! E poi... se vero... perché
pubblicare un video talmente eccezzionale solo quasi due anni dopo?? Io
sarei arso dalla voglia di farlo vedere al mondo intero appena atterrato!

RISPOSTA--->FROSSANI:
Prima domanda: dura poco perché è un montaggio dei due spezzoni in cui si
vedeva qualcosa. L'avvistamento è durato molto poco ed è stato difficile da
riprendere. Seconda domanda: il video non è inedito. Dell'avvistamento
parlarono i TG ed il secondo spezzone venne trasmesso da un TG dell'ora di
pranzo un paio di giorni dopo. Nessuna associazione ufologica si è mai
pronunciata in merito. Come autore del filmato, non ho avuto remore a
pubblicarlo su youTube.

(The comment by "maramau72" is still visible on YouTube, but the reply by "frossani" is now gone, and it was too far down the page for archive.org to capture).

Running this through a Google translate:

MARAMAU72:
Very nice! ... But I have two questions:
Why does it only last 20 seconds? In my opinion if it were true I would
consumed the betteria to the last drop! And then ... if true ... why
publish such an exceptional video only almost two years later ?? the
I would have been burning with the desire to show it to the whole world as soon as I landed!

ANSWER ---> FROSSANI:
First question: it does not last long because it is a montage of the two clips in which one is
he saw something. The sighting lasted very little and it was difficult to
to resume. Second question: the video is not unreleased. Of the sighting
the TG spoke and the second segment was broadcast by a TG of the hour
lunch a couple of days later. There has never been a UFO association
pronounced on the matter. As the author of the movie, I had no qualms about it
publish it on youTube.

("TG" is short for telegiornale , meaning TV newscast. And "betteria" is just a typo for batteria/battery).

So frossani makes three claims here:
1. That he is the originator of the footage ("as the author of the movie ...")
2. The sighting was mentioned by TV news (presumably contemporaneously with the original 2006 date).
3. The second clip from the video was shown on lunchtime TV news a couple of days later.

Top minds of reddit have ID'd frossani as an dentist based in Rome and someone has emailed him for further info.