Orb UAP photographed by pilot on tarmac and flying during the day in Manchester
- Thread starter Candycane7
- Start date
JMartJr
Senior Member.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Well that's an interesting standoff.External Quote:
MAN say the photos are fake because if it was real we'd know and deal with it.
I do not think the photos are fake, the person who took them could produce the orginal photos from the device with metadata, but by doing so they'd be opening themselves up to the issue of having used a mobile device from the flight deck.
But if they reported it at the time they took the photo then there would be a record of it and then the MAN official would be grossly mistaken/lying
So if they saw it, took a photo but didn't actually report it where does that leave them both?
Duke
Senior Member.
That's why a FOIA request to the airport authority and the CAA would be useful in discovering if anyone reported either the object on the ground or in the air, and if/how the airport reacted if either was seen/reported.
Ann K
Senior Member.
But would a small balloon, quite a long way out of air traffic and only there very briefly before it blew away, be considered a "major incident"? If it was a problem that was no longer a problem, it's hard to imagine what steps could possibly be taken. It's not as if there is any feasible way to keep light-weight objects from blowing in occasionally.External Quote:
Mendel
Senior Member.
Then that leaves the orb reporter lying. From the OP:
To lie about this when the orb is real makes no sense. It's both or nothing.External Quote:
So, you can either go with @MKBRD's analysis and conclude the photos were photoshopped (see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/or...uring-the-day-in-manchester.13786/post-329044 ), or you can believe the airport is lying because they've been inducted into the global conspiracy to keep UFOs secret.
Personally, I'm going with the evidence.
Mendel
Senior Member.
have they been given a date?
if not, their response is not going to be very specific
more like "if we'd seen a UFO, we'd know about it", but it wouldn't cover them picking up a beach ball back in June.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
U.S. Patent #2,463,517, "Airborne Corner Reflector."
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e7/48/55/7c755c05740f91/US2463517.pdf
Of course, a round balloon would have a small specular reflection, rather than a retroreflected one, but yes, the conductive material will reflect radar.
john.phil
Senior Member.
"Additional footage" being circulated:
source: www.tiktok.com/@realcryptids/video/7442942086879415583
source: www.tiktok.com/@realcryptids/video/7442942086879415583
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Needs "pew-pew-pew" sounds, and spacy swooshy noises to be believable. Maybe a backing track by Vangelis?
MyMatesBrainwashed
Senior Member
Hard not to spot "AI"'s involvement in that additional footage.
Love the bits flying off turning into a helicopter. Kinda interested in what "AI" is thinking when it does stuff like that.
Love the bits flying off turning into a helicopter. Kinda interested in what "AI" is thinking when it does stuff like that.
taurusclover21
Senior Member.
In "AI" generated videos isn't it doing what the user tells it to do?
Scaramanga
Senior Member
Looks a bit like one of these...the blue and white pattern is very similar...
https://www.amazon.com/Marines-Military-Camouflage-Count-Balloon/dp/B07XYRG9PC
Mendel
Senior Member.
It doesn't think.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
Why are the planes at 10 seconds in going backwards ? Did whoever added the CGI forget to correct the direction of the video ?
Jimbojumbo
New Member
Hello,
I've been stalking this thread for a while and thought I'd jump on in. Some really interesting points. From what I've read so far I believe this to be more of a mistake of identity than someone trying to deceive. I believe this because from what I can see the photos are real. I've come to this conclusion because if the video is real then the pilot filming would have had to have decided to stage the photos before he got to the point on the tarmac where he started recording the video. If he first saw said object when he started recording how would he have had the foresight to take the photos in order to insert the object at a later point. If the flight radar data for the 9th June is also correct then that's quite a staging to recreate. Also let's not forget he's sitting next to his skipper who would more than likely berate him for getting his phone out if there wasn't something worth recording.
I think as most others do that this object was a balloon. That being said I think more analysis needs to be done on how a helium balloon which has clearly lost its buoyancy as it's fallen in the first place has suddenly regained such significant altitude and seems to be remaining aloft. If it was jet wash which is the most likely Scenario then this would surely be temporary?
Just my two cents worth
I've been stalking this thread for a while and thought I'd jump on in. Some really interesting points. From what I've read so far I believe this to be more of a mistake of identity than someone trying to deceive. I believe this because from what I can see the photos are real. I've come to this conclusion because if the video is real then the pilot filming would have had to have decided to stage the photos before he got to the point on the tarmac where he started recording the video. If he first saw said object when he started recording how would he have had the foresight to take the photos in order to insert the object at a later point. If the flight radar data for the 9th June is also correct then that's quite a staging to recreate. Also let's not forget he's sitting next to his skipper who would more than likely berate him for getting his phone out if there wasn't something worth recording.
I think as most others do that this object was a balloon. That being said I think more analysis needs to be done on how a helium balloon which has clearly lost its buoyancy as it's fallen in the first place has suddenly regained such significant altitude and seems to be remaining aloft. If it was jet wash which is the most likely Scenario then this would surely be temporary?
Just my two cents worth
JMartJr
Senior Member.
More than one balloon?
Jimbojumbo
New Member
Yes quite possibly. In which case the airport will have recovered the one on the ground and will have it documented?
John J.
Senior Member.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Why not both?
The video might have come before the photos perhaps, but thats been lost in the retelling.
Alytha
Member
Wouldn't such a small target get filtered out by the system on a civilian radar though? I visited out local ATC once, and they told us that they automatically filter out anything under a certain size or speed, otherwise they'd be doing speed checks on the nearby motorway.
Also there's Mode-S transponders nowadays, so maybe primary radar targets don't show up much anymore?
Apparently our hot-air balloons tend to not show up on radar unless they have their transponder on.
Not my specialty though.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Manchester airport (EGCC) has a surface movement radar that monitors what happens on the ground (as opposed to air traffic control radar that tracks aircraft in the air). I'm not sure what its capabilities are.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Mine neither. My intention was not to make a quantitative comparison, merely a qualitative one - the metallised mylar will reflect radar. Its radar cross section will be proportional to its area. So if they're filtering out bubblecars, they'll be filtering out shiny balloons too. I say bubblecars, as it depends on geometry too, not just size. Cybertrucks are probably a special case, as they'll reflect energy away until their panels are lined up just the right way, and then they'll be blinding.
PublicStranger
Active Member
I wouldn't discount the possibility of the pilot taking a random photo for the sake of taking a random photo. Happens in other walks of life.
Mendel
Senior Member.
The point of the surface movement radar is to detect impending collisions on the airport grounds, both among aircraft as well as aircraft and ground vehicles.
A primary radar is needed because transponders can fail, and that's often a situation when a pilot in the air needs assistance, or when a vehicle on the ground may be overlooked.
I wouldn't be surprised if Manchester airport was confident that their surface radar would pick up a metallic sphere as shown in the photos, and flag it to the ground controllers; and that would definitely shut down all operations until it was identified and removed. Something like that would not only be remembered, it would make the news; many people would notice.
Jimbojumbo
New Member
The video was taken further down the taxi way than the photos. You can also see that in the video there are less aircraft ahead queuing for takeoff.
This upscale amplifies the apparent extra pixels of an otherwise regular sphere. However, how does this compare to a video frame of an actual sphere recorded from a similar distance? Without a control image, we can't say much as the extra pixels could be just artifacts.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
And in similar weather, I'd think mist and rain in the air would have some impact. Don;t know if "through a similar windshield" would matter, but I also don't know if it wouldn't.
Adotparker
New Member
Exactly this! It infuriates me! Their mission seems to be to keep everything mysterious so that they don't have to play the 'we never said it was aliens' card!
Eburacum
Senior Member.
This is a vital point. If Manchester Airport control has checked their logs, and no 'ops vehicle' was sent out, then the witness is lying, which makes the whole event unlikely.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
That is classic UFO thinking. 'Maybe it's not a balloon, even though it looks just like one.' The incredible leap is then made to it maybe being a high tech monitoring device. Never mind that anyone wishing to monitor air traffic at Manchester could simply join the hordes of plane spotting nerds with their zoom lenses and telescopes that exist at almost every airport and save themselves having to make a billion dollar anti-gravity device.
John J.
Senior Member.
I'm surprised Rony Vernet overlooked possible evidence of an access ramp.
This is (ahem) an artist's impression; I'm not saying the orb definitely had a ramp as depicted.
I guess UFO enthusiasts might argue that ETs joining the plane spotters might draw more attention than the ETs might want, and for a sufficiently advanced ETI a probe with novel propulsion might be an off-the-shelf item.
That said, while I'm sure Manchester Airport is wonderful, it's hard to see why it would be of particular interest to ETI.
Frankly, the same goes for the alleged UFO interest in aircraft, military installations, nuclear power plants:
Those artefacts might be hi-tech and interesting to us, but a culture with just a few more centuries of technological development than ours is unlikely to be concerned by our capabilities.
Even relying just on remote sensing from orbit and a few recce flights in our atmosphere, a civilization with the technical abilities of the current USA might be able to draw the following conclusions:
(1) Most human energy production comes from burning fossil fuels. Most powered vehicles probably rely on fossil fuels.
(2) Aircraft are commonplace, and almost all depend on fossil fuels. Most are subsonic. Some can fly up to around Mach 2, flights more than Mach 3 are very rare [and might not be witnessed in a short timeframe]. Essentially all aircraft flying more than approx. 300 kph use wings for lift and moveable control surfaces to steer. Maritime shipping appears to move vastly more mass around the planet than aircraft do.
(3) Isotopes in the atmosphere suggest nuclear detonations have occurred in the past. There is no evidence of recent use.
Some electricity appears to be generated from nuclear fission; there is no evidence for widespread use of nuclear fusion.
(4) Chemical rockets can lift payloads of limited size and mass into orbit. Launches occur from a small number of locations. There is no evidence of any other means of achieving spaceflight.
(5) Warfare is present in some areas. Most participants seem to have weapons effective out to a few hundred metres, visual indicators suggest almost all weapons rely on combustion of a chemical propellant to accelerate projectiles to a speed where they deliver damaging kinetic effects to their target. Groups of humans as well as combatant ground vehicles and ships can use larger-scale equivalents where the projectile might deliver a chemical explosive.
Chemical rockets are similarly used, many may be guided to a specific target. Some have ranges in the tens or hundreds of kilometres; in some specific areas there is evidence of the maintenance and deployment of larger rockets, with a suspected range in the thousands of kilometres.
The payload restrictions of such systems, and evidence of nuclear technologies, might indicate that these missiles are designed to carry nuclear weapons, although any usage has not been witnessed.
Aircraft with the characteristics described in (1) are also used in warfare, sometimes delivering air-launched chemical rockets.
Specialised rockets, launched by aircraft, ship or ground forces sometimes engage aerial targets; some can pull high-g manoeuvres and achieve speeds in the high supersonic range. No directed energy weapons have been seen.
(Etc. etc.) -And that's without relying on the vast amount of information we emit via radio and TV broadcasts!
Even Ufologist Jacques Vallee came to the conclusion, in "Five Arguments Against the Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentified Flying Objects", Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1990, that
(Quoted by Wikipedia, "Jacques Vallee", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Vallée).External Quote:
Vallee went on to theorise
I guess that with our leaky electromagnetic signals, ETI might have heard that Manchester band Oasis are re-forming.
The aliens might not be concerned about our military-industrial complex, but maybe the extraordinary fraternal chaos that the Gallagher brothers generate is a threat to galactic order, and keeping an eye on their movements seemed a good idea.
Absolutely key stone part of your argument, not given that some of us characterize them as simply jumped-up whining Mancunian chancers... Oh wait, that's just Brit-pop of the era...
John J.
Senior Member.
I really like the first 2 Oasis albums, Definitely Maybe is one of my favourite debuts. And then they became a Beatles tribute band best known for slapping each other and being a bit rude to everyone else. And in Liam's case, having a funny walk.
Unfashionably, I like a lot of Brit-pop stuff, though most of the relevant bands rejected that term.
Pulp's Sorted for E's & Wizz was condemned by British newspapers as a pro-drugs / rave culture song, but listen to the lyrics and it's anything but. Arguably it's critical of the (I think irrational) New Age optimism of some parts of Ufology and the these-drugs-are-an-evolutionary-breakthrough advocates:
External Quote:
Oh God, it really, really isn't....
If there are indeed aliens visiting it, I can only assume it's because they're trying to figure out how a supposedly intelligent life form such as ourselves could run something as important as an airport so badly.
Duke
Senior Member.
That's an interesting observation. Any organization that poorly run could not necessarily be relied upon to always do the right thing. Also would expect them to be particularly skittish about (more) embarrassing/bad publicity. FOD incident where a child's ball/balloon was spotted floating along on an active airfield? Not a good look, a possible reason for them to deny the incident happened. Without access to airport authority documents, video, radio transmissions, etc., little chance to know either way.
Mendel
Senior Member.
you're taking an opinion as fact without having first ascertained the factual basis for it. for example, there could be some passengers with a bad experience, while ground operations are run competently.
Similar threads
