The Tape - The Most Important Case Yet? (A UAP Files Film)

[flarkey]

Jimmy at UAP File Podcast has released another sensational video and analysis that claims to show "One of the true great British UFO sightings" and asks is this "The Most Important Case Yet?" .

The YouTube description says:

On the 15th December 2000, Richard Fawcett captured something extraordinary over Rugeley, Staffordshire, UK—multiple nights of unexplained UFO/UAP activity, all recorded on VHS. After 25 years hidden away in a cupboard, this footage is finally being revealed to the world.

Richard reached out to UAP Files Podcast after following our work, offering his footage for analysis. With the help of image enhancement expert Peter Osborne (Truth In Focus UFO) who will be helping in Part 2 and co-host Tom Vernon (Tom Vernon UAP), we travelled to Richard in Staffordshire to record his account, document the event, retrieve and digitise the footage and investigated the tape, ruling out conventional explanations.

What we found is astonishing. This is a case backed by official reports from the archives on the UK.Gov website, and the footage speaks for itself.

In this Part 1 we'll get Richard's initial account, followed by some analysis, some clips from the original footage. In Part 2 (coming soon) we'll be sitting down with Peter Osborne, our in-house video tech and enhancing the footage further, grabbing some of the best frames to show you, completing further analysis and getting a further account from Richard of the days that followed the first sighting, along with the footage.

He goes on to say...

Once this work has been completed, the entirety of the 3 days of footage (over 2hrs) will be released in the highest resolution possible on this YouTube channel so you can complete your own analysis and document the event for historical records and reference.

Ok - Lets investigate!

He sums this video up as:

One of the true great British UFO sightings.

This is the Video:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOetZMijK3A


The video is accompanied by an analysis published on Substack: https://uapf.substack.com/p/the-tap...ey?r=3avcjy&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

The Tape - NEVER BEFORE SEEN | Rugeley, Staffordshire (December 2000) Analysis
In late 2024, I was contacted by a man named Richard Fawcett, who explained that he had seen something very unusual back in December 2000 over Rugeley. He had reported his case to both the police and the Royal Air Force and had an old VHS tape that had been sitting in a cupboard for 25 years—never before seen. Never digitised. Never uploaded to the internet. Not just one sighting, but multiple, spanning three days, all captured on his Sony CCD-TRV15E Camcorder.

<snip>

The Case

The first night of footage was captured on December 15, 2000, at 18:05 hrs from the rear garden of 80 Main Road, Brereton, Rugeley, Staffordshire, UK. The filming was over the A460 near a wooded area. This timing is confirmed by official reports Richard filed with the police and the RAF. Although Richard initially recalled it as a summer sighting, the official report—a rare entry in the archives—recorded the precise date, time, and location of the sighting, matching the details seen in the footage, including color changes and positioning, where Richard was living and in the direction of where he filmed. Very close to the time stamp on his Handicap, though like many at the time, very few people set the exact time and date every time they started recording, a frustrating feature with many older handycams without a built-in battery for data memory like the time/date. When you switch it off, or the battery dies, that's it, the whole camera is dead.

Richard's house at the time, filmed from the garden (pictured below in the two images). This documentation helped us rule out common skeptical claims such as, "It's just the Moon" or "He doesn't understand digital zoom."

Note the round patio in the image above. It is used later to confirm the location. The photo above was taken from an upstairs room. The small building at the end of the garden is visible in the video and provides a good reverence of where the UFO was seen, but the at this time video was taken from ground level.

This is Jimmy's analysis...

Using freely available programs and AI tools, we confirmed that the Moon's position at that time was in the southwest—nowhere near where Richard was filming of northwest. Other planets visible that night (Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars) were either below the horizon or too low to match the trajectory of the object. Additionally, these celestial bodies wouldn't have remained in the same position for multiple hours, unlike what Richard recorded. His footage spans from 18:05 to 23:30 hrs and continues over three consecutive nights, which we will explore in future videos.



A screenshot provided to UAP Files by Richard Fawcett.


Analysis conducted by UAP Files with the footage and roof pitch and original filming location for exact reference points. The object was northwest of the camera.

Ruling Out Conventional Explanations

<snip>

Conclusion: A True UFO
After eliminating known possibilities—aircraft, celestial objects, drones, balloons, military activity, and satellites—we are left with an object that defies conventional explanation. The footage shows a spherical, colour-changing object with a prolonged presence in the sky, displaying characteristics that do not align with any known man-made or natural phenomena and over three days…

This remains, by definition, a true UFO (or UAP, as we are now expected to call them).

So at Jimmy's suggestions, this is my investigation...

The Date
There is some confusion of the exact date of the video. The witness initially recalls the event as happening in the summer, but Jimmy has found a UK Government record of a similar sighting in the same area at 1805hrs on 15 Dec 2000, and he assumes that these are the same sighting - although the witness's house isn't on the A460, but it is close to it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a78cd1d40f0b6324769a45e/UFOReport2000.pdf

A later section of the video shows the date time as 28 Dec 2000 at 0029hrs, but it is stated in the audio that the clock they can see shows 2329hrs which would be 27 December 2000.

Source: https://youtu.be/cOetZMijK3A?t=522

Jimmy even says (at 17m52s) that they are unsure of the time of the video. The description even goes on to say say that the footage is spread over 3 days, so we are not even sure of the date.

But this timecode in the video seems to show that they were recording up to 0021hrs (corrected from the time shown of 0121hrs), so more confusion.

Jimmy & the witness also assume that the object seen over 3 days at different times was the same object at every time. This has yet to be demonstrated.

Hopefully the 2hrs of video that is yet to be released will be timecoded.

The Location
The Article and Video give us an Address (80 Main Road Brereton, Rugeley, UK) so exact location, date and time to check some of the conclusions that Jimmy has made. The UFO was seen over the hills in the distance, over the small building at the end of the witness's garden.

Rear of the house:

The View form the house can be recreated in Google Earth, starting at the circular patio going through the building at the end of the garden.

location 52.747036° -1.923974° (Google Maps) (Google Earth Web)

This is on a bearing of 231°, which is Southwest, not Northwest like Jimmy says in the Substack article.

What did the witness see?
Jimmy has tried to investigate the sighting by ruling out prosaic explanations. The first thing that he tries to rule out are Celestial bodies. He said:

Using freely available programs and AI tools, we confirmed that the Moon's position at that time was in the southwest—nowhere near where Richard was filming of northwest. Other planets visible that night (Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars) were either below the horizon or too low to match the trajectory of the object. Additionally, these celestial bodies wouldn't have remained in the same position for multiple hours, unlike what Richard recorded. His footage spans from 18:05 to 23:30 hrs and continues over three consecutive nights, which we will explore in future videos

However, putting those coordinates into Sitrec, setting the view towards 231° , and then setting the assumed date and time of 15 December 2000 at 1805hrs UTC we can see that Venus would have been easily visible from the location. It was on a bearing of 220° , towards the southwestern horizon at the Time. Venus isn't mentioned in Jimmy's investigation,

To match with the position seen in the video (over the woodland on the horizon) Venus would have been directly visible on the 231° bearing at the slightly later time of 1900hrs. So did they get the time wrong....? Or is this just a video taken within the timeframe range of 1805hrs to 2330hrs ? Or maybe that video is from a different date?

Sitrec Permalink: link

Sitrec Custom: link

The Visibility of Venus in the area is also confirmed on theskylive.com. (Neptune and Uranus would not have been bright enough to be seen)

The latest timecode above shows a time of 0021 (corrected form 0121). This part of the video seems to show an additional static light (another UFO?) just to the right of the UFO. If this is at 0021hrs then the UFO is definitely not Venus, as it set 6 hrs before. Jupiter was visible at this time and in this direction, but was at an altitude of 45° , well above the position that the earlier UFO was seen.

That part of the video appears to have been taken from the driveway of no 76.

Jimmy's investigation goes on to discount Aircraft, Drones, Balloons and Lanterns, Military Activity and satellites. His conclusions here seem reasonable, although the claims are not backed up with evidence. We have to investigate and generate this ourselves. Unfortunately the fact that this case was almost 25 years ago makes it impossible to check ADSB records to eliminate planes. The overall conclusion is that the object(s?) that is seen was static in the sky and seen over 3 days. If other UFO cases are anything to go by object that appear in the same part of the sky over multiple days are usually celestial bodies (typically Venus or Jupiter).

So although he says here that they have 'eliminated known possibilities', he hasn't (yet) provided evidence that they have been truly eliminated. My quick initial investigation shows that Venus could have been an explanation for at least one of the objects seen in the videos. The date and time of the videos has yet to be confirmed, although Jimmy is confident that the UK MoD UFO report from a location close to the Video location is the same event that the Witness reported, even though the date and time doesn't match with the witness's recollection, nor does it match with the times seen on the video, and nor does it cover the '3 days' that the witness claimed to have seen the UFO.

Saying that the video shows a 'spherical, colour-changing object with a prolonged presence in the sky, displaying characteristics that do not align with any known man-made or natural phenomena and over three days…This remains, by definition, a true UFO' - is yet to be shown. That description could be applied to celestial bodies.

Hopefully the next release from @UAPF showing the 2hrs of high quality video footage over 3 days will shed more light on this case.

 

[Eburacum]

A rule of thumb in these cases is that an object remains in roughly the same location for hours and/or appears for several days in succession in a similar location is a celestial object. Another tell-tale is a gradual move towards the west over time.

There are apps on your phone nowadays that can identify celestial objects; these are very useful, but I don't use them myself, since the sky is a familiar landscape to me. The one doubt I have is that the Moon was up there - if the Moon is in the sky it can wash out other objects somewhat. Even so, Venus is usually bright enough to shine through.

 

[FatPhil]

A rule of thumb in these cases is that an object remains in roughly the same location for hours and/or appears for several days in succession in a similar location is a celestial object. Another tell-tale is a gradual move towards the west over time.

There are apps on your phone nowadays that can identify celestial objects; these are very useful, but I don't use them myself, since the sky is a familiar landscape to me. The one doubt I have is that the Moon was up there - if the Moon is in the sky it can wash out other objects somewhat. Even so, Venus is usually bright enough to shine through.

The moon would be very distinctive, so can be easily dismissed, but this could easily be a planet. This was the evening, and the mysterious light was setting. Venus sets in the evening (it never deviates that far from the sun as its orbit is within ours, so when the sun sets, Venus surely follows). It also had shimmering colours, and we know planets like Venus do scintillate.

I agree with [them] on one thing, though: "the footage speaks for itself". Yes, and what it's saying is that it's extremely poor quality evidence of anything, indistinguishable from entirely mundane things that are out of focus, and therefore almost certainly something entirely mundane and out of focus.

 

[flarkey]

In this section of the video at 6m49s with contrast adjusted two more stars are briefly visible. If the 15 December 2000 timeframe is correct, these are Deneb and Tau Capricorni, both part of the constellation Capricorn, and they fit with the hypothesis that the UFO is Venus.

Edit: I;ve looked at this again and I'm not convinced the two 'stars' that I had identified are actually stars. I think they are just random noise pixels that appear close to where the stars would have been. Although I still think the bright 'ufo' is Venus.

 

[jarlrmai]

Nice work, this one feels almost quaint these days a British 2000's era home VHS of Venus seems far removed from Christian psionic new age warriors summoning eggs with feminine energy in the deserts of mid America.

 

[Mendel]

This is on a bearing of 231°, which is Southwest, not Northwest like Jimmy says in the Substack article.

the Tedesco maneouver: claim the sighting was in a direction with no other known light source, when it was actually in a direction with an obvious light source

it's hard to give the "investigators" the benefit of the doubt when stuff like that happens

 

[Mauro]

The Tedesco Maneouver

This could become a meme

 

[Mendel]

The video is accompanied by an analysis published on Substack: https://uapf.substack.com/p/the-tap...ey?r=3avcjy&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

Not just one sighting, but multiple, spanning three days, all captured on his Sony CCD-TRV15E Camcorder.

I found the manual for the camcorder at https://www.sony.de/electronics/sup...as-tape-camcorders/ccd-trv15e?manuals-lang=en , it's also attached.

Excerpts:

The video format was Video 8 and not VHS, which makes the claimed "UFO tape" a second-generation copy.

Article:

Video8/Hi8's main drawback is that tapes made with Video8 camcorders cannot be played on VHS hardware. Instead it was assumed that the camcorder would be directly plugged into one's TV. Although it is possible to transfer tapes (using the VCR to rerecord the source video as it is played back by the camcorder), the VHS copy would lose some quality compared to the 8mm original.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_mm_video_format

 

[taurusclover21]

Jimmy at UAP File Podcast has released another sensational video and analysis that claims...

That's all I need to know.

 

[flarkey]

Something doesn't seem right about the timings in this. (Let's forget about the confusion regarding dates initially). They're claiming the first sighting was at 1805hrs, and that's when Richard started recording with his video camera. But it immediately ran out of battery, so he went upstairs to plug it into the mains and then started recording. But the time on the alarm clock in the bedroom read 23.30hrs. Where did the previous 5.5 hrs goto?

 

[deirdre]

Something doesn't seem right about the timings in this. (Let's forget about the confusion regarding dates initially). They're claiming the first sighting was at 1805hrs, and that's when Richard started recording with his video camera. But it immediately ran out of battery, so he went upstairs to plug it into the mains and then started recording. But the time on the alarm clock in the bedroom read 23.30hrs. Where did the previous 5.5 hrs goto?

im always amazed at the records the uk keeps. can't you get the call data from the call he allegedly made to the local constable? it might be a day or two later when he made the call, so maybe check for multiple days following.

 

[jdog]

Something doesn't seem right about the timings in this. (Let's forget about the confusion regarding dates initially). They're claiming the first sighting was at 1805hrs, and that's when Richard started recording with his video camera. But it immediately ran out of battery, so he went upstairs to plug it into the mains and then started recording. But the time on the alarm clock in the bedroom read 23.30hrs. Where did the previous 5.5 hrs goto?

Uh-oh, malfunctioning electronics, "missing time," subjects so disoriented as to not know north from south... the evidence is mounting!

 

[NoParty]

Jimmy at UAP File Podcast has released another sensational video and analysis that claims to show

"One of the true great British UFO sightings" and asks is this "The Most Important Case Yet?" .

"The Most Important Case Yet?" No. (That was easy)

Of course, the delicious irony is that it could be a complete turd,
& still compete for "Most Important Case Yet!" given how lousy the others are...

 

[flarkey]

Uh-oh, malfunctioning electronics, "missing time," subjects so disoriented as to not know north from south... the evidence is mounting!

well when you put it like that!

 

[FatPhil]

Uh-oh, malfunctioning electronics, "missing time," subjects so disoriented as to not know north from south... the evidence is mounting!

Full oft in game a sooth I have heard say!

(Or "many a true word spoken in jest" as you youngsters say.)

 

[John J.]

...the video shows a 'spherical, colour-changing object with a prolonged presence in the sky...

Does rather sound like what I sometimes see if I look at Venus through binoculars. The colours (usually more distinct around the circumference) are of course an effect of the optics, not the planet.

...displaying characteristics that do not align with any known man-made or natural phenomena and over three days…This remains, by definition, a true UFO...

As @flarkey points out, the mundane explanations haven't been ruled out (particularly re. filming direction and date, and so the possible misidentification of Venus/ Jupiter).

Hopefully the next release from @UAPF showing the 2hrs of high quality video footage over 3 days will shed more light on this case.

It's not very fair, or scientific, to pre-judge possible evidence, but I must admit I have limited confidence that another UAP Files podcast will provide a plausible evidence-based explanation. Their You Tube "homepage", https://www.youtube.com/@UAPFilesPodcast.
Maybe I'm becoming cynical! Hopefully the podcast will contain some useful clues.

At present, I suspect it could be more likely that Mr Fawcett was filming a bright but wholly natural celestial object on several nights, rather than an alien spacecraft that had a prolonged interest in the town of Rugeley.

I'm sure Rugeley is a wonderful place, and it is difficult to guess at the priorities of an extraterrestrial intelligence, but viewed from orbit Rugeley lacks the obvious appeal of Olympus Mons, Tombaugh Regio or Hemel Hempstead.

Maybe the ETs were investigating Rugeley's pioneering role in satellite communications,

Rugeley is twinned with Western Springs, Illinois and, in July 1962, both towns made telephone history on national television when the chairman of Rugeley Urban District Council made the first telephone call via the new Telstar satellite to the mayor of Western Springs.

Wikipedia, Rugeley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugeley

...or maybe they are drawn by the town's radiance of Earth energies and enlightened spiritual thought

A Pagan conference happens on the May bank holiday every year

...doubtless a thriving college of the ancient sciences, meeting annually since at least the arrival of the Beaker Culture
though perhaps not because the Pagan conferences started in 2015.

 

[NorCal Dave]

But it immediately ran out of battery, so he went upstairs to plug it into the mains and then started recording. But the time on the alarm clock in the bedroom read 23.30hrs. Where did the previous 5.5 hrs goto?

It would appear that the constantly variable time, not to mention the seasons, coupled with the uncertainty as where Mr. Fawcett was actually pointing his camera and the fact that this is likely a 2nd generation analog copy that was digitized, means the object can always elude any prosaic explanation. Whatever time and location confirm something like Venus, is obviously the wrong time and location.

 

[FatPhil]

Does rather sound like what I sometimes see if I look at Venus through binoculars. The colours (usually more distinct around the circumference) are of course an effect of the optics, not the planet.

If it's constant, it's likely optics, but chromatic aberration is a problem they're mostly on top of nowadays, with access to glasses of different densities and refractive indices.
If it's "changing", that's most likely chromatic scintillation caused by the atmosphere at different temperatures acting like a lot of wibbly wobbly refractive index stuff.

 

[flarkey]

It would appear that the constantly variable time, not to mention the seasons, coupled with the uncertainty as where Mr. Fawcett was actually pointing his camera and the fact that this is likely a 2nd generation analog copy that was digitized, means the object can always elude any prosaic explanation. Whatever time and location confirm something like Venus, is obviously the wrong time and location.

100% this. It works both ways when trying to identify UFOs from poor data. The lack of detail or accuracy in the data can always be used to support the argument for the anomalous or the prosaic explanations. Obviously the rational thing to do is side with the prosaic until there is any evidence to support the extraordinary explanation, but as we've seen recently UFO-fans and media have a tendancy to jump to the anomalous.


Maybe we've just discovered a new logical fallacy - an argument from ambiguity....?

 

[Mendel]

Maybe we've just discovered a new logical fallacy - an argument from ambiguity....?

The fallacy is typically to equate "unexplained" with "unexplainable", and "unexplainable" with "anomalous", and "anomalous" with "demonstrates scientific knowledge exceeding our own".

The problem here is the direction of the inference: while "unexplainable" infers "unexplained", "insufficient data" also means something remains unexplained, and so "unexplained" could mean either.

As an example, "Mr A received an Oscar, therefore he's a very good actor" is true, but "Mr B is a very good actor, therefore he's going to get an Oscar" is not.
In the same manner, "unexplainable, therefore unexplained" can't be reversed in that way.

The proper way to reverse an inference like that is to negate both parts:
"Mr C is not a good actor, therefore he is not going to receive an Oscar."
"This incident is not unexplained, therefore it's not unexplainable".

This leaves open the possibility that an explainable event remains unexplained, for example because the observers are too far away, or because some of the data the witnesses provide is in error.

 

[flarkey]

Now that Mick has introduced to Sitrec to ability to import 3d buildings, we can now see how Venus would have looked over the shed at the bottom of the Garden.

View from the video:

View from Sitrec:

Bedroom view.

 

[Ann K]

a lot of wibbly wobbly refractive index stuff.

Don't go getting all technical on us!

 

[John J.]

Now that Mick has introduced to Sitrec to ability to import 3d buildings, we can now see how Venus would have looked over the shed at the bottom of the Garden.

I think @flarkey's nailed it pretty convincingly.
It seems likely Richard Fawcett was, on at least one occasion filming Venus and yet thought it to be something unusual- a planet which is commonly the brightest object, other than the Moon, in our night skies.
This must raise the possibility that Mr Fawcett observed/ filmed Venus, or other bright celestial objects, at other times.

Mr Fawcett, and UAP Files Podcast, failed to check out mundane explanations before UAP Files Podcast asked,

The Most Important Case Yet?

Maybe a future podcast will explain that

[Quoting UAP Files] "One of the true great British UFO sightings"

...was almost certainly Venus. I'm sure their viewers/ subscribers would want to know the likely explanation.
Or maybe not.

 

[flarkey]

Public Service Announcement - Part two of @UAPF 's investigation into this case is released on the YouTubes tonight - set your alarms people!


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-y-YkaVXq0&ab_channel=UAPFilesPodcast%F0%9F%9B%B8

In Part Two of this two-part documentary, we continue the deep dive into Richard Fawcett's extraordinary UFO footage—a recording that remained hidden for 25 years before being rediscovered and analysed.With the help of VHS restoration expert Peter Osborne, we enhance and clarify the footage, allowing for a detailed investigation of the anomaly Richard captured on three consecutive nights. The goal? To separate fact from speculation and address the skeptical theories that emerged after the release of Part One.

Key Topics in This Episode:
The enhanced full analysis of the sighting
A timeline of events from December 15th, 16th and 17th, 2000
Addressing claims that the object was Venus, the Moon, or a lantern
How Stellarium rules out conventional explanation
Why this footage remains a genuine UAP case

This case is far from closed.....and for the first time, the full 1-hour-21-minute raw footage will be released 5pm ET today on The UAP Files YouTube channel under the "UFO/UAP Footage" playlist.

So it will be interesting to see how they address the "claims that the object was Venus" and show how "Stellarium rules out conventional explanation" which is contrary to the analysis in this thread. To say "This UFO Footage CANNOT Be Explained…" is quite a claim.

 

[MapperGuy]

I think @flarkey's nailed it pretty convincingly.
It seems likely Richard Fawcett was, on at least one occasion filming Venus and yet thought it to be something unusual- a planet which is commonly the brightest object, other than the Moon, in our night skies.
This must raise the possibility that Mr Fawcett observed/ filmed Venus, or other bright celestial objects, at other times.

Mr Fawcett, and UAP Files Podcast, failed to check out mundane explanations before UAP Files Podcast asked,

The Most Important Case Yet?

Maybe a future podcast will explain that

...was almost certainly Venus. I'm sure their viewers/ subscribers would want to know the likely explanation.
Or maybe not.

What bugs me about this video (and many others too) is that the observer saw something two days in a row, and on the third day they did NOT drive in the direction it was seen in to get a closer look.

Why is it that NONE of these people reporting repeated sightings EVER heads in the direction it was seen in to get another look? Or has a friend that lives in the direction that they ask to go outside and see if they can see the UFO also? The cynic in me says "because they are afraid that someone elses report will reveal that it's not what they think it is".

 

[flarkey]

Well I've watched the new analysis video and it seems to be another case of maintaining the ambiguity in order to infer anomaly. Jimmy has a few screenshots of Metabunk in the video and makes his best attempt to counter our explanations - he openly admits he is trying to 'debunk the debunkers'.

The main argument is explained in this section, but in summary he says that the light is static in one position for 58 minutes and therefore cannot be Venus.

Source: https://youtu.be/g-y-YkaVXq0?t=664


I agree with Jimmy, that light isn't Venus. The light in that position isnt even above the tree line. It could be anything close to the horizon or on the hills to the north west of the house. We should note that up until this point only @UAPF has has access to the full footage and so hasn't been fully assessed by anyone but him and his chum Peter Osbourne.

The Full tape at the point where they argue that its not Venus is linked below:

Source: https://youtu.be/AG_c0Y_kprQ?t=376

It still doesn't change the conclusion that the first light seen in the video - the orb above the garden shed - is Venus.

The assumption that it is the same light (and therefore it is assumed that it is the same object) is seen throughout the video is used to 'prove' that the light can't be Venus. But as has been shown before - one 'orb' looks just like the next 'orb'. The video seems to be cut between different dates, there is no accurate time (other than possibly the time of 23.20 which is said by the witness during the video). The date on the video overlay shows 28 December, but we are told the video is across three nights on 15-17 December. So it has not been shown that the 'static' orb is the same as the one seen above the shed.

The lack of context of whats seen in the video means that there are very few reference points to take away from it at all. The section at 14m40s might show show some stars near the main orb, but again the quality of the footage is so poor that its hard to make anything out, let alone a convincing argument that it is anything.

Stars may be visible, but is that still the same object in the middle? Is it the UAP/Venus? Or are they now looking at Jupiter maybe?

Edit - the part of the video that shows stars seems to have been filmed out his bedroom window looking more towards the south:

I dont think @UAPF Jimmy is very experienced with Stellarium. At one point in the video he tries to show that the ISS could not have been visible on the date in question, but I doubt very much that he downloaded the orbital elements for 15-17 December 2000, and in fact the replay of the ISS whizzing across the sky in this section of the video suggests that he has very erroneous Orbtal elements loaded - possibly ones that were valid on the day he recorded the video.

So to go back to @UAPF claim that "This UFO Footage CANNOT Be Explained…" i think I now agree with him, but not because the lights in it are anomalous, but because it is of such poor quality that the lights are (mostly) unidentifiable. Its another a great example of the adage that UFOs live in the Low Information Zone.

 

[NorCal Dave]

So to go back to @UAPF claim that "This UFO Footage CANNOT Be Explained…" i think I now agree with him, but not because the lights in it are anomalous, but because it is of such poor quality that the lights are (mostly) unidentifiable. Its another a great example of the adage that UFOs live in the Low Information Zone.

Agreed. But I think it shows a degree of desperation. In our modern world of 4K cameras in one's pocket, the prevalence of private and government security cameras as well as the general tendency for large numbers of the public to literally lives their lives online, Jimmy's "most important case yet" harkens back to some found footage using an analog copy of an analog 430i original with sketchy dates.

It's from a time before Space X, and Starlink. Even if though there where satellites, tracking them 25 years later is that much harder. A crappy video copy of some lights in the sky in 2000 on some unspecific dates isn't just in the LIZ, it's in a deliberately vague debunking zone (DVDZ?). Having found that many of his more recent great UFO sightings he shares can be correlated StarLink, celestial bodies, aircraft and other prosaic explanations, Jimmy has moved back in time to muddy the waters. It's almost a deliberate attempt find a UFO where prosaic explanations become more difficult, not because it's a real UFO, but the information is lost to time.

 

[flarkey]

Agreed. But I think it shows a degree of desperation. In our modern world of 4K cameras in one's pocket, the prevalence of private and government security cameras as well as the general tendency for large numbers of the public to literally lives their lives online, Jimmy's "most important case yet" harkens back to some found footage using an analog copy of an analog 430i original with sketchy dates.

It's from a time before Space X, and Starlink. Even if though there where satellites, tracking them 25 years later is that much harder. A crappy video copy of some lights in the sky in 2000 on some unspecific dates isn't just in the LIZ, it's in a deliberately vague debunking zone (DVDZ?). Having found that many of his more recent great UFO sightings he shares can be correlated StarLink, celestial bodies, aircraft and other prosaic explanations, Jimmy has moved back in time to muddy the waters. It's almost a deliberate attempt find a UFO where prosaic explanations become more difficult, not because it's a real UFO, but the information is lost to time.

Jimmy seems like he's not being totally honest with the the UFO fans or the skeptics here. He seems to say that he deliberately held back some of the footage so that he could then address the debunks that suggested the light was Venus, knowing that he had the full footage available that showed a static object (not Venus).

Here's part of the transcript.... (full transcript attached)

We've looked at that in part one and we know the direction that this object has been seen in. Now I I kind of wanted to put this out in a part one
just to see what the debunkers would come up with and see what people thought - Is it Venus? Is it the moon? Is it Mars? Is it a hot air balloon ?All of these theories.

<snip>

Now I held some footage back I knew that some people were going to point to Venus as being the uh the the resolution the the debunk - It's Venus Tada Gotcha! And I let that play out I kept back some footage because I knew that that's where people were going to go to because they were going to use Stellarium, They were going to go and backdate it to 2015 of December roughly 6:05 p.m onwards into the night and say "Right this was Venus."

Hmm, that reads like he's led us up the garden path and attempted his own 'gotcha' moment. But dare I say it - those aren't the actions of someone acting in good faith, or someone who actually wants to resolve cases. Maybe he's been watching too many Jeremy Corbell or Ross Coulthart videos and is now gatekeeping the data for his own gain. I wonder what else he has held back?

I'm getting a Tedesco-brothers vibe here - someone with access to modern digital technology and software, but without the experience or objectivity to be able to think critically and make sense of what they are seeing. There is nothing strange or a weird in this video at all - just some lights that are either stars, planets or distant lights on the ground that are difficult to positively identify due to the poor quality of the video and associated data. It is a great example of how someone's bias and incredulity can turn the ambiguous into the anomalous.

 

[elvenwear]

Maybe we've just discovered a new logical fallacy - an argument from ambiguity....?

Maybe a new variant of the argument from ignorance?

Regarding the appearance over 3 days, when Venus is most noticeable in the evening (meaning when it is brightest and closest to the horizon where we are most likely to looking), it is quickly disappearing downward and 'into the sunset' where it is lost in the glare. This explains why it was only there for 2-3 days in the same position.

 

[elvenwear]

My post above is a grotesquely rough portrait. In particular, the angle where the vertical motion appears to stop is not 90 degrees and this is because of the relative motion of Earth and Venus.

This video has a better depiction.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov3fYgGwy60

 

[taurusclover21]

Jimmy seems like he's not being totally honest with the the UFO fans or the skeptics here.

That was my experience with him. Furthermore, he banned me from commenting on his YT videos.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Hmm, that reads like he's led us up the garden path and attempted his own 'gotcha' moment. But dare I say it - those aren't the actions of someone acting in good faith, or someone who actually wants to resolve cases. Maybe he's been watching too many Jeremy Corbell or Ross Coulthart videos and is now gatekeeping the data for his own gain. I wonder what else he has held back?

I'm getting a Tedesco-brothers vibe here - someone with access to modern digital technology and software, but without the experience or objectivity to be able to think critically and make sense of what they are seeing. There is nothing strange or a weird in this video at all - just some lights that are either stars, planets or distant lights on the ground that are difficult to positively identify due to the poor quality of the video and associated data. It is a great example of how someone's bias and incredulity can turn the ambiguous into the anomalous.

I think there's also cross purposes here because AFAIK, you don't have a YouTube channel, unless Creeky Blinders is your alter-ego or something . As such, Jimmy engages in a level of entertainment, that you and most people here don't need to worry about.

People present what they claim are UFOs or anomalies and people here try to understand and work it out. I think everyone here enjoys the puzzle and the challenge and while there is probably some friendly competition about being the first to find an answer, everyone works together for the most part. But at the end of the day the best one here can expect is sense of accomplishment and some "WINNER" stickers at the bottom of a post. There's no sponsors, no free products, no subscribers and no money. At any giving time, it seems there are around 200 people on the site that might see a solution to something.

For the Jimmys of YouTube, the stakes are much higher. I'm still amazed at how many people make a substantial to complete living off of YouTube. Was watching a gut this morning that has 220K subscribers and ~60 videos that seem to center around woodworking and 3D printing products for woodworking. Some of those videos chronical his building of a $200K shop that he describes as a YouTube studio as much as a work space. And tens of thousands of dollars of stuff in his shop were sponsored or gifted products. Yes, he sells some stuff, but his YouTube videos about the stuff he sells seems to bring in more than the products he sells. I was busting my ass for years as a small-time contractor, when I should have brought along a camera and had a YouTube channel about busting ass as a small-time contractor.

For Jimmy, @flarkey and the rest of the de-bunkers are the narrative foils. The bad guys going after the good guys fighting for disclosure. Holding back footage in an attempt bait people into thinking what's shown might be Venus, knowing the undisclosed footage would show otherwise isn't a way to have an honest discussion, but it's entertaining for his viewers. They don't just want to see UFOs, they want to see the flarkeys of the debunking world made to look foolish.

We see the same thing with Barber's Skywatch, teasing out bits of content in a slow drip to keep the anticipation going. I'm not saying these guys are all straight up grifters, they seem to be believers, but they mix their belief with a healthy dose of entertainment to make UFOs a nice side-hustle, if not more.

What's more, being debunked on Metabunk or in their own comments section adds nothing to the viewership. At least if they get debunked on another YouTube channel, others are seeing their content. They can then respond to that YouTube debunk with yet more content. Responding to a forum doesn't make for compelling viewing. Recall that the Tedescos and Matt Ford attempted a YouTube debunk of Mick's YouTube debunk. There was content to make new content about.

I'm not defending the antics, just trying to understand them. IF someone really and honestly wanted to discuss various bits of UFO evidence, it would end up being about as boring as this forum. Great for those that are in to it, but not very entertaining.

Maybe @flarkey needs a YouTube channel?

 

[flarkey]

@NorCal Dave , yeah I understand the reasons why he and we do what we do. And maybe this is just the first time that we've been 'played' in a way. I'm not in this to 'play' or 'taunt' people, or try to hold back on information that might provide answers to what people have seen. I'm into the UFO topic for one reason - to hopefully see a video of an alien spaceship. I'm not out to 'debunk', I dont even like the monicker "debunker" as it either suggests intentional falsehoods from the witness, or a preconceived mindset from the investigator. But, whenever someone says 'here's a video of an alien spaceship' and they then proceed to show me a video of Venus: I'm going to call them out on it. But more than that - I'm going to show them (and everyone else) why its not an alien spaceship. Its interesting that Jimmy sees Metabunk as adversaries here and has screenshots of our threads on this Fourm throughout his videos - may its because we're the only ones challenging his claims, but as @taurusclover21 mentioned above he , like many others, do enjoy blocking the desenting voices on his YouTube/Reddit/Instagram/Twitter/Substack pages (well thats where I'm blocked anyway ) . I suppose we should respect his decision to be an entertainer rather than an resolver.

 

[John J.]

But at the end of the day the best one here can expect is sense of accomplishment and some "WINNER" stickers at the bottom of a post. There's no sponsors, no free products, no subscribers and no money.

You haven't received your cheques yet?
Now you mention it, last time I was on Metabunk Island I wondered why there was no yacht at your berth at the marina.
Always good to see Ann K. painting the Caribbean sunrise, and that bloke frantically running along the beach with his kite.

...they want to see the flarkeys of the debunking world made to look foolish.

As your (Dave's) post convincingly argues, this only works because the custodian of the material has only partially (in both senses of the word) revealed what they know.
Increasingly, I feel that UFO enthusiasts are often (not always) more interested in winning the argument than finding the truth; that is, aiming for a widespread acceptance that non-human intelligences are visiting Earth rather than finding out if this is the case (which it almost certainly is not, if we are led by the evidence).

On the upside, only those who "want to believe" and who choose to use only those sources that support or reinforce their hopes and/or fantasies will be entertained or persuaded by this silly wrong-footing of others who are trying to explain what the evidence shows. Those who want to know will, by and large, have a broader- and more accurate- understanding.
Number of claimed sightings of anomalous objects politely and convincingly explained by @flarkey : Many.
Number of reliable and testable documented observations, detections or finds of ETI spacecraft: Nil.

 

[Mendel]

Increasingly, I feel that UFO enthusiasts are often (not always) more interested in winning the argument than finding the truth; that is, aiming for a widespread acceptance that non-human intelligences are visiting Earth rather than finding out if this is the case (which it almost certainly is not, if we are led by the evidence).

Reminds me strongly of how a certain segment of Flat Earth has been operating for years.

 

[flarkey]

Reminds me strongly of how a certain segment of Flat Earth has been operating for years.

The Flat Earth movement and the UFO movement both seem to be trying to 'catch out' the mainstream scientific community by shifting the burden of proof to them (us?), but time and time again they have biased arguments using bad data gathered during amateurish experiments examined through flawed analyses that reach erroneous conclusion. The articles and videos they put out are are often just attempts at 'gotcha!' moments with one or two inaccurate measurements, or a zoomed-in, undefined orb (blob?) video that 'can't be explained'. Their claims are often untestable and unfalsifiable, and yet then they go on to claim that they are using science - gotcha!. The claim we've 'debunked the debunkers' is another shifting of the burden of proof and is meaningless when trying to demonstrate the positive presence of any phenomenon.

 

[taurusclover21]

I'm not defending the antics, just trying to understand them.

Of course, I understand them. It's mainly about clicks and money.

 

[JMartJr]

Of course, I understand them. It's mainly about clicks and money.

That is true for a segment of them -- but millions of people believe at lest some of this stuff, and a very small (but noisy) of them have YouTube channels or make any money. Most are sincere, and have just fallen for the allure of a more exciting story.

 

[taurusclover21]

That is true for a segment of them -- but millions of people believe at lest some of this stuff, and a very small (but noisy) of them have YouTube channels or make any money. Most are sincere, and have just fallen for the allure of a more exciting story.

Agree. My comment was somewhat sarcastic. Jimmy seems to have followed the UFO nonsense hook, line, and sinker.

 

[flarkey]

Just going back to this image that I shared in post #26 ......

Stars may be visible, but is that still the same object in the middle? Is it the UAP/Venus? Or are they now looking at Jupiter maybe?

That section of video goes from 9m54s to 18m26s and seems to have been recorded over the top of the section with the Date & Time visible, suggesting that it was recorded last. Jimmy's claims that the video shows footage from the "15th, 16th and 17th December 2000".

Could it be Venus and two stars? Lets check, but first we need to talk about distortion....

Distrortion
An effect of the digitisation of the VHS video tape has been the vertical distortion of the video image. This is most noticeable whenever the video shows the pitch of the roof next door. Comparing the video with a photo of the house next door we can estimate the amount of vertical distortion, it is about 45% longer than the actual perspective of the image. So to correct it we have to make the image about 55% of the original.

Applying the same correction to the image of the stars give us this as the actual relative positions of the orbs/stars.

The bright object in the middle is claimed to be a UAP, but perhaps the witness was just unable to identify Venus again like he did in the earlier footage? If that was the case then we should be able to find a date that has two stars in the same relative positions as the stars seen in the video - and we can.

Using the same software that Jimmy likes to use - Stellarium - we can see it shows that on 19 December 2000 Venus was in Capricorn and the two bright stars θ Cap, and ζ Cap would have been in those exact relative positions as the stars in the video:

But does that fit with the time and locations we are sure of? The section of the video that the 2 stars and Venus are seen shows that they were filmed through the double-bedroom window - the outline of the window is visible with contrast adjusted:

Photos from https://www.zoopla.co.uk/property/uprn/100031644661/

This view out the window would have been on a bearing of around 210°, which is roughly South South-West.

So the view out the window is consistent with the hypothesis that the bright light is Venus with the two other orbs being the stars in Capricorn. If that is correct we can then conclude that that part of the video was recorded around 5.30pm on 19 December 2000.