UAP V video by Jorge Arteaga

yoshy

Senior Member
Another video making big waves on reddit. Heads up: it looks like a balloon



Posted with the description
I’m surprised I haven’t seen this video on here yet but then again this was just shared recently on Twitter. Do not know original source but it’s getting a lot of attention and for good reason. In the 20 sec clip you can see this thing pass by very very close to the pilot. Its shiny metallic with a oval/triangular shape. Also another thing that I noticed is the pilot seems to already be noticing and trying to capture Another UAP. In the very beginning of the video you can see a small black dot also moving. As the camera tries to auto focus he looses it but keeps filming..that’s when the main UAP flys by the pilot. So yea 2 UAP I believe what do you guys think?

u/DrestinBlack provided some further information here (including a tweet from Mick that it looks like a mylar balloon):

I haven’t see anyone else do this so:

The first appearance I could find of this video is from someone named “OGCRYPTO”, he posted it tagging Corbell (who’s ignored the video and all the tagging):
Source: https://twitter.com/ogogcrypto/status/1643340990500012035?s=61&t=GqFvpREAAVMiq7z-wCSCDw


Then it was picked up my J. Alberto (a Spanish speaking ufo blogger):
Source: https://twitter.com/admpubmx/status/1643352988163948544?s=61&t=GqFvpREAAVMiq7z-wCSCDw
who also tagged Corbell initially but then started tagging all the other ufo believers and even the Guardian paper looking for traction.

After tagging Mick and another talented researcher, we get the “flying past a Mylar balloon” reply:
Source: https://twitter.com/mickwest/status/1643683764743307270?s=61&t=GqFvpREAAVMiq7z-wCSCDw


He then starts tagging Ryan Graves and pretty much anyone he thinks will help it go viral.

Finally, Alberto claims to be speaking to the pilot of the aircraft (originally identified as a Beechcraft), a “top model” Latina, Valentina:
Source: https://twitter.com/admpubmx/status/1643933625006653442?s=61&t=GqFvpREAAVMiq7z-wCSCDw


Seen chatting happily away here:
Source: https://twitter.com/admpubmx/status/1644136540426375168?s=61&t=GqFvpREAAVMiq7z-wCSCD


She states the video is called “UAP V” and is “totally real”

But we still have no date, time, location or anything else — the last frame shows the air speed indicator dial for this Cessna T303 Crusader which shows a speed of 120 knots. It’s claimed to have been taken over Santa Fe de Antioquia, Columbia in March 2023

P.s, thank you for the awards, unnecessary. I added the airspeed of the plane and claimed approx location.


Another post with testimony from the pilot, that OP translated using GPT:

Translation of twitter thread by GPT4.

Title: First-hand Account of UAP Sighting in Antioquia, Colombia

I would like to share with you all an interesting account of a recent UAP sighting in Antioquia, Colombia. The event took place on May 12th, 2022, involving a Cessna T303 Crusader piloted by Jorge A. Arteaga.

According to Jorge A. Arteaga, the object observed was not a balloon of any type, not a drone, and not any known object to him. He recorded a video of the sighting, which has been confirmed to be authentic. Arteaga recounts that the object was first seen floating stationary at a specific point between Medellin and Santa Fe. He and his co-pilot, Daniel, were flying towards Medellin when they noticed the object.

As they approached the UAP, it suddenly moved towards them, prompting Arteaga to ask Daniel if he saw and heard it. Arteaga then turned the plane around, capturing the first video of the stationary object. As he was filming, the object moved slightly, and he began to "hunt" it with the aircraft. At this point, the UAP started moving towards them.

Arteaga managed to avoid the object while flying at a speed of 130 to 140 knots, which is roughly over 300 kilometers per hour. He noted that had the object been a balloon, the aircraft's wake would have blown it away or disrupted its position. He also ruled out the possibility of it being a solar or helium balloon, as the sighting occurred at 12,500 feet with temperatures around 5 degrees Celsius.

Arteaga expressed fear during the encounter, insisting that the object was neither a balloon, a drone, nor any known object to him. The full interview will be broadcasted on Tercer Milenio 360 Internacional by Maussan TV on YouTube and TV Azteca.

This UAP sighting has been closely followed by researchers worldwide, who have analyzed the images using highly-qualified processes and determined the video to be real and legitimate, as confirmed by pilot Jorge Alcántara.

The videos shared by Jorge A. Alcántara are available in this thread for all researchers and digital analysts who have been following the case, to confirm their findings. The international UAP community is expected to endorse the general verdict, which, based on published analyses by various experts, points to a non-human origin for this extraordinary UAP sighting.

Like I said above, this looks like a balloon to me, but it has UFO reddit and twitter going crazy over it. Maybe someone here can identify the exact balloon again like with the graduation balloon :)
 
A couple of screen grabs:

1681263909096.png


1681264486857.png


Interesting to note his description sounds a lot like a balloon, even though he says it's not a balloon (bold by me):

External Quote:
Arteaga recounts that the object was first seen floating stationary at a specific point between Medellin and Santa Fe. He and his co-pilot, Daniel, were flying towards Medellin when they noticed the object.

Arteaga then turned the plane around, capturing the first video of the stationary object.
 
And of course, the "testimony from the pilot" in the OP, as per normal, first off rules out the most likely explanation (balloon), and finds all kind of arguments to say it is not ("no wake effect seen on object", "it moved towards the plane").

Hilariously, a few weeks ago there was a thread on Reddit saying something in the line of "We should believe highly trained pilots more". Well, how about "no"? I do not believe they are Gods or super beings, they are human and also capable of wrong judgement.
 
That looks a great deal like an inflatable pool float I saw at a resort in the Dominican Republic. I remember it as an orca, 3-4 feet in length, black and white in color. It was more oval than whale shaped.
 
AKA Balloon capital of the world

The idea that balloons in the Medellin are mistaken for UFOs is certainly know by balloon enthusiasts, hence maybe the quick upfront denial of it being a balloon. From an article on the history of solar balloons in Medellin (bold by me):

External Quote:
In December 1995, a paper balloon as set a fire that totally destroyed the Renault industrial plant : la SOFASA. Sins then, the police destroy all balloon under construction and forbid all flight. But the tradition still continue under cover!
Alejandro URIBE retained the memory a gimmick that vas given with the milk packs back in the eighties : a cylindrical solar balloon (same as Pif Gadget). Then he tried to make the tradition evolve from the paper balloon to the solar. He use polyethylene which is much more efficient to pickup the sun energy than silk paper.
In 1998, he made a 5 m solar balloon assembling black trash bags, one of those balloon with a reflective part have been mistaken for an UFO and caused a great fear in the population.
He latter noticed that he could use colored polyethylene and non symmetrical shapes.
In some years it seems they just leaned into the whole idea:

uribe34.jpg

https://ballonsolaire.pagesperso-orange.fr/en-historique8.htm

This one is from 2014 and not as good as Baby Yoda, or maybe we should say the Medell-orian? But the shape is close and shows that they make all kinds of shapes, patterns and sizes:

86-750x500.jpg


A manta ray balloon might fit the bill:

air-ray-505x231.jpg

https://craziestgadgets.com/2008/06/01/manta-ray-blimp-with-flapping-wings/
 
To me, it looks more like a party balloon than one of the huge Medellin solar balloons. If so, the pilot would be correct in ruling out "a balloon" of the big showy type associated with that city.

I wonder if there is a different word for a party balloon than for a big solar balloon. I can't find anything suggesting that there is, but Spanish as spoken in different countries/areas often has variations from "standard Spanish."


Works even better rotating 180 degrees... there is even a hint of maybe the UPC tag.

1681308121415.png
 
Additional information and analysis:
Source: https://youtu.be/V4MzC2Rb6PU


It can be summed up as:

  • It's probably stationary...
  • But maybe moving slowly.
  • There is some other speck that appears at the end that could be the craft...
  • But we don't really know.
  • It's probably a balloon...
  • Occam's razor says it's a balloon...
  • But maybe not.
Seems to be standard UFO/UAP stuff. A quick video of something that can't quite be identified for certain and some speculation, but no real answers.

This is the quote from the pilot in the video:

1682802407340.png


This doesn't make sense to me. As they were approaching Medellin, "... the object moved and approached us" so as the object is coming at him he "...started chasing it with the plane" What? How does he chase it if it's coming after him? I'm thinking as is often the case, the story is already changing a bit. In this case the statement has been truncated. Here is the original interview from the Jaime Mausson's Tercer Milenio in the OP (bold by me):

External Quote:
According to Jorge A. Arteaga, the object observed was not a balloon of any type, not a drone, and not any known object to him. He recorded a video of the sighting, which has been confirmed to be authentic. Arteaga recounts that the object was first seen floating stationary at a specific point between Medellin and Santa Fe. He and his co-pilot, Daniel, were flying towards Medellin when they noticed the object.
They see it "floating stationary" between Medellin and Santa Fe and they're headed towards Medellin so, sounds like it's in front of them.

External Quote:
As they approached the UAP, it suddenly moved towards them, prompting Arteaga to ask Daniel if he saw and heard it.
If it's floating in the air in front of them as the approach it, it's going to appear to move towards them, right?

External Quote:
Arteaga then turned the plane around, capturing the first video of the stationary object.
For this to work it implies that he flew past it, how else does it work that he "turned the plane around" to then film it? And when he does film it, it's still "stationary".

External Quote:
As he was filming, the object moved slightly, and he began to "hunt" it with the aircraft.
I don't get this. The video is only a few seconds long and I don't see the plane "hunting" the object. He's maybe is hunting for it with his camera.

External Quote:
At this point, the UAP started moving towards them.
Same as the first flyby, as they approach the "floating stationary" object it appears to move towards them.

External Quote:
Arteaga managed to avoid the object while flying at a speed of 130 to 140 knots, which is roughly over 300 kilometers per hour.
I'm not a pilot and it seems that the knots to kliks can vary depending on the location, but does it differ by that much:

1682804327663.png


Or is there a little hype going on?

Reading through it again, it sounds like they see a floating object on their way to Medellin. It appears to move towards them as they move towards it. They must have flown past it so they could then turn the plane around either to go back and look for it, or possibly they kept their eye on it as they turned. Once again, it's stationary and as the approach it appears to move towards them. They film it on this second pass.

By the pilots own admission, the object is usually "floating stationary" and only moves a little bit. Sure sounds like the flew around a balloon.

Here is the account uninterrupted from the OP:

External Quote:
According to Jorge A. Arteaga, the object observed was not a balloon of any type, not a drone, and not any known object to him. He recorded a video of the sighting, which has been confirmed to be authentic. Arteaga recounts that the object was first seen floating stationary at a specific point between Medellin and Santa Fe. He and his co-pilot, Daniel, were flying towards Medellin when they noticed the object.

As they approached the UAP, it suddenly moved towards them, prompting Arteaga to ask Daniel if he saw and heard it. Arteaga then turned the plane around, capturing the first video of the stationary object. As he was filming, the object moved slightly, and he began to "hunt" it with the aircraft. At this point, the UAP started moving towards them.

Arteaga managed to avoid the object while flying at a speed of 130 to 140 knots, which is roughly over 300 kilometers per hour. He noted that had the object been a balloon, the aircraft's wake would have blown it away or disrupted its position. He also ruled out the possibility of it being a solar or helium balloon, as the sighting occurred at 12,500 feet with temperatures around 5 degrees Celsius.

Arteaga expressed fear during the encounter, insisting that the object was neither a balloon, a drone, nor any known object to him. The full interview will be broadcasted on Tercer Milenio 360 Internacional by Maussan TV on YouTube and TV Azteca.
 

Attachments

  • 1682804272042.png
    1682804272042.png
    26.4 KB · Views: 97
Makes sense. It goes from a dot to what we have at the end faster than what looks normal to me, though. Probably an illusion. Did you make anything of the very end when the object returns to a dot? Hype? I'm sure but if you believe the pilot and the super-model who owns the video, she doesn't care about UFOs. Also, I think the translation of the pilot's account above is a poor one.
 
Last edited:
Makes sense. It goes from a dot to what we have at the end faster than what looks normal to me, though. Probably an illusion.

I think so. That type of stuff has been discussed here in various threads. If it's realtivly small and it's being filmed with a standard phone camera, it's not going to look like much at a distance. That distance is closing at ~140 knots which is ~160 MPH, so they come up on it pretty fast.

It's the same as driving down the interstate at 70 MPH and looking at an upcoming small sign. At first you hardly see it, then as it gets bigger it wizzes by.

Did you make anything of the very end when the object returns to a dot? Hype?

I didn't see anything to conclude that whatever little dot he's highlighting is the same object. It's another case of a hard to discern "something" that is in a few frames of a short video. It seems most of UFOlogy is based on this kind of stuff.

I'm sure but if you believe the pilot and the super-model who owns the video, she doesn't care about UFOs. Also, I think the translation of the pilot's account above is a poor one.

There may be problems with the translation, but I doubt "floating stationary" was supposed to be "moving supersonically". There are just too many Spanish speakers for the translation to be radically different from what's been presented.

They may not believe in UFOs, but they like getting a little press. This story is from Jaime Maussan's TV show which often promotes all sorts of UFO and paranormal stuff including outright hoaxes he's been invloved with.

Not to get off topic, I listed a couple of his more famous "cases" for context in the spoiler below for those interested. Be aware it does include photos of a mummified child which Maussan and others splashed all over the internet as an alien:

External Quote:
In 1991 Jaime Maussan broke records at Mexican Television next to Nino Canún and his program Y usted que opina? (So what's your opinion?), since they transmitted for over 11 hours and a half on the subject of UFOs.
Then there was the alien Nazca mummies:

External Quote:
In June 2017, Maussan was involved in the analysis of 5 mummies discovered in Peru ...... it allegedly shows a crouched mummified body of a humanoid figure with an elongated skull and three fingers on each hand and foot.) Snopes reported that Maussan "led an event called Be Witness, at which a mummified body — purportedly that of an alien — was unveiled. Later, though, that 'alien' discovery was debunked. The mummified corpse was shown to be that of a human child.".[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Maussan

The bigger hoax was the slide/photo of an alien body from the supposed Roswell crash:

External Quote:
Jaime Maussan, the man behind the program beWITNESS, revealed the so-called Roswell Slides to the world.

A Roswell “dream team” was assembled, photograph forensic experts were hired, and together these geniuses proved the slides authenticity.1

When Jaime Maussan, Richard Dolan, and other UFOlogical luminaries decided it was high time to put their money where their mouth is, after a tedious 5 hour presentation2, the internet went nuts. Bloggers, armchair researchers, and true believers whipped out their pirated copies of Photoshop for a better look at the slide. The placard Maussan declared illegible was made readable in a matter of days, if not hours.

Presented with this proof, Maussan announced his “Roswell Slides Challenge”.

first_slide.jpg


mummy_placard.jpg


crystal_clear.jpg


External Quote:
The placard is different and the wording changed from the original Roswell slide. Its body is covered with a burial garment, rather than laid bare for exhibit, giving the dead little boy a measure of modesty after more than a month of exploitation. Throwing more dirt on Jaime Maussan’s grave are two articles about mummified bodies discovered at Montezuma’s castle.

Despite it clearly being shown that the alien was a human mummy that has since be repatriated, Maussan insisted that someone painted over a photo of the placard or some such nonsense:
External Quote:

The picture that is circulating showing a being similar to beWITNESS, was painted over a photograph of a shelf.
So much for Jaime having any shred of honesty.
https://weekinweird.com/2015/06/10/case-closed-mummy-maussan/
 
It can be summed up as:

  • It's probably stationary...
  • But maybe moving slowly.
  • There is some other speck that appears at the end that could be the craft...
  • But we don't really know.
  • It's probably a balloon...
  • Occam's razor says it's a balloon...
  • But maybe not.
Seems to be standard UFO/UAP stuff. A quick video of something that can't quite be identified for certain and some speculation, but no real answers.

This is the quote from the pilot in the video:

View attachment 58891

This doesn't make sense to me. As they were approaching Medellin, "... the object moved and approached us" so as the object is coming at him he "...started chasing it with the plane" What? How does he chase it if it's coming after him? I'm thinking as is often the case, the story is already changing a bit. In this case the statement has been truncated. Here is the original interview from the Jaime Mausson's Tercer Milenio in the OP (bold by me):

External Quote:
According to Jorge A. Arteaga, the object observed was not a balloon of any type, not a drone, and not any known object to him. He recorded a video of the sighting, which has been confirmed to be authentic. Arteaga recounts that the object was first seen floating stationary at a specific point between Medellin and Santa Fe. He and his co-pilot, Daniel, were flying towards Medellin when they noticed the object.
They see it "floating stationary" between Medellin and Santa Fe and they're headed towards Medellin so, sounds like it's in front of them.

External Quote:
As they approached the UAP, it suddenly moved towards them, prompting Arteaga to ask Daniel if he saw and heard it.
If it's floating in the air in front of them as the approach it, it's going to appear to move towards them, right?

External Quote:
Arteaga then turned the plane around, capturing the first video of the stationary object.
For this to work it implies that he flew past it, how else does it work that he "turned the plane around" to then film it? And when he does film it, it's still "stationary".

External Quote:
As he was filming, the object moved slightly, and he began to "hunt" it with the aircraft.
I don't get this. The video is only a few seconds long and I don't see the plane "hunting" the object. He's maybe is hunting for it with his camera.

External Quote:
At this point, the UAP started moving towards them.
Same as the first flyby, as they approach the "floating stationary" object it appears to move towards them.

External Quote:
Arteaga managed to avoid the object while flying at a speed of 130 to 140 knots, which is roughly over 300 kilometers per hour.
I'm not a pilot and it seems that the knots to kliks can vary depending on the location, but does it differ by that much:

View attachment 58893

Or is there a little hype going on?

Reading through it again, it sounds like they see a floating object on their way to Medellin. It appears to move towards them as they move towards it. They must have flown past it so they could then turn the plane around either to go back and look for it, or possibly they kept their eye on it as they turned. Once again, it's stationary and as the approach it appears to move towards them. They film it on this second pass.

By the pilots own admission, the object is usually "floating stationary" and only moves a little bit. Sure sounds like the flew around a balloon.

Here is the account uninterrupted from the OP:

External Quote:
According to Jorge A. Arteaga, the object observed was not a balloon of any type, not a drone, and not any known object to him. He recorded a video of the sighting, which has been confirmed to be authentic. Arteaga recounts that the object was first seen floating stationary at a specific point between Medellin and Santa Fe. He and his co-pilot, Daniel, were flying towards Medellin when they noticed the object.

As they approached the UAP, it suddenly moved towards them, prompting Arteaga to ask Daniel if he saw and heard it. Arteaga then turned the plane around, capturing the first video of the stationary object. As he was filming, the object moved slightly, and he began to "hunt" it with the aircraft. At this point, the UAP started moving towards them.

Arteaga managed to avoid the object while flying at a speed of 130 to 140 knots, which is roughly over 300 kilometers per hour. He noted that had the object been a balloon, the aircraft's wake would have blown it away or disrupted its position. He also ruled out the possibility of it being a solar or helium balloon, as the sighting occurred at 12,500 feet with temperatures around 5 degrees Celsius.

Arteaga expressed fear during the encounter, insisting that the object was neither a balloon, a drone, nor any known object to him. The full interview will be broadcasted on Tercer Milenio 360 Internacional by Maussan TV on YouTube and TV Azteca.

I'm guessing that if the object is actually much smaller and closer than he thinks....then that will indeed create the illusion of it approaching him rapidly. If he thinks the object is large and 10 miles away when its actually small and only 1 mile away, his mind will explain the rapid increase in apparent size of the object as being the object approaching him rapidly.
 
I think so. That type of stuff has been discussed here in various threads. If it's realtivly small and it's being filmed with a standard phone camera, it's not going to look like much at a distance. That distance is closing at ~140 knots which is ~160 MPH, so they come up on it pretty fast.

It's the same as driving down the interstate at 70 MPH and looking at an upcoming small sign. At first you hardly see it, then as it gets bigger it wizzes by.



I didn't see anything to conclude that whatever little dot he's highlighting is the same object. It's another case of a hard to discern "something" that is in a few frames of a short video. It seems most of UFOlogy is based on this kind of stuff.



There may be problems with the translation, but I doubt "floating stationary" was supposed to be "moving supersonically". There are just too many Spanish speakers for the translation to be radically different from what's been presented.

They may not believe in UFOs, but they like getting a little press. This story is from Jaime Maussan's TV show which often promotes all sorts of UFO and paranormal stuff including outright hoaxes he's been invloved with.

Not to get off topic, I listed a couple of his more famous "cases" for context in the spoiler below for those interested. Be aware it does include photos of a mummified child which Maussan and others splashed all over the internet as an alien:

External Quote:
In 1991 Jaime Maussan broke records at Mexican Television next to Nino Canún and his program Y usted que opina? (So what's your opinion?), since they transmitted for over 11 hours and a half on the subject of UFOs.
Then there was the alien Nazca mummies:

External Quote:
In June 2017, Maussan was involved in the analysis of 5 mummies discovered in Peru ...... it allegedly shows a crouched mummified body of a humanoid figure with an elongated skull and three fingers on each hand and foot.) Snopes reported that Maussan "led an event called Be Witness, at which a mummified body — purportedly that of an alien — was unveiled. Later, though, that 'alien' discovery was debunked. The mummified corpse was shown to be that of a human child.".[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Maussan

The bigger hoax was the slide/photo of an alien body from the supposed Roswell crash:

External Quote:
Jaime Maussan, the man behind the program beWITNESS, revealed the so-called Roswell Slides to the world.

A Roswell “dream team” was assembled, photograph forensic experts were hired, and together these geniuses proved the slides authenticity.1

When Jaime Maussan, Richard Dolan, and other UFOlogical luminaries decided it was high time to put their money where their mouth is, after a tedious 5 hour presentation2, the internet went nuts. Bloggers, armchair researchers, and true believers whipped out their pirated copies of Photoshop for a better look at the slide. The placard Maussan declared illegible was made readable in a matter of days, if not hours.

Presented with this proof, Maussan announced his “Roswell Slides Challenge”.

first_slide.jpg


mummy_placard.jpg


crystal_clear.jpg


External Quote:
The placard is different and the wording changed from the original Roswell slide. Its body is covered with a burial garment, rather than laid bare for exhibit, giving the dead little boy a measure of modesty after more than a month of exploitation. Throwing more dirt on Jaime Maussan’s grave are two articles about mummified bodies discovered at Montezuma’s castle.

Despite it clearly being shown that the alien was a human mummy that has since be repatriated, Maussan insisted that someone painted over a photo of the placard or some such nonsense:
External Quote:


So much for Jaime having any shred of honesty.
https://weekinweird.com/2015/06/10/case-closed-mummy-maussan/
Thanks, NorcalDave. This more clearly shows what I was asking about. It shows a lot of movement by the object or another object both at the beginning and the end of the video you have see. I would appreciate you taking a look.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/12je9q0/analysis_of_the_antioquia_colombia_footage/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
 

Attachments

  • manta video beginning 2023-05-12 191140.jpg
    manta video beginning 2023-05-12 191140.jpg
    63.8 KB · Views: 82
  • manta video boo coo movement 2023-05-12 191140.jpg
    manta video boo coo movement 2023-05-12 191140.jpg
    67.7 KB · Views: 77
  • manta zooms away video 2023-05-12 191140.jpg
    manta zooms away video 2023-05-12 191140.jpg
    66.2 KB · Views: 85
Thanks, NorcalDave. This more clearly shows what I was asking about. It shows a lot of movement by the object or another object both at the beginning and the end of the video you have see. I would appreciate you taking a look.

It's graduation weekend/week for my son and his wife, so of traveling through Wednesday. I'll look when I have some time, meanwhile I'm sure others can comment.
 
This is a short clip of a simulation to show a possible flight path of the object after it passes the plane. I look forward to your comments. Thank you.
the simulation has no evidence value at all. however, it will confuse the issue, as some people are going to think it's additional footage.

My 3D brain sees no evidence in the original video that the object is anything but stationary. It's trajectory tracks 100% with the motion of the aircraft.

With the aircraft registration and a time/date, we might get a flight path, and then a SitRec analysis by @Mick West ; without this information, I'm happy to dismiss this as "insufficient evidence, looks like a balloon".
 
the simulation has no evidence value at all. however, it will confuse the issue, as some people are going to think it's additional footage.

My 3D brain sees no evidence in the original video that the object is anything but stationary. It's trajectory tracks 100% with the motion of the aircraft.

With the aircraft registration and a time/date, we might get a flight path, and then a SitRec analysis by @Mick West ; without this information, I'm happy to dismiss this as "insufficient evidence, looks like a balloon".

A balloon would get significantly perturbed as it passes the wash of a prop plane, so a quick change of direction is what would be *expected*. Compare leaves and crisp packets beside a highway; turbulence doesn't go in simple straight lines, and light things can't fight the pushing power of Air 1.0. This guy's "discovery" *supports* the balloon conclusion, in my opinion.
 
This guy's "discovery" *supports* the balloon conclusion, in my opinion.
you can't support any conclusion with data you made up

it's futile to discuss what the made-up data would support if it was real

we could just as soon discuss what extraterrestrial visitors look like, based on hoaxed photographs—oh wait
 
Last edited:
A balloon would get significantly perturbed as it passes the wash of a prop plane, so a quick change of direction is what would be *expected*. Compare leaves and crisp packets beside a highway; turbulence doesn't go in simple straight lines, and light things can't fight the pushing power of Air 1.0.
While 100% agreeing with all of that, if (IF) I understand which way we're looking out of the plane when whatever the second object is scoots across the screen, it seems to accelerate forward in relation to the plane, overtaking the aircraft for a bit there. If correct, that seems unlikely for an object caught in the wake and turbulence. I guess it is possible we are looking back at a sharper angle than I think we are, but judging by the bit of the prop that shows up in the vid I think we're still looking forward at least a little.

IF that's correct, then the "second object" does seem to me to accelerate away from the plane, and therefore either:
The second object is not the same thing as the balloon -- in which case, what is it?
Both objects are the same object, and it is not a balloon -- in which case REALLY what the heck is it?
The second object is not an object at all but added at some point to make the video more compelling. I have no reason to suspect that is the case and if it WERE the case I'd expect it to be more noticeable, but include it for the sake of thoroughness.
 
you can't support any conclusion with data you made up

it's futile to discuss what the made-up data would support if it was real

we could just as soon discuss what extraterrestrial visitors look like, based on hoaxed photographs—oh wait

He didn't make it all up, he made up the connection between what goes off the left and reappears on the left. Something, however, has appeared on the left, unless I've misunderstood what he's said, and to me it looks like it's something of negligible mass being tossed around by turbulance. So I'm just saying that if he insists they are the same object, then he's reinforcing the conclusion that the object is small, unpowered, and lightweight - contradicting the fairy story interpretations. However, it looks too small to be the balloon, and is well into the LIZ.
 
speck of dust in the cockpit?
Quite possibly.
there's 0 reason to assume these are connected, and the impossible acceleration is enough evidence to assume they're not
There is certainly no proof that they are, but "strange object exits frame left, second or two later strange object enters from frame left" seems enough to make it a reasonable hypothesis, worth exploring.

is well into the LIZ.
Sadly, this.
 
There is certainly no proof that they are, but "strange object exits frame left, second or two later strange object enters from frame left" seems enough to make it a reasonable hypothesis, worth exploring.
Hard disagree.

If the object entered frame right, or above, or below, you could, with the same reasonableness, assume that the UFO conducted a different flight maneuver. There's nothing that reason would exclude by that standard, and therefore it's not reasonable.
We see two trajectories that are in no way related except that they didn't occur at the same time. To infer from that alone that the same object is causing both is not reasonable by my standards.

There is zero evidence that supports the idea that they're the same object, so any exploration is misleading. Pure and simple.
 
There is zero evidence that supports the idea that they're the same object, so any exploration is misleading. Pure and simple.
Respectfully, disagree backatcha!

There is evidence (absolutely not proof, but evidence) linking the objects. Their proximity in time and space suggests they MAY be related, MAY even be the same object. They are not visible simultaneously, which of course would rule out their being the same object. The second appearance is from the area where the first object exited our field of view.

We have a vid that either shows two "UFOs" sequentially in the same shot, or shows the same one twice. (Or shows no objects if it is faked, but it looks like at least one actual object to me.) If they are both one single object, it would seem a bit more compelling a case as the second "sighting" is at least a bit less obviously balloon-like. The odd looking trajectory would need to be explained, as FatPhil takes reasonable stab at in post 28 above.

It does not seem at all out of line to consider whether they are the same object, and whether that can be ruled out, or in. I am by no means convinced that they are, but I'll admit to being a bit baffled by the idea that considering everything in the video in looking for the correct explanation is somehow misleading. It would seem to me, again respectfully, to be potentially more misleading to rule out examination of everything in the video that MIGHT be helpful finding the answer.
 
There is evidence (absolutely not proof, but evidence) linking the objects. Their proximity in time and space suggests they MAY be related, MAY even be the same object. They are not visible simultaneously, which of course would rule out their being the same object. The second appearance is from the area where the first object exited our field of view.
That's not proximate in space! because the viewport is moving quickly. Anyway, if the object was an aircraft flying a U-turn, it would NOT be expected to appear where it disappeared because that turn would of necessity be wide, and if the UAP pilot wanted to keep the small aircraft in view, its turn would be around the aircraft, and not away from it. There is no continuity, and no physically likely continuity, between the two sightings.
We have a vid that either shows two "UFOs" sequentially in the same shot, or shows the same one twice.
the second "UFO" isn't even shown to be outside the cockpit. if you rake the few frames that make up this "sighting" by themselves, you'd be hard pressed to consider them a UFO.
 
We see two trajectories that are in no way related except that they didn't occur at the same time. To infer from that alone that the same object is causing both is not reasonable by my standards.

It's been through a prop plane's wash, one who's just been performing a sharp manoevre, I have no idea how you expect them to be related in any simply or predictable way. Quick, get that Millennium Prize for solving Navier-Stokes whilst you're on form. In the meantime, pop down to the highway and watch some crisp packets. If you don't believe there's a plausible cause for a change of direction, stand nice and close to the side of the road to gather more data.
 
It's been through a prop plane's wash, one who's just been performing a sharp manoevre, I have no idea how you expect them to be related in any simply or predictable way. Quick, get that Millennium Prize for solving Navier-Stokes whilst you're on form. In the meantime, pop down to the highway and watch some crisp packets. If you don't believe there's a plausible cause for a change of direction, stand nice and close to the side of the road to gather more data.
Didn’t you imply that you thought it was the same object in post 28? With the highway example the low pressure turbulent air behind a car causes objects to be disturbed or sucked into the low pressure slipstream but they stay in the same general area, just moving about a bit! You can’t see them through the side window because there already behind you due to the forward motion.
 
Didn’t you imply that you thought it was the same object in post 28? With the highway example the low pressure turbulent air behind a car causes objects to be disturbed or sucked into the low pressure slipstream but they stay in the same general area, just moving about a bit! You can’t see them through the side window because there already behind you due to the forward motion.
It was not my intention to imply that. I thought I clarified in my followup.

In #28 I was hypothesising about where the guy's conclusions would lead, which necessitates seeing where the truth of the statement leads for the sake of argument.
In #31 I state quite unambiguously that I think the size is wrong, and thus I do not think the guy's conclusions are true. This does not preclude it being something like a tag or label that's been ripped off the baloon that wasn't previously visible.

If I make a statement "If A then B" it does *not* imply I think A is true.
 
This does not preclude it being something like a tag or label that's been ripped off the baloon that wasn't previously visible.
The law of conservation of momentum does preclude it. There is nothing that could accelerate a floating object to a velocity greater than the aircraft without leverage, which air is notably short of.

So if it's the same object, it needs to be able to actively maneuver. Given the lack of stabilizers, the UAP can't navigate a tight turn aerodynamically. And we don't see jet engines or rocket motors, either.

So all that's left is circular reasoning:
• if it's the same object, it relies on "breakthrough" propulsion
• if it has breakthrough propulsion, it could reasonably be the same object
But both propositions lack support, which makes them unreasonable.

The "temporal proximity" logic can't stand on its own. If a sniper fires a shot and is hit seconds later, it'd be unreasonable to expect it was their own bullet that hit them.
 
Back
Top