Bizarre shape-changing UFO filmed over New York

lilies

lilies

The Living Force
Anybody has an idea, what this could be? The cameraman has insane zoom and super steady video feed. He possibly uses a tripod. Amazing creature! Looks like a giant virus or a mega-bacteria from a Godzilla movie:

http://www.sott.net/article/301959-Bizarre-shape-changing-UFO-filmed-over-New-York

There was a somewhat similar video from years ago showing an inverted hat shaped UFO that occasionally extended its dozen octopus arms, changing shape as it floated. It was so unique that I saved the recording.

12 arms extended at video time [03:11]:
 
Thanks for sharing. If real it could have something to do with plasma imo.
 
yes it could have to do with plasma... although, i think the "shape shifting" might be also related to the fact that he's filming it from behind a glass window and this causes the light to have these perceivable effect once filmed.. like looking at car lights through the glass of our windshield... if that makes any sense?
 
Alejo said:
yes it could have to do with plasma... although, i think the "shape shifting" might be also related to the fact that he's filming it from behind a glass window and this causes the light to have these perceivable effect once filmed.. like looking at car lights through the glass of our windshield... if that makes any sense?
Click to expand...

Yes. The window is noticeable in the latter part of the video, probably causing all kinds of distortions.
 
The "YouTube" consensus explanation was, "Venus viewed through a dirty window with assorted digital camera artifacts".

Venus often appears low in the sky, doesn't move around, and outshines the other stars at dawn. This particular point of light fits that profile.

It would have been interesting if the photographer had stepped outside to offer some comparison footage without dirty glass in the way.

If it was something not-Venus and the camera was accurately capturing the object, then something John Keel described several times comes to mind; he reported that the lights people observe often seemed to respond to the viewers in a way which struck them as intelligent. The photographer in this example mentioned noticing exactly that; seeing one type of characteristic in the object upon first zooming into it, (it looked roundish and pock marked, seeming to rotate about) and then it would shortly thereafter shrink down to another shape entirely, like a distorted light filament. It would only go back to it's roundish shape when repeating the process of zooming away and zooming back in.

FWIW, while the Venus explanation seems to fit well in this case, I found the moments when it appeared roundish and pock-marked with the ability to rotate so that details on its surface tracked correctly for a proper object, seem to defy the Venus/dirty glass/auto-focus artifact idea.
 
The bizarre shape that appears when he zooms in is due to a bad focusing of the camera. Everytime he does it the optical aberrations are a little different, hence the perceived effect. If you want to zoom on such an object, first do the zoom on a bright star (not a planet), perfect the focus as much as possible, and only then point the camera at he object, without changing any settings.
 
Thanks lilies,

It was interesting even it there are unanswered question about it. I agree with Woodsman that
It would have been interesting if the photographer had stepped outside to offer some comparison footage without dirty glass in the way.
Click to expand...

Of course I guess glass camera lenses can cause artifacts as well. I am not so worried about proving every sighting as much as how some just don't even look at the skies so they won't even have anything to question. :/
 
Woodsman said:
If it was something not-Venus and the camera was accurately capturing the object, then something John Keel described several times comes to mind; he reported that the lights people observe often seemed to respond to the viewers in a way which struck them as intelligent. The photographer in this example mentioned noticing exactly that; seeing one type of characteristic in the object upon first zooming into it, (it looked roundish and pock marked, seeming to rotate about) and then it would shortly thereafter shrink down to another shape entirely, like a distorted light filament. It would only go back to it's roundish shape when repeating the process of zooming away and zooming back in.
Click to expand...

The very same thought came to my mind while viewing this - how John Keel said that such observed aerial phenomenon seemed to respond to people's thoughts. I was actually thinking that the photographer should have said, "move to the left" or "move to the right" and see if the object responded in kind. Now THAT would have been really interesting.
 
Woodsman said:
The "YouTube" consensus explanation was, "Venus viewed through a dirty window with assorted digital camera artifacts".

Venus often appears low in the sky, doesn't move around, and outshines the other stars at dawn. This particular point of light fits that profile.
Click to expand...

I think that too. At the beginning you can see that the spots seems to move in sync (with a bit delay) with the camera movement. That indicate that the spots aren't on the object but rather on a surface nearer to the camera than the object itself, thus the perspective movement. If it's the Venus, it means that the planet is moving slowly too, crossing the surface of the window with all the little defects and dirt on it, thus the perceived change in it's shape since the light gets refracted always differently. Such things will have even stronger effects if the camera zoom in as strong as it's shown in the video so that even very tiny scratches on the window distort the light source in a great way.

If he would have gone outside and film it without another material between the camera and the object, it would be far easier to tell what it is/was,
 
I'm not sure that I can trust any UFO video evidence anymore. Not with the advances in digital effects coupled with the inherent potential for artefacts on today's cameras. It would need to be a pretty special video to convince me. :/

That said, I have seen one close-up with my own eyes, corroborated by a complete skeptic. So I do know that they're real. :O
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom