Searching...
Nov 23, 2012

UFOs Over Denver Not Bugs Says, Insect Expert [update]

print this page
send email
Earlier we had reported :



 
It’s a story that’s captured worldwide attention. UFOs caught on camera that appear to be launching and landing in the Denver metro area. 

In latest development according to FOX 31 News channe, an aviation expert could not identify so we talked to more experts, and asked an entomologist to analyze the video, but the answer is still anything but clear. 

We showed the footage to entomologist, or insect expert, Mart Ann Hamilton. “This is a toughie. I’ve never seen anything like this,” she said. 

Hamilton watched the video over and over again, then she gave us her professional opinion. “After watching the various shots, I do not believe it’s an insect. The shape is inconsistent with an insect,” she said.


Rate this posting:
{[['', '']]}
{["Useless", "Boring", "Need more details", "Perfect"]}

8 comments:

  1. Most "skeptics" aren't really skeptics. A skeptic is someone who does not believe something unless it has been a general consensus of our understanding of the universe through peer reviewed articles and such(i.e. empirical evidence and the ability to experiment on it). However, a lot of the people that we regard as skeptics cling to a sort of "anti" belief. No amount of evidence, peer reviewed articles, eye witness accounts, or expert opinions can deter their claims.

    Because the Reddit group that went to investigate only saw what was clearly bugs, they jumped to the conclusion that anything captured on film in this spot was bugs.

    In the original video, we see only one object performing amazing acrobatic feats at extreme speeds with a much higher sheen and definable shape than the insects filmed(no after image artifact either).

    It's not that they are skeptical at all, they have just adamantly clung to a separate hypothesis than what has been posited originally due to their "anti" belief.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Comment Part - 1

    Before commenting, I wish posters would research and follow the entire story. This user has been recording video at this location for months. What you are seeing is only one such video of the dozens he captured. Then, a second videographer, whose profession is to record new footage, captures the exact same thing.

    I am not saying the object is extraterrestrial but one thing I am certain of is the fact that two different people DID NOT misidentify 25+ videos as a bug.

    Since reading about the Denver UFO the other day— I’ve been wondering: how fast would a flying saucer have to be moving, to be effectively invisible to unaided eyes?

    There’s no single, simple answer, of course. The “invisibility speed” would depend on the ambient light level, the relative size of the object in one’s visual field, the relative direction of motion, the presence of other sensory cues such as whooshes or flashes, the direction of your visual attention, and a host of other factors. You can’t see a speeding rifle bullet, for example, but you can see a much larger military jet moving at the same speed. This treatment here, in the bulletin of a medical research institute, gives a good overview of the problem.

    It isn’t hard to come up with a seat-of-the-pants estimate, though. The binocular field of view of a person with normal vision is about 120 degrees. Let’s imagine an airplane-sized object that speeds straight across this binocular field of view, with a closest approach of one mile. How quickly must it get across to be effectively invisible?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Comment Part - 2

      The human visual system starts to lose its ability to distinguish stimuli — even under optimal conditions — when they are separated by less than about 1/50th of a second. That isn’t strictly relevant to this problem; the question here is whether you can detect a single novel stimulus moving against an ordinary background. But the 1/50 sec figure gives us a rough idea of the effective “refresh rate” of the human visual system, and I think we can all agree that just about anything crossing our visual field in 1/50 sec. would be invisible, unless it is highly luminous against a dark background. In bright daylight even a much slower object — even at airplane scale, at an easy, one-mile viewing distance — could still be unnoticeable to most or all viewers if it is not luminous. Human eyes frequently dart around (saccade) for about 1/5 sec at a time, during which the visual feed is interrupted; also our eyes blink a lot, for intervals that can be even longer. These interruptions are effectively random, so they wouldn’t blind everyone at once. Also, like other mammals we have a visual system that is highly sensitive to moving objects, even if we can’t perceive them with sharp resolution. But surely the effective FOV-crossing limit is higher than 1/50 sec.

      What’s the upper limit on this transit time? I think that if I were staring out onto a clear, sunlit expanse of ground or water, an airplane-sized object speeding across my binocular visual field a mile away would have to cross in well under a second, to go unnoticed. Let’s say 1/2 second. (Count ‘one-mississippi’ but stop halfway — it’s a longer interval than it might seem.) I’m pretty sure that an object of that size, moving that fast, at that distance, would still be perceptible to a significant fraction of onlookers. I’d bet that even a 1/4 sec transit would be noticed by some people, especially if they’re expecting to see something. But let’s stick with 1/2 sec to be (I think) conservative. What speed does that represent?

      If you work out the simple trigonometry of it, you come up with a figure just shy of 25,000 mph — which is faster than low-earth-orbit satellites move. It’s also faster than a simple, earth-technology aircraft could move through the lower atmosphere without quickly burning up. And again, I believe that’s conservative. The real speed for effective invisibility of a large object before a multitude of onlookers could be double or triple that figure.

      At closer ranges, the same object would be larger and in that sense more perceptible, but also would spend less time crossing people’s fields of view, so it could well have a lower invisibility-speed. Clearly invisibility-speed is neither static nor simply linearly varying with distance. But even if you were to halve the distance and assume a halved invisibility-speed, you’d be talking about something that has to move at more than 10,000 mph.

      These calculations are relevant and It s no toy!

      Delete
    2. You need to get a job Einstein...taking up way to much space, who even read that whole thing anywho? Not I.

      Delete
  3. I i shard to say what this is. It is certainly not insects. It could be either an RC or a "foreign object". We will not know for certain until we get better footage of it. But, remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Its da aliens 12/21/12 is not da end of the world its the return of the ufo s or aliens

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hate you for spelling like dat!

      Delete
    2. it's 'the' not 'da'

      Delete