Very Fast UFO Makes 90 degree turn

[WarBerJr02]

A note to all people that want to make a video like this...

Buy a cheap tripod to hold the camera still, check a few books about how to track your subject while it is moving, turn the time, day & date stamp on, and tell us where you were when you saw this anomaly.

Good videos = more plausibility. Poor videos = less plausibility

[superkevin22111]

stars

[bunkman64]

Mylar Balloon

[Doom2pro]

Umm, first of all, during the very short period that you can actually see the thing, it's going in a straight line. Then you zoom out, making it non visible and then you pan it out of view, then SHOCKER the video ends. No "90 degree turn", nothing.

It was probably a satellite, which can be seen during the daytime.

[TheGazramar]

@Doom2pro put the bong down and watch it again it goes straight up when he zooms out i think he was trying to find it again or something but it does go straight up.

[warmaniac555666]

so one day u just decided 2 go film tha sky cuz u had nothing better 2 do -___-"

[NBGfilms]

Great footage! I'll be interested to look at the original video, and i'll let you know what i find.

[dogmanjoee]

Back in April 2006 about an hour before sunrise I saw a ufo perform a 90 degree turn it was the size of a satellite and thats what I thought it was till it did the turn like a Q ball bouncing off rail.

[bottleslingguy]

There are other vids out there that show this kind of behavior too.

[ctufc]

Wow 11 seconds of a white object what the odds of that happening?

I mean come what the hell is this really you just happened to film a part of a huge sky and catch this whats the odds.

Not convinced these videos are stupid i see more and more of them and there all over in a matter of seconds its ridiculous to beleive them.

[bottleslingguy]

Here's a lesson in life: Don't expect everything to happen according to your preconceived notions.

[ctufc]

Heres lesson 2 in life dont beleive everything you see because you so desperatley want to beleive.

[bottleslingguy]

I don't. These things stand out from all the many other things I have recorded in the sky. They have specific peculiarities in comparison to everything else people are suggesting. One guy thinks it's a seagull and not a light. No wings flapping, actually no wings at all and he thinks it's a seagull. Talk about seeing what you desperately want to see. People like that would rather say it's a flying flashlight than a ufo. It's asinine, the denial.

[ctufc]

I never asked what other people thought about this object and im quite able to read other peoles comments thankyou. Could be a sattelite could be a test launch of a missile or plane.

I really doubt that its alien in origin and untill you can provide solid evidence to the contary then you will leave no one convinced at what you may think this is.

[bottleslingguy]

Watch my video, "A UFO Misconception pt3", that is a satellite.They tend not to make right angle turns.Test launches usually make some noise and have an accompanying trail behind them.They too don't usually make turns like this thing.People have been putting forth tons of credible evidence for decades. People like you, Satweavers and the govt. have been in denial of the subject.They would rather make fun of anything they see in relation to it instead of taking an objective look at the evidence.

[satweavers]

I saw Sputnik pass overhead and have been watching satellites for decades and you are absolutely right about their tendency to follow straight trajectories. I'm within eye sight of Vandenberg and have seen many Titans and Deltas launch from there. Once you've seen one of these launch, it would be hard to mistake it for anything else. They follow an arcing trajectory and leave a trail of combustion product that gets pushed in different directions by all the various atmosphere strata. Pretty cool.

[ctufc]

I will watch your video.

I am a firm beleiver in Alien life as it would be very ignorant not to accept that there is other life out there but it is also very ignorant to put a label on all UFOs as extraterestrial. The government is not in denial of the subject only in denial to the public they know whats out there. The planes we see flying our skys now and the technology we possess on the comercial market is decades behind what the government black projects have. Alot of UFOs are test planes.

[bottleslingguy]

We are in !00% agreement on that. I never speculated on it's origin. It definitely could be military. I've heard most of what is seen is man made.

[cealvaradob]

only you know what you saw. i've chosen to believe you.

[bottleslingguy]

It's much faster than anything I've seen except for two others that you can see in my other videos: White Lights Blue Sky pt 1&2

You should download the original files directly out of my camera to appreciate the footage. There is no manipulation of any kind. Once you are able to follow the objects clearly enough you will see how extremely fast they can be.

[satweavers]

Tell us how fast it was going and how you determined its speed. To make the necessary calculations, you would have to know the objects size, it's distance, the focal length of the lens, the viewing angle of the lens and the size of the imaging chip on the camera. Also, you need a fixed object in frame to judge its speed and direction against and so you can distinguish between camera motion and the path of the object.

[bottleslingguy]

I've deleted enough comparison footage to fill up YT. If it was a jet why didn't it continue on towards the tree? It is silent so it would have to be too far away to make a sound so it's speed would be much faster than any of the hundred of comparison jets I've watched from that exact spot. Notice how the object reverses for a second and goes straight up. That's not me moving the camera although I do slightly. Slo motion is more apparent but doesn't show up well afeter WMM editing. I'll do it...

[bottleslingguy]

cont. anyway. The fixed objects are the roof line and the trees to the left. I saw it for a few seconds before I raised the camera, it's speed is what I noticed first. It stayed lit too long to be a reflection. I could bore you with actual footage of plane reflections (actually I have one or two vids) but I'm sure you are aware I'm right. It flies straight up and disappears, it should have continued on towards the tree and I would've seen and heard it. I was there, unlike you.

[satweavers]

With the screen filling my monitor screen, I only see this thing between 0:03 and 0:07. Four seconds, during which there is no fixed object in frame, so it could just be your simian camera handling. You're asking us to take your word for it. There's no reason I should.

[bottleslingguy]

"simian"? that's funny. You DO admit there is a white light flying towards a tree along a roof line, though right? Your powers of observation are at least that good, so what do you think it could be, a flying flashlight? Actually it is in the frame with the roof line, sky and then tree as it travels skyward. Why don't you download the file and put it through some of your expert analysis so you don't have to take my word for it. So we agree something is flying, let's start there.

[satweavers]

What do I think it could be? I don't know. A flying Zodiac? I'm not willing to say it is a "light". A white "thing" works for me. You live in Hawaii, right? Like Southern California, you must have Sea Gulls which are predominantly white and, when they're not eating French fries in parking lots, spend time flying between the sea shore and said parking lots. When you zoom in, you loose the roof line and tree during the time it changes course. The 90 degree turn is camera movement.

[bottleslingguy]

I don't live in Hi. I guess you're just going to make wild assumptions without watching the original footage then. No big deal, people like you go through life with their eyes closed. Have you seen my Concave Balloon footage? Maybe you can tell me how the shadowing does not indicate a concave feature. And remember, you never explained how the object in the Hi. footage can be anywhere along the line of sight and still be a floating Zodiac.

[satweavers]

Bottles: "And remember, you never explained how the object in the Hi. footage can be anywhere along the line of sight and still be a floating Zodiac."

I was speaking in response to your random grid of lines that seemed to suggest that the thing was directly over the water in front of the arch rocks. I was saying that if it was not on the surface, it could be anywhere along your line of sight, that you didn't have enough evidence to locate it in space with those meaningless line intersections.

[bottleslingguy]

I agreed the lines were not scientific. They are there to show where I am saying it is in relation to the arch. Stop trying to make that an issue. You sound desperate.

[satweavers]

My view of the universe is not challenged by this video in the least, so I'm not feeling any sense of desperation. You were trying to insinuate tat I had stated the object was both floating on the water AND located anywhere along our line-of-sight. I'm just clarifying my position.

[bottleslingguy]

But you're not coming up with anything that makes sense. Nothing that fits what you believe in must then just be something else. So if the object in the Hi. footage is anywhere else along the line of sight it must be in the air. That brings us back to the question what could possibly stay motionless for over five minutes in that much wind? Not anchored to anything, not a kite surfer, not a hang glider, bird, plastic bag, balloon, paper airplane... I don't know what else you got in mind?

[satweavers]

You've shown no compelling evidence that the thing is not in the water. It does not move relative to the ocean or rock detail. I say that's because it's in the water. (A rock, a piling. Swells of water make it come and go.) You say it's because it's hovering motionless in the air, such an unlikely thing to happen that the burden of proof sits squarely in YOUR lap. Your only "proof" is the lack of white water around it relative to your unsubstantiated claim that the speck is 20 feet across.

[bottleslingguy]

You can plainly see there is no disturbance with all that roughness, wind, stray whitecaps everywhere- except there. Distance would make it very large and shallow water so there would be without a doubt water disturbance. You even said "swells make it come and go" that results in white water. No doubt in reality. Yours may be different but still not accurate.You're right it is not huge, because it is closer to me and smaller probably closer than I earlier estimated. It is not in or on the water.

[bottleslingguy]

Why aren't you willing to say it's a light? Do you think it is a reflection of something? How about the speed? You really think it is a seagull? Are you saying it is a bird reflecting sunlight changing course quickly? That would be some title! You called it a white thing. What sorts of things are capable of moving like this thing? And why on Earth wouldn't we be able to tell? I've recorded birds from far away that still looked and flew like birds yet they didn't shine bright white.

[satweavers]

Bottles... The thing does not need to be a light. It can just be a white thing. It does not have a steady state of brightness. It fluctuates, or pulses. Could be wings beating. It's at the edge of your camera's resolution, so appears as a blop. It could be a Seagull, a white pigeon, an aircraft or bit of paper blown up into the air. The "course change" coincides with the camera move down toward the tree after you zoomed in. It's just camera movement, not the object changing course.

[bottleslingguy]

That's nonsense that it doesn't "need" to be a light. If anything with the sun low behind the roof it would be a dark object. If it was translucent like paper it would be illuminated somewhat but I doubt highly a piece of paper is moving that fast and straight for as long as it did.Oh and where did this hurricane wind come from? Remember? I was there.Did you leave your brain on the Moon?The camera movement is subtle and doesn't acct for the object disappearing from view. It would still be there.

[satweavers]

When this shot begins, your camera's auto exposure is adjusting, the shot is a bit overexposed. There's a hot spot glow in the sky just above the roof edge that tells us where the sun is. I've seen through binoculars, white plastic shopping bags hundreds of feet in the air being carried along by upper air currents. Back lit they would look white. You can have currents going different speeds and directions at different alts. That's called wind shear. It's different up there than at ground level.

[bottleslingguy]

I saw the damn thing for 3-4 secs before I raised the camera, it's not a plastic bag that floated up and disappeared. I live in the country and maybe in the city you see that often but not around here.

Do you believe in other intelligent life forms in the universe?

[satweavers]

How far are you from the nearest WalMart? Under the right conditions, a shopping bag can be carried to 1000 feet by an updraft or a dust devil-like vortex.

I've no doubt there are other civilizations out there. I look forward to hearing about the first compelling proof of their existence. That proof will not be in the form of some shaky video showing an enigmatic speck of white against a blue sky or a cluster of balloons lolling about on an afternoon breeze.

[bottleslingguy]

Walmart is the other way across the river. Don't be a douche bag. If you believe there is other life in the cosmos why don't you believe they are not already here? What makes us so special? There's probably as much life in the cosmos as we have species here on Earth probably more. Have you ever seen any evidence of EBEs like ufos? If not why do you believe in them? Why CAN'T these objects be unconventional? Even if military where'd they get the tech and why didn't they eventually tell us?

[bottleslingguy]

How about a concave balloon, hovering object and dancing white lights in a blue sky? I have a ton of evidence backing up my claims. Why don't you use my original footage and take a closer look so you can show me exactly where I am wrong? You are some optical expert aren't you? Why not take at least the original footage of what I offer as proof and see if you can rip it to shreds? Why are you acting upset and ignorant? You're not being very objective right now. Why are you running away? Scared?

[satweavers]

Bottles: "Why are you acting upset and ignorant?"

I'm not upset.

"Why not take...the original footage... and...rip it to shreds?"

Why bother? I've seen the original and your other "studies". You desire this to be something extraordinary. You will reject reason in defense of your preconceptions. I'm OK with you being wrong. I wanted to suggest more reasonable explanations, and I have done so.

"Why CAN'T these objects be unconventional?"

You've shown no evidence that they are.

[bottleslingguy]

You haven't provided one bit of reason against any of the evidence I put forward.Why are you ignoring the distance and lack of water impact evidence in the Hi. footage?Why are you ignoring the shadow evidence in the "concave" footage? That shows enough detail to tell it's not balloons and you won't even take a few minutes to look closer?You say there is no evidence because you won't look at it or consider the importance of certain objective facts to suit your agenda.You are most certainly wrong.

[satweavers]

(1) Look, Bottles, it's obvious that this "UFO" is a clump of quasi-inflated mylar balloons that are not all spherical, one collapsed inwardly, marginally buoyant, blown about by whatever breezes were up there. I've LOOKED and wasted all the time I'm gonna fencing with your hopeful, distorted logic. I'm not fleeing in fear, I'm bored with the game and getting on with things that are more important. You wanna believe that's a sinister alien probe drifting about and randomly pointing a (cont)

[bottleslingguy]

So your conclusion is that the concave feature is caused by a partially deflated balloon being pushed inward by winds. If the object is moving W-E that means the dent would not be facing me as I am looking N and the dent would be on the side of the pushing wind. No? Also the concave feature stays in the same spot relative to the round nipple feature as the object rolls and yaws. How do you explain that? You are making things up to sound like you know what you are talking about. You don't.

[satweavers]

The balloon can be pushed into a concave configuration and REMAIN that way while it is drifting along with air movements. Man, you can't do a dittle of this thought on your own, can you? I have only reached my limits of patience in trying to propose reasonable alternate explanations of why this thing does not have to be an alien craft making "impossible" maneuvers. They are only impossible if you begin with the presumption that this is a craft, rather than the more plausible things it could be.

[bottleslingguy]

The problem is Sat it doesn't even look like what you are talking about. Things in your head can do anything you wish them to do. If it is loosely deflated it is not going to hold a perfect parabolic shape. You may say "well yes it can" and again I will ask you to show me an example. There are tons of balloon videos on YT and no one has shown me one that looks like this. Why not take a break from the Moon project and show me how what you are suggesting is possible in reality?

[satweavers]

There's no way on Earth you can proclaim that to be a "perfect parabolic shape". I'm guessing you know what defines a parabola and you simply don't have the information needed to compare the distance of the focus to any given point on the curve. I'm willing to accept that it looks concave, but that's all you can say about it. Mylar does not stretch, so when pressure drops, such a balloon can assume an upright shape with a side pushed in. Add that to your scrap pile of logical alternatives.

[bottleslingguy]

It looks like the thing I made in the UFO Claymation video. There are no wrinkles or flickering of the sunlight reflection. Forget I said parabola (parabolic dish) and call it a dish or bowl. I highly doubt anyone can or will ever record a bunch of quasi-deflated mylar balloons look like this.This is not even close to random balloons tied together blowing around in the wind. The inside curve of the dish holds it's shape the whole time throughout the video. Never moves or wrinkles very important.

[bottleslingguy]

There are parts of it that reflect light differently.The inside of the dish is brighter than the "body" of the object, but you can make out shadows revealing the contours.There is something on the "back" behind the dish and below the round Kong toy thing that flashes before it goes behind the first tree.I get up out of my lounger to stand up as it continues E.The Sun is behind me, the object is on it's side descending.The dish is facing me again then rolls away as it moves behind the pine.

[satweavers]

(2) parabolic dish at who knows what? Go for it! If proof of extraterrestrial presence on Earth was that easy to collect, it would be in all academic texts... and it is NOT! Wait! I forgot, EVERY academician on Earth has a conspiracy GUN to his head and must publicly LIE about this presence. YOU on the other hand are SMARTER then ALL of them and for some reason, IMMUNE to the conspiracy threats! Or ARE you? Sleep soundly tonight Bottles. They're coming to GET you! Hahahahaha!!!

[bottleslingguy]

This is a perfect example of you reaching your limits and how you turn smug when you have no real good answers for the questions raised. Your explanation for the concave feature is nonsense and might sound good to the other ignorant people out there who don't know better, but those who have common sense and a real mind for exploring issues like these will know you are full of it.

[Ralph111417]

You sure do find 'em! Are you certain that couldn't be a reflection? Did you see it before/after? Can you put a high res version on a server? Thanks.

[bottleslingguy]

It happened so fast I didn't think much of it until watching it later on my monitor. I just figured it was a plane that reflected the sun and then disappeared into the clear sky (planes can do that I record it all the time). But watching how fast it's moving, realizing the sun wouldn't have reflected on my side of the object and then how it seems to go straight up made me pause. That's why I used the question mark in the title. I made no sound either. I'll put up the link to the original file.

[bottleslingguy]

If it was a plane that stopped reflecting the sun and seeing how low it is compared to other planes I've recorded I would've heard it. I don't think my moving the camera can fully explain the way it moves. I have recorded and deleted many many planes and other things in the sky. I don't just see something and upload to YT. This is moving way too fast to be an airplane. I saw it a second or two before I raised the camera, it's speed is what made it stand out. Thanks for watching Ralph!

[Ralph111417]

Thanks for the link. I've watched it at least fifty times now and I'm half convinced the vertical move is the camera. It's a shame there's no other object in the frame at it changes direction. That would have settled it. The speed is something else, I guess only you can judge that. Like you I've shot a lot of footage, and it sure looks fast to me. Thanks