[Paiblyelaxy]

Thoughts ?

[blenIgnigeSef]

I suspect it was the sun reflecting off a plane.

[rusculture]

Well looking how it distorts in line with the movement of the camera, I would say it is a real object. Have no idea what it is though, since it is too blurry.

[Forexampleee]

Fake!!

[Old-old-Ivy]

Fake!!

I always try to debunk UFO vids,
so please tell me, what made you think it´s a fake?

[nabsgood]

I always try to debunk UFO vids,
so please tell me, what made you think it´s a fake?

Because it was the sun reflecting off a plane.

[Lolita Palmer]

Because it was the sun reflecting off a plane.

No i dont think thats a plane if you look at the video of all the different shots youll notice that the clouds arent always in the same place relative to the object. Thats the International space station. had that been taken with good enough equipment like even a dslr capable of movie recording and a polarising filter you'd be able to make out the outline of the ISS. The zoomed in very badly compressed bit is a dead give away for the iss for me anyway

You can use nasa realtime data to track the iss over that region http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata...&city=Nazareth

I just used nazareth as its the most obvious city i know of aswell as jerusalem in israel. you can check locations in lebanon and syria and youll see the different elevations its visible at

Its a shame they didnt have proper equipment as a video of the iss at an altitude of 2km (as it states below the video) would have been nice

[CuittisIL]

Why are these always blurred?

I can't wait until someone shoots a video of a 'supposed' UFO in high quality.

[wCYvMKAc]

Why are these always blurred?

I can't wait until someone shoots a video of a 'supposed' UFO in high quality.

That wont happen because people with the right equipment, that record these types of things get enough information about the object to know what it is. Its why recordings of ufo's are always caught with extremely amateur equipment and technique. because the quality is so poor eg. little stabilization, lots of glare/ lens flare and high compression its impossible to identify an object, so its rightfully deemed an unidentified flying object or unidentified object.

You tend not to get a lot of lens flare when you use the right equipment for the job for example the recordings of artifacts or effects like lens flare that arent really there dont get recorded. You will easily become accustomed to this problem with your first dslr or equivalent. in lots of your early pictures youll tend to see artifacts or effects that werent really there or that you didnt notice at the time

In the video above to the naked eye, that is not exactly what it looked like before it was actually recorded. the recording itself is what makes the object unidentifiable for later review. obviously had they gotten enough information at initial observation it would be identified. No one will ever identify these objects from amateur video footage because the information you need isnt actually recorded

[DoctorDeryOne]

No i dont think thats a plane if you look at the video of all the different shots youll notice that the clouds arent always in the same place relative to the object. Thats the International space station. had that been taken with good enough equipment like even a dslr capable of movie recording and a polarising filter you'd be able to make out the outline of the ISS. The zoomed in very badly compressed bit is a dead give away for the iss for me anyway

You can use nasa realtime data to track the iss over that region http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata...&city=Nazareth

I just used nazareth as its the most obvious city i know of aswell as jerusalem in israel. you can check locations in lebanon and syria and youll see the different elevations its visible at

Its a shame they didnt have proper equipment as a video of the iss at an altitude of 2km (as it states below the video) would have been nice

My first thought was also tending towards the ISS, but then again look at the size of the object. Even with a Telescope it looks smaller?



Don´t forget the ISS is about 220 miles away

[Impariclainna]

The ISS also moves very quickly across the sky, last summer when I saw it at night it looked like any other artificial satellite or star and was not stationary in the night sky.

As for this vid, not sure what to make of it but keep 'em coming, they are interesting either way.

[Paul Bunyan]

I think you can safely say it's not the ISS or other satellite, because it seems too big and isn't moving quick enough.

If it's a plane, then maybe there should be jetstreams behind it, which there isn't.

[VitaliyMurnov]

I suspect it was the sun reflecting off a plane.

Damned funny looking 'plane'!
Perhaps you'd like to post a link to the one you think it is?

---------- Post added at 01:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:25 AM ----------

No i dont think thats a plane if you look at the video of all the different shots youll notice that the clouds arent always in the same place relative to the object. Thats the International space station. had that been taken with good enough equipment like even a dslr capable of movie recording and a polarising filter you'd be able to make out the outline of the ISS. The zoomed in very badly compressed bit is a dead give away for the iss for me anyway

You can use nasa realtime data to track the iss over that region http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata...&city=Nazareth

I just used nazareth as its the most obvious city i know of aswell as jerusalem in israel. you can check locations in lebanon and syria and youll see the different elevations its visible at

Its a shame they didnt have proper equipment as a video of the iss at an altitude of 2km (as it states below the video) would have been nice

I assume you thought the 'wings' looked like the solar power panels used by satelites?
I've often watched the ISS (I use the same NASA link) and at a minimum height it's approximately 220 miles up and at that viewing angle it'd be more than 500 miles away - and that object certainly isn't, not to mention that the ISS is not visible during the day!

I don't know what it is, but my guess is a large kite that broke free and is just being blown around the Earth.

[CIAFreeAgent]

Anyone remember the X-Files Season 9 Finale "The Truth"? The date is set for the final alien invasion - 2012. They are not coming - they are already here. Scientologists - rejoice! The mothership is on it's way! :triumphant::cheerful: All disbelievers shall be annihilated!

P.S. new emoticons suck...

[Nothatspecial]

I think you can safely say it's not the ISS or other satellite, because it seems too big and isn't moving quick enough.

If it's a plane, then maybe there should be jetstreams behind it, which there isn't.

Not all planes make contrails, actually the majority don't. I'm with Gordo, it looks like a reflection of a weather balloon or kite. But I still won't rule out a reflection of an aeroplane, I've seen that plenty of times while flying when the suns low (makes spotting other aircraft a lot easier!).

[htDgExh8]

not to mention that the ISS is not visible during the day!

The ISS is visible during the day, i have witnessed it myself

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...road-daylight/

---------- Post added at 07:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:35 PM ----------

Don´t forget the ISS is about 220 miles away

Dont forget this was recorded with a camera phone and it was very highly zoomed in

Glare and lens flare will always give the illusion that the object is actually bigger than it is.

Here is a clip from the actual video taken from the perspective of the person


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Not so big now is it? Once again the unidentifiable nature of these objects in recordings with equipment not suitable for the task is what makes it unidentifiable in the first place. Most will see what they want to and all the footage from that video cant be used seriously as all anyone can identify from it is that it is lens flare. There is even flare in the snapshot i have taken above making the object appear bigger yet again than it actually is

[Xutrsavf]

Not so big now is it? Once again the unidentifiable nature of these objects in recordings with equipment not suitable for the task is what makes it unidentifiable in the first place. Most will see what they want to and all the footage from that video cant be used seriously as all anyone can identify from it is that it is lens flare. There is even flare in the snapshot i have taken above making the object appear bigger yet again than it actually is

Actually it´s still very large for something that´s only 100meters wide and 200+ miles away.

Hey i´m not ruling out that it´s the ISS, but my gut feeling is i don´t think it is,..
I may be wrong though.

[Mjxhnapi]

Actually it´s still very large for something that´s only 100meters wide and 200+ miles away.

I wouldnt call it large just because it looks larger than what it may be in a poor quality video, anyone can make small points of light much more unidentifiable and larger than what they actually are.

Hey i´m not ruling out that it´s the ISS, but my gut feeling is i don´t think it is,..
I may be wrong though.

I may be wrong also but if this had been recorded properly with equipment up to the task it would be known very easily what it is. And i would even go as far as to say that, that object appears differently in the footage than it did to those spectators naked eye's
This is the problem with all footage of this nature. The information about the object just has not been recorded. An optical effect made worse by high compression and a zoom factor is what has really been recorded here.

[Filmania]

With the naked eye, at night, the ISS looks like a big star moving pretty quick. Never seen it during the day, but i'm guessing a cameraphone isn't really going to record it looking like that object.Still none the wiser, but it is often weather balloons or something similar.

[alexbookhyip]

SladeX, with your experience, I'm more than a bit surprised you don't realise that at that apparent viewing angle the ISS would be perhaps 1000 miles away and, even when overhead, it's much smaller and less clear than in the pictures of this 'object'.

The chap in the link you used to support yourself was using an 8" telescope and considered himself very fortunate to get the image - what were you using?