• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Anyone want to take a crack as to what this webcam caught?


(no matter what the object is, note how the camera isn't pointed straight up. Can we all finally admit that this is the most bogus excuse as to why nobody has caught a true flying saucer on the 850,000,000 web cams/surveillance cams?)

Mysterious glowing object caught flying over Mexico's Colima Volcano
Well, if that's legit footage, I'd say it sure qualifies as an unidentified flying object. And that right-angle change in trajectory on the way back sure as heck looks anomalous to me. But is that real-time footage? It looks like time-lapse footage, which would make a big difference - even a helicopter with a search light could appear to be moving in exotic ways depending on the frame rate and so forth.

You really need to get off this whole shtick about the surveillance cams though - I've explained this to you like a zillion times now. Surveillance cams have crappy resolution because they're designed to capture proximal data without excessive data storage and processing speed, their focal length is fairly rotten for the same reason, and the field of view is pitiful compared to the full celestial hemisphere of the sky. Surveillance cams are not designed to capture ufo footage. Quite the opposite actually. They can capture some ridiculously bright and huge event like a meteor that falls right in front of them, but most ufos would be too dim and too small to capture with that kind of technology. And on the rare occasion that one zips past a security camera, nobody would even know it because people only look at security cam footage when there's a crime or other key event to spur them to review the footage.

Look at the blurry rubbish that we're getting from the DoD with the most cutting-edge $3 million high-zoom ATFLIR systems on board F-18 jets actively trying to intercept them, and maybe you'll start to realize how your incessant demands for crystal-clear high-rez UFO video porn from a $25 security camera, are downright silly.
 
You really need to get off this whole shtick about the surveillance cams though - I've explained this to you like a zillion times now
Which I will respectfully, totally disagree. They capture every other anomalous, object in the celestial sky....except things like "mile wide UFO's". Doesn't matter what the resolution is. You think the resolution on a meteor is great? It isn't - but yet the camera still caught it. I already said, multiple times over & over, I give up on seeing something as sharp focused as Meier's fraudulent flying saucers. So with that said, I'd be interested to see (as in the video I posted) blobs, blurs, smudges of light in the night/day sky starting, stopping, reversing course. And I'll totally be thrilled with an out of focus/blurry video of the highly elusive "mile wide flying saucer" that seems to be everywhere. Everywhere except on the 850,000,000 world wide security cameras that are practically everywhere.

I'll leave it at that. Agree to disagree.
 
(no matter what the object is, note how the camera isn't pointed straight up. Can we all finally admit that this is the most bogus excuse as to why nobody has caught a true flying saucer on the 850,000,000 web cams/surveillance cams?) Mysterious glowing object caught flying over Mexico's Colima Volcano
It doesn't qualify as a ufo. It's just a blurry light in the distance. And that distance may be much closer than the mountain in the background. Assuming it's real in the first place, and not video FX, then an illuminated drone would be sufficient explanation. There's no eye-witness account to go with it. Here's more on Rustichelli.

Interview with Nicola Rustichelli, creator and director of Webcams of Mexico. Platform with more than 90 cameras that transmit images, in real time, of the most representative places in Mexico. UFOs have been recorded in those catches, especially in the volcanoes of Colima and Popocatepetl ... ( you'll have to translate the rest yourself ).


 
It doesn't qualify as a ufo. It's just a blurry light in the distance. And that distance may be much closer than the mountain in the background.

Aren't you ignoring the way the object moves down close to the front of the volcano and then moves around behind it before taking off at high speed in the direction from which it originally entered the camera's view? Also ignoring the anomalous changes in speed of the object, and the way in which we see it reduced to a smaller point of light when it is not moving at incredible speeds?
 
Aren't you ignoring the way the object moves down close to the front of the volcano and then moves around behind it before taking off at high speed in the direction from which it originally entered the camera's view? Also ignoring the anomalous changes in speed of the object, and the way in which we see it reduced to a smaller point of light when it is not moving at incredible speeds?
I'm not ignoring anything. It seems to me that the footage ( if it is footage ) is recorded at a very low frame rate, and the object could be much closer to the camera than it appears. Together that could account for the streaking effect and the seemingly rapid maneuvers. The maneuvers themselves also appear to conform to standard aerodynamics e.g. no instantaneous sharp high-angle turns.

Mind you I'm no expert either, and there isn't much info about the video or any eye-witness accounts, so I can't say with any certainty. This is just my initial impression of the video. For all I know the background is entirely digital and or the streak was added later using either a video FX package or a series of glass panes as in the Temple Mount UFO. Whatever the case. It's just another blurry light off in the distance with insufficient corroborating evidence or information to draw any firm conclusion. Therefore IMO this report gets stamped "insufficient information" and would not be classed as a UFO.
 
Something else I've noticed; iPhones (and similar phones) get a bad reputation & get blamed for their poor cameras as an excuse as to why practically every person in North America has a phone/camera in their pocket and we get no videos of UFO's. But I noticed YouTube is littered with video's of people filming the Blue Angels with their camera phones and one can clearly see (at various distances) the F-18's. You can see the vertical stabilizers, horizontal stabilizers, the wings, the landing gear etc. As I was watching it I thought "now how come there's not one single credible video that shows structure like I am seeing on these Navy planes?". Again, I'm not trying to prove flying saucers don't exist - I'm just really trying to understand why there are millions of stories, sightings, landings, abductions etc. and the best things we've ever seen are Billy Meier's "beamships".
 
Something else I've noticed; iPhones (and similar phones) get a bad reputation & get blamed for their poor cameras as an excuse as to why practically every person in North America has a phone/camera in their pocket and we get no videos of UFO's. But I noticed YouTube is littered with video's of people filming the Blue Angels with their camera phones and one can clearly see (at various distances) the F-18's. You can see the vertical stabilizers, horizontal stabilizers, the wings, the landing gear etc. As I was watching it I thought "now how come there's not one single credible video that shows structure like I am seeing on these Navy planes?". Again, I'm not trying to prove flying saucers don't exist - I'm just really trying to understand why there are millions of stories, sightings, landings, abductions etc. and the best things we've ever seen are Billy Meier's "beamships".
The first reason that comes to mind as to why there are so many cell phone pictures of things like The Blue Angels is because The Blue Angels make a point of doing highly visible public shows during daylight on a schedule for people who are prepared to take pictures of them. Let's suppose The Blue Angels went out of their way to be elusive, could vastly outperform any other aircraft, used active camouflage, and the PTB never released anything public about them. How many pictures would there be and how good would the few that were taken be? I'm guessing there would be a lot more correlation.
 
The first reason that comes to mind as to why there are so many cell phone pictures of things like The Blue Angels is because The Blue Angels make a point of doing highly visible public shows during daylight on a schedule for people who are prepared to take pictures of them. Let's suppose The Blue Angels went out of their way to be elusive, could vastly outperform any other aircraft, used active camouflage, and the PTB never released anything public about them. How many pictures would there be and how good would the few that were taken be? I'm guessing there would be a lot more correlation.
I saw a headline the other day (which is proll bogus IMO) but it said "UFO Hovered for 2 Hours Over Our City" - really? And not one camera, private or public captured anything? Come on.

And once again, because the object high up in the skies of Kansas was a real, solid object - it managed to get captured on camera - and you can see the shape. It's just odd how that same exact scenario doesn't happen but with a structured disc (say like Trent's truck mirror)? See below;

b2comparison.jpg

I should mention that this mystery triangle has been captured in Texas as well. Possibly more but I'm only aware of those two states.
 
I saw a headline the other day (which is proll bogus IMO) but it said "UFO Hovered for 2 Hours Over Our City" - really? And not one camera, private or public captured anything? Come on.
Quite agreed.
And once again, because the object high up in the skies of Kansas was a real, solid object - it managed to get captured on camera - and you can see the shape. It's just odd how that same exact scenario doesn't happen but with a structured disc (say like Trent's truck mirror)? ... I should mention that this mystery triangle has been captured in Texas as well. Possibly more but I'm only aware of those two states.
That picture supports proves both our points. What I'm wondering about is why you're being so persistent with this particular aspect of the subject? Is it just to impress the point on new members, or is there some added significance for you that I'm missing?
 
Quite agreed. That picture supports proves both our points. What I'm wondering about is why you're being so persistent with this particular aspect of the subject? Is it just to impress the point on new members, or is there some added significance for you that I'm missing?
Good question. It's probably out of frustration and also being jaded from discovering that lots of the big cases were hoaxes/prosaic. Part of the frustration is hearing the same excuses why we have nothing on film (no cameras are pointed up, etc.). Yet all these other aerial anomalies get captured on a regular basis. I should probably give it a rest by now and zip it.
 
Good question. It's probably out of frustration and also being jaded from discovering that lots of the big cases were hoaxes/prosaic. Part of the frustration is hearing the same excuses why we have nothing on film (no cameras are pointed up, etc.). Yet all these other aerial anomalies get captured on a regular basis. I should probably give it a rest by now and zip it.
Well, I think it's a perfectly legitimate question. Maybe we're not paying enough attention to it because on one level those of us who know UFOs are real don't think it matters if we have that sort of evidence. But that might be overlooking the curiousness of the situation. Had you not been so persistent I might not be asking myself why there is this situation either. It does seem disproportionate. Yes, cameras need to be positioned correctly, but then the lighting and other conditions also have to be right, and the craft would have to be visible.

To have all that happen also means it really has to there, and I think genuine sightings are much more rare than is portrayed by all the media. Then consider last October's overflight of an unknown aircraft between California and Oregon that was tracked on civilian and military radar, observed by airline pilots, and had F-15s scrambled to intercept, but as soon as the jets came into the vicinity, the craft went into stealth mode and couldn't be located. F-15s aren't exactly kids toys and they couldn't get in range. It was probably terrestrial, but we don't know for sure, and either way, it seems that if it doesn't want its picture taken, you're just not going to get one.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top