Romania Releases Cockpit Video of 3 UFOs that Collided with a MIG

[Lavarat]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gjp6ALaUtEQ


This happened in 2007 I believe. Were is Macabee when you need him? Anyways after waiting thru the boring news segments they play the video with a red circle that is around 3 objects that collided with a MIG. Later they show some other videos.

Regardless what do you think these objects were?

 

[Gareth]

One translation please.

 

[Lavarat]

Maybe there is nothing there.
However mayber there is.

Does anyone know how to take a snapshot of a youtube video so that one doesnt have to listen to romanian commentary? Also from what I heard Micheal Hesseman has some information about this.

What could those objects be.

Birds?
Space Debri?

what is your thoughts?

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Maybe there is nothing there.
However mayber there is.

Does anyone know how to take a snapshot of a youtube video so that one doesnt have to listen to romanian commentary? Also from what I heard Micheal Hesseman has some information about this.

What could those objects be.

Birds?
Space Debri?

what is your thoughts?

There's certain programs that allow you to record stuff on your screen. Mediacamav, or try Fraps.

I can't make out anything in the first vid regarding a ufo. I just see a red circle, but nothing there in.

 

[fitzbew88]

... after waiting thru the boring news segments they play the video with a red circle that is around 3 objects that collided with a MIG.

Regardless what do you think these objects were?

I don't see anything overly anomalous (acknowledging the poor quality of the film). Starting at about 36 seconds into the video, a blackish roughly circular "smear" suddenly appears just to the left of center in the frame. A second one appears just up and to the left and nearly simultaneously -- there is a pause, and then a final larger one. Throughout this the HUD does not even jiggle, suggesting the pilot felt no need to take evasive action.

Are these "smears" on the exterior of the cockpit? Or are they on the lens of a camera inside the cockpit?

While looking forward to more information (and a translation) I'll have to put this in my Unimpressive basket.

 

[Graphimancer]

I don't speak Romanian, but I caught about every third word. Not enought understand a lot of what was said.

 

[DeeJay]

I don't see anything overly anomalous (acknowledging the poor quality of the film). Starting at about 36 seconds into the video, a blackish roughly circular "smear" suddenly appears just to the left of center in the frame. A second one appears just up and to the left and nearly simultaneously -- there is a pause, and then a final larger one. Throughout this the HUD does not even jiggle, suggesting the pilot felt no need to take evasive action.

Are these "smears" on the exterior of the cockpit? Or are they on the lens of a camera inside the cockpit?

While looking forward to more information (and a translation) I'll have to put this in my Unimpressive basket.

First of all, this video what you have, is a general discussion about UFO's in Romania, which also discusses this case. Here is a better quality video (not youtube) discussing only this case:

http://www.realitatea.net/video_386871_un-avion-mig-21-lancer--lovit-de-patru-ozn-uri-in-romania---cum-comentati-acest-fenomen_294601.html

The pilot would have felt the need for evasive action, but everything happened so fast, that he couldn't do anything. The thing ruined his canopy. I don't know the frame rate of gun cameras, but that the thing can be seen only on three frames should say something on how fast it happened. The glass splinters from the canopy hurt the pilot, after this he distress landed the plane on the nearby airfield Gyéres.

Information is from hungarian news channel HírTV, and from a hungarian news site erdon.ro:

http://www.erdon.ro/hirek/im:erdoneople/cikk/ufoval-utkozott-egy-mig-21-es-aranyosgyeres-folott/cn/news-20080606-01143019

Experts dismiss the idea of those things being birds, birds don't go that high.

 

[fitzbew88]

Here is a better quality video (not youtube) discussing only this case:

http://www.realitatea.net/video_386871_un-avion-mig-21-lancer--lovit-de-patru-ozn-uri-in-romania---cum-comentati-acest-fenomen_294601.html

The pilot would have felt the need for evasive action, but everything happened so fast, that he couldn't do anything.

Wait! How do you know that? Is the footage showing the blobs slowed down? Or sped up? This may change my opinion. The HUD updates are very smooth, not jerky and I don't see any sign that the speed of the footage is not real-time.

The thing ruined his canopy.

I don't see any sign of this, in fact I'm skeptical. If this was a strike, the damage should be glaringly obvious in the film. It would also make a very impressive photo once back on the ground.

I don't know the frame rate of gun cameras, but that the thing can be seen only on three frames should say something on how fast it happened.

Thanks to the video you shared, I can now see that the camera is inside the cockpit, looking over the pilot's shoulder. It's not technically a gun camera, but that's not important to me. My main concern is how to make sure the images are on the canopy and not on the camera lens.

The glass splinters from the canopy hurt the pilot, after this he distress landed the plane on the nearby airfield Gyéres.

The film itself shows no signs of this. Based on the film itself, the pilot seems oblivious to any kind've "impact". There is some footage of aircraft making a strong port turn in the video, but it seems taken at a different time --- at least the altimeter is registering a higher altitude than the "impact" sequence.

Experts dismiss the idea of those things being birds, birds don't go that high.

The altimeter seems to be showing 2100 meters (6900 feet) which is well within the migration altitude of many bird species. And this is October when many birds are migrating. (I'm not postulating a bird strike, just trying to think for myself.)

I googled up some discussion about this case that mentioned an altitude of 15000 meters, but that doesn't jibe with the HUD data.

My thoughts here are just for fun, an English translation of this could clear a lot of things up. I especially would like a translation of the pilot's first-hand account.

 

[DeeJay]

Here is a better quality video (not youtube) discussing only this case:

http://www.realitatea.net/video_386871_un-avion-mig-21-lancer--lovit-de-patru-ozn-uri-in-romania---cum-comentati-acest-fenomen_294601.html

The pilot would have felt the need for evasive action, but everything happened so fast, that he couldn't do anything.

Wait! How do you know that? Is the footage showing the blobs slowed down? Or sped up? This may change my opinion. The HUD updates are very smooth, not jerky and I don't see any sign that the speed of the footage is not real-time.

Watch more carefully, it's evident that it is slowed down.

The thing ruined his canopy.

I don't see any sign of this, in fact I'm skeptical. If this was a strike, the damage should be glaringly obvious in the film. It would also make a very impressive photo once back on the ground.

The chief investigator says it in the interview. Also, the MIG-21 is a fifty year old plane, it's canopy is not a one piece design, the flat part, onto where the HUD is projected is inserted into the bubble, and the bubble is also a more piece design, if the flat part is not destroyed you won't see anything in the video.

I don't know the frame rate of gun cameras, but that the thing can be seen only on three frames should say something on how fast it happened.

Thanks to the video you shared, I can now see that the camera is inside the cockpit, looking over the pilot's shoulder. It's not technically a gun camera, but that's not important to me. My main concern is how to make sure the images are on the canopy and not on the camera lens.

Dirt on the camera lens rarely ruins your canopy. I also do not agree with you on the camera position, but this is not important from the case's point of view.

The glass splinters from the canopy hurt the pilot, after this he distress landed the plane on the nearby airfield Gyéres.

The film itself shows no signs of this. Based on the film itself, the pilot seems oblivious to any kind've "impact". There is some footage of aircraft making a strong port turn in the video, but it seems taken at a different time --- at least the altimeter is registering a higher altitude than the "impact" sequence.

From your remarks I assume you don't understand Rumanian, neither do I, so regarding the distress landing and the canopy break we have to trust the news channel's translators, and the article. I think in this case they can be trusted, if something ruins fighters at your neighbors place, you take it seriously. Also the interview I think was made recently, so that the pilot is not shocked can be explained with the half a year past since the incident. You are right about the video being cut right before the impact, the other HUD camera footage are just cut scenes.

Experts dismiss the idea of those things being birds, birds don't go that high.

The altimeter seems to be showing 2100 meters (6900 feet) which is well within the migration altitude of many bird species. And this is October when many birds are migrating. (I'm not postulating a bird strike, just trying to think for myself.)

No, european planes still show altitude in feet. The altimeter is showing 21000 feet, that's 6500 meters, in sync what the video says and the article also mentions. Also I'm not an ornithologist, so I can't comment on birds migratory altitude.

I googled up some discussion about this case that mentioned an altitude of 15000 meters, but that doesn't jibe with the HUD data.

The 15000 feet figure is made up.

My thoughts here are just for fun, an English translation of this could clear a lot of things up. I especially would like a translation of the pilot's first-hand account.

I already translated the important parts, the rest is just smalltalk. As I said I did not translate the original Romanian footage, I watched the Hungarian broadcast about the incident. The pilot's name is Lt. Commander Marin Mitric?, but this also can be seen on the video, and he does not say anything interesting on the interview besides that everything happened very fast.

I think this was just blue ice. Are there pilot's around here? Did somebody had experience with blue ice? I assume everything happened so fast, the pilot did not even see that something hit the plane, he just realized that his canopy is broken, but he did not know why. So he cannot comment if it was blue ice or not. Can that be identified by taking samples from the planes canopy after landing?

 

[fitzbew88]

Watch more carefully, it's evident that it [the footage] is slowed down.

Although I appreciate you repeating this, it does not seem evident to me --- just looking at the footage.

The chief investigator says it [the canopy was ruined] in the interview. Also, the MIG-21 is a fifty year old plane, it's canopy is not a one piece design, the flat part, onto where the HUD is projected is inserted into the bubble, and the bubble is also a more piece design, if the flat part is not destroyed you won't see anything in the video.

All of this is irrelevant. The pilot was supposedly injured by the impact. The footage shows no signs of this, or even any sign of an impact. The only think unusual about the film is that three "blobs" appear and disappear. These blobs might be on the exterior of the cockpit or might be on the lens of the camera inside the cockpit. (At least I feel an irrational(?) need to rule that out.)

Dirt on the camera lens rarely ruins your canopy. I also do not agree with you on the camera position, but this is not important from the case's point of view.

Well, I haven't seen any evidence that the canopy is "ruined".

As far as the location of the camera, I think this is important. If the camera is *outside* of the cockpit then whatever appears "in" the lens originated outside of the aircraft. If the camera is inside the cockpit, then whatever appears in the lens could originate from *inside* the cockpit or outside.

Some of the footage shows the top few cockpit instruments. As such, I think it is pretty safe to say the camera is inside the cockpit looking over the pilot's shoulder.

From your remarks I assume you don't understand Rumanian, neither do I, so regarding the distress landing and the canopy break we have to trust the news channel's translators, and the article. I think in this case they can be trusted, if something ruins fighters at your neighbors place, you take it seriously.

Perhaps we should both put this case aside.

Now, my own opinion is --- and don't take it the wrong way --- I think when it comes to paranormal claims, we shouldn't take anything at face value. This case is a little troubling to me. The non-first hand reports don't seem to jibe with the evidence presented.

No, european planes still show altitude in feet. The altimeter is showing 21000 feet, that's 6500 meters, in sync what the video says and the article also mentions. Also I'm not an ornithologist, so I can't comment on birds migratory altitude.

If it is in feet, then that would jibe nicely.

21000 feet would place it above the vast majority of avian migrants.

Although the Mig-21 is a Soviet-era aircraft, it's plausible the avionics have been calibrated for U.S. measurement systems.

I already translated the important parts, the rest is just smalltalk.
...
I already translated the important parts, the rest is just smalltalk. As I said I did not translate the original Romanian footage,

I appreciate it, but this is not the same. What I am getting is a translation of a translation with the "smalltalk" edited out.

The pilot's name is Lt. Commander Marin Mitric?, but this also can be seen on the video, and he does not say anything interesting on the interview besides that everything happened very fast.

Really? He didn't give a first-hand account? Do you think that's strange?

I think this was just blue ice.

I'm skeptical about this. A collision with ice at these speeds (remember the ice is also falling at hundreds of miles an hour) would have caused a wildly different outcome.

Now, it's possible ice could have originated from elsewhere on the plane. For example, the pitot tube which is sticking out in front of the canopy and is very evident in the footage.

I assume everything happened so fast, the pilot did not even see that something hit the plane, he just realized that his canopy is broken, but he did not know why. So he cannot comment if it was blue ice or not.

Ahhh...we need to get a first-hand account from the pilot. Something is not right here.

Can that be identified by taking samples from the planes canopy after landing?

Shoot, I'd settle for a photo of the canopy showing an impact.

I think we are both unimpressed by this case, although for different reasons.

 

[DeeJay]

Watch more carefully, it's evident that it [the footage] is slowed down.

Although I appreciate you repeating this, it does not seem evident to me --- just looking at the footage.

Can't help you then, it just pokes one's eye out.

The chief investigator says it [the canopy was ruined] in the interview. Also, the MIG-21 is a fifty year old plane, it's canopy is not a one piece design, the flat part, onto where the HUD is projected is inserted into the bubble, and the bubble is also a more piece design, if the flat part is not destroyed you won't see anything in the video.

All of this is irrelevant. The pilot was supposedly injured by the impact. The footage shows no signs of this, or even any sign of an impact. The only think unusual about the film is that three "blobs" appear and disappear. These blobs might be on the exterior of the cockpit or might be on the lens of the camera inside the cockpit. (At least I feel an irrational(?) need to rule that out.)

No, it's not. You can't expect the glass to disintegrate completely, because it's built from several parts, with frames between them. If one part brakes, the frame and the other parts are still structurally rigid, so you maybe will not see anything on the video. Maybe you will, they just haven't released those parts. And again, dirt on the camera lens does not break your glass.

Dirt on the camera lens rarely ruins your canopy. I also do not agree with you on the camera position, but this is not important from the case's point of view.

Well, I haven't seen any evidence that the canopy is "ruined".

As far as the location of the camera, I think this is important. If the camera is *outside* of the cockpit then whatever appears "in" the lens originated outside of the aircraft. If the camera is inside the cockpit, then whatever appears in the lens could originate from *inside* the cockpit or outside.

Some of the footage shows the top few cockpit instruments. As such, I think it is pretty safe to say the camera is inside the cockpit looking over the pilot's shoulder.

You start to piss me off, Dude! Who the fsck said it's outside the cockpit? Not all gun cameras are outside. Jeez.

From your remarks I assume you don't understand Rumanian, neither do I, so regarding the distress landing and the canopy break we have to trust the news channel's translators, and the article. I think in this case they can be trusted, if something ruins fighters at your neighbors place, you take it seriously.

Perhaps we should both put this case aside.

Now, my own opinion is --- and don't take it the wrong way --- I think when it comes to paranormal claims, we shouldn't take anything at face value. This case is a little troubling to me. The non-first hand reports don't seem to jibe with the evidence presented.

Who the heck said it's paranormal? Rumanian DoD said one of their planes was hit by an Unidentified Flying Object, and it distress landed. They have gun camera footage, here, have it. End of story. Nobody said it was hit by little grey men. Also, they don't issue such statements for your pleasure, they do it because it's their duty by law to inform Rumanians about what is happening with the planes for which they pay in form of taxes. If you want to live in denial and look for conspiracy where there is none, fine, it's not their business. Car's still exist, if you believe in GM or not.

No, european planes still show altitude in feet. The altimeter is showing 21000 feet, that's 6500 meters, in sync what the video says and the article also mentions. Also I'm not an ornithologist, so I can't comment on birds migratory altitude.

If it is in feet, then that would jibe nicely.

21000 feet would place it above the vast majority of avian migrants.

Although the Mig-21 is a Soviet-era aircraft, it's plausible the avionics have been calibrated for U.S. measurement systems.

Believe it or not it's feet was not invented in the US. Their had their 21s refurbished by ELBIT in the 90`s, so avionics are not soviet era any more.

The pilot's name is Lt. Commander Marin Mitric?, but this also can be seen on the video, and he does not say anything interesting on the interview besides that everything happened very fast.

Really? He didn't give a first-hand account? Do you think that's strange?

No. The guys plane was hit by something, and he also does not know by what. He is happy, that the thing did not land in the engine intake, so he didn't had to catapult, and he safely landed the plane.

I think this was just blue ice.

I'm skeptical about this. A collision with ice at these speeds (remember the ice is also falling at hundreds of miles an hour) would have caused a wildly different outcome.

Now, it's possible ice could have originated from elsewhere on the plane. For example, the pitot tube which is sticking out in front of the canopy and is very evident in the footage.

Fine, it's your opinion. I'm sure the investigators at MAPN considered this, and if they would have thought that this is the case, they would have said so. Maybe they were just insecure, and waited for hobby ornithologist to give their oppinion.

I assume everything happened so fast, the pilot did not even see that something hit the plane, he just realized that his canopy is broken, but he did not know why. So he cannot comment if it was blue ice or not.

Ahhh...we need to get a first-hand account from the pilot. Something is not right here.

Can that be identified by taking samples from the planes canopy after landing?

Shoot, I'd settle for a photo of the canopy showing an impact.

Fine, look up your press card, and issue a question to them. They are situated at www.mapn.ro, maybe they have one.

I think we are both unimpressed by this case, although for different reasons.

No, I'm impressed by the case, just not impressed by you.

 

[fitzbew88]

Can't help you then, it [the fact that the footage is slowed] just pokes one's eye out.

Ok.

No, it's [the canopy design] not. You can't expect the glass to disintegrate completely, because it's built from several parts, with frames between them. If one part brakes, the frame and the other parts are still structurally rigid, so you maybe will not see anything on the video. Maybe you will, they just haven't released those parts. And again, dirt on the camera lens does not break your glass.

I think what you are saying is that the canopy design/structure is relevant because some designs wouldn't show an impact with a foreign object. At least it might not be obvious in the footage. Ok.

This is a matter of expectations. When a big piece (or pieces) of glass hit an object at 500-600 mph I expect to be able to see *some* kind've result on a camera that is pointed directly at the impact point. Especially if the pilot was injured even a little.

I also do not agree with you on the camera position, but this is not important from the case's point of view.
...
Who the ... said it's outside the cockpit? Not all gun cameras are outside. Jeez.

Wait! I said it was inside, you disagreed. If it's not inside or outside, where is it?

Who the heck said it's paranormal?

Not me.

If you want to live in denial and look for conspiracy where there is none, fine, it's not their business. Car's still exist, if you believe in GM or not.

What? Conspiracy? Denial? You lost me here bubba.

He [the pilot] didn't give a first-hand account? Do you think that's strange?

No. The guys plane was hit by something, and he also does not know by what. He is happy, that the thing did not land in the engine intake, so he didn't had to catapult, and he safely landed the plane.

I apologize, I'm not trying to make you mad. I'm confused: did he give a first-hand account or not?

I think this was just blue ice.

I'm skeptical about this. A collision with ice at these speeds (remember the ice is also falling at hundreds of miles an hour) would have caused a wildly different outcome.

Now, it's possible ice could have originated from elsewhere on the plane. For example, the pitot tube which is sticking out in front of the canopy and is very evident in the footage.

Fine, it's your opinion. I'm sure the investigators at MAPN considered this, and if they would have thought that this is the case, they would have said so. Maybe they were just insecure, and waited for hobby ornithologist to give their oppinion.

I can't say, all this speculation might be true. But it is just speculation.

I assume everything happened so fast, the pilot did not even see that something hit the plane, he just realized that his canopy is broken, but he did not know why. So he cannot comment if it was blue ice or not.

Ahhh...we need to get a first-hand account from the pilot. Something is not right here.

So, what you are assuming (guessing?) is that he "realized" his canopy had been damaged somehow, executed an emergency landing, then reviewed the footage and saw the mysterious "images"? Do I understand you correctly?

No, I'm impressed by the case, just not impressed by you.

Well, you've got to look at it from my perspective. All I've got is three "smears" that show up and disappear on some cockpit footage and whole lot of third-hand and beyond "narrative".

Just going on the footage itself, I'm not impressed.

 

[Lavarat]

 

[DeeJay]

I think what you are saying is that the canopy design/structure is relevant because some designs wouldn't show an impact with a foreign object. At least it might not be obvious in the footage. Ok.

This is a matter of expectations. When a big piece (or pieces) of glass hit an object at 500-600 mph I expect to be able to see *some* kind've result on a camera that is pointed directly at the impact point. Especially if the pilot was injured even a little.

As we already agreed earlier, the video might be cut right before the moment of impact. You won't see anything then, will you? And as I said, if we are wrong, and the impact is on the video, you also might see nothing.

I also do not agree with you on the camera position, but this is not important from the case's point of view.
...
Who the ... said it's outside the cockpit? Not all gun cameras are outside. Jeez.

Wait! I said it was inside, you disagreed. If it's not inside or outside, where is it?

As the dashboard is fairly high, I think much of the pitot tube is occluded if you are looking out frome the cockpit. On the video you can clearly see a fair amount of it, even the thick part, where it is connected to the plane body, so my guess is that its either somewhere in the HUD assembly, in the back of the dashboard, or right behind the bottom of the flat part of the canopy. From those places you should have a free view on the pitot tube.

Also, if the camera would be where you said it would be, at minimum the HUD collimator glass frame, and its side assembly should be visible on the picture, but it's not.

Who the heck said it's paranormal?

Not me.

Me neither, maybe the fairys....

He [the pilot] didn't give a first-hand account? Do you think that's strange?

No. The guys plane was hit by something, and he also does not know by what. He is happy, that the thing did not land in the engine intake, so he didn't had to catapult, and he safely landed the plane.

I apologize, I'm not trying to make you mad. I'm confused: did he give a first-hand account or not?

I did not see the investigation material, and I don't speak Rumanian, so I have no idea, and I'm also not interested. But if I were in his place, I would be happy to be alive, so I wouldn't find it strange, if he didn't give a first hand account.

So, what you are assuming (guessing?) is that he "realized" his canopy had been damaged somehow, executed an emergency landing, then reviewed the footage and saw the mysterious "images"? Do I understand you correctly?

Yes, I think now you understand me correctly.

Well, you've got to look at it from my perspective. All I've got is three "smears" that show up and disappear on some cockpit footage and whole lot of third-hand and beyond "narrative".

Just going on the footage itself, I'm not impressed.

As I said, contact them, and ask. If you don't do it, you will never have more than that.

For me it's enough, if a government official says into the camera, that something hit one of their planes, and after half a year of investigation they still don't know what it was.

 

[fitzbew88]

As we already agreed earlier, the video might be cut right before the moment of impact. You won't see anything [any sign of an "impact"] then, will you? And as I said, if we are wrong, and the impact is on the video, you also might see nothing.

No, I think we "agreed" that the relevant footage ends after the third "smear" disappears (but see next para). The footage itself shows nothing else unusual. Other than the "smears", there is no evidence (in the footage itself) of an impact.

By the way, when looking at this again I noticed a fourth "smear". This one appears down below the third one and is partially obscured by some of the news report graphics. It has the same character as the others.

Wait! I said it was inside, you disagreed. If it's not inside or outside, where is it?

As the dashboard is fairly high, I think much of the pitot tube is occluded if you are looking out frome the cockpit. On the video you can clearly see a fair amount of it, even the thick part, where it is connected to the plane body, so my guess is that its either somewhere in the HUD assembly, in the back of the dashboard, or right behind the bottom of the flat part of the canopy. From those places you should have a free view on the pitot tube.

Also, if the camera would be where you said it would be, at minimum the HUD collimator glass frame, and its side assembly should be visible on the picture, but it's not.

In the "good" video at about 1:06, someone in a jump suit is watching the video and this extended (field of view) version allows us to place the camera with more confidence. It seems to show the back edge of the cowling at the very frontmost end of the cockpit. The camera appears to be mounted inside the cockpit underneath the forward end of the canopy.

This photo of a Mig-21 would seem to support this theory:
Mig-21 Cockpit Photo

Since the camera is inside the cockpit, we would need to make sure the "smears" are not caused by some phenomenon inside the cockpit and not outside the canopy.

So, what you are assuming (guessing?) is that he "realized" his canopy had been damaged somehow, executed an emergency landing, then reviewed the footage and saw the mysterious "images"? Do I understand you correctly?

Yes, I think now you understand me correctly.

Great.

As I said, contact them, and ask. If you don't do it, you will never have more than that.

For me it's enough, if a government official says into the camera, that something hit one of their planes, and after half a year of investigation they still don't know what it was.

Ok.

 

[DeeJay]

As we already agreed earlier, the video might be cut right before the moment of impact. You won't see anything [any sign of an "impact"] then, will you? And as I said, if we are wrong, and the impact is on the video, you also might see nothing.

No, I think we "agreed" that the relevant footage ends after the third "smear" disappears (but see next para). The footage itself shows nothing else unusual. Other than the "smears", there is no evidence (in the footage itself) of an impact.

Quote from earlier:

The glass splinters from the canopy hurt the pilot, after this he distress landed the plane on the nearby airfield Gyéres.

The film itself shows no signs of this. Based on the film itself, the pilot seems oblivious to any kind've "impact". There is some footage of aircraft making a strong port turn in the video, but it seems taken at a different time --- at least the altimeter is registering a higher altitude than the "impact" sequence.

...You are right about the video being cut right before the impact, the other HUD camera footage are just cut scenes.

Also I would expect that the time "the third smear disappears" (quote from you) from the field of view of the camera, is just before it hits the canopy.

As the dashboard is fairly high, I think much of the pitot tube is occluded if you are looking out from the cockpit. On the video you can clearly see a fair amount of it, even the thick part, where it is connected to the plane body, so my guess is that its either somewhere in the HUD assembly, in the back of the dashboard, or right behind the bottom of the flat part of the canopy. From those places you should have a free view on the pitot tube.

Also, if the camera would be where you said it would be, at minimum the HUD collimator glass frame, and its side assembly should be visible on the picture, but it's not.

In the "good" video at about 1:06, someone in a jump suit is watching the video and this extended (field of view) version allows us to place the camera with more confidence. It seems to show the back edge of the cowling at the very frontmost end of the cockpit. The camera appears to be mounted inside the cockpit underneath the forward end of the canopy.

This photo of a Mig-21 would seem to support this theory:
Mig-21 Cockpit Photo

Let's get something clear. You said, quote from you:

Thanks to the video you shared, I can now see that the camera is inside the cockpit, looking over the pilot's shoulder.

Now, that cowling is on the plane body outside the cockpit. It's hard to see it on your photo, because its in the strip painted matte black. But check out this drawing, it can be clearly seen:

http://www.airforce.ru/aircraft/mikoyan/mig-21/mig-21smt/MiG-21SMT_2.jpg

It's right there on the nose, where the pitot tube is attached to the body, halfway between the engine intake, and the beginning of the canopy.

If the camera would be "inside the cockpit, looking over the pilot's shoulder" (quote from you), at least the HUD collimator glass and it's side support assembly should be in the field of view of the camera. Indifferently which video you are looking at, it's not there. So as I said earlier, its either somewhere in the HUD assembly, in the back of the dashboard, or right behind the bottom of the flat part of the canopy. End of discussion.

Since the camera is inside the cockpit, we would need to make sure the "smears" are not caused by some phenomenon inside the cockpit and not outside the canopy.

It shit to act like a parrot, but I repeat: ketchup on the camera lens does not break you windscreen.

 

[fitzbew88]

...Also I would expect that the time "the third smear disappears" (quote from you) from the field of view of the camera, is just before it hits the canopy.

So are you saying that by the time the relevant footage ends, the impact has not yet occurred?

Then what are the four "smears"?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be reversing your line of thought from earlier. If we conclude that the video does not show an impact, then that will change the fabric of our conversation.

Let's get something clear. You said, quote from you:

Thanks to the video you shared, I can now see that the camera is inside the cockpit, looking over the pilot's shoulder.

I think you missed my statement in the earlier post that acknowledges that this "over the shoulder" theory is incorrect. The camera (in the photo I linked to) is *inside* the cockpit just beneath the forward end of the canopy --- mounted on what we are calling the "dashboard".

So as I said earlier, its either somewhere in the HUD assembly, in the back of the dashboard, or right behind the bottom of the flat part of the canopy. End of discussion.

But all these are *inside* the cockpit/canopy, right?

My point here is that if the camera is inside the cockpit/canopy, then the light recorded by the film went through 1) the atmosphere 2) the canopy 3) the atmosphere inside the canopy 4) the camera/lens assembly.

If the camera is outside the cockpit/canopy, then we can remove items 2 and 3.

So, that is why I am placing some importance on the physical location of the camera.

While researching this, I looked at many Mig-21 images that showed the fuselage are just in front of the canopy. I didn't see any sign of a camera mounted on any of them. (I don't think such placement would make sense aerodynamically anyway.)

The footage includes the HUD. Although I don't fully understand the optical mechanism involved, the camera must be in a position to record/film the HUD, right? If so, the camera must be inside the cockpit. I guess the HUD could be added to the film later, but that seems convoluted...

It [profanity] to act like a parrot, but I repeat: ketchup on the camera lens does not break you windscreen.

As I said earlier, there is no evidence of a broken windscreen or anything of the sort. From my perspective, everything else constitutes fourth-hand accounts. So that is what I am focused on for the purpose of this thread: the footage that purports to show the anomalous event.

 

[DeeJay]

...Also I would expect that the time "the third smear disappears" (quote from you) from the field of view of the camera, is just before it hits the canopy.

So are you saying that by the time the relevant footage ends, the impact has not yet occurred?

Yes, I think so.

Then what are the four "smears"?

Blue ice, dog shit, space debris, meteor shower, etc, I don't really care.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be reversing your line of thought from earlier. If we conclude that the video does not show an impact, then that will change the fabric of our conversation.

I forgive you, but you are wrong. I'm not reversing anything. The impact happened, because without it there is no news. See the title of the thread above: "Romania Releases Cockpit Video of 3 UFOs that Collided with a MIG". They don't investigate, or issue press releases if their pilots see dogshit flying in the air. They only do that, if there is material damage. Whether the actual moment of the impact is on the footage, or not, is irrelevant.

I think you missed my statement in the earlier post that acknowledges that this "over the shoulder" theory is incorrect.

Maybe because there was no such statement.

The camera (in the photo I linked to) is *inside* the cockpit just beneath the forward end of the canopy --- mounted on what we are calling the "dashboard".

You only know that if you have actually seen one of these things, which you haven't, or if you have the design, which you also haven't. So you can only guess the position.

So as I said earlier, its either somewhere in the HUD assembly, in the back of the dashboard, or right behind the bottom of the flat part of the canopy. End of discussion.

But all these are *inside* the cockpit/canopy, right?

Read the previous replies. Nobody ever said it's outside, you just assumed it.

My point here is that if the camera is inside the cockpit/canopy, then the light recorded by the film went through 1) the atmosphere 2) the canopy 3) the atmosphere inside the canopy 4) the camera/lens assembly.

If the camera is outside the cockpit/canopy, then we can remove items 2 and 3.

So, that is why I am placing some importance on the physical location of the camera.

And this is relevant, because? The things are on the footage, the impact maybe not, but the press release states the thing hit the plane. You just place importance on the physical location on the camera, because you are nitpicking. You do that because you can't really add value to the conversation, none of the things you think is important is relevant in the issue. I sum up the story in points maybe this time you understand:

1. Something broke the canopy of a MIG. (Material damage.)
2. People have done an investigation.
3. The investigation did not produce clear results. (They don't know what it is.)
4. They stated that in a press release.

If there is no point 1, there is no point 2, 3 and 4, nothing for you to nitpick about. So now we are not talking, you play with what you always play with, and I'm not pissed.

Also nobody said anything about martians, paranormal, etc.

While researching this, I looked at many Mig-21 images that showed the fuselage are just in front of the canopy. I didn't see any sign of a camera mounted on any of them. (I don't think such placement would make sense aerodynamically anyway.)

Irrelevant.

The footage includes the HUD. Although I don't fully understand the optical mechanism involved, the camera must be in a position to record/film the HUD, right? If so, the camera must be inside the cockpit. I guess the HUD could be added to the film later, but that seems convoluted...

No, the footage includes the HUD information, which is just a plain video source, you can overlay that to any other video source. Nobody told you that we are living in a digital age?

If you want to know how it looks like when you are filming a HUD, there is a picture from inside the exact same plane with switched on HUD:

http://images.google.hu/imgres?imgurl=http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mig21/images/iai3.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mig21/mig212.html&h=466&w=400&sz=45&hl=hu&start=3&um=1&tbnid=Glu7zgdAl1kwjM:&tbnh=128&tbnw=110&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmig%2B21%2Bcockpit%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dhu%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:hufficial%26sa%3DG

Notice the collimator glass with the black frame on the three sides? That's the HUD. If the camera would be filming the HUD, that black frame should be on the footage, and parts of the viewframe would be slightly distorted because of the glass. That is called refraction. As you see, if you don't look at this thing from the exact same position, where the pilots eyes should be, you just get parts of the info. To get such a nice video, with all the info, you have to place the camera in front of the HUD, but wait, that's a problem, because the pilot view is then blocked. So you mount the camera elsewhere, and superimpose the HUD info on the footage, then you get such nice shoot, as the Rumanian guys.

It [profanity] to act like a parrot, but I repeat: ketchup on the camera lens does not break you windscreen.

As I said earlier, there is no evidence of a broken windscreen or anything of the sort. From my perspective, everything else constitutes fourth-hand accounts. So that is what I am focused on for the purpose of this thread: the footage that purports to show the anomalous event.

You have to make efforts to get firsthand information. Grow a brain, and get an education, and get rid of your "I don't believe anybody anything" paranoia.

 

[fitzbew88]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be reversing your line of thought from earlier. If we conclude that the video does not show an impact, then that will change the fabric of our conversation.

I forgive you, but you are wrong. I'm not reversing anything. The impact happened, because without it there is no news. See the title of the thread above: "Romania Releases Cockpit Video of 3 UFOs that Collided with a MIG". They don't investigate, or issue press releases if their pilots see dogshit flying in the air. They only do that, if there is material damage. Whether the actual moment of the impact is on the footage, or not, is irrelevant.

Oh, dear, I'm afraid I must consider this a very wrong statement.

A press release means *nothing*. A press release about an investigation doesn't mean anything.

I *never* take a press release at face value.

A press release about a Mig-21 colliding with 3 UFO's must be met with enthusiastic skepticism!

I think you missed my statement in the earlier post that acknowledges that this "over the shoulder" theory is incorrect.

Maybe because there was no such statement.

What an odd thing to say.

In post 15 above, I describe my new (at the time) theory of the camera placement: "The camera appears to be mounted inside the cockpit underneath the forward end of the canopy."

The camera (in the photo I linked to) is *inside* the cockpit just beneath the forward end of the canopy --- mounted on what we are calling the "dashboard".

You only know that if you have actually seen one of these things, which you haven't, or if you have the design, which you also haven't. So you can only guess the position.

I disagree. I think we can infer very accurately the placement of the camera. (Although, I emphasize all that I care about is whether it is inside or outside the canopy.) I think we both agree that it is inside.

So as I said earlier, its either somewhere in the HUD assembly, in the back of the dashboard, or right behind the bottom of the flat part of the canopy. End of discussion.

But all these are *inside* the cockpit/canopy, right?

Read the previous replies. Nobody ever said it's outside, you just assumed it.

So we are agreed? The camera is inside the canopy/cockpit?

My point here is that if the camera is inside the cockpit/canopy, then the light recorded by the film went through 1) the atmosphere 2) the canopy 3) the atmosphere inside the canopy 4) the camera/lens assembly.

If the camera is outside the cockpit/canopy, then we can remove items 2 and 3.

So, that is why I am placing some importance on the physical location of the camera.

And this [the camera position] is relevant, because?

Because knowing this will permit us to eliminate any cockpit-based phenomena from consideration when trying to determine the cause of the "smears".

The things are on the footage, the impact maybe not, but the press release states the thing hit the plane. You just place importance on the physical location on the camera, because you are nitpicking.

Four "smears" appear on the footage, and then disappear. There is no (objective) evidence that anything hit the plane. Since the only objective evidence we have available is footage from the camera, I think it unwise to say that fully understanding the environment of the camera is nitpicking.

You do that because you can't really add value to the conversation, none of the things you think is important is relevant in the issue. I sum up the story in points maybe this time you understand:

1. Something broke the canopy of a MIG. (Material damage.)
2. People have done an investigation.
3. The investigation did not produce clear results. (They don't know what it is.)
4. They stated that in a press release.

If there is no point 1, there is no point 2, 3 and 4, nothing for you to nitpick about. So now we are not talking, you play with what you always play with, and I'm not pissed.

Well, I don't know anything about adding value to the conversation.

I am only trying to figure out (in the best way I know how): whether the footage that purports to show something anomalous really represents anything anomalous.

Any alleged "investigation" or "press releases" is not relevant to me simply because I don't have access to it! But even if I did, I would still approach this problem in a similar way. I mean, I would first focus on the footage.

While researching this, I looked at many Mig-21 images that showed the fuselage are just in front of the canopy. I didn't see any sign of a camera mounted on any of them. (I don't think such placement would make sense aerodynamically anyway.)

Irrelevant.

No, I think placement of the camera is relevant, especially when the camera footage is the only objective information available.

Nobody told you that we are living in a digital age?

You know, I heard somebody talking about that but I didn't believe it until right now.

You have to make efforts to get firsthand information.

You mean talk to the pilot? I'm afraid in the pantheon of cases I would like to investigate myself, this one is way down toward the bottom.

Once this thread ends, I doubt I will do anything else with it.

Grow a brain, and get an education, and get rid of your "I don't believe anybody anything" paranoia.

That's not really helpful.