As evidenced by the video above, it's no wonder
these events preciptiate UFO reports
 | By Frank Warren
The UFO Chronicles
10-4-12 |
For most sober researchers the revelation that the
recent YouTube videos of “UFOs over Cincinnati” being verified as
night skydivers comes to no surprise; at the same time, there will always be some (ideologues) that won’t be able to swallow the facts of the matter.
Because we live in the age of hi-tech cell phone cameras and instant sharing abilities and or communication via the internet, researchers have a much bigger “pile” of chaff to sort through. In that same vein we have different data sets to deal with; however, one that remains constant between the analogue and digital worlds are compilations of examples re “Identified Flying Objects” (IFOs) etc.
A couple weeks back your humble editor was chastised for publishing (again) what appeared to be an easily discernible example of CGI (and it was); in my reply, I argued that
TUFOC was in part a reflection of what appears in the mainstream news media re Ufology, and reminded the reader/critic that post investigation the greater majority of “all” (initially) labeled UFOs can be attributed to a conventional and or mundane explanation—and we try not to cherry pick. (Moreover, just because we highlight en event, article etc., doesn’t mean we endorse it).
I further stated that a collection of IFOs is most valuable in distinguishing true “unknowns,” and that brings us to the recent YouTube video of what we now know to be night time skydivers (Start Skydiving Organization) doing a pyrotechnics jump: in this instance we have an “authentic video” shot at night of a confirmed activity—in other words it ain’t
CGI! With a little research, we can ascertain the distances between videographer and the jumpers; we also have the genuine reactions from the witnesses, etc.
These exemplars are significant and should be tucked away in every (concerned) researcher’s IFO file for future UFO analysis.
