VIDEO REVIEW by Jayess
UFOs over Scotland
The ENIGMA Channel
I decided to write a review of this video and include it within my Falkland Hill story as it contains an interview with Malcolm Robinson detailing his investigation of the incident.
INITIAL VIEWING COMMENTS
The video exhibits the usual quality that I have come to expect from UFO, Paranormal videos, etc. i.e. poor quality, out of focus video shots taken with plenty of 'shake' and accompanied by very irritating (i.e. repetitive) mood music. The commentary that runs throughout the video explains nothing that the viewer cannot already see for him/herself and there is no attempt at any form of analysis. Camera 'shake' is what I'd expect from a piece of footage taken quickly of an object which appears suddenly and only fleetingly. However this video shows a large collection of shots taken over an extended period of time by the same person. If these people were genuinely attempting to get good shots of these objects then there are easy and cheap ways of steadying a camera/video camera. Try using a tripod and switching to manual focusing are good tips!
Anyway, onto the first video clips...
Teardrop shaped UFO's near Edinburgh
The video opens with video footage of illuminated objects seen near the city of Edinburgh in late 1999. I'll summarise the dates and times here as they are informative.
In a press report at the time a Mrs Whelan from Livingston near Edinburgh captured a teardrop shaped object on video as it descended to the south-eastern horizon.A blown up image of the object appeared in the press and is reproduced below. The date and time...
I was made aware of Mrs Whelan's sighting and I was sure I could identify this object so I watched the skies every suitable morning (i.e clear skies) between 8:10 and 8:45 am and sure enough I spotted and captured two teardrop shaped objects on my video camera. I live in central Fife, some 25 miles from the Livingston/Edinburgh area and to the Northeast. A still from my video is shown below and contains blow ups of the objects.
I watched these two objects cross the entire sky in exactly the same manner as the objects shown on this video and they descended into the south-eastern horizon. With binoculars I positively identified them as two commercial airliners with short contrails. It stands to reason that an object that crosses the sky repeatedly in the same direction and at a similar time must be something identifiable and normal. Even the slight variations in time are accountable as I'm sure everyone is aware of how often flights are delayed and don't keep exactly to scheduled take off time every day. It is just a pity that UFO video makers appear more interested in making money from dubious videos than carrying out any form of investigation to validate the evidence placed in their possession.
Enlarged image of UFO taken from the review video
Enlarged image of Mrs Whelans UFO
Enlargement of my 'UFO' (left object)
The dark areas surrounding the bright image are due to the limitations of CCD sensors in the video camera rather than any visible darkening when viewed in binoculars or with the naked eye. Interestingly, my video image shows the right hand object apparently crossing in front of the power cable and beautifully illustrates that Video cameras can lie!
The rest of the video...
Various video footage is shown dealing with 'out of focus' angel hair, spheres, rods etc. I will not waste the readers time by discussing them here except to say that I have ideas as to what they might be, however it is not my main priority at this time to investigate them. Therefore until I have the proof as to their identity I do not really see the point in mere supposition and/or speculation.
But I must comment on two other aspects of the video...
First, a sequence is shown which depicts a Tornado F3 aircraft flying low over Stirling or nearby and the commentator states that the aircraft is fully loaded and armed as a supposed 'black sphere' is seen near the aircraft. I would like to know how the commentator could realistically make such a statement? The aircraft is never seen close enough to see if missiles (live ones) are being carried or that the gun is loaded with live ammunition. At best I can make out only that the aircraft is carrying external underwing fuel tanks. Even if missiles were seen by the videographer at the time with the naked eye, how can he distinguish between live and ballast missiles? If the videographer or the video commentator would like to email me with his/her/their reasons for believing this aircraft to be armed, I'd like to hear them. I know of only ONE way of telling this and the aircraft needs to be an awful lot closer to the observer than this one is. I mean within a few yards at most.
The second point concerns footage of a 'tanker' plane 'spraying chemicals' into the air in the US. With what technical knowledge or authority does the commentator boldly make such a statement? Where is his evidence? He differentiates normal contrail (which is what it looked like to me) and 'chemical' spray saying that the 'chemical contrail ' lasts longer in the atmosphere than normal 'contrail'. Whether or not an aircraft leaves a contrail behind and for how long is dependant on a number of factors. They can leave a long contrail persistant for a long time after the aircraft has disappeared from view or can only exist for a matter of minutes before dispersing in the atmosphere.
The entire video is laced with bold statements such as these two for which the viewer is given no supporting evidence whatsoever. We are expected to believe these statements as fact.
Site updated 23rd April 2005 email to email@example.com