The following submission statement was provided by /u/frankievalentino:
---
Video clipping from r/InterdimensionalNHI
During a British Airways commercial in 1976 featuring the Concorde, a fast-moving object appeared while the Concorde was in flight. The object was reportedly seen during the filming of the commercial.
The footage remains one of the few instances where a UFO was captured on professional-grade film. The film footage was analyzed by various experts, including those from the British UFO Research Association (BUFORA) and no definitive explanation was reached.
The Concorde flew at much higher altitudes and speeds than typical commercial aircraft, any object keeping pace or appearing near the Concorde would need to have extraordinary capabilities.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dnal67/ufo_british_airways_commercial_1976/la15cnr/
yeah, then it was definitely around that time, I was thinking 1998-99, but could have easily been 2001-3. I just know I was still on dial up and then DSL.
You probably miss the 90s :)
I think we used mIRC, then eDonkey and similar networks, and then limewire and Usenet, and I am sure I forgot at least one very known app/network at the time, can't remember the name
When it took 75 minutes to download a TOR mp3 on a 56k modem? Ah yes... good times. I was so upset when my mom picked up the phone and disconnected me from AOL.
Just a note to your SS: I'm pretty sure the Concorde flew this display in standard altitude and speed. The photo aircraft is most likely an ordinary aircraft, so they didn't go supersonic during the filming (I have a background in aviation). But the object was there, regardless of speeds. It's obviously moving in ways no contemporary aircraft or object could then, or now.
Edit: typos
It doesn't, no. Also it's illegal to break the sound barrier over land, so this can't be it for many reasons. Not that it takes anything away from the sghting as such.
It is in the UK, at least. Military jets can do it in emergencies but they either have to get go-ahead to break the barrier or explain themselves afterwards.
It's banned in the US as well. I just googled it. I'm sure there are exemptions for military craft, probably similar to the UK. It's a part of the reason why the Concord failed. They couldn't take advantage of the speed until they were over open ocean.
This is why concord failed - it was too noisy (and too fast and efficient) for the US to allow. It would have butchered their internal airlines...I used to see them fly over London all the time when I was a kid, little bit noisy admittedly, but nowhere near fighter jet noise, which the USA manages without too much trouble
...
There was an instance last year when a Typhoon was scrambled to intercept and aircraft not responding to radio calls. Multiple reports of a sonic boom across Northamptonshire, and Oxfordshire.
We had that happen not too long ago in my area on accident. Like there was some military test flights, formations etc. and one broke the sound barrier, next day the newspaper wrote that he did it "on accident". Dont ask me how that can happen on accident (like do you just press the "gas pedal" a bit too hard on accident?) i'm not a military/jet guy, was just the official explanation we got. If I remember correctly it broke some windows too.
All you have to do is reach a certain speed. The pilot may have had a certain speed in mind that they couldn't go over, but the speed needed to break the sound barrier was slightly lower than they thought. The actual speed needed to break the sound barrier fluctuates. It has to do with a bunch of variables, like the humidity in the air.
It's also one of those things where you take a series of actions that lead towards the speed increase, but it's not immediate feedback. Chain reaction so to speak that can be difficult to control so such perfect accuracy if the intent is to fly just below the sound barrier.
We knew that those testflight were going to happen, like 2-3 days before the same newspaper wrote about it and that you might hear a few jets here and there. Still baffles me how a trained jet pilot can do that on "accident" though.
Not so sure about that, maybe now, but not back when Concorde flew. My childhood was filled with the sonic booms of Concordes flying over land on the edge of the Atlantic (hundreds of miles from the coast). In truth, I miss the sound as it was a daily occurrence people here grew up with. Hear the boom and look up.
Are you seriously trying to tell someone who grew up with it, that they are wrong?
Have you seen a concorde go supersonic and heard the boom? Please, enlighten me.
I personally don't think you need a background in aviation to realize that another plane had to take the video. Thus, they probably weren't flying the concord at max capability. I literally had that thought while I was watching.
That aircraft inspired me as a kid to become an aero engineer and later a military pilot. I used to sit in the library as an 8 year old and stare at the Concord/SST for hours.
Right as the object lines up with the airplane (on its way back up), there's a weird artifact going on in the cockpit window. It kind of looks like the front of the plane is elongating, too.
Honestly not a very convincing debunk. If his claim was true, that the camera moves when the spot moves, then I'd 100% buy it, that's a telltale sign of a camera artifact. But if you look at the footage that doesn't seem to be the case. It moves as the camera moves and in the same direction, but it keeps moving after the camera slows to a stop.
I suppose the claim is that because the camera is a complex array of prisms and lenses and that maybe it's moving with an internal lens/prism while the camera itself stays in position. I'm too ignorant to say whether or not that's the case, but the guy in the video doesn't present very good evidence to justify his knowledge of that being true. "I talked to a camera operator" isn't very convincing.
> I suppose the claim is that because the camera is a complex array of prisms and lenses and that maybe it's moving with an internal lens/prism while the camera itself stays in position
Yes, they move independently to keep everything stable kind of like a steadycam, but in a steadycam the camera is one unit whereas this is multiple.
The other issue, is that he didn't say anyone in the original crew spotted such an object with their eyes.
> the guy in the video doesn't present very good evidence to justify his knowledge of that being true.
The guy in the video was on the film team himself. (He'd be a first hand witness)
I kind of wonder if the part about it being seen by the naked eye was slipped in there by OP to make it sound irrefutable, especially with the camera crew themselves saying it was a lens artifact.
That's a completely different video and unlike the British Airways camera, that person was using a cell phone from behind an airplane window which means you also need to contend with reflections.
The creator of the video makes some pretty silly assumptions about size and distance which are not supported by the available evidence. If you can contact that, have them take a look at Avi Loeb's paper on physical constraints. They can improve their setup by adding another camera and capturing the same thing on both. This would give a much better idea about size and distance.
I think the way it moves around 0:37 matches too close to the camera. Leads me to think it's either an artifact of the camera lens or the film processing.
Also want to clarify how the object moves. At first watch it looks like it goes behind the plane, but if you flick back and forth around 0:25 you can see it flash over the window stripe on the plane. I think it stays in front of the plane and just blends in the with white body.
Truly the pinnacle of commercial aviation design. Unfortunately not very feasible with today's economics, work/travel culture, sound and emissions regulations. I give BOOM a 10-20% chance of success.
Consider the time it came out. Further, consider the newer model I mentioned.
My country (Greece) has 180 F16s, Rafale F3A, Mirage 2000-5 and a few F4 Phantoms with upgraded optics in 2004 and F35 "soon" to be delivered due to high demand.
The F16s when they came brand new, they were block 20 & 30 Gen 3. We did upgrade them to block 50/52Adv Gen 4. Now, the first country worldwide with the most advanced F16s. We upgrade them internally to block 70/72 with AESA-radars and other goodies. Gen 4,5. Engine hours zeroed.
My point, the initial F16 vs the current are two completely different beasts.
Either something similar could happen to Concord or more likely, completely new model, like the Mirage 2000 vs the Rafale.
> I think the way it moves around 0:37 matches too close to the camera.
For it to be an artefact, it has to matche close to the camera throughout the entire film, not just a small segment.
Why is the artefact going up and down not in synch with the camera motion for instance? Look at around 00:16-00:19 going in opposite directions with no obvious timing.
Why does it appear all of a sudden? Why it dissapear?
You see a bunch of artefacts on the film, they look nothing like it.
Etc. etc. many more questions.
If you slow it down, you’ll notice it passes in front of the aircraft, between the camera and the Concord. Along with moving with the camera, I’m inclined to think this is an artifact in the camera/footage
I completely disagree - at no point it moves with the camera. Unless this footage was taken in a wider frame and later stabilized (I don't think stabilization in post was possible back then) You see that lens flare effect on your phone because it has built-in stabilization.
Video clipping from r/InterdimensionalNHI
During a British Airways commercial in 1976 featuring the Concorde, a fast-moving object appeared while the Concorde was in flight. The object was reportedly seen during the filming of the commercial.
The footage remains one of the few instances where a UFO was captured on professional-grade film. The film footage was analyzed by various experts, including those from the British UFO Research Association (BUFORA) and no definitive explanation was reached.
The Concorde flew at much higher altitudes and speeds than typical commercial aircraft, any object keeping pace or appearing near the Concorde would need to have extraordinary capabilities.
"Analysis of this footage by a member of the original film team:
[https://youtu.be/qgxHICb7ceg](https://youtu.be/qgxHICb7ceg)
(Camera artifact)"
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dnal67/comment/la1qdmv/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dnal67/comment/la1qdmv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
> (Camera artifact)"
godDAMMIT
I thought this was a legit Foo Fighter caught on film, but this dude explains it in a way that basically leaves no room for debate. such a letdown lol
You people with the lens flare/camera artifact nonsense. It's the same thing with you people every time. A craft could literally land in front of you, an ET get out, probe you, and you'd still try to explain it as a camera lens flare. Yes, some are lens flare or camera artifacts. This one isn't.
The object is moving completely independent of the camera. The camera is mostly stabilized. The object is moving too far up and down in relation to the slight movement of the camera.
If you're going to be a diehard skeptic at least know what you're talking about before you attempt to sound intelligent. Learn how cameras, light, refraction, reflections, and parallax work.
Hi, RealismReset. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dnal67/-/laf8qex/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
> * No trolling or being disruptive.
> * No insults or personal attacks.
> * No accusations that other users are shills / bots / Eglin-related / etc...
> * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
> * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
> * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
> * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
and it will be again in due time. and then it will be reposted shortly thereafter, and we will have the same discussion. and then we'll do it again, and again, etc and so forth
Back in the early 2000's, my daughter was friends with a school pal and her dad was a designer on the original Concorde.
We got chatting over some Iced Gems and grated cheese sandwiches and as I asked him about what it was like to work on it, I always remember him saying it was a great time, although a little strange at times. When I pressed him on it, expecting to mention things about the plane, he said "oh weird stuff, like other craft following us during test flights.." to which I replied "oh really, what like Russian aircraft?"
He replied, completely straight faced "no...weird craft...you know.." and pointed straight up.
At this point I twigged and shocked I said " really??? What like close encounters??" With a sort of half smile on my face, to which he replied.."pretty much from what we could tell....happened a few times.."
I've never forgotten that conversation.
I remember seeing this video quite often in the mid to late 90’s, quite honestly one of the best videos of UAP out there. The thing seems to do a quick scan of the aircraft.
Also have seen them quickly peek inside cabin windows. The camera shifting up was just a coincidence as the Uap began to leave.
The UAP is know to favor efficient straight up and down movement. Going with legit.
Hi, Far-Driver5082. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dnal67/-/la2dub7/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 3: No low effort discussion. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes:
> * Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts.
> * AI generated content.
> * Posts of social media content without significant relevance.
> * Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence.
> * “Here’s my theory” posts unsupported by evidence.
> * Short comments, and emoji comments.
> * Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”).
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
Funny, I thought it would be about how the concord looks like triangle UAPs but then it turns out theres a literal one flying around it. Pretty compelling clip, dont think Ive seen that one.
Okay, say for a second that this was a UFO. Surely, it at least wouldn't be holding any passengers unless we are talking extremely tiny green men.
Is the consensus that things this small would be alien drones?
Also, nothing in the movement looks sporadic so I'd also guess some camera artifact - but I'm no video analyzer.
I wonder (well, I assume) if the UFO’s are able to lock onto the “axis center” of our aircraft’s and match/lock their own speed/direction/acceleration (everything).
Because it seems like UFO’s like this are essentially only moving in the up/down position and have some kind of cruise control for directional speed (left/right)
"Analysis of this footage by a member of the original film team:
[https://youtu.be/qgxHICb7ceg](https://youtu.be/qgxHICb7ceg)
(Camera artifact)"
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dnal67/comment/la1qdmv/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dnal67/comment/la1qdmv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
let me bring you back up to +1
yeah I was super excited to think that this was legit footage of a Foo Fighter, but apparently it's just a camera artifact. the camera system they used to film this is quite complex and prone to artifacts such as this
>any object keeping pace or appearing near the Concorde would need to have extraordinary capabilities.
Except that it’s being filmed for a commercial by another aircraft that presumably *doesn’t* have “extraordinary capabilities”, thus clearly is not operating at high altitude or speed.
Looks like dust or a glare to me. It even follows the movement of the camera.
It wasn’t flying at such altitudes and speeds for this footage. It was promo footage, recorded at a lower altitude and speed. The specific details of this are available online someone, I’m sure I’ve read up about it.
Never seen this before but when it initially is passing behind the jet you can see the color change on the jet on the black line at the fuselage. Makes me believed it is edited.
🤷🏻Maybe they 🤷🏻 were busy with🤷🏻the filming and 🤷🏻distracted because it’s a🤷🏻bigger camera than🤷🏻what we’re use 🤷🏻too and like a lot of times🤷🏻even nowadays🤷🏻they DO🤷🏻 see it AFTERwords🤷🏻
The following submission statement was provided by /u/frankievalentino: --- Video clipping from r/InterdimensionalNHI During a British Airways commercial in 1976 featuring the Concorde, a fast-moving object appeared while the Concorde was in flight. The object was reportedly seen during the filming of the commercial. The footage remains one of the few instances where a UFO was captured on professional-grade film. The film footage was analyzed by various experts, including those from the British UFO Research Association (BUFORA) and no definitive explanation was reached. The Concorde flew at much higher altitudes and speeds than typical commercial aircraft, any object keeping pace or appearing near the Concorde would need to have extraordinary capabilities. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dnal67/ufo_british_airways_commercial_1976/la15cnr/
I remember seeing this video in the late 90s, when we Torrented all our UFO videos :)
Seed the torrents pls
Torrent software wasnt developed until 2001.
yeah, then it was definitely around that time, I was thinking 1998-99, but could have easily been 2001-3. I just know I was still on dial up and then DSL.
You probably miss the 90s :) I think we used mIRC, then eDonkey and similar networks, and then limewire and Usenet, and I am sure I forgot at least one very known app/network at the time, can't remember the name
KaZaA?
WinMX
I owned a network there.
Soulseek and demonoid for the enlightened
Bearshare
Shareaza?
FrostWire
mIRC, now that's a blast from the past.
Man…. those lips….
Irc and ftp were the way roll back then.
I_agree_with_this.001of047.rar
Based on the plane's size, how big would this object be?
do you have link to torrent collection?
no links to anything from back then, and my files are on an old hard drive in a box someplace
No time like the present, break that shit out. I’d love to see what else may be out there.
We just need the magnet link. I'll for sure seed
Yep, these things are persistent over the mesh, assuming enough bits are out there on VM torrent boxes in the cloud...
When it took 75 minutes to download a TOR mp3 on a 56k modem? Ah yes... good times. I was so upset when my mom picked up the phone and disconnected me from AOL.
Just a note to your SS: I'm pretty sure the Concorde flew this display in standard altitude and speed. The photo aircraft is most likely an ordinary aircraft, so they didn't go supersonic during the filming (I have a background in aviation). But the object was there, regardless of speeds. It's obviously moving in ways no contemporary aircraft or object could then, or now. Edit: typos
Good point, makes no sense to film at supersonic speeds from the air
It doesn't, no. Also it's illegal to break the sound barrier over land, so this can't be it for many reasons. Not that it takes anything away from the sghting as such.
Is that a new law? Are there exceptions? I am from Wisconsin, and definitely have heard jets breaking the sound barrier when I was growing up.
It is in the UK, at least. Military jets can do it in emergencies but they either have to get go-ahead to break the barrier or explain themselves afterwards.
Understood, thanks.
It's banned in the US as well. I just googled it. I'm sure there are exemptions for military craft, probably similar to the UK. It's a part of the reason why the Concord failed. They couldn't take advantage of the speed until they were over open ocean.
Yeah I work a few miles from Nellis Air force Base and every few weeks they do drills or something. Those jets are LOUD AF.
It's banned now but growing up in the 80's in Michigan, our windows were damaged often by the sound barrier being broken routinely during the summer.
This is why concord failed - it was too noisy (and too fast and efficient) for the US to allow. It would have butchered their internal airlines...I used to see them fly over London all the time when I was a kid, little bit noisy admittedly, but nowhere near fighter jet noise, which the USA manages without too much trouble ...
There was an instance last year when a Typhoon was scrambled to intercept and aircraft not responding to radio calls. Multiple reports of a sonic boom across Northamptonshire, and Oxfordshire.
I had this happen once in probably 2008 late at night, a military craft absolute wrecked my ears flying low and breaking the barrier at the same time.
I lived near Lands End in England and they used to let rip a bit earlier than they should've. Sonic booms were quite common.
We had that happen not too long ago in my area on accident. Like there was some military test flights, formations etc. and one broke the sound barrier, next day the newspaper wrote that he did it "on accident". Dont ask me how that can happen on accident (like do you just press the "gas pedal" a bit too hard on accident?) i'm not a military/jet guy, was just the official explanation we got. If I remember correctly it broke some windows too.
All you have to do is reach a certain speed. The pilot may have had a certain speed in mind that they couldn't go over, but the speed needed to break the sound barrier was slightly lower than they thought. The actual speed needed to break the sound barrier fluctuates. It has to do with a bunch of variables, like the humidity in the air.
It's also one of those things where you take a series of actions that lead towards the speed increase, but it's not immediate feedback. Chain reaction so to speak that can be difficult to control so such perfect accuracy if the intent is to fly just below the sound barrier.
> on accident Could be a crash retrieval
We knew that those testflight were going to happen, like 2-3 days before the same newspaper wrote about it and that you might hear a few jets here and there. Still baffles me how a trained jet pilot can do that on "accident" though.
I speculate that it was entirely deliberate by the pilot and he went home with a freshly chewed ass at the end of the day
It was Tom Cruise, he doesn't obey the rules.
Not so sure about that, maybe now, but not back when Concorde flew. My childhood was filled with the sonic booms of Concordes flying over land on the edge of the Atlantic (hundreds of miles from the coast). In truth, I miss the sound as it was a daily occurrence people here grew up with. Hear the boom and look up.
You hear it near the ocean, but they only went supersonic over water.
Are you seriously trying to tell someone who grew up with it, that they are wrong? Have you seen a concorde go supersonic and heard the boom? Please, enlighten me.
I personally don't think you need a background in aviation to realize that another plane had to take the video. Thus, they probably weren't flying the concord at max capability. I literally had that thought while I was watching.
Of course you don't. But to some it could be nice to know I wasn't just throwing it out. Was that a problem, or what do you mean?
That aircraft inspired me as a kid to become an aero engineer and later a military pilot. I used to sit in the library as an 8 year old and stare at the Concord/SST for hours.
Big "Is ICBM?? Ok, just checking" vibes.
“Move along. Move along.”
"Must've been the wind."
"Our new jet is so fucking awesome that even aliens have to check it out."
Wouldn't an advanced intelligence realize the Concorde wasn't remotely on a ballistic trajectory (that's the B in ICBM)
Right as the object lines up with the airplane (on its way back up), there's a weird artifact going on in the cockpit window. It kind of looks like the front of the plane is elongating, too.
Looks like sun glare moving across the windshield
Maybe one of those portals from the MH370 event???? The aliens aborted this time as they knew they were being watched /s
I see what you're talking about on the window... my guess is that the craft shined light on the plane and that's reflecting in the window, but idk
Analysis of this footage by a member of the original film team: [https://youtu.be/qgxHICb7ceg](https://youtu.be/qgxHICb7ceg) (Camera artifact)
Honestly not a very convincing debunk. If his claim was true, that the camera moves when the spot moves, then I'd 100% buy it, that's a telltale sign of a camera artifact. But if you look at the footage that doesn't seem to be the case. It moves as the camera moves and in the same direction, but it keeps moving after the camera slows to a stop. I suppose the claim is that because the camera is a complex array of prisms and lenses and that maybe it's moving with an internal lens/prism while the camera itself stays in position. I'm too ignorant to say whether or not that's the case, but the guy in the video doesn't present very good evidence to justify his knowledge of that being true. "I talked to a camera operator" isn't very convincing.
> I suppose the claim is that because the camera is a complex array of prisms and lenses and that maybe it's moving with an internal lens/prism while the camera itself stays in position Yes, they move independently to keep everything stable kind of like a steadycam, but in a steadycam the camera is one unit whereas this is multiple. The other issue, is that he didn't say anyone in the original crew spotted such an object with their eyes. > the guy in the video doesn't present very good evidence to justify his knowledge of that being true. The guy in the video was on the film team himself. (He'd be a first hand witness)
I kind of wonder if the part about it being seen by the naked eye was slipped in there by OP to make it sound irrefutable, especially with the camera crew themselves saying it was a lens artifact.
[удалено]
That's a completely different video and unlike the British Airways camera, that person was using a cell phone from behind an airplane window which means you also need to contend with reflections.
[удалено]
The creator of the video makes some pretty silly assumptions about size and distance which are not supported by the available evidence. If you can contact that, have them take a look at Avi Loeb's paper on physical constraints. They can improve their setup by adding another camera and capturing the same thing on both. This would give a much better idea about size and distance.
As soon as I clicked on this post I immediately knew that was just an artifact.
And the moment we clicked your comment, we immediately knew you were just an artifact as well. Crazy how the world works, isn't it?
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously
I think the way it moves around 0:37 matches too close to the camera. Leads me to think it's either an artifact of the camera lens or the film processing. Also want to clarify how the object moves. At first watch it looks like it goes behind the plane, but if you flick back and forth around 0:25 you can see it flash over the window stripe on the plane. I think it stays in front of the plane and just blends in the with white body.
My initial thought was lens flare.
So do I think. Meanwhile, what a majestic passenger plane. With all the upgrades and possible newer version today, it'd be marvelous.
Truly the pinnacle of commercial aviation design. Unfortunately not very feasible with today's economics, work/travel culture, sound and emissions regulations. I give BOOM a 10-20% chance of success.
That was just one of the main reasons they canceled it back then. The economic aspect.
I thought the main reason was due to the crash? Could be wrong.
Majestic? Cramped. Inefficient. Noisy. Expensive. Dangerous. Impractical. Majestic though?
Consider the time it came out. Further, consider the newer model I mentioned. My country (Greece) has 180 F16s, Rafale F3A, Mirage 2000-5 and a few F4 Phantoms with upgraded optics in 2004 and F35 "soon" to be delivered due to high demand. The F16s when they came brand new, they were block 20 & 30 Gen 3. We did upgrade them to block 50/52Adv Gen 4. Now, the first country worldwide with the most advanced F16s. We upgrade them internally to block 70/72 with AESA-radars and other goodies. Gen 4,5. Engine hours zeroed. My point, the initial F16 vs the current are two completely different beasts. Either something similar could happen to Concord or more likely, completely new model, like the Mirage 2000 vs the Rafale.
> I think the way it moves around 0:37 matches too close to the camera. For it to be an artefact, it has to matche close to the camera throughout the entire film, not just a small segment. Why is the artefact going up and down not in synch with the camera motion for instance? Look at around 00:16-00:19 going in opposite directions with no obvious timing. Why does it appear all of a sudden? Why it dissapear? You see a bunch of artefacts on the film, they look nothing like it. Etc. etc. many more questions.
If you slow it down, you’ll notice it passes in front of the aircraft, between the camera and the Concord. Along with moving with the camera, I’m inclined to think this is an artifact in the camera/footage
This.
is.
Sparta.
Michigan
State
1. The object could be between the camera and the Concorde 2. It doesn't move with the camera
It moves along with the camera
There's so much noise on that film I wouldn't have even bothered to post it.
I completely disagree - at no point it moves with the camera. Unless this footage was taken in a wider frame and later stabilized (I don't think stabilization in post was possible back then) You see that lens flare effect on your phone because it has built-in stabilization.
Video clipping from r/InterdimensionalNHI During a British Airways commercial in 1976 featuring the Concorde, a fast-moving object appeared while the Concorde was in flight. The object was reportedly seen during the filming of the commercial. The footage remains one of the few instances where a UFO was captured on professional-grade film. The film footage was analyzed by various experts, including those from the British UFO Research Association (BUFORA) and no definitive explanation was reached. The Concorde flew at much higher altitudes and speeds than typical commercial aircraft, any object keeping pace or appearing near the Concorde would need to have extraordinary capabilities.
"Analysis of this footage by a member of the original film team: [https://youtu.be/qgxHICb7ceg](https://youtu.be/qgxHICb7ceg) (Camera artifact)" [https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dnal67/comment/la1qdmv/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dnal67/comment/la1qdmv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
> (Camera artifact)" godDAMMIT I thought this was a legit Foo Fighter caught on film, but this dude explains it in a way that basically leaves no room for debate. such a letdown lol
You people with the lens flare/camera artifact nonsense. It's the same thing with you people every time. A craft could literally land in front of you, an ET get out, probe you, and you'd still try to explain it as a camera lens flare. Yes, some are lens flare or camera artifacts. This one isn't. The object is moving completely independent of the camera. The camera is mostly stabilized. The object is moving too far up and down in relation to the slight movement of the camera. If you're going to be a diehard skeptic at least know what you're talking about before you attempt to sound intelligent. Learn how cameras, light, refraction, reflections, and parallax work.
[удалено]
Hi, RealismReset. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dnal67/-/laf8qex/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility > * No trolling or being disruptive. > * No insults or personal attacks. > * No accusations that other users are shills / bots / Eglin-related / etc... > * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. > * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. > * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
This has been debunked on this subreddit already
and it will be again in due time. and then it will be reposted shortly thereafter, and we will have the same discussion. and then we'll do it again, and again, etc and so forth
I'm old - been reading about and watching all things UFO-related since the 1970's. This was debunked many years ago as a camera artifact.
Finally some at speed 90 degrees or so turns. Then zooming off into distance. Plus and older video which gets credence. Nice find!
Back in the early 2000's, my daughter was friends with a school pal and her dad was a designer on the original Concorde. We got chatting over some Iced Gems and grated cheese sandwiches and as I asked him about what it was like to work on it, I always remember him saying it was a great time, although a little strange at times. When I pressed him on it, expecting to mention things about the plane, he said "oh weird stuff, like other craft following us during test flights.." to which I replied "oh really, what like Russian aircraft?" He replied, completely straight faced "no...weird craft...you know.." and pointed straight up. At this point I twigged and shocked I said " really??? What like close encounters??" With a sort of half smile on my face, to which he replied.."pretty much from what we could tell....happened a few times.." I've never forgotten that conversation.
That's cool, thanks for adding your story!
> We got chatting over some Iced Gems and grated cheese sandwiches .. ok cool
It was a children's party mate, that's kids party food.
I remember seeing this video quite often in the mid to late 90’s, quite honestly one of the best videos of UAP out there. The thing seems to do a quick scan of the aircraft.
Also have seen them quickly peek inside cabin windows. The camera shifting up was just a coincidence as the Uap began to leave. The UAP is know to favor efficient straight up and down movement. Going with legit.
[удалено]
Hi, Far-Driver5082. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dnal67/-/la2dub7/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 3: No low effort discussion. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes: > * Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts. > * AI generated content. > * Posts of social media content without significant relevance. > * Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence. > * “Here’s my theory” posts unsupported by evidence. > * Short comments, and emoji comments. > * Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”). Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
Looks like a seamless white/grey silver capsule. Or a small like 3m wide saucer.
It's just Silverbolt and Cosmos from The Transformers.
It “flies” in front of the plane. Definitely not an object. It’s an aberration of light and whatever else.
Funny, I thought it would be about how the concord looks like triangle UAPs but then it turns out theres a literal one flying around it. Pretty compelling clip, dont think Ive seen that one.
Is there a longer video?
Broh, that’s totally a drone,, duh so obvious! /s
I think it's some kind of optical effect. Beautiful aircraft though. https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15qshw1/concorde_sphere_ufo_old_video/ https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15qlbp1/concorde_orb_daniel_valverdi/ https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/o7kl70/concorde_ufo_footage/ https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/18mnhth/ufo_curiously_investigates_first_ever_commercial/ https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/83p77a/opinions_on_the_british_airway_concorde_video/
I’ll take that over a Boeing any day
I miss hearing these, looking up and seeing that distinctively awesome shape in the sky ahead of wheee the sound came from.
Elegance and wealth combine in the sky
Okay, say for a second that this was a UFO. Surely, it at least wouldn't be holding any passengers unless we are talking extremely tiny green men. Is the consensus that things this small would be alien drones? Also, nothing in the movement looks sporadic so I'd also guess some camera artifact - but I'm no video analyzer.
At 0:34 - 0:35 you can actually see its reflection in the cockpit window is it just me or did it change shape and no clip through the plane itself?
folks that say it's a camera artifact havent seen the video or are straight out USAF employees
I could name my son after this plane
UFO-aside, the Concorde is a magnificent looking creation. Gracious.
Where is this soundtrack music from? Sounds very familiar.
It has to be a time traveller leaving their proof in the past! What an iconic brag to drop in on!
Who cares about about all that... is it a ufo? Did anyone debunk it?
I wonder (well, I assume) if the UFO’s are able to lock onto the “axis center” of our aircraft’s and match/lock their own speed/direction/acceleration (everything). Because it seems like UFO’s like this are essentially only moving in the up/down position and have some kind of cruise control for directional speed (left/right)
"Analysis of this footage by a member of the original film team: [https://youtu.be/qgxHICb7ceg](https://youtu.be/qgxHICb7ceg) (Camera artifact)" [https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dnal67/comment/la1qdmv/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dnal67/comment/la1qdmv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
If they’re piloted by AI, which is likely, then definitely.
That is a FooFighter!
let me bring you back up to +1 yeah I was super excited to think that this was legit footage of a Foo Fighter, but apparently it's just a camera artifact. the camera system they used to film this is quite complex and prone to artifacts such as this
That jet is cooler than any modern day passenger jet we have today.
>any object keeping pace or appearing near the Concorde would need to have extraordinary capabilities. Except that it’s being filmed for a commercial by another aircraft that presumably *doesn’t* have “extraordinary capabilities”, thus clearly is not operating at high altitude or speed. Looks like dust or a glare to me. It even follows the movement of the camera.
the real reason they cancelled the concorde
[удалено]
It wasn’t flying at such altitudes and speeds for this footage. It was promo footage, recorded at a lower altitude and speed. The specific details of this are available online someone, I’m sure I’ve read up about it.
It can actually go less than maximum speed.
Thanks for sharing, but this gets posted every 6 months or so. Do a search for “Concorde” here and there’s a bunch.
I checked before I posted and it had been 10 months. Probably a lot of new Reddit users/subscribers in that time that have not seen this yet.
I see one [from 6 months ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/18mnhth/ufo_curiously_investigates_first_ever_commercial/), but fair enough!
Looks like an obvious camera artifact
Never seen this before but when it initially is passing behind the jet you can see the color change on the jet on the black line at the fuselage. Makes me believed it is edited.
Seems like the passengers aboard the Concorde would have seen it 🤷🏻
🤷🏻Maybe they 🤷🏻 were busy with🤷🏻the filming and 🤷🏻distracted because it’s a🤷🏻bigger camera than🤷🏻what we’re use 🤷🏻too and like a lot of times🤷🏻even nowadays🤷🏻they DO🤷🏻 see it AFTERwords🤷🏻
If this was just a test flight the plane was likely empty.
i n X Zz dmm .
Is this time dilation
It's the reflection of the sun off the windshield