Can a camcorder record something that isn't there?
Is this a 'UFO,' or is it a 'known?'
By
Jason Leigh
In a word: "Sure thing." (Just kidding).
I could stop this installment right here, but I would fall well below what I believe you would expect of me, or anyone else who would be qualified to answer this question on a professional level.
It is possible to record a "cause-and-effect" from a "chip" on your camera lens, if the sun refracts off of it, providing you are pointing your camera towards the sun. If you are pointing your camera in the opposite direction from the sun (or any other very bright light from your lens): it is doubtful, but the chip will appear as a dot, usually too small in size for you to see with your naked-eye. (Still photography).
Using a video camcorder: If there is a small "hair-line scratch" on the glass lens and you are pointing your camcorder towards the sun or any other very bright light: certainly, there could appear to be a light refraction "prism" or, even a distortion of the images recorded, depending upon the size of the images and the size of the scratch, etc., etc.
I had seen a UFO documentary which showed a commercial airliner being filmed by another airplane, which was flying at the same speed right beside this airliner. Then there appeared this small white object (which was thought to have been a very small UFO) spinning up and about and encircling the airliner which was being filmed. The story goes on to relate that experts were brought in to study the film and to come up with an answer. They speculated that the small object was a "reverse reflection" from inside of the camera (which is to say a part of the shutter aperture within the lens) and that the sun was in the right place at that given moment. Thus, that was what we saw, and nothing more. But wait a minute--there were passengers on the airliner who said that they had seen the small object buzzing around and about! Could their 'experts' have been wrong? Yes, they sure could have been mistaken, and probably were. These experts pointed out that the camera was zooming-in and that the camera was being "panned" from side to side. I, personally, did not make that observation. The camera seemed stationary to me, although there were a few zoom-ins when the object first appeared. The camera operator would really had to have been swinging that film camera all over the place to have made a light refraction dance about like that small UFO did.
Then there was a video of what looked like an orange/yellow flying saucer up in the cloudy sky, which was explained away by yet another expert who stated that the object was the camera's aperture or the shutter, opening up as the amateur camera person zoomed-in for a closer look. But wait another minute--the camera person said that they had also seen it with their naked-eye! Professional vs. amateur???
This makes us wonder who these "experts" really are, or who do they work for, and why. Were they paid to disprove the film and or the video? What about the testimonies of the people involved?
If you were to show me a similar film or video without informing me that there had been eye witnesses to the event--I'd be very upset, but firstly, I would look at the objective facts of the case before I stated that the object was this or that, and I would most certainly ask if anyone had seen the object who was not looking through the camera. If it could have been a light refraction or a reflection--that's one thing. But if some of the passengers on the airliner saw that small object: I would rule it as being a UFO drone--and you can keep your check for me to say otherwise.
Those examples are real. Perhaps you too have seen those reports and wondered as have I, as to why they would be more interested in finding some remote technical answer for the object, as opposed to trying to find out what it could have been, based upon the statements from the eye witnesses?
Doesn't anyone's word or, oath, mean anything? Why would creditable people lie about seeing a UFO? False fame? 'Pranks and Cranks?
After I viewed my video footage of the broad-daylight UFO from June 11, 1995, 20 odd times, I looked over to my camcorder and had the thought of inspecting the lens under a large magnifying glass, should some "debunker" spring-up and ask me publicly (or privately) if I had thought to have done so. "Wouldn't the possibility of a scratch on your camera lens explain the object?" They might have said.
"Sure thing." I would have responded. So I grabbed the camcorder and studied the lens under magnification for several minutes. No scratches were seen. I took out my map-magnifier, which measures about 10" by 7", and not a scratch or chip was seen. I always kept the lens cap on the camcorder when it was not in use, and cleaned it with professional lens-cleaning paper. My father had taught me since early childhood to take good care of my things so that they would last longer, and serve me better.
After making my 12, 1st generation copies of the UFO onto VHS tapes straight from the camcorder, each one, my then, three year old camcorder pumped its little guts out, and the power supply burned-up. I contacted the factory and was informed that it would cost nearly as much to repair it, as it would to buy another.
It now remains locked away within the big photo-bag with the lens cap still attached and in place, should any otherwise, expert, care to inspect it in the future. I decided against making it a boat anchor. It is, after all, a piece of history . . .
Then, . . after I had inspected the camcorder lens: I sat back in my chair and wondered why anyone would ask such an insipid technical question as that, considering the fact that I had observed the UFO for well over three minutes with the naked-eye before I became mindful enough to pull-out the camcorder and begin shooting the footage. Thank God that I did have the camcorder with me. I shuttered to think: What if all that I did have was my word on the sighting? In the past two decades when I did see UFOs (see the first installment of this series) without the advantage of a camera in my hands at the time--I remained silent--because I did not want my word to be challenged, . . by anyone.
I should mention that my entire broad-daylight footage of the UFO was shot with the sun to my direct rear, and that of the camcorder lens. 'No light refractions.
Therefore, if you see a UFO in your camera or camcorder viewfinder, make sure that you can see it with your naked-eye, as well as the people who may be there with you. Shoot a whole roll of film, or shoot until you run out of videotape.
In closing: there can be many technical answers to just about anything under the sun by a.k.a. "experts," if they are looking for something to disprove your footage with, and so some will do, just don't allow them to take your camera away for study, and don't allow them to inspect it with a sharp object in their hands. Because, . . if they are indeed honorable experts: shouldn't they be more concerned in bolstering your testimony and your footage in the search for the truth of the matter?
The experts who would try to disprove you and your footage may have their priorities confused, or even, they may be controlled by external forces which they themselves must adhere to, sometimes for the sake of their job and their own livelihood. This has not been my experience, only because I have a professional background, and I believe they know that they would have a difficult time in pulling the wool over my eyes with technical jargon.
So, "Can a camcorder record something that isn't there?" Well, . . yes, and--no.
Peace in numbers--Jason
X x X
(c) 1996 by Jason Leigh
BTW: it is a bird. A 'scissors tail.' There were two of them (male & female) that flew by the camcorder lens, with the UFO in the foreground.
