Russell Crowe Claims To Have Caught A UFO On Camera

[KiwiElf]

Yasss I did, but if you're standing in the Botanical Gardens at Sydney, you would have to aim the camera down to capture boats or cars - they're well above sea level (approx 49 ft ASL) and very little of the harbour (or roads) are visible when your're right into them - mostly all you can see are plants trees, sky... and large bugs. As none of us were there with Russel, this is ALL speculation really, isn't it?

EDIT: OP states it was [photographed] from a balconey. Exactly what time, from where? How high? What position & direction? All I see is trees on a sky line (which fairly well block out the sea or harbour... and a star is visible) and a red-yellow light... no cars,... no boats

Those little details are necessary to validate (or invalidate) any of this

[Hervé]

Posted by KiwiElf (here)
If you're aiming your camera at the sky, I fail to see how you could photograph a boat or car? LOL :D

One does not get to photograph the boat from the height of a balcony... but one sure can get the tip of a sailing vessel mast:

25. Lights for sailing and rowing vessels

Sailing vessels underway and vessels under oars


(a) A sailing vessel underway shall exhibit:

1. sidelights;
2. a sternlight.

(b) In a sailing vessel of less than 20 metres (66 ft) in length the lights prescribed in paragraph (a) of this Rule may be combined in one lantern carried at or near the top of the mast where it can best be seen.

"Sidelights" means a green light on the starboard side and a red light on the port side each showing from right ahead to 22.5 degrees abaft the beam on its respective side. If the vessel is less than 20 metres (66 ft) long, the sidelights may be combined in one fixture carried on the centreline of the vessel.





And, if you cared to check with Google Earth, the black circle shows where the time-lapse video was taken from with the arrow indicating the approximate direction of the shots; and the red circles show where sailing boats are docked:

PS: Post # 9 tells you where, what, how... no speculations there.

[KiwiElf]

Yup got all that but it's not EXACT. What height & angle was his camera at? A few degrees can make a huge difference. I'm talking long/lat and height within a meter here.

Was a moving boat at that field of view ABSOLUTELY verified at that exact time he took the video by independent witnesses? Please don't misunderstand me... I'm on the fence with this atm - could have been a Qantas flight or a dragonfly for all we know

[Hervé]

Russel wasn't even watching but let his camera run. Otherwise he wouldn't have been surprised at what he got recorded.

One does not need to be that accurate. All the needed data can be deduced from post # 9.

The so-called "UFO" displays the same relative geometry of all its elements IN FRONT of the trees... no Qantas flight would do that. Nor would a firefly exhibit sail-mast rigs and fly in a straight line with an even altitude over a period of time lasting minutes.

We also know that this is a view zoomed on the trees so that the water is not in the field of view. Therefore the only thing between the camera and the trees is a body of water leading to a harbour... hence the object caught on camera -- if flying -- is flying damn low!

[KiwiElf]

LOL could be - little UFOs have been photographed at low altitude before!

If we look at the other shots, whatever "it" was, passed between (in front of) the trees and Crowe's camera. I'm stirring you... your explanation, in the absence of a real UFO is the most likely... but not conclusive. As it was caught by accident... we will never know.

Beware of the same "logical reasoning and physics" that "proved" JFK was shot by a "magic bullet" - it may not be the only explanation

[Hervé]

The fact that one can see a star recorded in the background also indicate that the shots are not only time lapsed but also that each shot was of a long exposure one (8-16 seconds as mentioned in post #9). This, therefore also indicate that the "lights" above the body of water were going at below stalling speed for any flying object... in other words it's not only flying damn low it is also damn slow moving!

To conclude that one will never know is to dismiss the available data: the constant geometry exhibited by these lights and their reflections off something very thin as recorded with a stroboscopic light.

[Ontarioguy]

Posted by Maunagarjana (here)

Posted by Ontarioguy (here)
To ALL the DEBUNKERS....out there and IN here...I CONTINUE to believe no matter how often you choose to debunk. I love free will...& I choose to believe! I could care a less what Russell's footage represents....I remain a believer. Anyhow, ya'll have a great evening....I got a skyship to catch to the pleiades.

Hey, I choose to believe too, but I also believe the vast majority of videos out there are fake. Some people like to play games.....and some people like to believe. If you don't mind being gullible 75% of the time (at least) believe away.

Whooooooooo ohhh yeah.....you bet I am gonna believe away...fake videos, fake pics, game players..WHATEVER....makes no diff to my choice to BELIEVE! As for any of the submitted pics or videos, I choose not to comment on their legitimacy, unless I was standing next to the one taking the pic or vid. But I continue to believe

[Youniverse]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
Top Commentsbernzeppi 1 hour ago

OK kiddies, get ya google maps out, and zoom in on finger wharf 10 in Woolloomooloo, Sydney.

Russ's place is near the end of the wharf, the shot is taken looking west towards the botanic gardens and Mrs Macquarie's Rd.

In the video you see 2 cars drive along Mrs Macquaries Rd, keeping in mind it's a time lapse shot with the shutter open for a number of seconds.

The 'UFO' lights are a yacht passing in the foreground... there are lots of millionaires yachts moored there.

Boring I know, it's my job

That very well may be the case. In reference to your quote in purple, there is also a condition worse than seeing something that isn't there, it's called not seeing something that is there(ignorance).

[Hervé]

Posted by Youniverse (here)
[...]

That very well may be the case. In reference to your quote in purple, there is also a condition worse than seeing something that isn't there, it's called not seeing something that is there(ignorance).

That would be being blind... wouldn't it?

[Youniverse]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)

Posted by Youniverse (here)
[...]

That very well may be the case. In reference to your quote in purple, there is also a condition worse than seeing something that isn't there, it's called not seeing something that is there(ignorance).

That would be being blind... wouldn't it?

Yes, it is a type of blindness, just not the kind of blindness most people talk about. Good point.
As I believe you are implying, the kind of blindness where someone has two good, working eyes, as opposed to those that have two non-functioning eyes, yet sometimes 'see.'

[KiwiElf]

No need for that... cameras CAN see things that we can't and vice versa - doesn't mean to say they aren't real, or aren't there, just like cats & dogs have a different range of vision than we do. Doesn't make it any less real.

And for the record, are you aware of small electric-powered (ie silent) RC bots that can hover or fly very slowly?

WE - you or I - DON'T "KNOW" what it is. Be open to other possibilities.

Considering the circumstances (ie missing info), I wouldn't be so arrogant as to assume I "KNEW" what it was just yet.

[Hervé]

No need to be arrogant... one just need to consider the maintained geometry across a time-lapsed -- plus long exposure -- of these still pictures making up the video. That's not missing info, it is dismissed data staring at one.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by KiwiElf (here)
WE - you or I - DON'T "KNOW" what it is. Be open to other possibilities.

Considering the circumstances (ie missing info), I wouldn't be so arrogant as to assume I "KNEW" what it was just yet.

Looks to me like you're getting in a bit of a huff, KiwiElf. I suspect you're misreading Amzer Zo's remarks.

I don't read Amzer Zo as claiming it absolutely must be what he describes, gladly wagering his first born on that. I just read him as saying that's most likely what it is, once one looks at the data he describes. Seems to me he has a good point (though I'll confess I've only skimmed some of the posts on this thread.)

[giovonni]

via a real Aussie friend ...

A classic and typical capture ... somewhere on the fringes of the outback

Published on Jan 22, 2013

"UFO Hunting - AUSTRALIA - Sunset UFO Flying Across Sky - 3 Minutes Undedited Footage! 22-Jan-2013"

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=0BYIr6dpOLk

[KiwiElf]

With all respect Paul, I agreed with Amzer, ie his being the most likely explanation - back at post #25. My point was, we don't have all the exact data to be conclusive about it, and none of us were actually there That's all I'm saying on this.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by KiwiElf (here)
With all respect Paul, I agreed with Amzer, ie his being the most likely explanation - back at post #25. My point was, we don't have all the exact data to be conclusive about it, and none of us were actually there That's all I'm saying on this.

I agree we don't have sufficient exact data to be conclusively certain.

I did however read you as saying something more than that. I read you as being convinced that Amzer Zo was conclusively certain of his explanation is the one and only and definitive explanation. I gather that Amzer Zo is certain that his explanation is quite possible and the most likely ... of that much he seems certain and he's presented a good case. I suppose however that Amzer Zo is not certain that his explanation is the only, even remotely possible, explanation.

I suspect you have been misreading (a) Amzer Zo's certainty that his explanation is most likely as (b) certainty that all other explanations are impossible.

[Hervé]

Posted by Paul (here)
[...]

I suspect you have been misreading (a) Amzer Zo's certainty that his explanation is most likely as (b) certainty that all other explanations are impossible.

All right, Paul, no use for you to deny it any longer: I am now totally and utterly convinced you are a highly gifted psychic hiding his skills under the cloak of logical investigations!

As far as my personal opinion of what these lights could have been amongst a vast array of possibilities best suited to the available facts; I think it was a PTB UFO which was stealthily spying on Russel Crowe's office while cloaked as a sailing vessel motoring its way into a marina at an estimated speed of close to 1 knot.

See!?

Even if one duplicates identical lighting effects, at night, with an identical camera at identical time-lapse and shutter speeds and with a real sail boat underway on engine at reduced speed into the Woolloomoolloo bay marina, the cloaked-UFO hypothesis cannot be discounted nor ruled out!

There!

I rest everybody's case!

[KiwiElf]

No Amzer, with a bit more digging it would appear you are correct, & others concur now too

Oops! Russell Crowe UFO Sighting 'Turns Out To Be Sailboat Lights'
By Shaun Kitchener On March 8, 2013

http://www.entertainmentwise.com/new...ailboat-Lights

Les Miserables star thought he'd caught extra-terrestrial activity

Well, this is awkward... An expert has claimed that Russell Crowe's alleged UFO sighting was nothing more than lights from a sailboat.

The actor had left his camera taking constant photos of the view from his office window in the hope of seeing fruit bats, and was apparently astonished to later see what appeared to be a UFO in the sky.

However, there is in fact a harbour between the camera and the gardens that are visible in the background; and Phil Poling from ParaBreakdown now says that a small sailboat with a high mast must have passed.

Russell Crowe sounds off at the Australian 'Les Miserables' launch (WENN)

Due to the slow shutter speed, it's barely recognisable - and Russell's theory was also helped by the fact that, due to his choice of lense, the gardens look a lot closer than they in fact were; making the lights from the boat even harder to identify.

Russell has appeared to challenge the new theory, writing on Twitter: "re UFO? It can't be a yacht , would have to be travelling 80kmph (50mph) to cover that distance in 4.5 seconds (sic)."

He has also insisted that his original photo was not manipulated.

Check out the explanation below:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=cjlK7kjgphU

[Hervé]

All right, friend:

... and a token of my appreciation to those nut cases flying below stalling speed in those obsolete contraptions with a passenger load... safely:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=WpurK0gwC08

[jackovesk]

Russell Crowe’s UFO Video Debunked By Alien Expert [Video]

March 10, 2013

Russell Crowe wasn’t able to identify a flying object last week but that doesn’t mean that he saw an alien spaceship.

The actor’s UFO video was debunked by an expert in unexplained sightings.

Marc D’Antonio, the chief video analyst at the Mutual UFO Network, said that Crowe probably saw a helicopter or a similar aircraft.

Crowe said that he set up a camera to take a time lapse in Woolloomooloo, Australia. Crowe was trying to take pictures of fruit bats but ended up capturing a UFO.

The actor writes: “A friend and i set camera to capture fruit bats rising from Botanic Gardens,this was a big surprise… UFO?”

Crowe said that the video was created from three photos taken over the span of 4.5 seconds. You can see a strange brightly colored object move across the screen from right to left.

Crowe writes that the camera was in a fixed position which according to the actor means that it couldn’t be a lens flare. He also insists that these are REAL photos and that they were not manipulated.

But here's where it gets creepy -- D'Antonio says real UFOs tend to exhibit strange flight patterns, unexpected color shifts, weird shapes, and extreme speeds. Yes, real UFOs. We asked D'Antonio to give us an example of a UFO he was unable to debunk ... and he sent us this.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=g3_msQQ_-5g

http://www.inquisitr.com/565136/russ...-expert-video/