- A television news crew from Lexington, Kentucky suspects
that they have captured a strange aerial object on videotape.
-
- WTVQ-TV Newschannel 36, an ABC affiliate in Lexington,
reported on their 11:00 p.m. newscast that one of their videographers documented
the suspected oddity on Thursday, August 2, 2001 over the city. Cincinnati
resident Chris Heiert caught the story as it was broadcast from the Lexington
television station and quickly notified me of the report.
-
- Within minutes of receiving the information I had placed
a call to the news station and was lucky to speak with the videographer
at 11:20 p.m. while the news program was still in live production.
-
- The videographer, [name on file, deleted for privacy
at this time], informed that he had been interviewing someone at a car
wash on Richmond Road for a news segment scheduled for Friday's newscast.
The person being interviewed at around 5:30 p.m. first spotted the object
and gestured for the news crew to take notice.
-
- "I looked in that direction and this thing was visibly
seen with the naked eye," the videographer said, "so I swung
my camera around to get a shot of it."
-
- "I suppose I ran about one minute of tape on it,"
he informed.
-
- According to the WTVQ-TV videographer, the object seemed
to hover in place with no significant upward or downward motion and was
a large circular object with dome-shaped center roughly the size of a car
or van, according to his estimates.
-
- "We've been playing the tape around here in the
newsroom today and there is a lot of debate about what it is. Some say
it looks like a turtle. Others suggested it was a balloon of some sort,
but I don't think it's a balloon."
-
- The videographer informed that there were several peculiar
items about the recording.
-
- "This is where it gets weird," he said. "Coming
out from the dome are little legs that curve down like triangles or something,
and it rotates."
-
- "It has caused a lot of debate here but I'm convinced
it is not a balloon," he said.
-
- He informed that from his vantage point at the car wash
and distance the object was from his vantage point, no sound could be heard
due to the ambient noise.
-
- When asked how big the object was and how far away it
was from him, he said: "It looked big, but it's hard to say judging
distance from this location. The object was stationary at about a 45 degree
angle."
-
- The videographer added that in his haste to swing the
camera around, he was not mindful to acquire a frame of reference in the
shot, such as a telephone pole or other foreground landmark that would
help with measurements. There is only a brief instant where a foreground
object can be seen and the camera was not mounted on a tripod, being held
on his shoulder for the duration of the recording.
-
- He described the object as having no smoke and no lights,
being about the size of a car or van.
-
- When asked how the object departed from view, the videographer
informed that after recording the object, he had set the camera down to
go back to the pre-planned interview and when the object had evidently
departed from view at some point during the interview. He expressed frustration
at not being able to devote more attention to the object.
-
- The videotape format used was Beta videotape and the
tape will be stored at the station. Arrangements have been made for me
to acquire a copy of the recording on a digital tape. The news station
is not equipped with digital video recording equipment so I will furnish
the necessary recording instruments required.
-
- The WTVQ videographer informed that he had not sought
outside consultation to review the tape, such as an astronomer or military
consultant. He did advise that the airport was called but their reaction
to the inquiry was humorous.
-
- "Until we know otherwise, it's what you want it
to be," the videographer said. "I would like to have this explained
somehow."
-
- The videographer asked if I knew of a way he could make
money from the tape and I gave him my honest thoughts that UFO videotapes
are generally used without compensation. I cited an example from a 1994
UFO videotape in Clermont County, Ohio where producers from REAL TV inquired
about usage of a recording of a police cruiser observing a suspected UFO
but the producers became disinterested when the person who documented the
incident requested compensation. I added that if a recording were to become
a national controversy like the Rodney King roadside beating video, then
certain monies might be possible. But I expressed skepticism of any profit
from the material and added that videotapes of UFOs are frequently reported
and often explained. He was unfamiliar with the process and not certain
if he could sell the recording, and also not aware that suspected UFOs
are often said to be videotaped.
-
- COMMENT:
-
- This videographer was obviously sharp and knowledgeable
about his trade. He also struck me as a cogent witness to something he
was clearly puzzled about seeing in the sky. I was further impressed that
his material resulted in considerable debate among the employees of the
news station and the recording was hastened onto the 11 p.m. newscast that
same evening (the intent of the shoot at the car wash was to acquire footage
for Friday's newscast). It may be a stroke of good fortune that he was
able and quick to swing the camera around to document the suspected oddity.
-
- From this point, the videographer has agreed to release
a copy of the tape to me for analysis. I will undertake this review in
the next week using professional video equipment and computer software
that I have at my disposal. If the video appears interesting and cannot
be addressed through this review, options will be researched to have this
document subjected to more in-depth photoanalysis from an independent and
objective operation.
-
- FILED Aug. 3, 2001 KENNY YOUNG
|
