[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Strange Aerial Object Over Kentucky
Source: Kenny Young (email@example.com)
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
are little legs that curve down like triangles or something, and
"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
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