UFO: Videos

C

crazymikey

Open-minded Scientist
Registered Senior Member
The reason I am not posting this in "Proof For ETI" is simply because, most video evidence of UFO's does not carry much weight for me. So I prefer to discuss them as a seperate topic.

There are hundreds of videos of UFO; some of them hoaxes; some ordinary aerial phenonema. Yet, there are some, that are very compelling indeed.

I am going to analyse some of the most compelling footage of UFO, and if others have any UFO video's you have seen, please feel free, to post them for discussion.

Let's start with this: http://www.ufocasebook.com/saucer1.ram

My first reaction was this: "HOLY FUCKING COW - this has to be a hoax! The UFO literally flew at the camera"

I then became completely infatuated with this footage. I've played it over 50 times now and analyzed it frame by frame. My first inclination was, that it is a model UFO, with an orange underlight, attached to a string in a model environment.

To test this? I attached a bottle to a string and filmed it with my Minidv camera from as far as I could go and at the lowest zoom - to immitate the depth of the footage. I tried to give the bottle the same motion by moving it in front of the camera with the string. The results were not even 0.1% of the footage:

1: The UFO's moving relatively smoothe, and visibly accelerating upwards and increasing in size while moving towards the camera from a visibly great distance.

While my bottle was jerking, not increasing in size, and covering tiny distance.

It's definitely not attached to a string.

It''s actually taken place, and the distances between the camera and UFO are real(we can see when the camera-holder zooms in at the end): So is it a life size model radio controlled?

To create such a life-size radio controlled UFO would be a lot of effort. That does not mean a hoaxer would not go to that effort. However a radio-controlled model would not accelerate so rapidly across the sky and and change direction so easily.

Hence it's also definitely not a radio controlled model.

Is it computer-generated, or blue screened?

It does not have the texture of a computer generated model at all. It is moving realistically behind trees, across the sky, and accelerating to higher altitude to avoid the trees and realistically increasing in size as it nears the camera. Note: As it goes over the camera, the orange light also illuminates the ground.

Blue screened: This would entail a model attached to a string, and we've already ruled that out.

Is it a hoax? It is highly doubtful:

1: The video is not well known at all and is shot by some anonymous person, whose gained practically nothing from it.

2: The UFO is visibily accelerating across the sky - you can actually see the motion blurs as it accelerates to gains alititude.

3: The UFO is realistically changing size as it nears the camera; from being quite tiny, to full size.

4: The UFO actually wobbles, and tilts fully to the left to change direction.

5: We can hear in the background the woman telling him where it is, and him acknowledging, "Yeah, I got it" also note his disbelief as the UFO nears him, a faint "woah" and the electronic noise once the UFO flies over him

6: He adjusts the camera to get a lock on the UFO at a great visible distance ahead producing a jerky movement, in which the UFO moves in relation to movement of the frame.

7: The UFO moves behind the tree initially, and then appears to go further into the frame, and gains altitude to fly over the trees and house outlines. As it approaches we can occasionally see glimpses of light around its rim, as soon as it tilts slightly, we can see the orange underglow, which also changes from green to blue rapidly, casting an orange light on the ground below. There appears to be 4 lights placed equidistantlly around the circumference - one north, south, west and east, with a main light in the middle.

Given all this data: This really may have been an ACTUAL UFO! Holy --
 
Last edited:
It means Laughing My Ass Off - If he finds this funny, he better look in the mirror ;)

Now what does "I see it everywhere" means?
 
There are some things that don't check out though. I ran it in adobe premiere, to see it in more precise detail: The orange underlight is not very intense, although as it flies over the man, should it not cast an orange light over the camera? As it swoops down, it wobbles left and right, and I saw what seemed to be a pole protruding from the top as it swooped down. Which made me think it may be attached to a string, although the string theory(no pun intended) does not compute from the other factors.

Although if it is a hoax, it is pretty darn good one. Natural camera movement, and low light levels, voice acting, natural reactions, great control of UFO, realistic model environment, realistically constructed UFO. Almost everything is there. Im unsure now wether it really is a UFO, that is why video evidence carries little weight - even if it was a UFO, you can never quite tell. However, considering, this UFO video is barely known, this perhaps really is a UFO. Although I cannot logically rule it out as a UFO 100%.
 
I wouldn't cast too much of an arguement over whether it is or isn't a hoax. as far as I'm concerned it is a hoax, for instance Noise quality, you hear someone speak then you supposedly hear the craft as it goes overhead but at a level lower than the voice.

If a craft had such a "Volume" and was traveling at speed, where do you think the areodynamic's would take the air from the space that the "volume" is moving to? (It would create a vacuum behind the craft and therefore cause a perfectly still tree to move with some form of wind.)

I would suggest that this isn't the smoking gun anyone that wants to prove UFO existance should use, as it is something that could be falsified with some airbrushing and software tools after taking footage of a clear night.

Note that all the UFO's that people report are usually explained as planets that happened to be on closer orbits to the earths orbit, satellites (Which there are now hundreds circling the earth in multiple different orbits that either appear stationary or move), airplanes (The aviation sectors the military constantly have to keep their pilots trained if they are to be combat ready and they don't exactly do a radio broadcast to the world to tell everyone what they are upto.)

Also with the amount of satellites that beam down information to our planet and surveillance for weather and "Other things", anything that supposedly is spotted over 200 ft above the earth won't just get hit by Radar, but will potentially be captured in satellite photo's, making it easier to find a real UFO from a fake one. (And since there haven't been any real ones, you don't get many "Serious" parties wanting to talk to people anymore when they see one.)

Lastly, The FBI did output through the Freedom of Information act, that most of the things that they investigated were hoaxes, like hot air balloons that were carrying circular saw blades etc. As I've mentioned before, it's obvious that those particular hoaxers were being tracked down before some form of fatality was caused by falling objects from one of these hoax vessels.
 
I wouldn't cast too much of an arguement over whether it is or isn't a hoax. as far as I'm concerned it is a hoax, for instance Noise quality, you hear someone speak then you supposedly hear the craft as it goes overhead but at a level lower than the voice.
Click to expand...

UFO's do not make noise, at least most of them. They are using field propulsion. The noise you hear could be the electronic noise from the EM effects the UFO. These are commonly reported. This is also why there is no wind produced from the UFO moving so fast. That being said, I do not think this is 100% a real UFO, there just some factors that trouble me about it. I've seen it over 100 times now, and the more I see it, the more in doubt I become.

You are wrong, that UFO's are all explained. Around 10%, hundreds of thousands have not. I believe there are also satellite cases, but they are subject to the same unfounded explanations: space debris; thrust from space stuation and all that jizz.

I would not trust the FBI on UFO's

However, if you want to explain a case: How about the giant UFO's seen in 1941, by a hundreds of people, that was shot at for 35 min, and was illuminated by 4 powerful spotlights from every direction. You can see its saucer shape in the photograph.
 
crazymikey said:
UFO's do not make noise, at least most of them. They are using field propulsion.
Click to expand...

Could you please post a citation to this "fact." I'm curious as to how you know that field propulsion is used on these alleged craft. Did you get a look at a schematic? Perhaps read a paper written by one of the engineers that examined one in between anal probings? Did you read about it on a UFO/ETI cult site?

crazymikey said:
However, if you want to explain a case: How about the giant UFO's seen in 1941, by a hundreds of people, that was shot at for 35 min, and was illuminated by 4 powerful spotlights from every direction. You can see its saucer shape in the photograph.
Click to expand...

Fake. Urban legend created by the media. Think Orson Wells and the Martian Chronicles.
 
Possibly an ROV, but I doubt it because of the size, cost, and that it could light up the house and yard as it went over.

Probably real.
 
that’s the most pathetic modern UFO video I have seen! Is it drunken aliens or animated CGI? LMAO indeed!
 
well the fact that its a .ram at low quility so you can't see any good detials and that anyone with a ripped of version of maya animator could make that.
 
WellCookedFetus said:
Here is a nice one made by several college interners over a summer:
Here
Click to expand...

That was a brilliant animation. Compliments to these students. But, umm, where's the UFO? lol

And not to take away from the animators, but it does not even look remotely realistic. It's CGI all the way - I can tell that from a mile.
 
Well you said nothing about ufo in that video, a ifo is close enough. I was just giving a example of how good a cgi can be, not a 10 second clip composite live and CGI video would be nothing. Hey that video you showed look like CGI from 2 miles! and if you did not like my video try that other one up there.
 
Persol said:
how about:
http://www.scifi.com/happens/happens_1_big.mov

The darkness of teh original video makes it easier because relection and the like don't really need to be taken into account. You'll also notice that the trees never actually get lit from behind.
Click to expand...

And you had the gall to call me gullible? You could not explain why you thought the UFO Video was a hoax. You just laughed at it.

I am also laughing at this, but I will explain why as well. It totally looked fake.

1: They are approaching the WTC building, heading directly for the "UFO", looking directly in the direction. Yet they don't notice it in the time it is visible. The acting, and dialogue is atrocious; she is pretending to take pictures with her camera, yet she's holding the camera like she's never held one her in her life.

2: Suddenly she just touches the camera to her eyes, and the next second you hear a "what is that" as if she was scripted to do that routine. It yet get's even worse and funny, when that's immediately followed by a dorkish "Look it's over there" it reminded me of, "is it a bird; is it a plane; no it's superman"

3: The UFO is hilarious! It's a a blob shaped like a frisbee, not that larger than a frisbee in fact. And it waits there, like it's attached to the building, and waiting for a cue. I could actually hear in my mind, "on your marks; get set; go" and the moment she lifts her arm and says "It's over there" - it flies across the sky - the camera fast pans to the right - the blob(UFO) zooms up in a curve, and the camera fast tilts up - and for extra oompth, a sound effect(that they forget to add, when it flew at the start lol)

That was simply awful. Whoever thinks this is a convincing UFO, is an idiot. That would be you Persol. Acting is unnatural and stilted. Camera movement is rehearsed. Sound effects are inconsistent and exaggerated. CGI is plain shite. They don't even have a motion blur when the UFO moves.

And this actually further adds to the credibility of the UFO video in the above post. This was produced by a team of actors, a camera mounted on a tripod with a trained camera man, and post-production work - and actually made it to television.

Meanwhile, the above video, which is natural and realistic, replete with natural vocal reactions, and a proper UFO that travels from a great distance; visibly accelerates across the sky as it gains altitude, including slight motion blur as it does; moves in frame in relation to the movement of camera; increases in size as it nears the camera in correct perspective; shows glimpses of light's around it outer rim as it flies and turns and tilts to change direction; has a pulsulating underglow that lights up the ground; electronic noise as it passes over.

And it's not made it to television, it's not even well known! Actually now I am starting to think it was a UFO after all. If a team of actors, camera men, editors and digital effects artists, including a director(of course) can do such a shit job, and yet still make it to TV. How does an anonymous person, who gains absolutely nothing, armed with a poor camcorder, hoax so many factors and get every variable right.

You going to have to show me a better hoax than that Persol. That was just funny!
 
WellCookedFetus said:
Well you said nothing about ufo in that video, a ifo is close enough. I was just giving a example of how good a cgi can be, not a 10 second clip composite live and CGI video would be nothing. Hey that video you showed look like CGI from 2 miles! and if you did not like my video try that other one up there.
Click to expand...

No, I know how good CGI can be - I saw Titanic, and LOTR :D
What I want you to show me, is a proven hoax of a UFO, that looks convincing. Now don't bullshit, the original video does not look CGI at all. Put your money where your mouth is, and show me a more convincing UFO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top