UFO: Videos

what Did I not tell you, ok explain to me what makes the scifi channle one a hoax but the other one real?
 
WCF, do you find it hard to read?

You often ask me to "explain", "answer", "give evidence" and when I do, you ask me the same question again. Either you're just being silly, or you have serious holes in your comprehension.

I have already explained at lengths why I think the sci fi channel one is a hoax, and why I think the other is possibly real. Now, you said to me, and I quote:

that’s the most pathetic modern UFO video I have seen! Is it drunken aliens or animated CGI? LMAO indeed!
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Now, as I said, show me a convincing UFO you've seen. Why do I have to repeat myself to your kind all the time?
 
crazymikey said:
WCF... Why do I have to repeat myself to your kind all the time?
Click to expand...

Why do you; when you know that information control is rampat. Even to the extent of selective editing posts and threads. Even to the extent with editing some posts and not others; also a tactic to precipitate what they are calling in-fighting or to give the appearance of "in-fighting".
LOL
:D
 
crazymikey said:
Now, as I said, show me a convincing UFO you've seen. Why do I have to repeat myself to your kind all the time?
Click to expand...
Pleas show me a convinicing video of blue midgets... otherwise I'm going to use the smurfs as proof.

Your arguments seem to be getting weaker. We pointed out problems with the video you posted and you said 'show me a convincing one'... which doesn't at all change the original complaints.
 
No, that is not the point WCF. The point is a proven hoax, that is convincing. I'm still waiting for you to post one. You did after all claim, the video I posted, was the worst UFO video you've ever seen; and anyone could make that with maya animator etc - Then show me better :)

So far, you have not lived up to your own words. Does this mean, you were bullshitting all along?
 
Last edited:
WCF, actually the burden of proof is on you: You made a claim, that so far, you have not supported. It seems like you think, you have no burden, when in fact, even the negative claims bear equal burden.

These were your claims, and I quote:

"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"

"that’s the most pathetic modern UFO video I have seen!"

Now prove them, or, eat your own words ;)
 
FieryIce said:
Why do you; when you know that information control is rampat. Even to the extent of selective editing posts and threads. Even to the extent with editing some posts and not others; also a tactic to precipitate what they are calling in-fighting or to give the appearance of "in-fighting".
LOL
:D
Click to expand...

Yes, I will not continue to repeat myself. However, dealing with these pseudoskeptics is quite easy - you just ask them to support their arguments, and they either run away or try and evade the request. If you look above, one is even trying to hide behind the burden of proof, not even realizing, he bears the burden of his own claims.

However, from now on, I am going to deal with them, with a no-bullshit policy. They either deal head-on with the cases I present them, or I'll just dismiss them on the grounds of having nothing.
 
Last edited:
Can I just point something out here?

Before the "UFO" comes towards the screan, its obviously a smooth disc-shaped shuttle.
As the "UFO" starts coming towards the camera, the view of the spaceship changes and you can see a small "antenna" coming out of the top of the UFO.
When the "UFO" pratically hits the camer, you see that this "Antenna" is coming off the screen and is completely visible, even though you see the bottom side of the UFO. Why didn't you see this "Antenna" before especially when the angle would have made it perfectly visible? Lol I think that's a rope they forgot to cover up.

Also, if you view towards the last second, you see the "UFO" stop in midair for a second and wobble like a ball on string. Weird effect don't you think?
 
crazymikey
Registered User (710 posts) 04-18-04, 04:42 AM
edit | reply
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%.
Click to expand...

Also, if you view towards the last second, you see the "UFO" stop in midair for a second and wobble like a ball on string. Weird effect don't you think?
Click to expand...

It wobbles on two -occasions - when it changes direction, and when it swoops over the camera. This in itself is not conclusive proof for it being a hoax. UFO's, as often reported, are known to wobble and change direction and speed erratically. However, if it was indeed attached to a string, thus the UFO being a model(a very large one at that with detailed features and electronics) how do you explain:

1: The great distance between the UFO model and the camera initially
2: The UFO model flying through the sky relatively smoothely, and visibly accelerating across the sky in bursts at a rapid rate of speed, and gaining altitude.
3: Anonymous and relatively unknown hoaxer

I am not saying it is not a hoax. I am saying, there is little to suggest it is.
 
1: The great distance between the UFO model and the camera initially
2: The UFO model flying through the sky relatively smoothely, and visibly accelerating across the sky in bursts at a rapid rate of speed, and gaining altitude.
3: Anonymous and relatively unknown hoaxer
Click to expand...

A crane + A man made UFO + Rope + Accelerating frame rates + A fanatic = Your UFO movie.

As for the wobbling, yes it is logical that it would wobble when it changes direction. But imagine it being attached to rope. Simple momentum would have easily caused the same effect. As for it stopping and wobbeling back and forth, that also seems to be an effect of momentum + instability. As for the anonymouse sender, it can easily be a fanatic whom thought that by doing something "different" may change the worlds view on Aliens.
 
A crane + A man made UFO + Rope + Accelerating frame rates + A fanatic = Your UFO movie.
Click to expand...

Yikes, sounds like you have a game-plan on hoaxing a UFO sighting ;) Yet, with all those arrangements, expect it cost a lot, and take a lot of time, effort, and dedication.
However, this does not in the slightest explain the above case: a life size UFO model attached by a rope to a giant crane(which would have to be digitally removed) in motion would not move smoothely across the sky(it would jerk and wobble) thus it would most certainly not be able to accelerate the UFO model rapidly across the sky in seconds while gaining altitude simutaneously(laws of physics) and then swing it down from several yards(causing a complete tilt to the left) and shoot it over the camera in seconds - and especially - all in one continuous movement! It would put Hitchcock to shame.

No, there is NO accelerated frame rate. The frame, the frame rate and the aspect ratio are constant from start to finish, with barely any zooming. It is the UFO that is accelerating across the skies in bursts(with motion blurs).

The final fact going against your theory, which involves dramatic cost and logistics, and time, and determination - is that the UFO hoaxer is completely anonymous, and further more, the video is relatively unknown. No one, after expending so much of their own capitol, and arranging such an elaborate hoax, would just leave their work to rot in the dark. To appreciate this, you can consider the "sci-fi hoax" prepared by a team of actors, cameramen, post production and digitial artists, and widely circulated - yet so poorly executed.

Therefore, considering all the facts, your theory, is too weak, and does not explain the video at all.
 
Last edited:
mikey - I enjoy reading your posts so don't take this as an attack but merely questions.

- who's to say this wasn't made by a professional or semi-professional animator with some spare time on their hands now LOTR and Star wars are finished? ;)
They would have the experience, access to the equipment and it would explain the anonymity.

Besides, if its real, where is the usual EMR interference that is claimed as the reason most UFO pics are fuzzy? Or do you only use that theory for the fuzzy videos and forget about it for this one?

Also, the voice you hear in the video is pretty casual considering what he's "just seen".

...and... wouldn't it be human nature to turn around and continue videoing the saucer as it flew away?

also, watch the shadows of the trees. they should elongate towards the camera as it approaches.

It is a very good job but I dont think its real.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top