UFO Video Captured By Homeland Security Analyzed

I mean if Clarke wrote the report...2001

a reply to: Phage

Because the first thing most people say when you disagree with them because of facts is "that person is a shill/dis-info agent"

a reply to: TrueMessiah

originally posted by: raymundoko
Because the first thing most people say when you disagree with them because of facts is "that person is a shill/dis-info agent"

a reply to: TrueMessiah

What facts? Issac just called you out on a lack of these "facts".
I've never been called a shill or dis-informant and I've had plenty of disagreements here. NEVER would I subscribe to that title, I don't care if no one EVER agrees with me.

a reply to: TrueMessiah

I've never been called a shill or dis-informant

I have.
On a fairly regular basis.

a reply to: Choice777

- you're just a deciving little disinfo troll.
- you've just lied, and i thin you should be banned imediately.
- YOU LYING COWARD.
- everyone skimming the thread can see what a lier you are.

Grrrrrr we're an angry little guy aren't we? Your fellow believers should be proud.

Your post doesn't really deserve a response, but I'll respond anyway. As I've already said, a gif isn't going to do justice to an already poor quality video. I've made an avi of the section I'm trying give an example of but it's not worth the trouble that it's taking to upload it to Photobucket. I'll try it again tomorrow if I have the chance. Click on the YouTube link below and the video starts at 2:32 just before it hits the wave. Make sure the quality is set to at least 480. You have to watch it several times in full screen. You see the object come in as one piece, hit the wave disturbing the water, and rise a bit and then separates in two.
YouTube

Here are the avi quality frames from right to left showing the moment when it hits and skips over the wave with the small wake it creates:


If this object is creating a physical reaction by hitting the water as it seems to show in the video, that throws a wrench into the theory that it magically submerges with no wake or motion of the water. Also as I've pointed out, it does the same "submerging" over land.

a reply to: funbox

There are a couple of points in the video of this that are obviously at different focal lengths saved link to pdf going to read tonight on the method they used to confirm size.

I have a very big interest in UFO sightings but I'm not good at being able to tell what's doctored and what isn't as I've never even used photoshop lol...

Can someone who perhaps has a knowledge of cameras and spotting fakes explain what makes this recording so special? Again, I'm not exper and everything about it looks fuzzy, grainy and very much like a fake. Thanks

Nobody called me out on facts. That user doesn't like me calling these people hoaxers. The facts of the video are the only facts I worry about and I'm correct about those.

a reply to: TrueMessiah

a reply to: stosh64

Note the time stamp in the upper left hand corner. There are major jump cuts but the time flows continuously. Someone has superimposed drone tracking data onto edited footage of a very small object flying over land, then diving into the water. The person who took the original footage knew very well that it was a bird and then processed it to look like IR video and added the tracking data. [HOAX!]

Edit to add: Notice that it passes directly between the camera and a car. It is much, much smaller than an automobile, and therefore flying at a very low altitude at a relatively low speed. The impression of speed is due to the panning of the camera over the landscape.

originally posted by: raymundoko
I fully believe the faulty analysis was intentional. It's Morristown all over again for MUFON.

The fact a sci-fi fantasy author who wants to write a new book is behind it is even more proof for me.

a reply to: Phage

Edit: I mean, any person with eyes can see this object never goes underwater and isn't going the 70-90MPH the report assumes. I don't see how this panel could come together and all agree on the above without intentionally lying.

It is doing at least 70 mph when it goes over the road with vehicles.

Incorrect. That is an illusion caused from the circling plane. I linked a video earlier that shows the same illusion of a skyscraper appearing to move through a city.

a reply to: Choice777

a reply to: IsaacKoi

As one who followed the unravelling of what was, with hindsight, the most incredible attempt at money grabbing in the history of ufology (personal opinion), I for one am looking forward to the "group" insight on this video.

An unbiased multidisciplinary approach to this evidence is precisely what is needed here, as a counterpoint to that already given, but deemed unacceptable from some quarters and what I am sure you as a collective will provide.

Excellent news sir.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Why do you assume the skeptics in this thread are biased? I believe in Aliens. I want them to be real. However, my scientific education and background makes me approach evidence from a different perspective of just blindly believing right away.

a reply to: raymundoko

The only thing I have been advocating in this thread is that, if the information provided is lacking in veracity, then someone should prove that with the same degree of determination as that shown by the authors of the report.

Not just say "It is wrong because I say so".

Edited to add: You seem to have misinterpreted my use of unbiased as relating to the people in this thread. It was, in fact, related to the opinion of some in this thread about the authors of the report who are, after all, those who have been called hoaxers because of their supposed bias, right?

a reply to: Jonjonj

But what you seem to be missing is the report has all of its bells and whistles to distract from the truth the video shows.

1) The video clearly shows the object never enters the water
2) The video does NOT show the object is moving very fast

This is easily proven by simply watching the video and taking stills of frames as has been done both in this thread and the one from last year.

The report HAS to attempt to look like all this scientific effort was put into it in order to dupe the typical believer for web clicks, especially future web clicks. The problem is the report is based on WRONG assumptions.

One doesn't have to be biased one way or the other to tell that the report has an extremely faulty basis. One DOES have to be biased in order to overlook that.

a reply to: raymundoko

But I am not prepared to take your word which is simply your opinion. You repeatedly say that it is OBVIOUS etc. I disagree with your point of view. I welcome the extra insight that will be gleaned from a fresh perspective on this report. Do you not?

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: raymundoko

The only thing I have been advocating in this thread is that, if the information provided is lacking in veracity, then someone should prove that with the same degree of determination as that shown by the authors of the report.

Not just say "It is wrong because I say so".

All you need to do is pay attention to the time stamp in the upper left hand corner of the video. It runs continuously even though the video itself contains jump cuts, therefore it, and all the other "data" was added later. That is direct proof that the video is not what it is claimed to be. It does n't take six hundred pages of woo to prove that, just a few minutes of paying attention to the actual video.

a reply to: DJW001

Are you sure that the jumps you refer to are not zoom and filter changes?

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: DJW001

Are you sure that the jumps you refer to are not zoom and filter changes?

Do the read outs indicate zoom and filter changes? There sure is a lot of stuff going on. Why isn't the camera facing forward if it is navigational? Why all the navigational data if it is a separate, non-navigational surveillance camera? It sure looks cool, though.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Oh, and according to the clock it is around one o'clock in the morning. Unless that's Zulu time, in which case it would be 9:00 at night in the Caribbean. Nothing in this video adds up.