Certainly, everyone has their opinions as to whether or not something "looks right" when comparing CGI to real life. And the lower the quality of
the video, the easier it may be to make CGI appear realistic. The more noise, the more our brains fill in the gaps to make it real.
But regardless what it looks like, it's still nothing but mildly entertaining junk until a couple of basic, fundamental questions are answered:
1) What is the identity of the person who first took/supplied the video? Who are they? If we don't know, then the whole thing goes right into the
trash. This is the most fundamental question everyone should ask, and if there's no good answer for it, then all the other speculation about whether
it "looks real" or not is pointless.
If I showed up on this board with a doctor's report and x-rays that said you personally had cancer, what would be your first response? That it
doesn't "look like a real x-ray?" No! You'd ask, "Where does this report come from? Who says I have cancer!" If you wouldn't accept such a
report without knowing where it came from about your cancer, why on Earth would you simply accept a fuzzy video of a UFO without bothering to ask
where the stupid thing came from?
2) Does ANYTHING else exist relating to this thing? Other video or photographic material? Documentation? Blueprints? Testimony from the pilots or
mechanics (human or alien), or maybe some government officials of some kind? A piece of the thing? A photo of a flattened patch of grass where it
may have landed?
Anything at all?
Because if there isn't, then you might want to ask why. You may wish to speculate the reason there isn't a single shred of other evidence is
because it's all very top secret and not even a tiny bit of it has leaked out, other than this lousy video of the thing being flown in
broad
daylight (think about that logic). In other words, assume the existence of such other evidence, then assume some other things about why it's not
available. Just keep stacking assumptions. Or you might want to just realize that the reason none of the hypothetical evidence is available is
because it
doesn't exist, and the flying saucer only exists in some moderately clever individual's hard drive.
Which makes more sense?
Without answers to some of these basic questions, then it
doesn't matter if the video is "real" or CGI or a figment of your imagination.
It's just mildly entertaining junk.
[edit on 23-4-2007 by SuicideVirus]