posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 11:27 AM
There are plus's and minus's to this footage.
First, it does appear to be in the location he claims to have filmed it in. He's defintely got the range in the front of the house to track a
reasonable fast object across the sky for the period of time he tracks it.
Second, the bugs flying around and in front of the camera lead credence to the footage, since there are streetlights directly in the field of view for
Third, the object does appear to go behind clouds or through clouds, eliminating any more earthly reasons like slow moving bugs from the street
First, Its just a "light" ball. There doesn't appear to be any substance of form of any fuselage etc. This can be faked with any amount of laser
beams on the market today reflected off the clouds.
Second, Quality. The footage itself is of poor quality, as can be seen at the end of him filming himself. Its not smooth, and there's alot of
skipping/video shearing. Poor quality is a good medium to cover one's editing techinques. Putting a ball of light into a video pan of the sky
isn't rocket science for anybody with Windows Movie Maker.
Third, No references in the sky. No other planes, no powerlines, no trees, no horizon. You can see bit of a roofline at the end, and you don't know
what it is until later footage showing off his front yard. This is an artifact from where it was filmed, so its not intentional. But it also leaves
us with nothing to compare the object too.
Second Night video:
Plus's: There's at least other stars for comparison.
First, Poor quality again
Second, the editing and the jumping around don't make any sense. Without seeing the raw unedited footage, there's no good reference for what shot
came first, or second, or if they are even the same.
Third, Its not out of the realm of faking, the moving/jumping light that seems to leave a trail or expand defintely reminds me of the impression
certain lasers or lights can leave on a video.
So my two cents, its got some good points but its not the best video I've seen. It defintely won't prove anything.
And if the guy has seen "1000s" of UFO's, one would think he could muster up some better shots and better equipment by now. Maybe some panoramic
shots of the entire view instead of zoomed in following shots. This reminds me more of completely unplanned "I'm on vacation there's a UFO!"
shots, not somebody in his front yard who is use to seeing stuff on a regular basis.