UFO Video - Has This One Been Debunked Yet?

I apologize if this has been posted before, but I came across this video:



Link to video

The way the object blinks out in a flash at the end is interesting. I can't tell if this is CGI or not, but if it's real it would be pretty good evidence.

Any thoughts from our resident video experts?

keeb

I have seen this before, but not sure if it was on these forums. I think I found it on youtube whilst searching for ufo clips.

IMHO, this is a fake, as when it "zips" off, you can clearly see light "dots" surrounding the "craft". This, given the shape of the craft, is impossible, as its saucer shape would mean only half of these lights/energy spots at the most would be visible from any one side view.

It's really well done CGI as far as I am concerned. Of course, with no knowledge of what an intergalactic vessel looks like when it accelerates, I'm open to being proven wrong here!

I think the Italian "air force" ufo is more credible than this one also.

you are years behind, search before you post!

Nothing to see here.

reply to post by williamjklopp


I tried searching for this, but couldn't find a thread on it. Could you please direct me there?

Thanks,

Keeb

Oh yeah that's Godzilla playing frisbee with a genetically modified Chupacabra.

Do you think this is really necessary to debunk? I mean, come on. It's not even worth the effort.

reply to post by Nohup


Indeed, it looks like something the visual effects director of "The Next Generation" would only try if (s)he wanted to lose his/her job.

For years everyone debunked UFO's because no one had a really good picture. Now everything gets debunked 'cause it's too good. Has anyone proven this to be a fake? Has someone come forward claiming to be the artist? Has data corruption been proven?

I like it anyway.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
For years everyone debunked UFO's because no one had a really good picture. Now everything gets debunked 'cause it's too good. Has anyone proven this to be a fake? Has someone come forward claiming to be the artist? Has data corruption been proven?

I like it anyway.

I've been thinking about this for awhile here on ATS. This board has been my only source of "debunking" info on UFO's . I 'm pretty new here and new members are joining everyday. Something like 75 new members a day I think. Anyway, some veterans here immediately dismiss alot of vids as hoaxes or fake or whatever, but new members like myself don't know other members reputations yet and even if we did what makes their opinion truthful. What I'd like to see is some sort of database with known hoaxes and evidence proving the hoax. Does one exist? THis would help reduce the number of repeat, unnecessary threads.

[edit on 5-12-2007 by x-phile]

Originally posted by jackinthebox
For years everyone debunked UFO's because no one had a really good picture. Now everything gets debunked 'cause it's too good.

Too good? What's so good about it?

Go ahead and tell us what makes you think this is particular video is so wonderful and authentic and better than the 100 other similar UFO videos on YouTube.

The length? The clarity? The non-anonymity of the creator (oh, I'm sorry, "witness")? Corroboration by other witnesses and sources? The wonderful Tinkerbell sparkle it gives off when it goes to warp? What?

Enlighten us. Prove us fools.

Or is your attitude really "authentic until proven otherwise?" Really?

[edit on 5-12-2007 by Nohup]

This is the UFO sighting which took place on Aug. 17 2006 in Aug. 17 2006 in Nanjing, China.

IMHO, it a CGI for more than one reason:

the out of focus of the UFO sounds like some kind of "mask" made in order to cover details which may reveal its real origin.

the appearance of the ufo is FLAT, and this has never been a positive clue.

when the focus changes, the building appears more/less sharp, but it does not affect the ufo sharpness, most likely because the ufo has been imposed on a previously filmed video.

when the UFO vanishes, the flash which takes out stills for many frames in the same place, with the same shape and with the same size, instead of following its source, decrease its brightness and reducing its size: we should see a bright stripe instead of a still, since its
supposed movement in the moment of its vanishing is right-left.


Anyway, here there's an accurate analysis by Bruce Maccabee, who has found more "hoax fingerprints"

www.brumac.8k.com...

Conclusion:

This video is suspect because the UFO image focus does not change as much as the building focus (the focal changes
should be the same if the UFO were far away, like the building). It is also suspect because the UFO image size
does not change as much as the building image where the camera "zooms" in or out. And finally, the "construction"
of the UFO image does not seem consistent with what might be expected from a symmetric circular craft. Of course,
UFOnauts can make unsymmetric vehicles, one supposes, so perhaps this is not as important as the issues related to defocus and magnification change.
Without further information that could provide reasonable explanations for the "fingerprints of a hoax"
this video has to be considered a probable hoax.

www.brumac.8k.com...



From UFOcasebook ...

China UFO Filmed
( Editor's Note: In my own opinion, this video is a hoax. However, I have had so many people write me about encoding it to a format that can be saved and played on their computers, I have done so. In the Windows version, I have slowed down the last sequence so that you can see the
flashing lights, as the craft shoots away to the left side of screen...thanks B J)
Here are the details that I have of the report:
Nanjing – On August 17, 2006, a disc shaped object was filmed above an apartment building as it moved slowly across the top of the building. As the craft reached the highest point of the building, it suddenly showed seven white lights evenly displaced around the outer edge of the
craft.
These lights dimmed quickly as one large light lighted up and surrounded the craft before it abruptly disappeared.

Thanks to quickie1127

www.ufocasebook.com...

(Right click and save target as...)
Download in .wmv format
www.ufocasebook.com...

Download in .mpeg format
www.ufocasebook.com...




[edit on 5/12/2007 by internos]

reply to post by internos


Thanks internos. I guess a little googling on my part could have produced the UFO casebook site.



Anyway, thanks for not flaming me

reply to post by internos



Thanks Internos, for the detailed info. A star for you!

I am no expert in cgi or photography, but your analysis seems reasonable. I guess this one could safely be called a fake, unless anyone can prove otherwise.

Oh well, back to the hunt!

Keeb

Originally posted by internos

IMHO, it a CGI for more than one reason:

the out of focus of the UFO sounds like some kind of "mask" made in order to cover details which may reveal its real origin.

We do not know what exotic propulsion sounds like.

the appearance of the ufo is FLAT, and this has never been a positive clue.

A "non-clue" is evidence of nothing.

when the focus changes, the building appears more/less sharp, but it does not affect the ufo sharpness, most likely because the ufo has been imposed on a previously filmed video.

This might simply be because the auto-focus is trying to focus on the building, but isn't sure what to do with multiple depths of field. Depending on the distance of the object, shifts in focus of nearby objects may simply be more pronounced to the naked eye and far more subtle on the distant object.

when the UFO vanishes, the flash which takes out stills for many frames in the same place, with the same shape and with the same size, instead of following its source, decrease its brightness and reducing its size: we should see a bright stripe instead of a still, since its
supposed movement in the moment of its vanishing is right-left.

This analyses precludes the possiblity of interdiemensional travel, and how such a transfer would appear. Maybe it literally was shifting right to left in the third deminsion, while also desintegrating out of this dimension at the same time.

Having said all of that, I do agree that this probably is a hoax but that it has not been completely disproven. More to the point, what we find "unbelievable" when we see it, may simply be the result of our own biases as earth-bound meatbots in the third dimension.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
We do not know what exotic propulsion sounds like.

You are free to imagine whatever you want, behind that blurry mask.

A "non-clue" is evidence of nothing.

WHO talked about "evidence?" You have been the first in this thread

This might simply be because the auto-focus is trying to focus on the building, but isn't sure what to do with multiple depths of field. Depending on the distance of the object, shifts in focus of nearby objects may simply be more pronounced to the naked eye and far more subtle on the distant object.

I disagree, and anyway you theory does not explain this still.

Does it?

This analyses precludes the possiblity of interdiemensional travel, and how such a transfer would appear. Maybe it literally was shifting right to left in the third deminsion, while also desintegrating out of this dimension at the same time.
Having said all of that, I do agree that this probably is a hoax but that it has not been completely disproven. More to the point, what we find "unbelievable" when we see it, may simply be the result of our own biases as earth-bound meatbots in the third dimension.

I've simply stated that IN MY OPINION it's a CGI, and i've explained my reasons: and yes, my analysis precludes the "interdimentional stuff", because i tend to rule out what we have seen, so far, only in sci-fi films because before to consider an interdimensional spaceship as a possible option, its existance needs to be PROVEN.
Can you prove it?

With the speed it zipped and disappeared, it has to produce a sonic boom.

This is the problem these days with some of the UFO sightings we get, If they're to good they're CGI and If they're poor quality they're poor hoaxes.

It really is getting difficult to differentiate between a good quality real life video and a CGI.

Usually though the CGI are to good to be true and my gut instinct usually tells the CGI'S from the genuine footage.

I think this video is interesting and I can't say for certain if it's real UFO or a CGI but for me it looks to good to be true so I'm swaying to a hoax.

Reply to internos:

Your analyses is not illogical, incomplete perhaps, but not illogical. Furthermore, I do agree that this is probably not the real thing we are seeing here. I think I might be getting to abstract.

Can you prove that the sky is blue? It is only blue because everyone else seems to agree what blue is. I like to disagree with the masses whenever I can.

[edit on 12/5/0707 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Reply to internos:

Your analyses is not illogical, incomplete perhaps, but not illogical. Furthermore, I do agree that this is probably not the real thing we are seeing here. I think I might be getting to abstract.

Can you prove that the sky is blue? It is only blue because everyone else seems to agree what blue is. I like to disagree with the masses whenever I can.

[edit on 12/5/0707 by jackinthebox]

I know it's incomplete (i'd say "succint"), it's purposely so, since many miles of words have alread been written about this video, and i've provided a link to a page which contains a complete analysis by an an optical physicist employed by the U.S. Navy.
Please don't think that i'm happy when a video turns out to be CGI, but this one is fiiiiishy to say the least
This is the problem that we're facing now: this video has been compared with the one in Bulgaria, but in my opinion they pertain to two different categories:
this one shows a blurry shape which shows some lights just before vanishing, that one was spinning around its vertical axys, totally different imho. And the Haiti one has been debunked basically because its author didn't dedicate the time it required to create a perfect environnment and someone noticed the palm trees similarities with the Vue 6 ones, but soon or later will come something made better, and we'll see.
For this reason, IMHO, the real thing should have the media coverage, many witnesses, more videos from different angles, pictures, and so on.
And... who knows, maybe this one is genuine and i'm completely wrong...


[edit on 5/12/2007 by internos]

Reply to internos:

(why isn't my reply key working?! Grrr)

How will we know the real onw when we see it? That's really the point I am trying to make. Heck, even without CGI. A real UFO could fly over the Superbowl and half the people would think it was a hologram or something.

But as I said, I do agree with you that this is probably not the "real deal." Furthermore, I don't think you would be the sort who was still in denial about UFO's if one landed on your house. May the truth find you if you want it to.

[edit on 12/5/0707 by jackinthebox]