Most certainly a fake. When the camera zooms out it pans down and to the left. Why not zoom strait in and strait out? Why? because off to the right is a rig holding the UFO up on fishing line.

Also on a side note why does a UFO always have to be round? Technically speaking isn't a round ship harder to build then a rectangular one? Just curious why every one thinks they have to be round. I personally like the Vogon ships

I finally looked at the video.

In the pulled-back, wide-screen shot....the object is no more distance hazed than the rooftops of the next houses...and it's just as much in focus. And I swear that bird flew behind the object.

The videographer should work on his forced perspective techniques....

Don't know what to make of this...if it's cgi its quite nice... I like the Retro-Look of the saucer. If it's 'real' one has to ask them why they never update their designs from their 50s Style Saucers.


But the Birds... I know birds are always frightened of planes and helos and fly AWAY instead of towards the object as seen in the Video.

One the other hand one reason for them not being frightened could be that this device is almost silent and not nearly as noise as conventional craft.
But for all i know things don't fly by magic... and some magnetic propulsion device would involve high currents and a low humming sound as sometimes reported from the famous Black Triangels.

Originally posted by MrPenny
I finally looked at the video.

And I swear that bird flew behind the object.

The videographer should work on his forced perspective techniques....

Nope... that bird is flying over/above at a further distance in the background from where that object is located -- the bird does NOT fly behind that object and it does NOT fly in front of it either. The object is more IN FOCUS than that bird that's flying in an area that's above it that's further off into the distance in this video.
One can see this very clearly when viewing this vid in a video editor. Below are two frame-shots from that section of this clip showing the location of that bird. It's flying in a straight line OVER/ABOVE that object.






[edit on 19-4-2008 by Palasheea]

To me it just doesn't look right, like the guy a few posts above said, its no more out of focus than the houses in the shots and even when he zooms in it doesn't look 'big' enough you know? Just doesn't look right. Not the most technial explanation i know lol.

Originally posted by Palasheea
Below are two frame-shots from that section of this clip showing the location of that bird. It's flying in a straight line OVER/ABOVE that object.

Thanks for the frame-shots. The bird zips by pretty quick and the stills helps to freeze it a bit. So, it looks to me like the bird is just as focused as the object. I don't think that object is much larger than the bird.

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by Palasheea
Below are two frame-shots from that section of this clip showing the location of that bird. It's flying in a straight line OVER/ABOVE that object.

Thanks for the frame-shots. The bird zips by pretty quick and the stills helps to freeze it a bit. So, it looks to me like the bird is just as focused as the object. I don't think that object is much larger than the bird.

NO, the object is more IN FOCUS than the bird... this clear when you view it in an editor.

But in any case, it IS important to note that that bird is not flying in front of that object or in back of it.

Nevertheless, I'm still not seeing that that object is CGI but hoping an expert can analyze this clip to determine if it is or not.
Also, the bird is flying further off into the distance from where that object is located as far as I can tell but could be wrong about that too. Just saying that so far, this is what it's looking like to me right now.

But you're right, even though the bird is flying a little further off into the distance, it still allows us some perspective on the actual size of that object.



[edit on 19-4-2008 by Palasheea]

Originally posted by Palasheea
NO, the object is more IN FOCUS than the bird... this clear when you view it in an editor.

Well, I was allowing for the motion blur of the bird. A non-moving object would be more in focus than a relatively fast moving object. Nevertheless, they certainly appear to be on the same vertical plane....neither one farther from, or closer to, the camera. I think the object is hung on a thin line or wire.

[edit on 19-4-2008 by MrPenny]

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by Palasheea
NO, the object is more IN FOCUS than the bird... this clear when you view it in an editor.

Well, I was allowing for the motion blur of the bird. A non-moving object would be more in focus than a relatively fast moving object. Nevertheless, they certainly appear to be on the same vertical plane....neither one farther from, or closer to, the camera. I think the object is hung on a thin line or wire.

[edit on 19-4-2008 by MrPenny]

I'm not seeing them on the same plane but that object could be on a line or wire that's been somehow erased from the original clip. Anything is possible and because the sky is so uniformly white, it would be much easier to do that.

On the other hand, that bird (it's flying in at an angle first from a further distance... ) would have possibly collided with that wire if one was there... this is one reason why I don't think the object and the bird are on the same plane.

But the above paragraph may lend support that the object is CGI too. If the wire was there, the bird would have flown into it ... or dangerously near it but in the clip, we are seeing a bird zipping by effortlessly...


[edit on 19-4-2008 by Palasheea]

Originally posted by Palasheea
that object could be on a line or wire that's been somehow erased from the original clip.

A suitably light, thin line wouldn't even need erasing or editing. I've run fishing line from tree to tree before and discovered I could not see it against the sky, despite standing directly under where it simply had to be. Fishing line is engineered to be invisible under certain conditions, and an overcast or washed out sky is exactly one of those conditions.

It would have been an astonishing coincidence for a bird to run into a line with a diameter as small as .008".



[edit on 19-4-2008 by MrPenny]

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by Palasheea
that object could be on a line or wire that's been somehow erased from the original clip.

A suitably light, thin line wouldn't even need erasing or editing. I've run fishing line from tree to tree before and discovered I could not see it against the sky, despite standing directly under where it simply had to be. Fishing line is engineered to be invisible under certain conditions, and an overcast or washed out sky is exactly one of those conditions.

It would have been an astonishing coincidence for a bird to run into a line with a diameter as small as .008".



[edit on 19-4-2008 by MrPenny]

But still, in an editor, we should still see some tonal variations of that line and the light reflecting off of it when using various features in the editor to see those things better but so far, nothing is showing up anywhere in this vid when doing that analysis.
Just saying that we would be seeing some tonal variations there if any line was there... so far, there's no line.

Also, no, it would not be an astonishing coincidence if the bird were to fly into that line lol... good try though Mr. Penny!

[edit on 19-4-2008 by Palasheea]

another fake video in my opinion looks like cgi.
really man people that make videos like this just denounce ufo sightings to be honest its pathetic and people that make these videos just make the case if aliens exist more of a joke.

A serius analyst would laugh at the idea to analyze this video, unless the author would provide its unaltered version:
and perhaps he would also laugh at the idea to make a comparison between a static object and a moving one, especially if the framerate is unknown, the distances of the objects are unknown, the nature of the objects are unknown, the material of the surface of the objects are unknown, and so on.
But you can bet that Jamie Maussan will certificate it as genuine after watching it one time on youtube.

Originally posted by Palasheea
In fact, if a line was there or even if it was somehow erased in an editor, some indication of that line or any indication of tampering to erase it would be EVEN MORE noticeable in later generations from the original.. especially when it's also one that's gone through a You Tube conversion to their flash format...

Can you expound on that? How can details become more ... er... detailed after successive generations? My life-long experience with recorded sound (and my anemic experience with video) tell me that clarity is lost with each generation.

Originally posted by internos
A serius analyst would laugh at the idea to analyze this video, unless the author would provide its unaltered version:
and perhaps he would also laugh at the idea to make a comparison between a static object and a moving one, especially if the framerate is unknown, the distances of the objects are unknown, the nature of the objects are unknown, the material of the surface of the objects are unknown, and so on.
But you can bet that Jamie Maussan will certificate it as genuine after watching it one time on youtube.

It's the same old problem and these are problems BIG TIME because number 1, we don't have the original and number 2, the videographer has yet to show up here for a chat.

If his clip is for real, no matter how many people here try to debunk it, he would be here in this forum doing his best to show that it's real. This is what people do when they know that what's showing in their video is real and not CGI or something that's been faked in some way.

So common sense tells us that he's hiding something and that's why he is not coming here to chat with us.

The ufo appears to be black and white footage. The rest appears to be color footage. The odd blinking lights in shades of gray on the bottom of the ufo are why I say this.