Have you guys seen this?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 4 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Seriously though, how many of you believe 9/11 was a conspiracy? Or are you just here to debunk conspiracy? I would like to hear from some people who honestly believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy.




posted on May, 4 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Other companies do this kind of commercials, so why not sci fi channel?

Look.

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Yeah okay turning people into chickens in a promotinal piece for a video game is one thing. But this is a different thing all together. I don't see how that is relevant at all.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12.21.12
That is not CG. I know it when I see it, thats what I do.


Are you joking? If not, how do you explain the following?

(1) The most complete versions of the video refer to the Sci-Fi channel. Lots of people remember seeing the video on that channel.

(2) At the end of the video, when the "UFO" flies off emitting smoke, the smoke trail just happens to form the shape of the Sci-Fi channel's logo. A similar effect was part of several other Sci-Fi channel advertisements shown on the Sci-Fi Channel during the same period.

(3) If you closely examine the video you can see one frame in which the "UFO" appears in front of the Twin Towers. In the frames before and after that single frame, the "UFO" is behind the Twin Towers.

(4) If you closely examine the video when the "UFO" emerges from behind the Twin Towers, you can see a gap between the edge of the Twin Towers and the start of the UFO.

(5) The woman in the video just happens to be an actress.

(6) That actress includes the video on her CV as a Sci-Fi channel advert and has commented on her blog about the nonsense written about the video by some within the UFO community. So has her husband.

(7) Numerous other problems are identified in links provided in previous threads here on ATS, including various posts by myself. See the following:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...'
www.abovetopsecret.com...'
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Kind Regards,

Isaac



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I thought it was real when I first saw this a few years ago,
but the girls timing if off, she seems to react too fast.
Also the fact that this, and other similar vids, were available on scifi.com proves it's not authentic.

One of the best CGI for it's time. Still good even by today's standards.

They also had a video where a family's picnic gets interrupted by a swarm of lady bugs.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I just don't think that because the lady suggests that it was fake means that it necessarily is. Think of how many gave us clues about 9/11 and then later retracted their statements.

Obviously the masterminds of 9/11 had an enormous amount of research to conduct. Sci/Fi channel or not, you guys are suggesting that this video clip is completely innocent? I welcome your speculation, I am speculative myself. But I personally have not seen any evidence strong enough to debunk this one. Maybe the video was fake, however the people who made it must have known something beforehand.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Why, because they used one of the most recognizable and prominent landmarks in the US? According to that logic ANY commercial filmed somewhere that later on has something happened means that the people filming knew it was going to happen.

People making commercials are going to look for places people recognize. The WTC was easy for ANYONE to recognize. It made more sense to film there than the Sears Tower, or the Space Needle, or one of the other large buildings, because people may not recognize them right away.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Well the actual Sci/Fi commercial says that the footage was "obtained" by the Sci/Fi channel. It also said get the whole story from the SciFi channel. So whats the whole story??



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by IsaacKoi
 


I have watched the video several times and from what I can tell it is a cigar shaped missile, most likely controlled by a computer. It can lock on a target. It was not behind the WTC but actually launched from inside. There was another one that seems to have been launched from the ground.

Pre 9/11 research was being conducted. At least from what I can tell.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Here is a link to Barbaras original letter to the SciFi channel.

Clearly she is not at this point suggesting that this video is fake.

www.ufocasebook.com...



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Me being a video editor myself I have to agree.

uplink.space.com...




Good questions to ask: Why would a powerful entity want to cover up a UFO sighting? Which powerful entity would do that?

Jerri DeAngelo - Lead Special Effects Creator Adoni Films
Video Analysis of WTC UFO for Real UFOS .com
May 29th 2002
Opinion on authenticity of video file known as WTC UFO.
I am the lead special effects creator for Adoni Productions and Adoni Films.
I have viewed over 600 frames of the video file known as THE WTC UFO. I viewed it many times frame by frame, the file is approximately 20 seconds in length in .mov format rendered at approximately 30 FPS (frames per second)
The video was clearly shot in one take where a 180-degree view of the Manhattan skyline was shot from inside a helicopter.
At various times throughout the video, the helicopter rolls from side to side, the skyline is observed in a manner consistent with a live shot.
As the camera moves or zooms in on an object there is no clear manipulation of the video through a digital effect.
Objects remain consistent with a live panoramic sweep outside and inside the helicopter.
There is no evidence of editing this shot, as to splicing together multiple takes or digital creations.
The sound is synched perfectly to the video.
Certain anomalies appear in the frames that are consistent with an auto focus home use video camera.
The camera used was not a professional level video camera in my opinion, although it did work out very well for this shot.
The shot starts off with a north westerly view of the Manhattan Skyline in which the World Trade Center is clearly visible.
A small object is viewable near the North Tower at the approximate height where the second plane crashed into the WTC on 911.
Once the small object appears on the screen, the female in the video asks what is that while pointing to the small image near the WTC.
The cameraman zooms in and a UFO is seen hovering near the WTC.
Normal auto focus anomalies appear in the frames due to auto focus stabilization abilities the camera obviously has.
The UFO then heads easterly in front of the helicopter, a blurry sequence of frames then appear with blurred images of objects inside and outside the helicopter.
These features are consistent with a continuous live shot made in one take, it would be impossible to correctly blur every object inside and outside the helicopter if this was a created effect.
While such a move could be created by a high priced studio, tell tale signs of editing such a created sequence would be obvious under high resolution.
Such created scene anomalies are not in this sequence of events.
High Resolution analysis of created video or digital effects using even advanced equipment that is available, all show a clear drop into a scene where an object materializes.
At normal viewing speeds these anomalies are not viewable.
And they do not appear in this video.
Here is a dropped in image from Spiderman using THE LATEST GREATEST DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY. It looks great!

Yet, it is easy to see a change in pixelation as soon as you magnify the image a little proving the Spiderman image was dropped into the photo!!

Again, this pixelation difference is NOT IN THE WTC VIDEO!
The cameraman eventually relocates the image at a far distance viewing a north easterly landscape of Manhattan.
Within a few frames the UFO heads to the front of the helicopter where an amazingly clear close-up of the UFO is taken!
The UFO then heads right up into orbit. A view of the UFO heading into orbit is seen since the helicopter has a clear roof.
To summarize, what this video displays is a panoramic view of Manhattan pre-911.
It is a single shot one take view of the Manhattan skyline.
It features a focused north westerly view of Manhattan including the WTC, a blurred northerly view of Manhattan, a focused north easterly view of Manhattan and finally a easterly view of the sky.
Super high resolution analysis of the UFO in many frames shows the outline of the craft has a pixelation degradation consistent with other objects in the frames.
This match is impossible to get consistently in a digital manipulation.
The dropped in object always has a different pixelation degradation at high resolutions compared to the background scene.
While someone could have theoretically taken a helicopter ride in Manhattan PRE 911 and pointed to the EXACT LOCATION where a future video would later be taken of a world famous airplane crash and then digitally dropped a fake UFO into hundreds of frames matching pixelation degradation perfectly in every frame. I doubt this was done or is even possible using the most advanced special effect equipment and computers available today.
The technology to do this manipulation so expertly does not exist, or at least I have never seen or heard of such an advanced piece of equipment.
Also, to have the shot match the target zone of where the second plane crashed, is just so far beyond the realm of chance, that I wouldn't even try to estimate how unlikely it would have been.
In my opinion, this video is clearly an approximately 20 second - one take - one camera shot - of an object navigating at incredible speeds with such precision it can come to within feet of a target and do a 90 degree vertical turn!
This video has no clear digital editing of images.
This video has no clear digital special effects added to it.
It is simply an amazing raw footage of a UFO at a now infamous historical location over the most famous city in the world!
These are some samples of what I mean by High Resolution Pixel Degradation.
This is a normal resolution of the UFO near the WTC.

This is a high resolution close-up of the UFO and the object near it, the WTC. Note how the SQUARE PIXELS and even the color match perfectly. This is what I call pixel degradation. If an image is not altered then the pixelation of objects of similar distance have the same look at high resolutions.

Now here is stealth bomber model I dropped into the photo.

As soon as I view it at high resolution the drop in image does not match the surrounding pixelation degradation.

If this video is fake, I'm sure either Spielberg or Lucas will offer the person a partnership and the video should win an Oscar for Special Effects.
Our advanced but limited technology cannot fake such an video this perfectly yet.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12.21.12
Well the actual Sci/Fi commercial says that the footage was "obtained" by the Sci/Fi channel. It also said get the whole story from the SciFi channel. So whats the whole story??


Ummm... it's an advertisement. They want people to watch the show. Here's a couple more of their videos: www.geocities.com...



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
So has this been debunked or are 9/11 researchers neglecting valuable evidence? Maybe the single most important evidence.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12.21.12
I just don't think that because the lady suggests that it was fake means that it necessarily is.


Well, that arguably addresses part of 1 out of the 6 points I posted above...

What about the other points?



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Well being that Barbaras original letter notifying the SciFi Channel of what she had witnessed I can only assume that the SciFi channel jumped all over it, until 9/11 happened. As for the smoke trail looking like their logo, I must digress. I guess I do believe in coincedence.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12.21.12
As for the smoke trail looking like their logo, I must digress. I guess I do believe in coincedence.


And my fifth point (i.e. "(5) The woman in the video just happens to be an actress") is just another coincidence I suppose?

Well, people reading this thread can form their own views on the merits of your responses to the points I posted above.

By the way, you haven't posted anything relevant to my third and fourth points yet, i.e. the ones repeated below:



(3) If you closely examine the video you can see one frame in which the "UFO" appears in front of the Twin Towers. In the frames before and after that single frame, the "UFO" is behind the Twin Towers.

(4) If you closely examine the video when the "UFO" emerges from behind the Twin Towers, you can see a gap between the edge of the Twin Towers and the start of the UFO.


All the best,

Isaac



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I guess I now believe that she only stated that she was an actress when she retracted her previous statments and claimed this video was a hoax.

The gap, sorry I don't see one. Looks to me like the reflection of the side of the building.

I did notice somethin on the left of the WTC but I can't really tell what it is.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Also just another note from my quote above, the editor claims that the UFO launched from the same level that the WTC was attacked. Could somebody verify this?



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
At the risk of butting in where you guys have a good dialog going on:

The segment was selected by the Sci-Fi channel for the ad spot. They, themselves did not produce it. They may have edited post facto, but it was not their original work.

The clip was originally aired in Mexico (or maybe Guatemala) if I'm not mistaken, on an interview segment with one or more UFO 'experts', it then made the rounds to Japan, I believe. I don't know where they got it from originally (whether it was a hoax or not) but I remember someone commenting that when the Sci-fi channel first aired it, they were upset cause they got no mention. Could have been all BS, but it is a moot point. Almost all commercial broadcast material is a 'production.'



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
This is a good candidate for the object we are acutally seeing in this video, a laser guided missile.

www.army-technology.com...





top topics
 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join