ufo 2008

hi.
I am new here but had to ask if this is a real ufo or cgi.
tried to search ufo paris but found nothing..
www.youtube.com...
and another

www.youtube.com...



[edit on 3-8-2008 by dashar]

cant view the first video edit... ok i see you fixed the link,

interesting triangle that looks to good to be true so i will wait to hear the experts on this one.

second one is clearly a bird and you can see the wings flapping...

[edit on 3-8-2008 by easynow]

did a search for paris ufo and paris triangle but did not find anything discussing this particular video ? maybe someone else can find something on it ?

it seems like the camera man was actually trying to film this is the impression that i got but the clip sure is short... why only a couple minutes of footage ?

well still waiting to hear some other opinions on this.

thks for reply easynow .yes i also thought to good to be true thats why i posted .
im still trying to find my wayround ats at the moment. . i thought poss clip from a film ???

reply to post by dashar



i was certain that this was discussed already here on ATS but like i said the search results for me didn't find anything and sometimes these threads are labeled with titles that are different then the keywords of the subject.

i did find this on the Paris triangle search...


www.youtube.com...
YouTube - UFO by NIGHT

The UFO by night footage has become one of my all time fav UFO video's, it was debunked here on ATS in the normal two min CGI comments way, however different footage appeared a while later shot from the shuttle, they where filming the booster falling back to earth, when an object very very similar appears coming from the clouds, the camera was turned away so it was out of view.

That combined with the UFO by night footage got me intrigued, i can never say it was real, because i know nothing about Photoshop or anything similar, took me days to do my crappy avatar using Gimp, anyhow as i said it became one of my favs.

As for the Op footage im sure ive seen it on ATS before, and there if my memory serves me right was a split decision over the validity of it, impressive at best, and IMO these things need further investigation, and not just an instant opinion, some UFO sightings are investigated for decades, but more recently they are becoming lost because of instant opinion.

More recently some of these video's have began to be looked at again, which is what is needed, yeah there is a lot of crap, but these particular video's deserve a little more time IMO.

after study this more i think its real the way the light bubble comes alive it flikrs to real for me.
i might add that i def think this is us in origin but bck engi because of the tail stabilisers.

[edit on 27-9-2009 by dashar]

Yes, that first video appeared on ATS before, and was considered CGI, but I don't remember any details, I have to look for it.

Edit: I have found this thread, but this isn't the one I was looking for.

[edit on 27/9/2009 by ArMaP]

In the first video, the movement of the camera seems very unnatural to me. It doesn't feel like the movement I would expect from a person viewing such a spectacular event. I think it's interesting, but I am very unsure if it is real or not. It could be though, I don't know.

On the second video, that is very interesting, and if it was CGI, I think there would have been more effort put into it. Of course times are different and some people will believe a UFO more if it is more ambiguous and less of a clear shot, simply due to previous fraudsters. This could just be another fraud set up to give us the impression it is real, regardless of it's quality.

Anyway, I don't know if either is real, but it's pretty interesting. For me to believe in the validity of a video of a UFO however, there are two things I really look for.

The first thing is the reaction of the person filming. Of course, everyone is different, but I think the overall reaction to give in sight of such a clear UFO is amazement and excitement. I don't think I would be dead quiet.

Secondly, where the UFO is spotted is another thing. If it is simply spotted by a single person in the sky, it does not give me more of an impression that one that is taken with other people who show just as much excitement and amazement as you do. This does not mean that the first case is false, it just means that I would put my money more on the second one than the first.

Anyway, I can't disprove either video, so either could be true or false. I don't know.

Anyway, thanks for the video. Good thread.

I applaud JuneJune for being so diplomatic and nice about it, but from a member who has come to see the UFO & Aliens forum succumb to Youtube videos, pseudo-religious/new agey nonsense and outright ignorance I don't have the patience anymore.

The first video is painfully fake. Seriously people, if you can't see how fake that video is refrain from posting any more videos as you clearly don't even have the skill to spot the most rudimentary fakes.

The second video is, as the majority of videos posted here, useless. Yes the video does show an object. And? It could be anything! The quality of the footage is pretty low, we don't know how far the object is from the camera, and so on. Like I said - it's useless.

The author spent so much time putting the footage through different filters and for what? What does it show in those filters that it doesn't in the original filter? An object and its trajectory. Great! That proves it! Alien visitation is real!

*sigh*

I have to agree with Converge. First one is painfully fake! Laughably fake. It further dispoints me to see so many that are keen to giving this type of rubbish the benefit of a doubt.

I use Adobe, Vue, Maya and a few other programs, I am familiar with compositing, camera tracking, editing, 3d modeling, 3d texture mapping, using Mental Ray.....but even if I didn't know any of that, I would still be able to tell you this type of crap if FAKE. Here is a hint, use reason, logic and common sense......no need for video editing skills or understanding. In fact, you can tell this video is FAKE without even including an opinion on the quality of it alone.

And the second is as usless as the millions of lights in the night sky videos people drool over around here.

Stuff like this illustrates the sad state this subject is in, both from the folks who get their jollies faking it and by the folks who get their jollies believing it is real.

reply to post by converge


We don't need anyone telling people new to Ufology they shouldn't post videos they don't understand.

By all means bring them here and deny ignorance by learning how these things are made.

You, converge, were "new" once, and I bet you were taken in by one or two items before you learned the ropes just like everybody else.

While I know it gets frustrating, it's better that we save our pent up angst and bubbling disgust for the charlatans and hoaxers IMHO.

Springer...

reply to post by Springer

You are entirely correct in your description that I was once was new and fell for several now laughable and obvious fraudulent stories and alleged 'evidence'. You're also correct that I'm frustrated and that my venting might be more useful directed elsewhere.

Useful would also be, in my opinion, the restructuring of the the UFO & Aliens forum, as some have suggested and I agree with, into two separate boards: one that could be the exact copy of what is already allowed and welcomed on the current one, and the second one reserved for strictly serious research and discussion with higher standards of accepted material, sources and so on.

I know this is likely a pipe-dream and something probably most of the current users of this forum would frown upon, not to mention the reluctance of you and the moderators in having to deal with another board.

But in the end after all is said and done, maybe I just have to do a better job of accepting that this is as good and high as the quality of the discussion about this subject will ever go.

reply to post by dashar

The first video would look better if the hoaxer didn't zoom into a still image. See the digital noise in the background image? It doesn't change. Obviously CGI.

first, exercising CGI

second: looks like a bird flaping it's wings, better seen on the zoomed portion. But even without flapping, it was irrelevant, because birds, bugs are very common




[edit on 27/9/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by converge


We've already done what you suggest to a point... We created the "Gray Area" for personal experiences that could not be backed up and we created the "Skunk Works" (in the tradition of outside the box thinking Lockheed is famous for in their division by the same name) for theories that are not provable but intriguing none the less...

To segregate this "field" anymore than that would serve no purpose other than allowing those of us that have "been around the block" to ignore the most important people in Ufology, the newcomers who have seen something (be it in person or a video) they can't explain.

If you want to ASSURE that this phenom NEVER gets any decent shot at entering the "mainstream" of human consciousness? The best way I can think of is to segregate the "learned" from the new. Then you would have the critics dream come true, all they would ever do is point to the produce of the "new" completely ignoring the critical thought of the "learned".

I say NO to that.

I say it is incumbent upon us (you, the thousands of other critical thinkers interested in this phenom, and me) to have the patience of Job, the civility of a statesman and HELP the "new" define what is and what is not a hoax or a trick of the light. The day we believe these new folks are are a burden and not "worthy" of our time is the day this phenom DIES.

You want the "best discussion you can get" in this field?

CREATE it, do the work of gently educating someone who has never been exposed to CGI or flying bugs caught on digital cameras, politely show them the flaws in their assumptions as a professor would a young student.

Tell them they are "loons" or castigate them in any way and we've lost a potential Honest Agent forever.

Is it easy? Hell no it's not easy. Is it frustrating? Of course it's frustrating. But... my five children frustrated me too, does that mean I shut them out? NO.

I tried my best to show them what was right from what was wrong WITHOUT intentionally demeaning them or being condescending. Yes it's hard and yes it wears us down, but if we seek to find the truth we must nurture and engage the Honest Agents, not shut them out.


Springer...

wow dident even know this row happened i posted this last year and i agree cgi now i been on ats for a while.