It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Amazingly clear UFO vid from Moscow

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in


posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:51 PM
reply to post by ArMaP

Alternatively people should read internos' post on page 4:

It should have shut the door on this video then...

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 02:49 PM
reply to post by ArMaP

You don't have a cellphone?!

Anyway, Have looked at this for a long time now, and I can't really say what this is. I lean more towards computer graphics than seeing this a s genuine alien craft.

The "force field" is nothing more than an effect of the mobile phone though. And it does not emit from the craft. as seen here.

Made a gif animation of a fragment of the clip thus reducing the colors and we'll have an easier time to see the "force field".

It moves kinda strange too. but then again, who are we to say how an alien vehicle should move??

And the building comes into a very weird blurriness when it is fully zoomed and on it's way out.

I dunno, this was a hard nut to crack. But again, I lean more towards CHI on this one. Mostly cause it is just so similar to other clips.
Craft hovering beside or above building, and WOOOSH!
And the building still has quite some features when he is zoomed in and the "craft" has no texture at all. It's just flat, like a shadow.
Again, who are we to say how they should look like.

However, I prefer Nasa clips though.

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 03:30 PM

The geometry is quite interesting... The UFO is aligned to the edges of the building, as indicated by the pic.
Btw, the vid is labled as 25 FPS, but every two subsequent frames are identical.

edit: Oh well, I see Internos put it already nicely...

[edit on 4-5-2009 by Verklagekasper]

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 03:40 PM
you should do a search on on ATS i dont really think they have come up with any real story on there site.

All people here are deeming them hoax in the same league as scorhza guy...

Best regards.


posted on May, 4 2009 @ 04:32 PM
reply to post by Republican08

Yes a lot of people on many many many sites have not so nice things to say about ATS and those people who are saying those things most the time have accounts on here and are regular posters on here as well, wont name any names but they do it for the sake of ...just simply to annoy or frustrate the real users or try to force their opinions.

Anyway, the video seems to very well done if faked,something about the building seems off not the ufo really but the building it's self doesn't look right I don't know how to explain, and honestly I don't even know with UFO videos anymore even if 100% real ufo video was posted a lot of us would be able to find some fault with it, with how great technology is and how readily available it is to anyone with internet access it's hard to tell if something is real or not no matter how perfect it may seem and sometimes even if it's too perfect the video is looked down upon so I just think it's very hard for people to judge if something is real or not based on a video.

I think also that the more people you have exposed to the video the more cloudy the basic ideas of the video become, on boards like this you have every day people like me who really don't have an eye for this, you have people who claim to be experts who know a few big words but really know nothing but the ability to convince people, and then you have real experts but everyone of those people have their own beliefs and own opinions and a lot of people would mold their view on the video to fit their agenda even if it means going against something they've studied and know like the back of their hand they will still some how find a way to manipulate words and big camera phenomenons to make it seem fake or real.
Everyone who's on here has their own agenda, and their own motives and very rarely can things be seen on neutral grounds.

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 06:19 PM
reply to post by ArMaP
Once again you are quite right Armap,
and it is actually possible to see the UFO emerge on the other side
of the building on the video itself at 22seconds,but only on stop-start
motion,and it is so minute,and right on the edge of the right-angled
corner of the building.
It's a strange video this one,the UFO has less definition
compared to the rest of the video,and seems hoaxy,
but then when you see it emerge the other side for such a tiny fraction,
(and I can't see it in the moving video)you have to ask why bother,(if a hoaxer)to add that tiny bit?Well done Welfhard for seeing it in the first place.
BTW the post above showing if it is the trajectory, is at odds with the video
taking into account Welfhards post,it should be higher up,
see this pic,

[edit on 4-5-2009 by smurfy]

[edit on 4-5-2009 by smurfy]

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 07:35 PM
Hey I am new But Read project Blue Beam its Hologram, like they did in NYC , and used it in 911. Funny.

Thats why they spraying Chemtrails,

Have a nice day

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 07:40 PM
I think this is a fake. The fact that the sound is off is weird. I guess they didn't want us to hear them talking in their "actor voices". Also I don't understand why the person filming the incident didn't run towards the object or following it. The zooming out is toally lame also.

My brother one night came to my house and asked me to hop in the car with him and his wife to follow what he thought to be a ufo. It turned out to be Venus. But you mean to tell me we did that for a planet and the person on this video couldn't walk a few 100 feet to get more footage.

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 08:43 PM

Originally posted by rufusdrak
first thing that I think is odd is the filmer starts filming at his feets. All hoax vids start with this shot.

To be clear, I DO NOT advocate this is real.
(Based on the analysis by others I respect including; Internos, ArMap, HolgertheDane etc.)

However regarding your claim above.

It would seem logical that if someone is uing a camera phone, they would probably be looking at open phone to enter video mode. Menu facing up, camera lens facing down.

Not for all footage, but that purported to be shot with cam-phone.

Just sayin' this wouldn't necessarily be indicative of fake. IMO.


posted on May, 4 2009 @ 09:32 PM
I made this quick video showing the first steps in creating a UFO animation that leaves the scene quickly, like Original Poster's video.

This should give non 3D animators a better perspective on how easy it is to animate the movement of the "UFO". You could even note the similar "slide" like movement, and lack of motion blur, compared to the OP's video.

Do you see the similarity of the movement?

(click to open player in new window)

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 10:09 PM
I use 3DS Max and Maya too. You can fool 99% with good CGI. Only in the pictures however.

Again, low resolution video. I can't even begin to think about the authenticity of such a video, no matter how good without details and data from the camera, camera person, witnesses etc.

Anyone check for corroborative witness, camera persons ID?

Interesting footage, but so easy to simulate now you can't even consider it real without a good report and people to talk to.

No joy,


posted on May, 4 2009 @ 10:43 PM
Would just like to add that on that page 4 as already posted for the viewers to see what is really happening, i also noticed that in the three videos the building have identical structure's or extremely similar indicating a common engineer has built them as working hoses common within former USSR states. Very weird to say the least.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 08:49 AM
Another one from Moscow just showed up - not as amazing though

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:07 PM
Making a "ufo" in 3DMax or Maya is quite simple. Anyone can do it. I mean ANYONE!! Even the animation.

In this shot, as I said I lean more towards the cgi, cause it us just so flat and weird. But in other ufo clips on the net where you can see more detail, more shadow, more light, the direction of the light etc people still yell CGI.

Today it is the most easiest explanation that almost fits into any ufo clip today because of the softwares beeing available nowdays. And no, I don't care much for "occams razor".

But the thing is, that there isn't just modeling when it comes to a making of a ufo sighting clip.

You need to have a good backdrop, you need to match the light, the grain, perhaps rotoscoping if the clip is done by a hand held camera, you might need sound. And then... Composing. You need to mix all the different elements together, Masks, light, 3d model, shadows and textures if needed in to the raw footage you have. Yes I know lights and shadows can be applied in the 3d modeling software, but to make them look good you often have to render everything by one at a time with different amount of passes.

To do all this you need more skills than just squashing a sphere in the middle and make it move.

Therefore you shouldn't be to quick to just call out CGI!! on every clip you'll see, cause it isn't always easy to make a good looking ufo video.
Most of those who look a bit "to good" have been debunked though.

So the trick is to find a balance if you gonna make a "genuine look a like" video. But this is extremly hard to do. So either it look to plain and flat or it look to super imposed.

But in this case, I would go for a CGI, cause this clip could easily have been done in the way Once Once showed in his video above.

The illusion where it looks like the "craft" flies towards the camera is a rotoscope glitch I believe.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Akezzon
You need to have a good backdrop, you need to match the light, the grain, perhaps rotoscoping if the clip is done by a hand held camera, you might need sound. And then... Composing. You need to mix all the different elements together, Masks, light, 3d model, shadows and textures if needed in to the raw footage you have. Yes I know lights and shadows can be applied in the 3d modeling software, but to make them look good you often have to render everything by one at a time with different amount of passes.

That's right. Somebody claimed there wasn't motion blur, but actually there is, it's just not very strong. Also, there are artificial lights visible, which are tricky; and it's even more tricky to get motion blur of lights right.
To me, the ground, the building, sky, lights, and motion look real. So I think this part (not the UFO) is real video footage. After all: Why would anyone with the skills to set up such a nice animated CGI surrounding make such a bland, flat UFO with such a lame departure?
The UFO, again, is a different matter. It's so attached to the building's geometry that it might not even be made with camera tracking but photoshopped in frame by frame.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 02:07 PM
Duh, " tapping into the Mall's substantial energy system. " like it
has its own power and could probably power the shopping mall.

Any graphics would be done by more powerful machines than we
have access to.

In fact if they could capture the purple haze from ionized air and
use it to make CGI that looked like many of the saucers that show
up as purple dots in unsuspecting photos.

Thus flat out the true saucer purple haze capture is always
dubbed a fake.

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:39 AM
Looks fake to me. Not even that good.

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 05:22 AM
ye that look real same as in mexico strange

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 05:48 AM
It's really great to have a poster on this site like Internos.

He's a no nonsense type of guy.

I think I speak for almost everyone when I say "thanks for being a part of the forum Internos."

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:21 PM
reply to post by stewartw2

There are a few suspicious elements to this, such as the lack of sound, the zooming out just before it departs, and the fact that there doesnt seem to be any other videos around of the same ufo at the same time, but it appear to be one of the most realistic vids around.

CGI is a very powerful tool, and videos like this are not the most difficult things to create with the right know how, but just because it could have been created this way, doesnt mean that it was.

I havent really set my mind on this one yet, but it is certainly compelling and worthy of discussion.

Nice find!

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in