It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Debunked???: 'UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!!'

page: 7
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
sure wish you would write some on the other blog I found needs more info like this and I'm very new and not quite sure how it works hope to see some of your work at 2012-network.com




posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akezzon

Another point is logic. Someone here said it can't be true since it defies logic when it comes to the size of the bigger sphere and the amount of "baby" sphere that comes out.

I know I have said this in other threads many times, but.
Don't be to fast stating that our logic is a pattern that complies with the whole universe.
Our logic may be "THE LOGIC", but it is only "THE LOGIC" here in our three dimensional world and Earth.
That we know for sure. But we have no way of saying that out logic is the same everywhere.
What is logic to some is a fairytale for others.

This is true, but when looking at all angles, its easier to assume that this doesn't seem right. We are here to look over the video logically, and when you start saying things like, "well, ETs are way beyond our physics, so it has to be true", is more off base, then actually looking at things relative to what we know of the universe. Sure, the mothership could be some kind of portal used to extract these pods, but that's based off of more assumption/faith. When looked at logically, this should be a red flag towards a hoax. Could this video be true? Sure, it really could, but it's still a red-flag, and something to consider. How are we supposed to get down to the truth, when we just write things off so easily, just because you want to believe this is true. I want to believe badly, and is why I look over these forums, but I rather get the right answer, then think I have the right answer and be wrong. And that is the reason to look over ALL angles.

We don't even know for a fact if UFO's are extraterrestrial, let alone, even real to begin with. We have stories and "evidence" that could persuade some people otherwise. I have witnessed a UFO myself, and I still question what I saw. I tend to agree that they are real, but when you start looking at things illogically, then what makes this field of study any different then reading fairytales?

[edit on 14-7-2009 by TravisT]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by necati

Originally posted by Akezzon
reply to post by necati
 





Stop posting about CGI being a possibility. It is no longer a possibility as posted here:


And as far as I can remember the consensus, at least among the so-called believers, was that there is no way this could be made with CGI, although I always tried to emphasize that I only meant the probability not a proof.




I'm sorry you feel so misunderstood here but the thread you wrote is called "Debunked???: 'UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!!' " followed with the same CGI argument you've posted in the other thread.

The thread title doesnt say "it's possible moving spheres could be CGI, heres why!" afterall. I for one, appreciate your effort, and you are correct in order to prove it to be CGI one must first duplicate with the nearly identical results. At least you have TRIED, but since there is *another* video from a different person at a different angle, the CGI "proof" came a hair too late. This does NOT prove the video in question is not a hoax, but it definately takes the CGI claim down several pegs.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by Wookiep]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Wookiep
 





I'm sorry you feel so misunderstood here but the thread you wrote is called "Debunked???: 'UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!!' " followed with the same CGI argument you've posted in the other thread. The thread title doesnt say "it's possible moving spheres could be CGI, heres why!" afterall.


Hi Wookiep,

Actually I should know that people who aren’t familiar with CG and haven’t tried themselves should have a rather hard time to understand my point.
I shouldn’t feel misunderstood but perhaps try to explain in another way. Don’t know if my English is good enough to do so. I’ll try.

First things first. As far as the other thread is concerned I only knew that particle engines could produce similar results. Again, I always merely pointed out that you can’t rule out CGI which was constantly denied. Denied by members who obviously haven’t had the slightest notion of what CG applications are capable of. Those familiar with CGI supported my point of view.

Now, that I have found a particle plug-in called Trapcode Particular I am sure it is CGI. For me the footage is 100% debunked. In case that the second video should prove me wrong, I will have to admit that there are coincidences which I would never have believed in.


I will try to find an analogy for my reasoning which makes it easier to understand for those who haven’t used any graphics application and plug-ins.

Let me try to put it that way.
Say you find a very complicated pattern among the drawings of one of your friends and ask him how he did it and he claims to have made it by hand using only a pair of compasses.
Let’s assume that you are trying to duplicate the said pattern by exactly using his method. Remember, you are only allowed to use a pair of compasses but no matter how hard you try you find it impossible to reproduce the same or even an approximate result.

Later on by chance you find a Spirograph set in a toy shop and bang you have it. The guy tricked you! You know he must have used this plastic stencils to make his pattern.

You buy the above mentioned toy go home and draw a pattern *like* his and show it to him saying you hoaxed me but he says, nah it isn’t the same it’s only similar that’s no proof.

Okay you try again but there are so many different combinations of stencils that you simply can’t find exactly the one which yields *exactly* the same result.

Well the Spirograph toy in this analogy is the Trapcode plug-in, and the many different ways to combine those stencils are the options/ settings of the plug-in.

(That’s why I can reproduce similar but not exactly the same results as the hoaxer. He btw would have a hard time to reproduce any setting of the plug-in I would make, too.)

Trying to convince your other friends you show them the ‘evidence’ you found. Some say:”Yes, you’re right man it’s obvious” others claim:”No, it isn’t exactly the same you have to match it exactly, else it’s no proof!”
I know that this analogy has its shortcomings as almost all analogies have criteria which don’t exactly match. However, I hope this has made my point a little bit clearer.

Now it’s time for me to jump in the refreshing waters of the Aegean Sea and contemplate about the sense of participating in a forum like ATS and wasting that much time. Bye!

PS: As for the second video I wish you good luck! I bet it’ll end up in the greedy hands of Mr. Maussan and only shown on TV. Accompanied with lots of “Carrramba!!!!” and here on Turkish TV: “INANILMAZ, ALLAH ALLAH!!!” (unbelievable, oh my god!).



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Originally posted by necati
reply to post by Wookiep




Hi Wookiep,

Actually I should know that people who aren’t familiar with CG and haven’t tried themselves should have a rather hard time to understand my point.
I shouldn’t feel misunderstood but perhaps try to explain in another way. Don’t know if my English is good enough to do so. I’ll try.




Actually, I told you in my last post that I *appreciate* your attempt, but you failed to read that apparently.




First things first. As far as the other thread is concerned I only knew that particle engines could produce similar results. Again, I always merely pointed out that you can’t rule out CGI which was constantly denied. Denied by members who obviously haven’t had the slightest notion of what CG applications are capable of. Those familiar with CGI supported my point of view.


Are you sure? I've read both sides of the fence from those "familiar" with CGI. Perhaps you didn't read the whole thread.




Now, that I have found a particle plug-in called Trapcode Particular I am sure it is CGI. For me the footage is 100% debunked. In case that the second video should prove me wrong, I will have to admit that there are coincidences which I would never have believed in.


I will try to find an analogy for my reasoning which makes it easier to understand for those who haven’t used any graphics application and plug-ins.



Great! In fact from the beginning, all everyone you refer to as "believers" asked for is for someone to do the exact same thing, that again I APPLAUD you for. It just came too late IMO.




Let me try to put it that way.
Say you find a very complicated pattern among the drawings of one of your friends and ask him how he did it and he claims to have made it by hand using only a pair of compasses.



Rule #1. Don't attempt to patronize. Most of us aren't kids here, please don't do that. Acting like you "know" so much on the internet by posting primative examples has been proven to be a method that makes people not listen.








(That’s why I can reproduce similar but not exactly the same results as the hoaxer. He btw would have a hard time to reproduce any setting of the plug-in I would make, too.)



Not really. :/ As I do appreciate your efforts (not many have even tried!) your "proof" doesn't really resemble the video in question. There are too many factors invloved such as how poor the original quality is, also the movements are not fluid. Don't ask me for proof of my opinion as you obviously hate when people ask for that. Just ask for a general opinion of how close they seem. Opinions are not proof, just a general idea of what the majority *thinks*




Trying to convince your other friends you show them the ‘evidence’ you found. Some say:”Yes, you’re right man it’s obvious” others claim:”No, it isn’t exactly the same you have to match it exactly, else it’s no proof!”
I know that this analogy has its shortcomings as almost all analogies have criteria which don’t exactly match. However, I hope this has made my point a little bit clearer.




Good! Please don't stop doing what you are doing, but at the same time, quit acting like you *know* the answers when in fact you are the one "jumping the gun" on your "evidence".




Now it’s time for me to jump in the refreshing waters of the Aegean Sea and contemplate about the sense of participating in a forum like ATS and wasting that much time. Bye!



Well then this whole discussion is moot since this is an obvious "waste" of your time. Stop making threads about your claims if it's such a waste of time.



PS: We have no idea what the other video will contain, but lets not jump the gun. Lets not also assume that we won't see it.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by Wookiep]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Wookiep
 





Are you sure? I've read both sides of the fence from those "familiar" with CGI. Perhaps you didn't read the whole thread.


Yes, you’re right I should have said most of the members with CGI experience.




Rule #1. Don't attempt to patronize. Most of us aren't kids here, please don't do that. Acting like you "know" so much on the internet by posting primative examples has been proven to be a method that makes people not listen.


Sorry I didn’t mean to patronize anybody. I just tried to have another go at explaining my reasoning.
'To feel patronized' has a lot to do with self-esteem. Sometimes you simply try to make things clear and experience a reaction like that.



Not really. :/ As I do appreciate your efforts (not many have even tried!) your "proof" doesn't really resemble the video in question. There are too many factors invloved such as how poor the original quality is, also the movements are not fluid.


Then again, you haven’t understood my point. Those other factors can be excluded. They haven’t anything to do with the ‘sphere ejecting effect’ and above mentioned plug-in.



Don't ask me for proof of my opinion as you obviously hate when people ask for that. Just ask for a general opinion of how close they seem. Opinions are not proof, just a general idea of what the majority *thinks*


I must admit that I haven’t understood that paragraph. May be due to my rather poor English, sorry.



Well then this whole discussion is moot since this is an obvious "waste" of your time. Stop making threads about your claims if it's such a waste of time.


One has to be allowed to think about priorities in one’s life. I only said that I will contemplate about wasting time on a forum like ATS. I should have added:” instead of making other things which are more fruitful and satisfying from my point of view.”
I will definitely contribute fewer things which require some kind of effort in terms of time to participate in a forum, that’s for sure.
After having opened a thread one is kind of obliged to look after it.



PS: We have no idea what the other video will contain, but lets not jump the gun. Lets not also assume that we won't see it.


I didn’t assume that you won’t see it. I expressly said you will watch it on TV, at least in Mexico and for sure in Turkey
and I have to add most likelyon YouTube. I doubt whether you will have access to the original, uncut raw footage.

edit:There’s one thing I would like to add about „jumping the gun“. Mine is a theory based on evidence which I found sufficient to make my claim. Like any other theory it can be debunked and disproven but how did you come to your conclusion:
Quote: “Stop posting about CGI being a possibility. It is no longer a possibility as posted here:”???
Just curious?

PS: We could have a jam session together instead of arguing. I play the guitar and know a rather good bass player who could join in.


[edit on 15-7-2009 by necati]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Certainly have to look at the footage a different way now. Without raw footage it's hard to tell.

Jaime Maussan is a hoaxster though and his crony is part of the scam.

You know which way I'm leaning.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Debunked???: 'UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!!'
20 Flags

UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!! First ever video footage!
478 Flags

Kewl

I would say its not unanimous that it's "Debunked???"

[edit on 15-7-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Debunked???: 'UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!!'
20 Flags

UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!! First ever video footage!
478 Flags

Kewl

I would say its not unanimous that it's "Debunked???"

[edit on 15-7-2009 by zorgon]
When did this ever turn into a popularity contest? I feel like I'm in highschool all over again. The hot girl will always get picked prom queen for looking better, even though she is totally obnoxious and fake in real life.

I wouldn't say the video is real, just because it looks pretty.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Thank 4 your try , but it doesn't hold up , really.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
The OP's video is certainly interesting and shouldn't be discounted, but luckily for me I've actually seen that same type of orange/yellowish ufo with my own eyes two weeks ago in Birmingham, England, so I am absolutely, 100% confident that the video is real, and if isn't then it's a CGI representation of the real thing. It's unfortunate that they sometimes get mistaken for sky lanterns from long distances, but there is a very clear difference when you see them from up close. I can tell you that they exist in a variety of sizes from beachball-sized to a cow-sized and they flicker all colours of visible light (all the colors from a rainbow) from the electromagnetic radiation spectrum but have a constant orange tint to them, and they also pulsate from the center as if giving the impression that they have a heartbeat. It's farcking surreal! It's also the same type of UFO that Carlos Diaz had contact with and made a documentary of (Ships of Light - The Carlos Diaz experience)... Watch this clip (particularly the second half):



[edit on 15-7-2009 by hermantinkly]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I just posted this on the main thread. I concerns the second witness to the event, who I assumed was independent. That assumption no longer holds.

This is interesting. Some notes I collated in a few minutes. Mr Carrillo's tenuous association with Haime Maussan must be disappointing in regard to what most of us assumed was an independent witness. His broad interests seem to run parallel with Mr Hernandez' but as stated elsewhere, most of the country's population seem to be persuing this particular hobby. And Mr Hernandez' connection with a CGI expert of the same name hasn't yet been addressed by anyone. Photos of both men with a familial resemblence are given in my earlier post.
Here's the notes.

Alfredo Carrillo, Mexico

YouTube tagname: 'Alfrediux88'

Link: www.youtube.com...

YouTube Profile:

Me inicie en la astronomía hace 5 años, pero durante la observación de los astros tambien he
podido observar objetos no identificados de los cuales no encuentro una explicación posible, ya
sea de día o noche, decidi entonces no conformarme solo que ver dichos objetos y registrar
evidencias en fotografia y video. Y aquí estoy en mis ratos libres me dedico a Vigilar el Cielo!
Recientemente ( 22 de mayo del 2009 ) logré obtener un video de un Ovni que soltó unas esferas
al norte de la ciudad de México, por el rumbo de Satelite!

Babalfish Translation:

It has been initiating me in astronomy for 5 years, but during the observation of the stars
also I have been able to observe objects nonidentified of which non-encounter a possible
explanation, or by day or night, then decide not to only conform that to see these objects
to me and to register evidences in photograph and video. And here I am in my free short whiles
I dedicate myself To watch the Sky! Recently (22 of May of the 2009) I managed to obtain a
video of a Ufo that loosen spheres to the north of Mexico City, by the course of Satellite!

So why did he not upload that one weeks ago? Only shots released so far are a few frames given to a confidant on the other thread.

Only published Video: www.youtube.com...

Uploaded: 14 July 2009 (why now?)
Title: Esfera sobre Ciudad de México a gran altitud 16-10-08
Trans: Sphere over Mexico City at great altitude 16-10-08

Carrillo's Comment:

Video realizado el 16 de Octubre del 2008, donde se muestra la prescencia de una esfera de
tipo metálica en el cielo la cual permanecio inmovil por aproximadamente 25 minutos para luego
desaparecer por completo. el video se explica por si mismo.

Babelfish Translation:

Obtained video on 16 October 2008, showing the presence of a metallic sphere of
type in the sky which was stationary for approximately 25 minutes then disappeared
completely. The video is self-explanatory.

EDIT: The 'metallic sphere' seen by Mr Carrillo on this day was Venus. Whenever you observe Venus in daylight through a scope or binoculars, it looks like a metal ball. Try it if you doubt me. If you put the co-ordinates of Mexico City into the config file of Stellarium, you can see what Mr Carrillo saw on that day in October 2008. Shining like a beacon after sunset, Venus was visible for most of the day in a blue sky. I can't explain why it disappeared after 25 minutes, but maybe he simply lost track. It's a pretty basic scope without a proper drive so losing target is very easy.

Alfrediux8's Channel on YouTube

Subscribes to Haimie Maussan.

Haimie Maussan is one of 4 'Friends' on his YouTube channel.

It's all just circumstantial of course.

WG3

[edit on 15-7-2009 by waveguide3]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TravisT
 


It is all about consideration.
You can't consider everything if you keep your mind within our own laws of physics.

What I mean is, that we shall not automatically dismiss some things just because they don't seem logical to us.

If we, in our consious, at least keep in mind that these things might not go by our laws of physics at all.
If you do that you can also consider them to be of alien origin.
But many here just don't wanna do that.
As soon as they find a form of logical explanaitons, even thought they many times are pretty lame, they go with that instantly.

Like this video. Just because someone manage to make a rather lame replica of the animation of small spheres shooting out, doesn't mean it IS CGI. Cause we also have to consider other possiilities to, that might now fit into our reality as well.

Bah, kinda hard to print what I mean down in words.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akezzon
reply to post by TravisT
 


It is all about consideration.
You can't consider everything if you keep your mind within our own laws of physics.

What I mean is, that we shall not automatically dismiss some things just because they don't seem logical to us.

If we, in our consious, at least keep in mind that these things might not go by our laws of physics at all.
If you do that you can also consider them to be of alien origin.
But many here just don't wanna do that.
As soon as they find a form of logical explanaitons, even thought they many times are pretty lame, they go with that instantly.

Like this video. Just because someone manage to make a rather lame replica of the animation of small spheres shooting out, doesn't mean it IS CGI. Cause we also have to consider other possiilities to, that might now fit into our reality as well.

Bah, kinda hard to print what I mean down in words.
And again, I understand, and agree with what you're saying. But at the same time, this is more of a red-flag then proof, yet, most of you guys are quick to dismiss the red-flag. Why? Just because there is a red-flag, doesn't mean this is a fake/hoax or even impossible by our standards, but then again, you're putting more hockas pocas into this then actual facts, and that steers it closer to being a hoax in my book.

I don't think the program the OP has is what was used, if CGI was even used, but consider this:

-The OP demonstrated that you can make something similar to the video with CGI, even if it's not as professional, it is a possibility. This is something that has been shown to us, and is physically/realistically a possibility.

-You can't fit more objects then you occupy. Sure, it could be something extraordinary, but looking at this realistically with what we know, it's impossible.

-There are discrepancies in the story from the original video, IMO.

Now, we can look at this totally blind and think:

-This story makes total sense. He didn't want to take out his camera on the bus, cause he thought people would think he had a gun, even though he didn't have a gun, he had a camera.

-Apparently, objects can occupy spaces that are MUCH smaller then what is shown to us. It has to be some ET tech, just because this looks so real.

-This can't be CGI at all, because this looks so real!


Hmmmmm, it seems like you guys are putting much more faith in it not being CGI, then what could realistically be CGI. Could this be the real deal? YES! It really really REALLY could, but again, there are more red-flags then anything, IMO. A second video makes it more interesting, but if you can make one fake, I'm sure you could make two. I rather study the video, then claiming this is real. Those Prophet Yahweh videos were AMAZING, and they not only had MULTIPLE videos, they also had witnesses and newscasters, for crying out loud. Guess what? A hoaxer.....

You talk about "consideration", well, have you considered that this video could be a fake? I have consideration for both directions, but just because I think it's more of a fake, doesn't mean I'm totally sold. Give it time, the video hasn't been out that long. I'm posting my thoughts on how this could be a hoax in this thread, because that's what this thread is about. I rather not clutter up the other, cause it's already as full as it is. It's nice to have two threads dedicated to the same video, and a good video at that.


I'll keep an open mind about this. I'm in no way dismissing it as a complete fake, but I am looking at this rationally, and once more, there are MORE red-flags then not. I do hope this is real, cause it would be badass if you ask me, but I don't know for sure.


I used to enjoy reading these boards when the motto was "deny ignorance". Now, people will just jump ship to one direction just because it looks so pretty. Deny ignorance? I think not......




[edit on 15-7-2009 by TravisT]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TravisT
 


I hear ya...

But what I mean is that OP's video is somewhat waste of his own time, cause I think all believe that more or less anything can be done with CGI these days with out someone makeing a video like this.

Ofc it's a red flag. But this video still doesn't convince me.
Even if someone made an exact replica of the original clip I wouldn't be convinced.
The only thing that can convince me that this in fact is a cgi work will be the RAW footage.
We just don't know what it is without it.
I choose to believe this to be something else because I find it more intruiging that way and it will keep me searching for the truth.
But until I've seen the RAW footage I will stick to my beliefs, but if it turns out to be cgi I will totally accept it.

there is one thing I don't agree with you though.


Now, we can look at this totally blind and think:

I don't agree that you need to be "blind" to consider it to be a genuine footage. If so, it is just as blindly to assume everything is cgi just because we can make the same phenomenon on a computer.

So I do agree with you on the most part. But instead of choosing one of the "points" you pointed out I try to concider them all.

Edit: Ahh I see you added som more.
Well, yes ofc I consider it to be a fake. But as I said, I choose to believe otherwise because it is more fun and it keeps me searching.
We seem to think alike, we just chose different things to believe in while waiting for the "real" answer.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by Akezzon]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akezzon

I choose to believe this to be something else because I find it more intruiging that way and it will keep me searching for the truth.
But until I've seen the RAW footage I will stick to my beliefs, but if it turns out to be cgi I will totally accept it.
See, I'm in the opposite side as you. Of course I'm intrigued in the video, but when alarms go off in my head, I'm intrigued in seeing if it's a fake. And you're right, we need the RAW footage to really get into it, but that's another red-flag, IMO. Why can't we view this "totally real video" of a UFO?



I don't agree that you need to be "blind" to consider it to be a genuine footage. If so, it is just as blindly to assume everything is cgi just because we can make the same phenomenon on a computer.
Hehe, yes, and I see what you're saying here. I'm just talking about people who are coming in here and saying, "this has to be real, cause there is no way it could be fake. End of story, I believe, so it has to be real".


So I do agree with you on the most part. But instead of choosing one of the "points" you pointed out I try to concider them all.
And that's my point: Consider EVERYTHING!

-Could it be real? Yes

-Could it be fake? Yes




Edit: Ahh I see you added som more.
Well, yes ofc I consider it to be a fake. But as I said, I choose to believe otherwise because it is more fun and it keeps me searching.
We seem to think alike, we just chose different things to believe in while waiting for the "real" answer.
Hehe, yeah, I added that while you were responding. I think we're in the same boat, but I think we are intrigued in different aspect, which isn't wrong, just part of the fun.

I am glad that you can talk about it rationally. We need more people like you on the UFO boards. Keep it up.


[edit on 15-7-2009 by TravisT]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Originally posted by necati
reply to post by Wookiep
 




edit:There’s one thing I would like to add about „jumping the gun“. Mine is a theory based on evidence which I found sufficient to make my claim.



Ok- a reasonable way of putting it. Again, I don't find your research at all harmful to these boards, and I for one am glad for those who do their research because it helps get to the bottom of things. With that said, I feel you jumped the gun right off the bat with the CGI thing. I'm not saying that is wrong, and I recognize that you see it as a "possibility", but it's not the *only* possibility.



Like any other theory it can be debunked and disproven but how did you come to your conclusion:
Quote: “Stop posting about CGI being a possibility. It is no longer a possibility as posted here:”???
Just curious?



I came to that conclusion based on the fact that a second video was released. If there are 2 videos of the same event on the same day (the first one being critiqued over the possibility of CGI) the second one which comes afterward from a totally different person takes that theory and turns the "possibility" of CGI into almost a non-exsistant explanation. It's now much more possible to me that it's something else.




PS: We could have a jam session together instead of arguing. I play the guitar and know a rather good bass player who could join in.




I'm up for a good jam session any time.




[edit on 15-7-2009 by Wookiep]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Wookiep
 


If it is CGI then the effect could have very easily been rotated for the second footage to make it look like it was shot from a different angle.
The second footage doesn't rule out the CGI possibility.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by DGFenrir
reply to post by Wookiep
 


If it is CGI then the effect could have very easily been rotated for the second footage to make it look like it was shot from a different angle.
The second footage doesn't rule out the CGI possibility.


Ok, I won't rule out CGI entirely then. Although that is about as likely as it being aliens IMO. We'll consider this. I do not think this would be "easy" as you put it, but again a consideration. Now we are talking about not just a hoax but a very *elaborate* one which involves multiple CGI videos to make the ufo community look like tools. Possible? Yes. Unlikely? Very much so. Just opinion!



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   
So does nobody think it strange that the second witness to the 'event' is a 'friend' of Haimie Maussan? Not strange that his video is being kept under wraps?

WG3

EDIT: Must get Haimie's name right!

[edit on 16-7-2009 by waveguide3]

[edit on 16-7-2009 by waveguide3]



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join