September 27 2009 Close Up UFO Video In France!!!

Well i found this orange area above and below the "ufo" which is just bad CGI trying to blend the object in and skrewing the colors up. I bumped up the saturation to highlight it. If you watch the video again you can see this orange blur around the UF
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0c04dcfb8645.jpg[/atsimg]O.

Originally posted by fleabit

And i agree. Ill download the video and yank some frames and see what i come up with.

To be fair, not everyone is a video expert, nor can spot CGI as easily as it seems many here can (or think they can).

Isn't that the point of this place? To find and analyze sightings, video, photos, etc., so that the wheat can be seperated from the chaff?

What are you suggesting, that someone only posts something if they are 100% certain it is real? This place would be kind of pointless than, wouldn't it.

No kidding, feel like certain people just wanna attack you with their logical perspective as if I'm some baboon (aren't we all?) with no perspective of my own! Forum, such as ATS is designed to question/debate subjects no matter how wrong/right one maybe!

[edit on 28-9-2009 by freighttrain]

If it is CGI at least he copied an older version of UFO
I don't remember which one it is specifically, but it was the one that I belive was proven HOAX recently but filmed in the 50's or 60's
Low to the ground, odd hovering abilty "very unstable looking", and it had the gravity/eletric/ propulsion balls in 3 places also..

Originally posted by freighttrain
Well, here's another UFO video! Looks pretty damn good, either a great CGI (good light reflection, moving behind items, the object is slowly spinning) or it's real! Any thoughts?

I vote for CGI. "Aliesn" couldn't be that flagrant to fly that low! Besides, what I've seen as "normal" behavior by videographers is that they zoom in immediately upon seeing the UFO, not later seemingly as an afterthought. Fun, but no cigar.






[Mod Edit - All caps in title]

[edit on 28/9/2009 by Sauron]

After Effects shaking camera effect. I think it's funny that everyone slaps on the camera shake thinking it'll make the video look more authentic. To me it makes it look like the camera operator has Parkinson's.

I'd call it a pretty low-ball CGI. The model is just a few simple shapes and rotating. Slap it into frame, add the slow camera pan, blur, and handheld shake. Boom, UFO.

There are real ships out there and besides wings and triangle there
are round, oval and flat according to Walton.
Walton was taken to a saucer base and became too much of a liability
to keep once he proved to be uninjured.

The rest of the time the craft is apparently surrounded by extremely
electrically activated and illuminated atmosphere.

Can this mechanism work for an automobile.
Can the power be limited to 20 30mph as they seemingly mimic
floating lanterns in the sky.
Would the prevention of liftoff be tooled off and give flight.

There is the prospect of wireless power as well but can it be given
at a level to only allow street travel.

Just think of what can be done cause the silent craft are real even
if this saucer video capture is only talked about.

reply to post by freighttrain


At 0:08 the saucer crosses the antenna.
We see vertical lines like shower of bright lights.
Is this due to making a sprite to pass behind the antenna
or an electrical phenomena of unknown origin.

Bad CGI!!

And another technic they are using now is compressing the videos with lower settings this gives more realism (loss of detail that if its CGI in a very good quality video you will see it instantly! but with the compression set in low and low quality image this things that you can see becomes blur and gives the effect of more realism).


But yes this is CGI!

You can see the antenna break in two when the saucer hits it.
As bad as the south tower video or nose in nose out on FOX TV.
The same people must be doing UFO video now.
What a shame.

Please explain what is bad and the cgi signs cause most of the
posted messages are just wasted text.

One of the main give aways that its CGI is that its very short and just ends right in the middle. Like, "Oh hey an alien space ship, well since this is a once in a lifetime opportunity I think I'll just film it for ten seconds and be on my way."

Originally posted by D.Gribble
One of the main give aways that its CGI is that its very short and just ends right in the middle. Like, "Oh hey an alien space ship, well since this is a once in a lifetime opportunity I think I'll just film it for ten seconds and be on my way."

This is pretty much the only reason why I think this is a CGI, short clip! The rest can be explained as a real event!

i wish it was the real deal, but i highly doubt that if it was the cameraman would not follow the disc around the corner, i meen come on people, if your going to make a CGI ufo then at leats follow it for a while and get it flying off.

We have people just videoing lights for more time than this and
why not follow around the building.
The saucer is nice as sharp and the antenna and buildings are blurry.
We would be stumbling over our own feet trying keep up with flight
if we were videotaping a saucer.
There is a panorama of Paris that has a whole flight path mapped
out on one of the new threads.
Well, some city it not Paris, but there was a flight of something.

/ \
|

That is proof right there. If teslaandlyne is not even saying it is a Tesla craft it must be fake.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by zaiger]

Originally posted by freighttrain
reply to post by Witness2008

 

Ya, i'm sick of these idiots posting CGI UFO video... why I don't understand! To get some attention.. ?! What a waste of life!

If fakes are still bing posted means there is still something to be hidden.
The more fakes from France might means more real activity that
has to be reckoned with by devious means.

Holding on to a secret technology, if it is.. well it has to be a secret
technology if all there is are theories, is the task at hand for all the
agents of the people in charge of the technology.

Heck so little is known and how it all came about might have a lot
of people involved looking for answers the same as us.

I don't remember which one it is specifically, but it was the one that I belive was proven HOAX recently but filmed in the 50's or 60's

Seems similar to the "incubator" UFO Adamski used very often in photos.

As for CGI, you don't have to be a video expert to see the antenna "break" if you pause it just right....so looks like a fake to me...

Of course, you really can't trust much video or photo evidence these days (with the editing possibilities). That's where the supporting testimony, multiple witnesses, multiple video or photo sources and angles, etc. comes in... With everybody carrying cell cams these days, I'd imagine we'd get more credible sighting incidents and stories, but so far, this doesn't seem to have materialized....