Close up footage of a flying saucer ???

One more thing I'd like to point out (playin' good cop/bad cop here)

You REALLY have to ask yourself, 'why only 30-seconds of filming'
Did the videographer get bored? Did s/he have enough?

I can't imagine if I stumbled on a hovering UFO and.....had a cam that I would simply shoot 30-seconds, start to yawn then, head back home.
Not sure what their case was surrounding this event but, it just doesn't appear to be 'normal' behavior (and I use that word loosely) but, I have not stamped this case 'solved' just yet either cause I have no facts.

reply to post by TwoPhish



That bugs me also. They go to the trouble of making a ufo video only to screw up the ending. Unless it was a camera phone set to high quality .I remember my last phone would only take about 30 secs of video. New nokia 5800 superb though.

reply to post by tarifa37


Here is a pic as mentioned earlier.



Does it help with your decision?

[edit on 2/4/10 by gallifreyan medic]

reply to post by gallifreyan medic


I'm not a cgi expert but that picture does look very pix-elated, then again any digital still blown up will pixalate. I think it is cgi mainly because of the ending and lack of details . Its not a bad fake if they had worked on the ending a bit more could have been a classic like this one

I posted about this video and two others way back in 2007 and they were pretty much ruled a fake.
See here for yourselves.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by tarifa37
Good find, tarifa, but rather pointless, for all the same arguments apply as it has to all the other ones; some say it is too good, some say it is cgi, yadi yadi yadi; the only person that knows for cetain if it is real or fake is the camera operator.



You yourself could film an amazing sighting and I guarantee that the hoax hammer would nail you within 10 minutes.


Cheers and a pleasant easter to you.

seeker

Does anyone else notice that this is CGI and the guy skrewed up moving the UFO to sync with the backround durring the camera shake?

Originally posted by CaptGizmo
I posted about this video and two others way back in 2007 and they were pretty much ruled a fake.
See here for yourselves.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ok thanks for that, it was new to me. Seeing it has got over half a million hits it is a classic and got more hits that the texas hat type ufo.

reply to post by tarifa37


The infamous Selma Indiana video already discussed here and posted on YouTube
many times under diferent names, IT'S A FAKE. So again this is the story.

This was a controversial footage of an alleged ufo sighting that supposedly took place in
Selma, Indiana in 2001 or 2002. The video was on display along with others on a
mysterious website named CounterEvidence on those years.

This was a pay-per-view website that featured original videos taken by unknown
sources wich resulted highly suspicious. I downloaded three more videos also with
" amazing " features and some rare photos.

The Counter Evidence Consortium website suddenly disappeared without any
explanation to their paying subscribers after their office was located in front of the
Pentagon !!

I also belive this video as well as the others are fakes. Good ones but definitelly CGI.

reply to post by free_spirit


That's very interesting many thanks , I wasn't really interested in ufo subject back then so it passed me by.

There are some pretty decent looking UFO vids out there which, CGI or not, look quite real. This one just looks false to me within the first couple seconds. I can't really give any details explaining why, but it's kind of like when I watch Who Framed Roger Rabbit, somehow I just get the sense that Roger is not real. Something doesn't look right.

reply to post by tarifa37


Tarifa37

It reminds of these guys.....



Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by Deja Q
I think that most videos showing a stationary craft, or a craft moving steadily, are not the real thing.

Sorry but if it is not stationary nor moving what other mode exists?

Originally posted by TwoPhish
One should question footage like this immediately.
Not saying this may not be real but, when a UFO is conveniently stationed in front/beside/behind another Earth bound object, so to assist in gauging its size, you have to question it.

A very common reason for this is to allow anchor points for "motion-tracking" for effects.

Even the most rudimentary graphics/compositing software has a provision for this.

Quick Example:


Sorry if you already knew this.




[edit on 3-4-2010 by kinda kurious]