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.

 

UFO over Brazil [HOAX]

page: 4
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZiggyStardust
i don't understand why it's so difficult for people to believe UFO's are real. people keep saying "looks really real but probably a fake" "most likely CGI but really well done." if it looks so real... maybe it is!!
edit on 24-2-2011 by ZiggyStardust because: (no reason given)


Isn't that the paradox these days with UFO video evidence. CGI has gotten so good that anything that looks too good (ie real), that isn't a few lights in the night sky, is immediately labeled a CGI hoax because it couldn't possibly be real. That's why videos like these do require investigation, because one of these days one of them will actually be real.




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I think the sound of the energy build-up/discharge is the most telling aspect of the video. To my ears, the mid- to high-pitched "whoosh" is not in the correct sound envelope, meaning that sound originating from that far away from the microphone of the recording device is subject to certain spatial qualities: distortion, reverberation/echo, distance dropoff, etc. This sound has the wrong "soundspace" for something originating in the atmosphere that distance from the mic. Recall the sound of a clap of thunder in the distance. This sound bears none of those qualities. It sounds far too close and clean, like a sound effect added in post, and of a different auditory "environment" than the other sounds in the video. The visuals are pretty neat, but I think they failed to take the spatial qualities of sound into consideration while fussing with the pretty pictures.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Unfortunately, this fake video suffers from a common mistake many hoaxers make, which is "the camera becomes the audience." Notice how it kind of peeks from behind the cloud, just showing enough but not too much, as if it's saying, "I see you over there camera person, and I'm going to play with you." Then it puts on a light show that the camera again doesn't miss.

It's playing to the camera. It's presenting itself to you, the audience, and telling a little story. And that's a sure sign of a hoax. Real life just isn't that convenient.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Inca_Roads
I think the sound of the energy build-up/discharge is the most telling aspect of the video. To my ears, the mid- to high-pitched "whoosh" is not in the correct sound envelope, meaning that sound originating from that far away from the microphone of the recording device is subject to certain spatial qualities: distortion, reverberation/echo, distance dropoff, etc. This sound has the wrong "soundspace" for something originating in the atmosphere that distance from the mic. Recall the sound of a clap of thunder in the distance. This sound bears none of those qualities. It sounds far too close and clean, like a sound effect added in post, and of a different auditory "environment" than the other sounds in the video. The visuals are pretty neat, but I think they failed to take the spatial qualities of sound into consideration while fussing with the pretty pictures.


Umm, I'm pretty sure that sound is a truck going by.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by redtic
That's why videos like these do require investigation, because one of these days one of them will actually be real.


The thing is, if one of these things actually is real, it won't require any investigation, because it will fly or sit on the ground long enough for the military to respond, and all the news networks will be on it, and everybody in the world will know. It won't be playing "hide and seek" with one lucky cameraman.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Start from the beginning slow it down pause it if you have too look at far left when it starts WATCH THE SAME CLOUD. You can see the image being placed or jumping into location.. UM JUST SAYEN!

edit on 2/24/11 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Lot of people missing the point here.

Alien explanation comes last (least likely). CGI explanation comes first (most likely).

There's probably 99.9999... chance of it being fake. 00.0001... chance of it being real. I think it makes perfect sense to call CGI first, even if you don't have "proof".



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Inca_Roads
I think the sound of the energy build-up/discharge is the most telling aspect of the video. To my ears, the mid- to high-pitched "whoosh" is not in the correct sound envelope, meaning that sound originating from that far away from the microphone of the recording device is subject to certain spatial qualities: distortion, reverberation/echo, distance dropoff, etc. This sound has the wrong "soundspace" for something originating in the atmosphere that distance from the mic. Recall the sound of a clap of thunder in the distance. This sound bears none of those qualities. It sounds far too close and clean, like a sound effect added in post, and of a different auditory "environment" than the other sounds in the video. The visuals are pretty neat, but I think they failed to take the spatial qualities of sound into consideration while fussing with the pretty pictures.


Yes and now start about how the voice's dont really match up.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
Lot of people missing the point here.

Alien explanation comes last (least likely). CGI explanation comes first (most likely).

There's probably 99.9999... chance of it being fake. 00.0001... chance of it being real. I think it makes perfect sense to call CGI first, even if you don't have "proof".

And those probability numbers are based on what?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
A few things are needed:

1) A translation of the conversation in the video.
2) Eyewitness report.
3) Date, time, location.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
Lot of people missing the point here.

Alien explanation comes last (least likely). CGI explanation comes first (most likely).

There's probably 99.9999... chance of it being fake. 00.0001... chance of it being real. I think it makes perfect sense to call CGI first, even if you don't have "proof".

And those probability numbers are based on what?

Common sense.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
Lot of people missing the point here.

Alien explanation comes last (least likely). CGI explanation comes first (most likely).

There's probably 99.9999... chance of it being fake. 00.0001... chance of it being real. I think it makes perfect sense to call CGI first, even if you don't have "proof".


Well i guess u could say that the glass was half full or half empty as well , depends on one's perspective.

It's just nice too know that you are not even anywhwere near a 50/50 real/fake percentage in your odds,, but 99.9999% fake seems like quite a big adjustment from 50/50.

So from a BALANCED point of view it seems that you have already shown your slight? leaning toward fake.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
Lot of people missing the point here.

Alien explanation comes last (least likely). CGI explanation comes first (most likely).

There's probably 99.9999... chance of it being fake. 00.0001... chance of it being real. I think it makes perfect sense to call CGI first, even if you don't have "proof".

And those probability numbers are based on what?

Common sense.

Numbers of probability based on common sense, but not mathematics? That isn't very studious.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 





Occams Razor tells us.....


It depends on the shaving cream you use...




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
Lot of people missing the point here.

Alien explanation comes last (least likely). CGI explanation comes first (most likely).

There's probably 99.9999... chance of it being fake. 00.0001... chance of it being real. I think it makes perfect sense to call CGI first, even if you don't have "proof".

And those probability numbers are based on what?

Common sense.

Numbers of probability based on common sense, but not mathematics? That isn't very studious.

No, it's not studious. It's common sense.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by redtic

Umm, I'm pretty sure that sound is a truck going by.


The sound abruptly ends with the discharge. If it was a truck, what are the chances of that happening?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
If it is real, what are they shooting at? Or what are they sending down? Or is that just what happens before they zip away?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by inomztietuseoe
reply to post by bluemooone2
 


Vrill?

It looks like a blimp to me, was there an airshow going on nearby?


Nope , absolutely Vrill. You can always tell because of the `V` emblem on the front




Seriously tho , this is a very good video. Maybe the best ive seen.



edit on 24-2-2011 by bluemooone2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by bluemooone2
 


What's Vrill?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
Lot of people missing the point here.

Alien explanation comes last (least likely). CGI explanation comes first (most likely).

There's probably 99.9999... chance of it being fake. 00.0001... chance of it being real. I think it makes perfect sense to call CGI first, even if you don't have "proof".

And those probability numbers are based on what?

Common sense.


Fox, what's become of you?

So, I assume in your mind, we should discount any supposed alien video evidence before we even see it? A proper scientist would accept this claim objectively and set out to either prove or disprove it.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join