UFO over Brazil [HOAX]

fake.com/fake

Next?

Originally posted by BobAthome

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

Look, I'm not a debunk first, ask questions later kind of guy. I really want to believe this is real.

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

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.

Numbers of probability cannot be based on common sense. That isn't disputable and quite a bit nonsensical.

Originally posted by inomztietuseoe
reply to post by bluemooone2

 

What's Vrill?

Ahhhh , see here I guess . Interesting stuff imo.
www.google.com...

reply to post by bluemooone2


Ah. Thank you.

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

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.

Actually common sense starts at,, 50/50 real fake, not 99.9 to 0.1 %

99.9 to 0.1 dosen't leave much wiggle room one way or the other. Image if all scientific endevour was based on such a starting point,, like and i'm going back a few years here, but for example it was "common sense" that the world was flat.
Well i suppose there are still those that believe this but you can see how "common sence" changes with time.

Aliens that like to play 'Peek a Boo' from behind a cloud, iv seen it all now. If the camera man was standing further north, or a little further east or west he would of been able to *ahh humm* see the whole event, instead the Aliens decided to play hide & seek with the one & only person holding a camera, give me a break

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
Numbers of probability cannot be based on common sense. That isn't disputable and quite a bit nonsensical.

Thank you, Merlin. I didn't realize my numbers would be taken so seriously. They were simply making a point. Enough pedantry.

UFO disappears one frame before truck passes:

This may have already been mentioned.....As the "craft" explodes into a ball of light, and becomes two lights...It looks like the cloud has been affected. I see a downward appearing disruption in the cloud, as the balls of light go down. Does anyone else see this. or am I seeing things?

If it is a fake, it is a good one.

reply to post by goatfish


Oops...Goatfish....I believe you answered my previous question, about the truck passing in front of the camera.

Oh well....it was fun while it lasted.

reply to post by goatfish


Indeed it does) Good find . There always seems to be that one mistake even in the best made hoaxes.

how does the relationship with the truck make it fake?

nevermind...i rewatched it. shame, it was a good one

Originally posted by goatfish
UFO disappears one frame before truck passes:

Dude you are correct, I had my settings on 29.970 fps, Damn it should have been on a straight 30 frames per second flat. Nice work thats what I was looking for myself in an ealier post.

reply to post by goatfish

Well done, goatfish. A clear indiction of manipulation.

We all know it's 99.999999% chance it's fake/cgi/photoshop.

It's a given. Unless you are introducing new analysis, it really adds no value to the discussion.

I propose we always add "****DISCLAIMER: 99.9999% likelihood of CGI****" to all videos we post so we can avoid unproductive bantering and make the threads easier to read?

Bummer. Good catch on it disappearing.

Another on bites the dust.

Originally posted by TinkererJim

We all know it's 99.999999% chance it's fake/cgi/photoshop.

It's a given.

That's patently not true. There's a large contingent of members who jump to the alien explanation immediately.