UFO fleet over Peru

Originally posted by meathed

Originally posted by Hipno
they do look like birds..but at one point the go back towards the direction they were coming from & then move on foward again & birds dont do that at that type of speed.

YES birds can and DO move at such speeds.
For starters the Spine Tailed Swift has been clock at speeds of 160 kms per hour. (100 miles)
The Peregrine Falcon in a dive can reach speeds of up to 320 kms per hour or 200 mile per hour.
So birds can and do move at such speeds.
So your statement is false.

I don't think you read his post right. He was talking about how the "birds" at one point went back the direction they were coming from, and then went forward again. Also saying that at those speeds, birds don't normally do that.

reply to post by TheEnlightenedOne

Sorry, I forgot to add the sarcasm tags.
It is not hard to fake pixels like that. It is very simple to do so. More so when you don't have to bother with camera shake.

reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien


Classic example of CGI

Just to add, all those "objects" disappear before they hit the cloud on the left side, the flickering is an effect in an attempt to disguise.

Originally posted by digitalbluco

Originally posted by meathed

Originally posted by Hipno
they do look like birds..but at one point the go back towards the direction they were coming from & then move on foward again & birds dont do that at that type of speed.

YES birds can and DO move at such speeds.
For starters the Spine Tailed Swift has been clock at speeds of 160 kms per hour. (100 miles)
The Peregrine Falcon in a dive can reach speeds of up to 320 kms per hour or 200 mile per hour.
So birds can and do move at such speeds.
So your statement is false.

I don't think you read his post right. He was talking about how the "birds" at one point went back the direction they were coming from, and then went forward again.

Yes I DID, and yes i understood all to well, but thanks anyway
Birds do that, Its called FLYING. And one more time incase you misunderstood., Birds DO THAT.
Just google fastest birds and birds of pray and you will see too.

Also saying that at those speeds, birds don't normally do that.

Once again YES THEY DO.

As far as pixel manipulation goes. The smaller the object, the easier it is to do. Back in the Windows 3.1 days, I used to sit and draw up detailed balls with shadows going down the sides and a shiny spot towards the top.
I did this by zooming as far as paint would let me, and then by just clicking 1 square (pixel) at a time. Then after a few clicks, I would zoom out, and see if it made it more detailed looking, or worse.

I am nothing when it comes to the things people have done with photoshop, but if I were presented with a video of a bird flying in the distance. Even I could go frame by frame and delete & add a few pixels to make it look like a U.F.O.. All in mspaint too..

@meathed: Sorry, but the way your reply was worded to him, it sounded to me like you were arguing about how fast a bird can fly. No need to TELL ME IN CAPS certain words like I am a retard. I have no clue about birds and just thought you misunderstood his post. That is all.

Originally posted by Phage
Pretty difficult to hoax pixels.
On a stationary camera.
That just happened to be left on when the fleet came by.

I didn't expect you not to debunk this sighting.

edit: I already read your debunking in the second page. I know you will lose your salary if you started confirming the existence of UFOs (half sarcasm only).

reply to post by wavemaker


A 5 year old can debunk this..and a smart 5 year old with a video editing program could probably also create this.

Heck i am so sick of this Youtube trash - its just noise/garbage IMO.

You can't debunk this...


Simply because there's not enough information to make a case for anything, be it bird, UFO, balloons, swamp gas etc etc..

Ok, its not swamp gas!

This is just one of those million and one Youtube video's that shows a speck moving one way, those wanting to be pedantic could make a case for a UFO simply because we don't know what it is but in the context of the ufo fleet I'd say its a lame duck...

Originally posted by Mclaneinc
You can't debunk this...


Simply because there's not enough information to make a case for anything, be it bird, UFO, balloons, swamp gas etc etc..

Ok, its not swamp gas!

This is just one of those million and one Youtube video's that shows a speck moving one way, those wanting to be pedantic could make a case for a UFO simply because we don't know what it is but in the context of the ufo fleet I'd say its a lame duck...

I have debunked it, it's CGI

your delusional if you think those are birds.

reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien


Sure he sets a camera up for a few seconds and captures a fleet doing 90 degree turns.
What are the odds. Well the ships are up 24/7 so have to be somewhere.
Left a post on Youtube:

They changed direction instantly. Let me guess. Let me guess. Tesla star ships. Your Welcome.

www.youtube.com...
Feel free to comment.
He's hoaxing the Tesla ships what a Cartel agent.

Originally posted by flexy123
reply to post by wavemaker

 

A 5 year old can debunk this..and a smart 5 year old with a video editing program could probably also create this.

Heck i am so sick of this Youtube trash - its just noise/garbage IMO.

That's why I said that I am surprised that he didn't debunk it (at least in his first response). He is known to be everywhere if the topic is UFO. That is his forte or at least that is what is assigned to him to "watch" over.

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

Originally posted by Mclaneinc
You can't debunk this...


Simply because there's not enough information to make a case for anything, be it bird, UFO, balloons, swamp gas etc etc..

Ok, its not swamp gas!

This is just one of those million and one Youtube video's that shows a speck moving one way, those wanting to be pedantic could make a case for a UFO simply because we don't know what it is but in the context of the ufo fleet I'd say its a lame duck...

I have debunked it, it's CGI

Well done but you have to ask on the part of the video maker, was it really worth it, its nigh on inconsequential.