2 Fast Moving UFOs 2011

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
This [Hexakopter] got to 80kph, 49.7mph...

There are many standard objects in the video -- stop signs, telephone poles, moving automobiles, stationary automobiles, etc. -- which can be used to get close estimates as to distance (and even a pretty reliable altitude at one point)... all of which can be related to arc length / angular size... and then, with a reliable frame counter, converted to object speed. (We could be surprisingly precise if the videographer told us how far his wife was from that stop sign.) But the bottom line is that these objects are moving significantly faster than 50 mph horizontally, even after having just *lost* kinetic energy.... Puzzling. I'm positive that there are RC objects that can move this fast, straight and level, but am highly doubtful that anything exists with this particular combination of speed / size / maneuverability / stability.

Also, their actual brightness is puzzling. You've got a nearby street lamp partly saturating this camera with light, and smart phones are already notorious for reducing the apparent brightness of objects in these settings. Yet these objects still appear to be quite quite bright.

I'd say CGI before RC, but who knows? Not easy to dismiss.

Another thing: watch closely at 13-14 seconds, as the two objects get near each other. There appears to be something extending from each of them, even at unexpected angles. At first I thought... "okay, maybe it IS RC, and these are the analogs of wingtip vortices." But why only one? And, they occur out of alignment with the "aircraft's" longitudinal axis, and also when the one object is not even maneuvering violently. So... probably not that. Hmmmm.... My next thought: kite streamers, visible only when the kites are making sharp turns. But, nope, not IMO. Same reason as above... AND one goes between two distant telephone poles, apparently under the hanging lines.

Can anyone intelligently address brightness / luminosity / radiance issues?

How easy would it be to pull this off with modern CGI techniques? How credible is the OP's story, setting, etc.?

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets


I agree, struck me as unusual.

Where are the veterans with their 2 cents on this one. Definitely too soon to dismiss, yet I feel it might be. The video is behind glass in a car it seems, we won't get any info about the sounds these made. I'm not on board with the CGI theory though I know it can be done, it just doesn't fit the scene and mood of the video, not a typical CGI base video at all.

If RC's were used here it looks like moist conditions, going by the glass, and the lights on them aren't the usual LEDs, and halogens this bright are unlikely for RCs. I'm completely enamored by these, and I never use that word.

I'm not trying to be skeptical I just call it like I see it if I was wrong I was wrong. At the 5 second mark the light passes through the rope but it does get a little dimmer.
I think these things are going too fast to be hexacopters unless the video was sped up.

it's all about velocity if doesn't have it... it's not a ufo... IMO. the rest is hoax hoax hoax..
thank's

oooh dear... i forgot...this footage is naturaly behind a glass window.... the rest u can all imagine... try to film something behind a window wiht some lights (small) behind you...

Oh, come on. This is so obviously a computer generated fake. But watch it still generate 15 pages or more of discussion, because there is nothing really compelling to talk about.

Really. So fake.

Originally posted by Blue Shift
Oh, come on. This is so obviously a computer generated fake. But watch it still generate 15 pages or more of discussion, because there is nothing really compelling to talk about.

Really. So fake.

And you know that it's a computer generated fake... how, exactly? I've seen "obvious" fakes before -- plenty are posted in here, weekly -- and this particular video is much better than those.

Which parts of this particular video, specifically, make its computer-generated provenance so obvious to you?

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
Which parts of this particular video, specifically, make its computer-generated provenance so obvious to you?

SHOWTIME -- The objects "play to the camera." They put on a special little show that almost seems as if they know where the camera is filming them. Because they essentially do. It's a little story with a beginning, middle and end designed to take advantage of the open sky spaces of the image.

ANTICIPATION -- Not only do the objects seem to know where the camera is, the camera also seems to know what the objects are going to do. There are no quick swings losing them out of frame, as somebody excited might do trying to track a strange object in erratic flight. Nope. Not here.

LENGTH -- It's far too convenient that the whole sequence, which feels "complete," takes place in less than 45 seconds.

SAME OLD LIGHTS IN THE SKY -- No details. No landing? No aliens stepping out? No physical evidence linked to the video. No, that would take time and money and skill. Instead, let's do essentially the same thing the folks did in this video:

More of the Same Old Crapola

Isn't that enough? I won't even bother to go into the details about the lack of fade and focus and the iffy tracking. Are you saying you can't spot this junk almost instantly anymore? That's sad. Really sad.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

ANTICIPATION -- Not only do the objects seem to know where the camera is, the camera also seems to know what the objects are going to do. There are no quick swings losing them out of frame, as somebody excited might do trying to track a strange object in erratic flight. Nope. Not here.

You are, quite simply, full of it. I am SO stinking tired of the B.S. "analyses" on this forum, by both sides....

All of what you wrote above *sounds* great... and is often true with hoaxes... but the problem is, it doesn't exist it in this particular video.

Can you show me one place where this so-called "anticipation" by the camera occurs, where the cameraman seems to oddly and unreasonably know where the objects are going to be? What second(s) in the video, specifically, "give it away"?

(The answer, sadly for Blue Shift, is that it doesn't occur. What has happened here is that he has simply listed the standard indicators of "hoax," and hopes that one of them will stick.... And note also that I do not claim that these are E.T. space-craft. Highly doubtful. I do, however, think we can rule certain possibilities out.)

Blue Shift, have you thought about your own arguments carefully, and how they fit with the LED RC plane and CGI hoax explanations? Because there are some problems with your logic, either way. So, tell me again which explanation you think fits this video. Was it CGI or RC planes? (Or something else altogether?)

And please don't forget to give me a time in that video where the camera oddly and unreasonably "anticipates" the objects' movement. Thanks!

I find it hard to take a video serious when " NOT A FAKE" is part of the video title.