The only authentic UFO video I have ever seen

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by Rocketman7

 

And how about my point , why does the "UFO" do a little shake at 03 on the video giving the impression that its a poorly implemented CGI effect .

edit on 29-12-2011 by gortex because: (no reason given)

As I mentioned, someone who leaked that video, had an agenda, that agenda was to force the government to fund Eschelon, hire 60,000 employeees to try to police the Internet, which they did, and to purchase some very expensive equipment from I think it was MIT that could monitor phrases and all sorts of things to try to prevent leaks of national security.

So they took a real video of a disk that they had, and they leaked it on the peer to peer network, but in order to have plausible deniability to a degree, they edited the video, and took two frames and reversed them using video editing software.

So it was a leak of the highest level of security, which showed TPTB which they were attempting to control as usual, that ANY information could be leaked now on the peer to peer network if the Internet was not censored.

To convince them to spend countless billions and sign internation treaties regarding eschelon, to police the Internet took some major political involvement amongst countries.
We are talking about taking away the free speech of the world, and the partner countries agreed to it.
Simply because they all have government secrets and they all have military secrets.

So this leak was something to unite the world to preserve the status quo, as in the preserve the haves from the have nots as usual.

Since the p2p networks were threatening national security. The Internet was not being policed and not being censored.

So this video was leaked, but not by any private hiker out in the woods on hike, it was leaked by TPTB some branch of the government most likely the NSA, to get other countries to agree to police the Internet to prevent government leaks.

To do that they leaked a top level secret, but messed with the frames of the video, to use that to say see, its a fake.

Well as far as why it jumps in terms of phsyics, well thats because of the technology. Electro-gravitics.

Its great for flying around up in the air at high speed etc, but they have apparently crashed when close to the planet. It might not even be manned.

Wright Patterson Secretary – 1942-1952
“They frequently saw
them [UFOs] and then
told me, I’m positive
that there were three
crashes by 1952.”
Source: June 27, 1997 interview
with Police Sgt. Clarkson

Originally posted by Rocketman7

Originally posted by NowanKenubi
reply to post by Rocketman7

 

Then stop talking to trolls and answer my point!

What is your explanation for not seeing the UFO past the trunk, in the holes between branches? There is one big enough that remains white all the way...

Lets have a look....I have uploaded the enlarged version. View it full screen.

Still it is no where near as clear as if you download the AVI file from the link I posted that is in megaupload and then you use a quality video program such as PowerDVD 9 to view it.

I uploaded the enlarged version into youtube again, it removed detail when it processed the video.

But here it is, marginally better than the previous youtube video....It goes behind the trees you can see it go behind the trees, I didn't respond because a blind man could see it go behind the trees.

If you mean after it goes behind the trees, it is not deep enough to show up low enough to stay visible as it moves through the treeline.

edit on 29-12-2011 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)

Before it approaches the tree trunk (left side),the saucer appears visible thru the branches . But after ?? Not a chance. In fact the right of the trunk there seems to be a faint grey tone (lightly flashing) before the saucer approaches the exact trajectory line. Can you say freakin fake.


But another item no one has mentioned is :the flying saucer make or type is from the 1950's. I mean the video itself is a cliché. You mite as well have Charlie Chaplin holding hands with Tin-Robotic-Alien, skipping along.


I mean to really think that this hunk of junk came from a distant galaxy 100 light years away,let alone from our orbit. Lol. You think that pour excuse of a UFO can withstand the temperatures of our atmosphere?
C'mon man!!! You know its a fake.

That's piece of bullcrap wouldn't last 2 minutes with an F-22 fighter jet. And you're telling me that came from space. ,,,,,,,oh and don't tell me its a prototype from Lockheed or NORAD. Give me a brake. You have nothing, just your delusional guesses. You're not even an expert in video. Maybe you're an expert on DVD's,,,no ,,no ,,, you're an expert on VHS tapes.


Its a fake, and all of us are idiots for wasting a single character on this thread.

reply to post by Rocketman7


Look dude, I don't think anyone here is saying that UFO's don't exist, or they cannot exist, just that your "Proof positive" is quite far from 'Proof". The video you posted isn't very good. Maybe there is a fantastic version that shows Plasma and little green men waving, this one does not. Relax, get over yourself, and have a nice day.

Originally posted by dilly1

Before it approaches the tree trunk (left side),the saucer appears visible thru the branches . But after ?? Not a chance. In fact the right of the trunk there seems to be a faint grey tone (lightly flashing) before the saucer approaches the exact trajectory line. Can you say freakin fake.


But another item no one has mentioned is :the flying saucer make or type is from the 1950's. I mean the video itself is a cliché. You mite as well have Charlie Chaplin holding hands with Tin-Robotic-Alien, skipping along.


I mean to really think that this hunk of junk came from a distant galaxy 100 light years away,let alone from our orbit. Lol. You think that pour excuse of a UFO can withstand the temperatures of our atmosphere?
C'mon man!!! You know its a fake.

That's piece of bullcrap wouldn't last 2 minutes with an F-22 fighter jet. And you're telling me that came from space. ,,,,,,,oh and don't tell me its a prototype from Lockheed or NORAD. Give me a brake. You have nothing, just your delusional guesses. You're not even an expert in video. Maybe you're an expert on DVD's,,,no ,,no ,,, you're an expert on VHS tapes.


Its a fake, and all of us are idiots for wasting a single character on this thread.

If it was fake, it would show clearly as it moved through the trees. The limitation of the camera and or the codec used to compress the video, MPEG originally, lacks the ability to define the contrast since the contrast is in too narrow a band. Remember that raw video footage this size might be 400 plus megabytes, and compressed it was compressed to 2 megabytes after it was turned into a mpeg. So there is a loss of data. A substantial loss of data but it was meant to be a strategic leak, providing just enough proof of its authenticity, then, when the people approached the governments for funding in 2000 or 2001 when this was leaked, they merely had to show them a better copy and say see, this has been leaked, and we could not stop it, and it will forever be out there and we cannot remove it.

en.wikipedia.org...


A fighter jet? How about 8,000 miles per hour, flying aorund a missile in the air, shooting a beam of light, disarming a missile? That was recorded on video by the military.

And of course people have claimed speeds of 25,000 mph.

There is no reason to think it can't do the speed of light once it gets going. SInce it can apparently nullify inertia.

It has to in order to do the things people claim, such as make 90 degree high speed turns. Otherwise everything inside would turn to jelly.

There is a document at the MJ12 papers site that claims the Manhattan project came from the investigation of a crashed disk in 1941.
Here it is, its an interesting read, until they start talking about remote viewing and making references to other flights of fancy. Why do they do that if not to keep from being hit on thhe head?

The First Roswell pdf

reply to post by Rocketman7

post by Rocketman7
To do that they leaked a top level secret, but messed with the frames of the video, to use that to say see, its a fake.

So they took a legit video and messed around with it to make it appear fake , why would they not just use the resources available to them to create a fake video that looked real .
I'm sorry but that story matches the quality of the video , shaky and unconvincing .
The video is a hoax and you do yourself no favors trying to defend it .

The most important thing about analyzing any image is context. The reason why this video screams "fake" is quite simple: what was the supposed photographer doing before the "UFO" entered the frame? What was so interesting about this bleak woodland scene that he had his camera out and was filming (it does look like film rather than video) when a huge object suddenly appeared? Since the UFO was apparently hidden by the trees on the left, the photographer would not have known it was there. What was this film supposed to be about if the UFO didn't spoil it?

Other odd things about this presentation: how does the OP know that the now invisible "plasma" was plasma? This is not an objective description of the phenomenon; it is a conclusion. Why has the OP tried to turn the fact that he is apparently the only person who has seen the original into proof of a conspiracy, rather than admit that Occam's Razor suggests that s/he is the originator of this sequence? And why the assertion that s/he is in possession of clearer footage, followed by a high technobabble claim that the "dog ate it?" And when the supposed "improved" footage finally does show up, why is there no sign of this "plasma?"

(Incidentally, I like the way the "UFO" is sort of motionless at first, waiting stage right for its entrance. )

Could this not have waited until April 1st? I don't even want to analyse it.

reply to post by Rocketman7


The clarity might be good but has it ever occurred to you to ask: how did the photographer KNOW to be right there (in the 'valley') panning the camera to his left? I mean if he was 5 more feet to his left, he would've missed the dynamic entrance shot.

I mean, it looks extremely staged and/or expected.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Rocketman7

 

Look dude, I don't think anyone here is saying that UFO's don't exist, or they cannot exist, just that your "Proof positive" is quite far from 'Proof". The video you posted isn't very good. Maybe there is a fantastic version that shows Plasma and little green men waving, this one does not. Relax, get over yourself, and have a nice day.

I'm not saying it is proof positive. I am saying it is the best proof in the public.

There is no better proof available than this video.

Tons and tons of other stuff to sift through but only this can stand up to any scrutiny.

Take for instance the moon landings. Now you can swear on a stack of bibles that it happened.
Then you can watch a video out of the UK, that claims the film was leaked, which shows apollo 11 faking shots of the moon, using cardboard over a porthole, while in earth's orbit.
Well? You just swore on a stack of Bibles that it happened, but then why are they in earth's orbit, with a video dated when they should be walking on the moon, faking film shots of the moon using cardboard over the porthole?

You see it still requires that you BELIEVE they walked on the moon, even if you think that only a crazy person would think they did not.

Well personally I can't say what the heck that was all about. All I know is I THINK they went to the moon, but I have no idea why the proof, from that leaked NASA film, says they did not.

And so then you follow the story and the Japanese send a probe to the moon, and it can't find a trace of any landings, no flag, nothing so they claim their camera didn't have sufficient resolution. Right, Japanese camera, you send a probe to the moon and it doesn't have sufficient resolution to see anything.

So ok, two years go by, enough time to mock up some film, America sends a probe to the moon, hey, there's the landing site, there's the flag. Is it faked? If you believe that its not, its not, if you beleive it is, then it is.

Reality can piss you off at times. Especially when you really just want the facts, but reality refuses to be nailed down to any hard facts regarding certain things.

I dunno, just seems to set up..the camera just happens to be pointing in just the right place for this "Chance encounter". and I agree with the earlier poster that said "why didn't he chase it afterwords?". I wish it were authentic, but I'm going to have to call shenanigans on this one.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by Rocketman7

 

The clarity might be good but has it ever occurred to you to ask: how did the photographer KNOW to be right there (in the 'valley') panning the camera to his left? I mean if he was 5 more feet to his left, he would've missed the dynamic entrance shot.

I mean, it looks extremely staged and/or expected.

CORRECT!

What isn't staged?

There is some history to this beyond what I have told you. It was taken as proof, that yes, there are such things as an Anunnaki disk, and it was taken in British Columbia, and it was taken with the permission of the owners of course, as proof of their presence.
If I told you more it would be speculation, and just guesswork but that much I know.

There were other similar sightings in BC of that same craft as well.

reply to post by Rocketman7

There is no better proof available than this video.

Tons and tons of other stuff to sift through but only this can stand up to any scrutiny.

If you think there is no better proof than this video, you are asserting that there is no proof at all. No scrutiny whatsoever is required to spot that this video is a hoax. Until now, I have been willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you were simply duped. Your recent attempt to deflect the thread by bringing up the Moon Landing Hoax has convinced me that you are trying to play us. I move that this thread go into the [HOAX] bin.

I see that somebody got some video editing software for Christmas!

reply to post by Rocketman7

Rocketman, I will just use the following video as an example of an authentic UFO video. There are many others out there but to me this one has yet to be officially debunked.
www.youtube.com...

Explain this, for starters.

OK twist my arm, I will tell you where the other sighting was of this same disk.

Take a look top right on this page

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul
That's likely one of the sketchiest UFO vids I've ever seen. At the 0:10 mark, the "craft" seems to pixelate the branch it passes behind, and is it me or does the camera wobble not match the wobble movement of the UFO?

Also why did the camera man stop at the tree and not scan toward the dirrection the UFO went like I would have done...they acted like they were waiting for it to come back which is strange.

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by Rocketman7

 

Rocketman, I will just use the following video as an example of an authentic UFO video. There are many others out there but to me this one has yet to be officially debunked.
www.youtube.com...

Explain this, for starters.

Lights in the sky swamp gas of Venus. You can do a lot to the atmosphere with lasers, masers, and that sort of thing.

Right now at this moment, my monitor is 6 foot projected onto my bedroom wall, and the light is on in my room, and it is a high resolution image that 15 years ago people would have said had to be alien technology.

No, it just has a really really powerful bright projector bulb in it.

People have claimed that they can project holograms in the atmosphere so life like, that they could fake an alien invasion.

Lights in the sky are lights in the sky. People really want to know about hardware, not morphing machine elves and blobs and pyrotechnics and crop circles.

reply to post by FugitiveSoul


No, It is not just you, the wobble does not match. It is not authentic, it is a computer created video.

Originally posted by Char-Lee

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul
That's likely one of the sketchiest UFO vids I've ever seen. At the 0:10 mark, the "craft" seems to pixelate the branch it passes behind, and is it me or does the camera wobble not match the wobble movement of the UFO?

Also why did the camera man stop at the tree and not scan toward the dirrection the UFO went like I would have done...they acted like they were waiting for it to come back which is strange.

He was fumbling for the stop button on his cam corder.

Something like that. It was over and he knew it was over. There is no sound in this video but maybe there were audible clues for him when he was filming.
So he knew it was coming, and he knew it had left.

reply to post by Rocketman7


Failed video.