truly impressive ufo hoax video

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Came across this video on YouTube, since I'm on a tablet I'm not sure if the link will work but hey ho worth a try.
Anyway its more than likely a hoax, as stated in the about video box but still, I'd say this is the best I've seen yet.
Its probably on ATS already but try searching UFO footage and see how many there are.

incredible ufo footage

I understand that there's not much point posting hoaxes, but if there's anyone like me who enjoys the art of video editing and Photoshop, you'll like this one!

If the link won't work on desktops then YouTube search

UNBELIEVABLY RARE UFO Footage -shot From 15 Feet away!
edit on 14-11-2012 by Wongbeedman because: (no reason given)


Oh yeah and if everyone's satisfied this is hoax, moderators feel free to move it to he hoax bin.
edit on 14-11-2012 by Wongbeedman because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Wongbeedman
 


its not that good
They failed to put the ufo in the underpart of the wing as it lowers and goes towards the rear of the wing and then up.

Hope I am explaining it clearly, the UFO lowers and drifts back, it should appear under the wing and above the jet intake but it doesnt.
edited:
It accelerates and not drifts back
edit on 14-11-2012 by munkey66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Spot on Munkey66. Terrible video.
edit on 14-11-2012 by LogicalThinker88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


Yeah after you pointed it out I noticed it straight away!
Error on my part haha I think the reason it stood out for me is the fact that for once its not some grainy night vision camera showing dots buzzing about, or a white blob (bird) dashing through the shot.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Wongbeedman
 


Not a Bad Attempt, Eh? Did pretty good at matching the distortion/grain of the aircraft.
Sucks nowadays because only the one who shot footage, or manufactured it is the only one who knows the truth of their vidz...... We'll prob see some of these home vid creators in HollyWood in the future! Lol! Later, Syx.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   
I agree...CGI sucks for proof of UFO's now days!

The video would be convincing to the average viewer though!




posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by jerryznv
I agree...CGI sucks for proof of UFO's now days!

The video would be convincing to the average viewer though!



Exactly, its not likely but half of the "hoaxes" on YouTube, you know the ones so impressive they make people go "that's obviously CGI!" Could be the real deal and we'd have no idea.
We're all hoping for a crystal clear, daylight UFO clip. To prove once and for all that there is something going on.
This is why I doubt there will ever be disclosure, unless aliens land in every country and say "yes we're here".



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Wongbeedman
 


Despite the mistakes made with the CG, I think it was pretty well made. I give it 9 out 10 when in comes to fake vids.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Didn't play the video.
What assurance do I have that none of these phony UFO videos posted on ATS contain a computer virus? 


And if there are no examples of UFO videos with sufficient witness corroboration, then maybe one should believe the debunkers when they claim that UFOs are just a myth--even those who know differently.




posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Also, right before the "UFO" is obscured behind the engine, it is heading downward. I would think the camera operator would point the camera downward, looking for the UFO to emerge below the engine, considering that's the direction it was going before it was lost behind the engine.

Instead, the camera operator zooms toward the front of the engine, where the UFO unexpectedly emerges.

Obviously that isn't "proof", because you could argue that the camera operator just got lucky with where he aimed the camera. However, that in itself does raise suspicion (along with other things mentioned by others above).

edit on 11/14/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpoq47
Didn't play the video.
What assurance do I have that none of these phony UFO videos posted on ATS contain a computer virus? 


And if there are no examples of UFO videos with sufficient witness corroboration, then maybe one should believe the debunkers when they claim that UFOs are just a myth--even those who know differently.



Don't follow any links the clip gives you and you'll be fine, you shouldn't get viruses from streaming a clip from youtube as far as I'm aware.
Granted I'm not on a PC haha.

Yes absolutely, like I said I don't mind if a clips fake, I enjoy judging peoples CGI abilities
much like I enjoy reading science fiction and watching movies. To claim ANY video clip as absolute proof would be foolish, movies tell us you can't trust video clips nowadays, unfortunate as it is.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wongbeedman

To claim ANY video clip as absolute proof would be foolish, movies tell us you can't trust video clips nowadays, unfortunate as it is.


I'm working on a way to change that for my computer-controlled, autosteroscopic monitoring system, which includes several methods for assuring that whatever is captured is not fake. One of them, which can be applied to any UFO video that the photographer believes is the real deal, a convincing personal sighting he/she was able to capture on video, is to file FOIA requests for the FAA and weather radar data for the area and timeframe. MUFON can give the person advice on how to do that. It must be done within a few days and will take about six months before you get the data. Even without corroborating witnesses, radar confirmation from two official sources should make a big difference. And it can allow separate determination of movements of the object that weren't captured and help determine if it was a distant meteor or rocket mistaken for a nonconventional craft or really was something remarkable and later demonstrated feats beyond the means of anything known.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpoq47

Originally posted by Wongbeedman

To claim ANY video clip as absolute proof would be foolish, movies tell us you can't trust video clips nowadays, unfortunate as it is.


I'm working on a way to change that for my computer-controlled, autosteroscopic monitoring system, which includes several methods for assuring that whatever is captured is not fake. One of them, which can be applied to any UFO video that the photographer believes is the real deal, a convincing personal sighting he/she was able to capture on video, is to file FOIA requests for the FAA and weather radar data for the area and timeframe. MUFON can give the person advice on how to do that. It must be done within a few days and will take about six months before you get the data. Even without corroborating witnesses, radar confirmation from two official sources should make a big difference. And it can allow separate determination of movements of the object that weren't captured and help determine if it was a distant meteor or rocket mistaken for a nonconventional craft or really was something remarkable and later demonstrated feats beyond the means of anything known.


Ahhh yes, I was intrigues by your signature earlier so I had a read.
I think its a brilliant idea and I look forward to seeing it in action!



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
The engines on the aircraft are on long pylons and almost boeing 707ish...really horrible video regardless.





new topics
top topics
 
1

log in

join