Paris Video

First thought is that, it's just CGI, then again, what couldn't be CGI and where do we draw a line? Do we simply dismiss all videos as fatally flawed as evidence due to modern CGI techniques and their availability?

The taker doesn't seem to have shed loads of "Look it's an alien vids" and claims he's seen this phenomenon a couple of times already so left his phone by the window in case it appeared again. Could it be, if not CGI, a purely natural cloud phenomenon that just looks strange ?

So, a huge pinch of salt, could well be hoax or something genuinely strange? Unless the person who took/made it confesses, or someone can say "I know how that's done" and actually shows an example not just says "Oh that's easy", we might never know for sure. Let the usual mayhem commence

reply to post by FireMoon


a speed up video of the sun behind the clouds maybe ?

reply to post by FireMoon


If it's not CGI it is the sun moving through the clouds.

reply to post by FireMoon


Nice one - I like it. Feels real.

Not unlike one I see regularly in my area. It moves slowly and vanishes, just like this one.

Thanks for the post.

Sun behind the clouds....lighthouse...airport lights...Mega car dealership spotlights...

Could be lots of stuff. No way to tell.

This hits a little close to home for me. I had an experience about a year ago when I was out fishing at night and saw a dull blueish orb exactly like this moving from south to north and back south, I watched this thing for a good 10-15 minutes. still have no clue what it was

let me add, I live in the backwoods just a bunch of cornfields and junk like that. no spotlights no dealerships none of that for at least 15 miles

Just to point out.... If it's the sun, then the video is running backwards or the right and left have been flipped, which is possible to hide that it's the Sun. The Sun always moves from left to right across the sky. Time lapse, yes definite possibility only caveat would be, seems to be fairly high quality footage and would use a hell of a lot of memory on a phone to video it over any length of time more than a couple of minutes. Not impossible with today's phones however, would have to be a pretty, top of the line, phone to manage it.

My point being, it would probably be far more simple to merely hoax the footage with CGI, than spend quite some time stitching together several separate pieces of footage seamlessly.

Originally posted by FireMoon
Just to point out.... If it's the sun, then the video is running backwards or the right and left have been flipped, which is possible to hide that it's the Sun. The Sun always moves from left to right across the sky.

Even in the southern hemisphere?

The tree branches in the foreground doesn't seems to move AT ALL between each frame. There's not even a pixel difference between the branches position.

Absolute zero wind during the whole 27s. sequence or someone playing tricks?

Hhmmm....

The background really looks like a picture.
The recorder is lucky to take this shot, he should have zoomed out, it looks like a very acute camera angle.
He is ridiculously lucky, with this acute angle, to catch this perfect crossing of a UFO. I mean a filmaker could have harmoniously arranged the shooting like this and it was taken with a phone left on the window.
The audio is good quality. It doesn't match anything you can hear in a urban area and less than 150km from Paris. It would be nice to know more precisely where it was recorded.

Congrats OP, you picked it up quick, it was uploaded only a few hours ago.

Originally posted by FireMoon
Fist thought is that, it's just CGI, then again, what couldn't be CGI and where do we draw a line? Do we simply dismiss all videos as fatally flawed as evidence due to modern CGI techniques and their availability?

Yes. The default response to any video by itself is that it proves nothing, even it it's "real," because it doesn't give us any more information than if it was a hoax or misidentification. It doesn't increase our understanding. If there is some kind of hard physical evidence associated with it, then we have to look harder. But an image or video by itself is nothing more than a curiosity.

That being said, this video has a number of flags. Camera was set up and running before the thing appeared. It moves in such a way that it is perfectly framed without the camera moving. It "puts on a little show" for the camera, with a beginning, middle and end. These things are very unlikely in a real UFO sighting.

LMAO when I saw title I thought you where making a thread over the video " one night in paris" lol silly brain.
Maybe you saw something in that movie as proof as she being a reptilian or something

Originally posted by FireMoon
First thought is that, it's just CGI, then again, what couldn't be CGI and where do we draw a line? Do we simply dismiss all videos as fatally flawed as evidence due to modern CGI techniques and their availability?
...

Good ideological approach.

For me, these fall into a broad category (in my mind) of UNKNOWN. There's simply not enough information to veer towards either direction, likely or unlikely to be anything.

Sure it's fun to guess "swamp gas" or "ball lightning" or "alien drone" — but only for fun.

On the other hand, if there were other eyewitnesses, it becomes more credible as a real phenomenon. Or some other supporting reports, like a local alleged abduction. This is just basic investigatory thinking.

It's stupid to just dismiss it, but this one seems very easy to replicate with CGI.

Usually bluish patches in overcast skies are holes or thinner segments in the cloud layer revealing background sky...