Excellent Clear Footage Compilation

If you can spare 30 minutes, this is some of the clearest footage out there. Came across this video and was expecting a "ThirdPhaseoftheMoon" style of footage; meaning, HIGHLY questionable, but was pleasantly surprised by the perceived authenticity of most of the clips. Some I've seen before and others were just as mind-blowing.

If its all CGI, then it's REALLY good CGI.

Anywho, enjoy fellow members!

If its all CGI, then it's REALLY good CGI.

The first is fake . Certified .
The second , the video was sped up to produce a feeling of high speed.
One shows a backdrop like something from the Teletubbies .

Didn't go any further .

a reply to: Gothmog
What are the chances that something that's been hoaxed for decades actually turns out to be true?

Collection of fake videos, first is fake, dome of the rock fake etc

This is a use of the word 'clear' that I was entirely unaware of.

Some fakes, some out of focus, some potato camera, some known misidentifications. Overall, just a collection of useless misinformation. I am not saying one or two might not be real but with so much trash in the video, how are we to find the good stuff?

Too much fluff and junk that is there to cover up the real ones. Nice obfuscation.

a reply to: beyondknowledge2

Roger that.
Clicked on this thread thinking it would be a joke with nothing posted.

Looks like anyone who has already researched the US military and IC's apparent interest in little green men will be DDoS'd by the activities of those who haven't for the foreseeable future

Lots of threads on UFO boards are becoming almost impossible to navigate due to sheer number of serious discussions which are punctuated by 10 people outlining how they've just discovered SERPO/MJ12/some other lesser known BS.

a reply to: beyondknowledge2

Yeah, the light flying around the tracer rounds was hard to swallow, lol. Yes folks, there are some questionable and obvious fake clips, proven fakes and such, but like you said, there are gems amongst the turds.

I can respect the fact no one directly addressed that towards me since I didn't create it.

Sincere thanks for that.

I'm still going to post the part 2 if it becomes available, LOL. They're not all fakes IMO.

originally posted by: EternalShadow
I'm still going to post the part 2 if it becomes available, LOL. They're not all fakes IMO.

Fine but maybe you should post in the board for computer generated imagery since there's more fake than not fake. One did look like it might be real, like a star out of focus making artifacts due to lack of focus., so maybe not all fakes. Even if it's all real, I don't see the point of these compilation videos. What's interesting to me about UFOs is trying to figure out what they are or might be, but all that interest is completely absent with a compilation video which is not only swamped with fakes but also completely lacks context for those that might be real, like date, time location where video was made, and other case details.

For example, take the "giant triangle" UFO at twenty-nine palms that George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell were hyping. If you see that without the context of where it was shot you might buy their fake story about it being a giant triangle UFO. It's only when we know the details of exactly where and when the video was made that we can then find out a military exercise was taking place there, and find more clear footage posted by the military showing exactly what it is, which is not what Knapp and Corbell claimed.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: EternalShadow
I'm still going to post the part 2 if it becomes available, LOL. They're not all fakes IMO.

Fine but maybe you should post in the board for computer generated imagery since there's more fake than not fake. One did look like it might be real, like a star out of focus making artifacts due to lack of focus., so maybe not all fakes. Even if it's all real, I don't see the point of these compilation videos. What's interesting to me about UFOs is trying to figure out what they are or might be, but all that interest is completely absent with a compilation video which is not only swamped with fakes but also completely lacks context for those that might be real, like date, time location where video was made, and other case details.

For example, take the "giant triangle" UFO at twenty-nine palms that George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell were hyping. If you see that without the context of where it was shot you might buy their fake story about it being a giant triangle UFO. It's only when we know the details of exactly where and when the video was made that we can then find out a military exercise was taking place there, and find more clear footage posted by the military showing exactly what it is, which is not what Knapp and Corbell claimed.

I'm sure most of what was in the compilation has already been previously addressed on this very site so why encourage redundancy?? It is what it is. Most of it is clear footage whether it's fake or not. Anyone is free to contact the creator or search this site for more information or sources even myself, yes I know! Knock yourself out.🤷🏻 I'm just not going down those rabbit holes anymore or beating a dead horse.

Has anyone PINPOINTED anything in this field yet? No, it's mostly conjecture and the subject is all over the place. So in my best Joe Biden whisper voice:

"It'll be okay, it's just a video...."

I once read the rods are The Anunnaki, the native terrans. Are we to be awoken from our illusion of superiority.

originally posted by: Untun
I once read the rods are The Anunnaki, the native terrans. Are we to be awoken from our illusion of superiority.

Ancient architecture alone should humble us but we have trouble getting out of our own way. What we need to know is right here on this planet. Anything else is just a reality bonus.

a reply to: EternalShadow

The footage starting 22:11 is interesting, not seen it before, if anyone has any further info ?

around 21:40 - those are 100% spotlights. manmade

originally posted by: EternalShadow
I'm sure most of what was in the compilation has already been previously addressed on this very site so why encourage redundancy??

If that's true that it's been previously addressed here, then good question, why encourage redundancy? Strange question coming from someone who says he's posting a compilation of stuff already posted before.

originally posted by: chunder
a reply to: EternalShadow

The footage starting 22:11 is interesting, not seen it before, if anyone has any further info ?

The OP thinks most of that stuff has already been brought up here and asks why encourage redundancy by bringing it up again.

So hopefully I won't make people mad by being redundant but, OP is right, that artifact has been brought up before. I've probably brought it up personally at least 10 times here. It's an out of focus light in the sky, could be coming from planet, star, airplane, but the camera loses focus and then you see some geometric shape depending on the shape of the camera's aperture, in this case, a diamond shape.

Here's an example video, where the light source is a distant aircraft, and when it's out of focus, it makes the same shape like a diamond. But when the plane gets closer, you can clearly see it's a plane, not a diamond shaped craft:

CAUTION: to all UFO videographers

" .....when you're out and about with your camcorder looking to film geniune UFO footage, look twice - coz it's easy to make a mistake man!"

The shape of the out of focus object will match the shape of the aperture.
Jeremy Corbell was hyping a "pyramid" UFO filmed by the Navy over the Pacific. It was an out of focus aircraft, that appeared in the shape of a triangle because the equipment had a triangle aperture, same effect, different shape using a different camera:

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Sorry Arbi, typo, I meant to say 23:11.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: EternalShadow
I'm sure most of what was in the compilation has already been previously addressed on this very site so why encourage redundancy??

If that's true that it's been previously addressed here, then good question, why encourage redundancy? Strange question coming from someone who says he's posting a compilation of stuff already posted before.

originally posted by: chunder
a reply to: EternalShadow

The footage starting 22:11 is interesting, not seen it before, if anyone has any further info ?

The OP thinks most of that stuff has already been brought up here and asks why encourage redundancy by bringing it up again.

So hopefully I won't make people mad by being redundant but, OP is right, that artifact has been brought up before. I've probably brought it up personally at least 10 times here. It's an out of focus light in the sky, could be coming from planet, star, airplane, but the camera loses focus and then you see some geometric shape depending on the shape of the camera's aperture, in this case, a diamond shape.

Here's an example video, where the light source is a distant aircraft, and when it's out of focus, it makes the same shape like a diamond. But when the plane gets closer, you can clearly see it's a plane, not a diamond shaped craft:

CAUTION: to all UFO videographers

" .....when you're out and about with your camcorder looking to film geniune UFO footage, look twice - coz it's easy to make a mistake man!"

The shape of the out of focus object will match the shape of the aperture.
Jeremy Corbell was hyping a "pyramid" UFO filmed by the Navy over the Pacific. It was an out of focus aircraft, that appeared in the shape of a triangle because the equipment had a triangle aperture, same effect, different shape using a different camera:

Well how about this, and I know it's a stretch but perhaps this compilation, or series of clips is a......wait for it ......wait for it.......condensed video collection that saves one the time of having search around for each individual sighting??

I'm not trying to solve a case here, I was just sharing some interesting clips, again, put together in the form of a compilation by some channel on YouTube.

There are obvious fakes but some are quite compelling. YMMV.🤷🏻