New ufo from Moldova

reply to post by Eagle1229


If the object was real, it stands to reason that that it would have illuminated the ground. I didnt see any evidence of that. It just made whatever was behind it look hazy. Then again there's no good quality existing footage of a ufo that close. I have seen numerous CGI fakes and this looks fake to me. I could be wrong though. Plus the camera man doesnt bother to follow it. Seems a bit too post-production to me.

Everything about the channel has been said before (NIT TV i think? ) and the name of the reporter women is Olesia Kairiak. + Like i said, I think its most likely april fool's thing. Just need a confirmation on when this was aired.

And about cameraman not following the object - he says it just disappears.

[edit on 4-3-2008 by Arthx]

reply to post by VisionQuest
I deleted this frame capture from my first post but you made me post it again:-) Note the light underneath and to the rear of the object.

By eagle1229 at 2008-03-03
Way way too much light on ground underneath the object if this was total daylight.
I just find it incredible that a Real TV Station will broadcast Fake False
News without being told to by the government.

Just had an idea, if email given here www.yellowpages.md...

is correct, than maybe I should just send an email to them written in russian and ask, is this april fool's thing, or the real deal?

reply to post by Arthx

Thanks for sharing with us your knowledge in russian language:
is there some way to track that TV channel just in order to clarify this one once for all? One thing is to guess that it's fishy (ad yes, it's fishy to say the least): but on ATS it would be much more appreciated a conclusive info, like an email which explains what the heck this video means /commercial, prank etcetera).

VisionQuest. And if the camera would follow it, you would call it a fake again. You're trying to find mistakes in everything, even in things, where you cannot find.

Plus, there is an illumination on the ground, where it has to be. Check it out again CGI eyes.

Otherwise I'd like to know why an independent TV station would figure out and do this. If it's fake, they're simply loosing prestige for this. There is no reason to do these sort of fakes. And where from I know this? Because I'm also working in the media. TV channels doesn't allow this luxury to themselves to make these sort of fakes. Especially not an independent one. Why? Because if the citizens goes to panic, the TV station is going to loose it's authorization to broadcast again. It's that simple.

There are more then enough UFO sightings on the planet. USA, UK, Europe, Australia, etc, etc... All over the globe. Do you believe that the media is going to make additional fake sightings just for fun? No. This is a situation what many cannot handle and they're simply put their head into the sand and shouting loudly... it's fake.

[edit on 4-3-2008 by Dark Crystalline]

reply to post by Eagle1229


If you look closely where the majority of the external light is most saturated, bright and dense, you'll see it is on the tree line, hundreds of yards back behind the object. This suggests to me that the object was super-imposed over an existing background. If it was really there, the light saturation and intensity would have had its focal point on the ground. I see this hazing effect quite often as I have worked in the technical visual arts for for the last 12 years. i'm keeping an open mind on this one, but it still seems a bit fabricated to me.


[edit on 4-3-2008 by VisionQuest]

reply to post by Arthx
Arthx Please e-mail An April 1st type hoax would make sense
Thank you for translating this I will give you my Star

Vision. I'm also working with CGI (Secondary job) and I'm also met with many CGI guys, whose are pros, but cannot make differences between reality and CGIs. Where from I know this? Because I simply shown them a nice picture about myself, where I sit inside a military plane and they immediately shouted that it's a CGI photo and not I'm the guy who is sit in that craft in the reality. It's a fake picture. A pretty good one, though. Then I simply told them, it's real, because I was an air force pilot. So, that's my point. CGI pros cannot make honest differences between reality and CGIs at all, because they're seeing CGI in everything and believing that they sees and knows more then anyone else.

[edit on 4-3-2008 by Dark Crystalline]

Sent them the email, all that remains now is wait for the response.

Offtopic:

OH btw, X-Files just started on TV (Russian channel) Funny coincidence

Not so fast. Let's take a sleuth on this one. If the TV channel exists, and if the reportage is genuine, then we could discuss about some technical facets of the video, But so far, it doesn't help neither to scream "fake" nor to claim that the anchorwoman behaves in a unexpected manner. These are clues, but we need eviodences, possibly conclusive ones.

As for the ground illumination by this object, I clipped two scenes where you can see that :
1) the object must be further away, almost at the distance of the buildings you can see in the background, hence the view angle of the reporter is consistent.
2) it illuminates not the ground but also the tress and if you pay close attention you can see that it even casts a shadow on a bush (indicated by my arrows)

reply to post by Arthx

OH btw, X-Files just started on TV (Russian channel) Funny coincidence

:-)))

More like "Mission Impossible" wasn't Moldavia in an episode every month?

reply to post by Dark Crystalline


So what happens if this video is proven as a hoax just like the Haiti video? What does that say for your credibility in determining a hoaxed video from a real one? Like I said, I'm keeping an open mind because there simply doesnt yet exist footage this good. Only time will tell.

The Haiti video was a fake for the first and for the second look too. This one not. I'm just wondering that this shiny thing is existing in this white color too...

[edit on 4-3-2008 by Dark Crystalline]

Originally posted by icblue
As for the ground illumination by this object, I clipped two scenes where you can see that :
1) the object must be further away, almost at the distance of the buildings you can see in the background, hence the view angle of the reporter is consistent.
2) it illuminates not the ground but also the tress and if you pay close attention you can see that it even casts a shadow on a bush (indicated by my arrows)

If the object is almost as far away as the buildings, and the buildings are nestled close to the tree line, the why arent the tree tops illuminated when the object leaves into the sky? Why doesnt the cameraman follow the object? It looks to me like the light eminating from the object is in front of everything and not reflecting on it.

reply to post by icblue


If this one will turn to be a hoax, you should receive 99% of the credits, if you ask me. Now the detail of the missing reflection of the light on the ground is MUCH MORE THAN A CLUE: just some steps are needed, but IMHO this case shows post-processing fingerprints.

[edit on 4/3/2008 by internos]

reply to post by VisionQuest


If the light engenders a shadow on the bush that points towards the reporter it indicates that the light source must be further away than the bush. On closer look, I wouldn't place it as far away as the buildings but about midway between these bushes and the buildings. Still consistent with the view angle of the reporter.

reply to post by internos





Shot 1: (above) The ground below the object does not appear to be illuminated in any way.





Shot 2: (above)Now all of a sudden the ground is illuminated. It seems likely to me that the light you are seeing around the object is the result of a lense flare into the camera (as a result of the cameraman panning straight at it) and not light reflected on the ground. However, it stands to reason that an object this bright would reflect light onto the ground as well.

Note also that the light is higher in altitude now where as before it was lower and cast zero light on the ground.



[edit on 4-3-2008 by VisionQuest]

reply to post by VisionQuest


Ehe : despite we miss some conclusive proofs, i guess that we can put this one to rest. i don't think that this one has been post processed with vue: this looks to have been made with After effects, pheraps, but i'm not sure. A pp 2d app: of course, is not what i would expect, for example, by a 3d model built on Maya and runned on vues 6.