UFO Footage from Massachusetts Plane Sparks Alien Mystery

reply to post by scottromansky


I guess that's just luck that it zoomed passed at the same time as the other plane was in sight. I presume that's what the person filming initially wanted to capture, hence, looking in that direction.

OK, I think I figured this one out.

The UFO appears and passes the aircraft at a much later point in the 50% speed video than it does in the original video.

This is from the original...



This is from the 50% speed version.



In the original video, the UFO is already long gone at the point it comes into view on the 50% speed. The reflections in the window and the window frame give it away.

Which means it was added in during editing and was never on the original video.

There is no way that condensation.

This looked pretty kewl... But, you can hear the ufo whizz by... (It sounds like someone with COPD or maybe asthma exhaling.)

I don't think we should be able to hear it whiz by... It is outside the airplane which is making a lot of noise from its engines. Also, the jet in the distance is silent... or appears to be...

as for the experts suggesting condensation.... I've never heard condensation whiz by....


I'd have to say cgi too... darn.

reply to post by Zarniwoop


You nailed it, excellent job.

one video for normal speed, a different video for 50% speed, two different cgi'd ufos.

Reflections on the glass of the window are different in the two videos, and the ufo position did change.

Thanks for doing exactly what I suggested in my post on page 1

I think the kid's reaction is the key to this video.

First of all, even a child would be able to tell the difference between something (condensation) on the window and something that passed by at a distance. He would not react that way to something that's right in his face on the window itself.

Second, if that were a small object that was close to the plane I doubt the kid would have even noticed it. It looks quite clear to me that that's a fairly decent sized object that's at a fair distance from the plane.

Mind you, this is all assuming that this video is real and not altered in any way. It's hard to say really since we don't know if the kid was in on it or not. His reaction seems quite genuine though and everyone knows children overact. I think if he were in on it we'd hear it in his reaction.

Just my two cents. By the way, I'm new to these forums. Love this site so far

reply to post by Zarniwoop


Just trying to understand here. Are you saying that the full-speed and the 50% are two different videos?

I think it might be a goose of some kind myself. The UFO is close and small. And the plane they are in is going 300-400 mph in the other direction. A goose would shoot past like that.

Originally posted by PurpleDog UK
Just saw this on a news outlet concerning another mobile phone video froman aircraft out of the window....

www.ibtimes.co.uk...
(close the annoying ad when at the top of the page when you start the video half way down...)

au.ibtimes.com...

I wasn't expecting to see what i saw....!?

"experts" possible suggest condensation on the exterior of the window but can that REALLY explain this video.....

I'm NOT so sure TBH.

What are your thoughts....

Regards

PDUK

edit on 5-2-2013 by PurpleDog UK because: addition of text

Doesn't look to me like the object was zooming past the jet in the distance, but rather the jet the person taking the the video was on was zooming past the object, which was close.

reply to post by Flatcoat


Those are his findings. you can see the two examples he posted are synced, but the reflections in the window, along with the ufo shown to be at different positions, indicate one video created for the normal speed, another created for the 50% speed.

reply to post by Lonewulph


Not disagreeing at all, but I just find it odd that he didn't just fake one video then speed-up or slow down to suit.

reply to post by Flatcoat

Because he screwed up. He compiled a new video with a more blurred ufo overlay to compensate for 50% speed reduction. If that was actually his thinking I might add.

reply to post by Lonewulph


O.K. That's logical, although I probably would have edited the 50% and then sped it up for the original.

reply to post by Lonewulph

You nailed it, excellent job.

Thanks

Thanks for doing exactly what I suggested in my post on page 1

I missed that post, but it appears you were right. I had looked at it so many times, it finally clicked not to focus on the object itself, but rather the context of reflections, glare, etc.

The only mystery now is who did the hoax.. the anonymous person who sent the video to the Youtuber or the Youtuber himself? I'm guessing it was the former, as the original video is just a kid reacting to a plane passing by.

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
reply to post by Lonewulph

 

You nailed it, excellent job.

Thanks

Thanks for doing exactly what I suggested in my post on page 1

I missed that post, but it appears you were right. I had looked at it so many times, it finally clicked not to focus on the object itself, but rather the context of reflections, glare, etc.

The only mystery now is who did the hoax.. the anonymous person who sent the video to the Youtuber or the Youtuber himself? I'm guessing it was the former, as the original video is just a kid reacting to a plane passing by.

Yeah I would imagine the poster could be the snake, but to avoid persecution, he deflects claiming an anonymous author sent it to him.

>>

In the original video, the UFO is already long gone at the point it comes into view on the 50% speed. The reflections in the window and the window frame give it away.

>>

Absolutely! Thanks for pointing this out, I just checked this myself and can confirm. Hoax bin, again.

flexy456 51 minutes ago on YOUTUBE

In the original video, the UFO is already long gone at the point it comes into view on the 50% speed. The reflections in the window and the window frame give it away.

Nice copy(from ats) and paste onto youtube mate....

reply to post by Zarniwoop


Good job! That's enough evidence for me that this belongs in the hoax bin.

You would think that if they were going to make a CGI hoax, they would have made it the same in the slow-mo as in the original speed -- or just do the CGI in the original speed, then slow down the film with the CGI added.

reply to post by Zarniwoop


Thanks for your analysis. Pretty much hit the nail on the head.
When something like this becomes a hoax, I don't get discouraged anymore.
It merely falls into the category of "representation of something real".


Hoax bin it is, however.
Ya know, over these couple of years, I've gotten better at judging a CGI. This one was clever, as it was at least minimalistic.
Fooled me that's for sure!

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by Lonewulph

 

Not disagreeing at all, but I just find it odd that he didn't just fake one video then speed-up or slow down to suit.

That's good thinking, there's no good reason to suppose two separate videos, but there's often a loss of some of the picture and quality in slowmo playback. This might help,

cameradojo.com...

It gives an idea on how things work, for instance if the boy's camera was on a HD setting, he might be getting only 24 frames per second, the slowmo only makes the picture degraded in loss of detail and clarity.