Has this been debunked?Amazing ufo video!!

i seem to recall reading sommit about the guy on the left in that video - ie b4 the film footage starts. If i remeber right hes a reporter , or somekind of publisher of "identy must remain unknown joe public sent me this footage" type of middle man - sigh, if id captured maybe a history/life on earth changing video - id like to be responsible - my immortality thruOut history would be garaunteed.

I beleive hes been found to be a pedler of all things photoshoped, and an expert in mexican -computer- aided ufo "real?" vids.


Some of the areas these films are taken are pritty poverished, and i suppose anyone who is unemployed would like nothing better then to be a film extra. - i must say however, whoever he knows has great skill in computer graphics.

I guess what im saying is this, i was caught out by this fellow on many accations, but then - how does he get these awesome films when noone else in the world has ever managed to also do so - lets not forget the photos that are never in focus for that ufo shot - his stuff always seems spot on. Therefore altho id like to beleive in star trek/aliens/salvation... i have to wayup what i see - and what i see is fasinationg, but far to unbelievable. - H O A X.

Following this logic anything unbelieveble is a H O A X. Have you seen any UFO movie that you "believed" ?


Sincerly

Cade

There's a difference when it's an ADMITTED hoax....

How do we know this was a SCI-FI ad? Where can we see the "ad version"? Your description of the womans moves and actions might be corresponding with the movie, but I'm not sure what it tells us, what it proves?

1. The ones airing the video (Sci Fi Channel) have said it's a hoax.

2. The actress in the spot, a SAG member, who is clearly identifiable in the clip, has also come forward on this.

3. Many of the reasons Indigo Child has already mentioned.

4. The fact that there are a SERIES of videos appearing on the Sci-Fi Channel, as part of the same promotion.

5. The fact that this video appeared in the same time frame as those mentioned above.

6. The fact that one of the common threads of all videos in this particular series of promos, is the subtle inclusion of the sci-fi logo in a fairly hidden way.

Given all of the above, any conclusion but hoax, is simply wishful thinking, sad to say....

Originally posted by Cade
Following this logic anything unbelieveble is a H O A X. Have you seen any UFO movie that you "believed" ?


Sincerly

Cade

you are trying to say im using the term hoax as a general term - i am not doing that - im refering to most - if not all that guys material as being a hoax (generated by computers).

If we are being visited - why arnt they sayin hello? - do we have absalutly anything in common with them? - an analogy - do u talk to concrette walls?

Originally posted by Gazrok
There's a difference when it's an ADMITTED hoax....

How do we know this was a SCI-FI ad? Where can we see the "ad version"? Your description of the womans moves and actions might be corresponding with the movie, but I'm not sure what it tells us, what it proves?

1. The ones airing the video (Sci Fi Channel) have said it's a hoax.

A few have mentioned this. It would be great if anyone could find a link or something, anything.

If indeed the alien presence is a threat to the powerful few, if they risk loosing us needing their protection, and if they could loose the support of the masses if the people started looking to the sky for answers, why would we then trust a media apparatus that has been bought up over the last 20 years and are now owned by 5 companies (including SCI-FI) ?

Is it really any wonder that we keep running around like small ants with big questions inside small "ant-heads" when we keep seeing UFO videos and then believing the corporate media when they tell their "small children" to go back to sleep because it was "just another fake" ???. Why is it that we believe these statements at face value? Where do all this flourishing sceptisism disappear to when the loud voice of corporate america speaks?

If I came out and admittet that I had filmed a UFO, even tho I had told everyone earlier that it was a fake, would you believe me?

SCI-FI promoted this video as something which they had obtained from private folks from what I understand at their website, there doesn't seem to be much doubt about that at www.scifi.com ? So if they then later came out and "admitted" it was fake wouldn't this be like misleading advertisement?

...where did all the sceptisism go...pooof....gone....

2. The actress in the spot, a SAG member, who is clearly identifiable in the clip, has also come forward on this.

She herself states on her website that she was in a "SCI-FI" promo. I'm wondering if this means it was fake or if she sent her UFO video to SCI-FI and they showed it. "The following footage was resently obtained by SCI-FI". I'm still unsure of what this movie is, but nothing SCI-FI says is gonna make me bow at aure of the mighty media alter. I'm not a News Disciple.

3. Many of the reasons Indigo Child has already mentioned.

All though well intentioned, I couldn't find evidence that this is a fake there either.

4. The fact that there are a SERIES of videos appearing on the Sci-Fi Channel, as part of the same promotion.

The series is www.scifi.com/happens as it is stated at the end of the video. At the page they ask people to send in their footage. You can read the letter from the viewers who sent in their footage. Anything can be faked, but that does not make it so. One thing you can count on is that EVERYTIME a UFO video shows up, those who fear they will loose all will be there with convincing statements of fraud, and we have a lot easier time believing it's a fraud then believing it's real. The alien presence is a massive consiousness alteration exposure, not easiy handled by our minds, unless we have seen them ourselves, and sometimes not even then.

5. The fact that this video appeared in the same time frame as those mentioned above.

...

6. The fact that one of the common threads of all videos in this particular series of promos, is the subtle inclusion of the sci-fi logo in a fairly hidden way.

I'm not sure if your referring to the small announcements at the beginning and at the end of the video, but what is the fact that SCI-FI would choose to "brand" this video prove to us?

Given all of the above, any conclusion but hoax, is simply wishful thinking, sad to say....

To put it short, we need pixles in the wrong place and so forth. What this guy said or what that network said is what is to be expected if the alien presence is as big a threat to the established power on earth as I suspect it is. So far the article refers to a video expert claiming that either the towers and the UFO were both inserted into the video or it is authentic. Could we find similar video expert statements?


Sincerly

Cade

Originally posted by The_Visitor

Originally posted by Cade
Following this logic anything unbelieveble is a H O A X. Have you seen any UFO movie that you "believed" ?


Sincerly

Cade

you are trying to say im using the term hoax as a general term - i am not doing that - im refering to most - if not all that guys material as being a hoax (generated by computers).

If we are being visited - why arnt they sayin hello? - do we have absalutly anything in common with them? - an analogy - do u talk to concrette walls?

I'm sorry but is this video supposed to originate from a specific person who has delievered many other ufo videos?

Yes, why aren't they saying hello? It's an obvious question. Ofcause we have to remember that many people are claiming that they have indeed said "hello" but most just won't believe them. I can add to the questions, but I cannot provide answers.

� Are they allowed to "say hello" in a big way?
� If they did "land" would we become afraid and if so is this what they are trying to avoid?
� Isn't flying in the sky for 50 years really the best way to show without a doubt that they are not hostile and is this their way of giving us a chance to get used to them without being afraid?
� Are they unwilling to show us their technology as longs as we make war? (would we show nuclear technology to a caveman?)
� Would we all start looking to the sky for answers if they did land, and are they trying to provide government a chance to be the first to come out and announce their presence first?

I believe I have found a lot of the answers to these questions, in listening to the about 100 witnesses on tape from the Disclosure Project.

Sincerly

Cade

You can see a high quality video of the actual sci-fi promo here:

www.scifi.com...

Originally posted by UnBreakable
I thought I saw before where this video was debunked, but this article seems to indicate the jury's still out on this one.

www.247news.net...

There is an update at the bottom of this article stating that its a hoax:

UPDATE

Chris Stein a founding member of "Blondie" and husband of Barbara Sicuranza has confirmed with 24 7 News that the SciFi Video is a FAKE, it was shot as a commercial and his wife "Acted" in it!

Chris Stein has just released a public statement about the SciFi UFO video
Chris Stein Statement on UFO Video

Barbara Sicuranza releases "Statement" on SciFi Commercial. She claims SciFil used her name on FAKE Documents about UFO Tape!
Barbara Sicuranza Statement

Another rense article with email correspondence with the actress:

www.rense.com...


If this video is real wouldn't there be a bunch of eyewitnesses? The ufo seems to be flying so close to wtc that some of the occupants could probably see it right out the window. Yet not one corroborating witness to this sighting?

i dont need some tapes to tell me what i see - there is something flyin around.
Maybe our atmosphere is corosive to them or they simply cannot leave their space ship?
So they all drive more or less the same spaceships... dont we all drive cars - they look similar afterall.
Maybe they dont recognise us as individuals - just as objects that make decisions.

again if they are so far advanced - maybe they dont comprehend us in the first place - or there senses arnt developed in the same way as our own??

Maybe we are to them just like cactus are to us - a strange lifeforce with a prickly history?

I guess Chris Stein and Barbara Sicuranza's denial of this event proves its a hoax, like Jesse Marcell and Gen. Ramey's denial of Roswell proves it never happened, right?

Believe what you will, I watch Sci-Fi all the time, and remember these spots (happens) very well. One of the first I saw was the one with a guy getting electrocuted on a fence. It was fairly obvious at the time that this was a promo for an upcoming Sci-Fi show....

Even if there WAS no such connection or admission, actress, the analysis of the director mistakes, the vapor trail errors, etc., and the lack of witnesses would all put it in the crapper as well. We are talking about one of the most major Metropolitan areas of the WORLD here....

Wow, some of you are reading way too much into this television promo.

Look I want to believe there are UFOs as much as the next guy but the fact is there is much more compelling video footage out there than this admitted fake, a fake done as a promotion for a television channel.

By some of your logic, the other ads produced by the channel must be true too but unfortunately I've never seen any news source report on a man who was magnetized from falling into a power generator's electrified fence or a family being swarmed by killer ladybugs both of which were produced at the same time as the "ufo" video and both of which also carried the "recently aquired by sci fi" tag line that was on the "ufo" vid. Does the fact that sci fi added that tag line also make those two vids authentic as well?

When there is so much evidence that something is indeed a hoax, not to mention it being an admitted hoax it makes you look sort of silly to continue to insist on it's authenticity.




[edit on 2-1-2005 by RR]

EDIT: More info on hidden Sci Fi logo

Since the fact that Sci Fi cleverly added their logo to these ads has been repeatedly ignored, I found a screen cap that clearly shows a round �cloud� circled by the vapor trail from the �UFO� making up the Sci Fi logo. Check it out:



SOURCE


I guess that's just coincidence though, right?

[edit on 2-1-2005 by RR]

She takes a picture with her camera barely touching her eyes? We're watching a movie where a woman sees a UFO and we debunk it because her eyes does not touch the camera when she snaps a photo? If we are really going to approach an analazys of this movie on this "level" I would suggest that any action on the part of any human starring into a craft from another civilisation that could be described as "normal" or as "making sence" would be unbelieveble. At face to face, I'm not sure I could operate a one button camera.

You will have to see the full version. The helicopter is flying towards the towers, at this moment the woman brings a camera to her eyes, and in a split second, takes it back down and says "what is that" that just shows that the actress lacked transient(the time to transition to the next action) At this point the object is right in the pilots view. However, the first to note it is our woman/actress.

I don't know if this movie is fake or real, but if the authensicity is to be determined, it's not going to be from evaluating the behavior of the people inside the heli, for the very logical reason that none of us would know what a normal behavior would be in such a situation.

You can tell acting from normal behavior. And as I am a filmmaker I can confidently and without hesitation tell you it is acting and horrible acting at that.

If the camera moves sideways from left to right inside the helicopter how could it be mounted on a tripod? It also appears to move in different heights inside the heli (taking into account the zooming in and out). Does the footage not suggest it is handheld? By "shake" I mean "thrown around" trying to catch the object, not as in "earthquake" vibrations.

The camera does not move sideways. The camera is mounted on a pivotal tripod head and it pans towards the right in a fluid motion and the "different height" you say is a tilt up. If the camera moved it would have changed the perspective. That is how you discriminate between a dolly/crane and a pan/tilt. A pan/tilt will not change the perspective.

This is the camera mans routine: Zoom in - Pan right - Tilt up

If the population waking up to the alien precense is the greatest threat to the powerful few, shouldn't we expect convincing disinfo to be spread from highly trustworth sources? And if so how do we really go about determening the authenticity of video material? If the military industrial complex and big media can keep a lid on the precense of our guests for 50 years, using ridicule as their most powerful weapon, are we supposed to be surprised if they can come up with a "video expert" that can say 4 words for them:"It is a fake" ?

I am not buying into anyones words that it is fake. I knew it was fake the first time I ever saw it. I have a visually trained eye and I can discern between staged and real visual footage. This is staged. Right from the acting, camera movements, sound and the UFO itself.

I have absolutely no doubts about it.

I wouldn't read into this one too much.

[edit on 2-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]

I wish I could be so sure in either direction. Meanwhile I've started emailing with the actress.

The page showing the vapor trail moving in reference to the white cloud, shows a small loop. Can anyone find this in the original version? I cannot find this, and if you cannot either are we then looking at an attempt to miscredit the video?


Sincerly

Cade

Well, look at the UFO itself.

The UFO is initially suppose to be behind the tower. However, it actually looks stuck to it.

Then as soon as the woman declares it's presence and the camera zooms in, it's instantly propelled across the sky and remains in the camera frame all the time as it pans. That itself shows you it is fake.

The UFO lacks any discernable shape and is tiny, probably the same size as a frisbee. It quite simply looks like a silver computer generated blob.

Finally, compare this to what we already know about the main UFO characteristics:

1. UFO's produce EME inference. There is none present, despite the UFO being very close.
2. UFO do not produce vapor trails. There is one present.
3. UFO's have lights and a plasmic glow on the underside. There is none present.

So not only is it visually wrong it also does not conform to the common characteristics of a UFO either. For all these reasons and the reasons mentioned before this is a fake. It does not deserve your attention. This gives us UFO believers a bad reputation when other believers consider obvious fakes possibly authentic.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
1. UFO's produce EME inference. There is none present, despite the UFO being very close.
2. UFO do not produce vapor trails. There is one present.
3. UFO's have lights and a plasmic glow on the underside. There is none present.

How do you know so much about UFOs? Have you built one?

Looking it from a different view: IF it was a hoax launching in October 2001, can you imagine, what a disaster there would be surrounding the entire media?! I mean, it is not a nice thing to drop such a disgusting hoax upon those, who have just lost their loved ones in the world's most emotional event. Unlike this, what do/did you hear? A great silence. And such a silence IS always suspicious. I don't think it's a hoax, because there are various factors (other than the pixels and poor quality) proving that it's REAL. It's another thing, that the authorities would like to show it up as hoax, and the weak minded folks actually believe it, while the bigguys are laughing at you right in your face.

Well, they have done a really good job, it's that easy to manipulate the whole human community!!

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Well, look at the UFO itself.

The UFO is initially suppose to be behind the tower. However, it actually looks stuck to it.

Then as soon as the woman declares it's presence and the camera zooms in, it's instantly propelled across the sky and remains in the camera frame all the time as it pans. That itself shows you it is fake.

The UFO lacks any discernable shape and is tiny, probably the same size as a frisbee. It quite simply looks like a silver computer generated blob.

Finally, compare this to what we already know about the main UFO characteristics:

1. UFO's produce EME inference. There is none present, despite the UFO being very close.
2. UFO do not produce vapor trails. There is one present.
3. UFO's have lights and a plasmic glow on the underside. There is none present.

So not only is it visually wrong it also does not conform to the common characteristics of a UFO either. For all these reasons and the reasons mentioned before this is a fake. It does not deserve your attention. This gives us UFO believers a bad reputation when other believers consider obvious fakes possibly authentic.

Indigo, a comment on the bad acting. Do you still feel that "Alternative 3" was hard to tell if it was bad acting or real persons? I'm wondering since there was a lot more to go on since it was an entire program and this is just a "clip".

The way the UFO appears "stuck" to the towers might be evidence it's a fake, but other evidence suggests that these crafts can alter their craft to another frequency and thereby appear as a plasma ball of light and travel many times beyond light speed etc. So who they might appear does no longer constitute much evidence to me. We are dealing with a whole other field of technology here.

Huge triangle crafts have been witnessed to suddenly collapse into a plasma light ball and shoot up into space. They can apparently disappear and reappear. Alter their substance to another "dream like" substance, and travel inanother dimension if you want to call it that (Dreamland resort aka. A51). Evidence suggests this is the case, so I'm taking a step back on how they might appear. We must remember that we are dealing with the unknown here. Fasinating isn't it?

Again, the light underneath missing, EME (what does that mean? appology, but this is my second language, emulsion something?), there has been many ufo's filmed without any light emulsion in broad daylight. There are many different civilisations, many different crafts. I can't say if the UFO in this video is fake, I'm not a Video expert, but the article did mention someone who was and who pointed out that either the towers were put there along with the UFO or it was real, but perhaps he is not for real either.

As I posted earlier, since few UFO video's have vapor trails, why "compose" it if it does not add to the credibility? They might have felt it added to the "realism"?

If this video is fake or real ofcause is not very important in the overall alien presence reality, but it's still part of this new frontier to investigate this fantastic subject. Big media is not here to investigate or expose the truth anymore, they have been bought up (I threw away my TV 5 years ago even tho I live in Denmark, but something similar is happening here to some extent) SCI-FI will serve as a place where all those who are angry at CNN FOX etc. for not revealing the presence of our guests, so they will feed them with juicy UFO stories but always with a hint of doubt, keeping them infront of the TV screen waiting, waiting, waiting for the final proof. In the mean time they will distort and confuse. This way they have the whole spectrum covered, and have everyone in the palm of their hand. It's the 99% truth 1% lie method all over again.

For big media to produce a UFO clip and to post it on their website as authentic is fraud. Then when it's later discovered that it is a fake the UFO believers once again looks like gullible fools, mission accomplished.

On the topic of "UFO believers"
www.kevinsmithshow.com...

SCI-FI is owned by NBC Universal
www.cjr.org...


Sincerly

Cade

How do you know so much about UFOs? Have you built one?

These characteristics are prevalent throughout all of the sightings in history. However, that by itself, is not conclusive proof of it being hoaxed, it just shows that not only does this UFO video looks visually unconvincing and artifical, it also lacks the characteristics of supposed genuine UFOs.

Looking it from a different view: IF it was a hoax launching in October 2001, can you imagine, what a disaster there would be surrounding the entire media?! I mean, it is not a nice thing to drop such a disgusting hoax upon those, who have just lost their loved ones in the world's most emotional event. Unlike this, what do/did you hear? A great silence. And such a silence IS always suspicious. I don't think it's a hoax, because there are various factors (other than the pixels and poor quality) proving that it's REAL. It's another thing, that the authorities would like to show it up as hoax, and the weak minded folks actually believe it, while the bigguys are laughing at you right in your face.

It's an ad And if it wasn't, no there would not have been an uproar in the public

[edit on 3-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Indigo, a comment on the bad acting. Do you still feel that "Alternative 3" was hard to tell if it was bad acting or real persons? I'm wondering since there was a lot more to go on since it was an entire program and this is just a "clip".

Alternative 3 was definitely acting. Every character was over over-blown and overly dramatized. The situations themselves were melodramatic. If you look carefully you will also see some of the so called interviews have been directed.

The way the UFO appears "stuck" to the towers might be evidence it's a fake

If you ended the paragraph here it would make sense. There is no other evidence you speak of. The UFO is stuck to the building.

What that basically is that the UFO animation has been layered/composited into the real footage that was initially captured on the helicopter. The UFO objection animation is juxtaposed behind the real footage layer, in such a way that it's front is sticking out. As soon as we reach the point in the real video footage where she declares it's presence, the UFO object animation is started.

This is why the the acting routine is so rigid. The actors are not actually seeing anything. They are pretending. The UFO object is added in post production by a special effects team. It's a crude amatuerish job.

We must remember that we are dealing with the unknown here. Fasinating isn't it?

If we go by this logic. We can say a frisbee on a string from a washing line could be a UFO, because after all, it's advanced alien technology, we could not possible comprehend it.

The truth is we do know somethings about UFO's flight dynamics, general dimensions, shape, size and properties.

Again, the light underneath missing, EME (what does that mean? appology, but this is my second language, emulsion something?), there has been many ufo's filmed without any light emulsion in broad daylight.

No, it is a ufology term and stands for electromagnetic effects.

There are many different civilisations, many different crafts. I can't say if the UFO in this video is fake, I'm not a Video expert, but the article did mention someone who was and who pointed out that either the towers were put there along with the UFO or it was real, but perhaps he is not for real either.

Yeah, there probably are many different civilizations with many different crafts. However, they all, would have similar forms of unconventional propulsion for navigating in our skies and similar kind of dampening field technology to negate gravity.

UFOs are generally not reported to produce sonic booms or vapor trails, because they are using unconventional propulsion.

Also, do you have blind faith in what some joe somebody says. At the end of the day you have to work it for yourself. However, as there is literally nothing that suggests this is genuine and everything that suggests it is fake, there is not much to workout. It's really a case of look and drop.

As I posted earlier, since few UFO video's have vapor trails, why "compose" it if it does not add to the credibility? They might have felt it added to the "realism"?

First of all, you are assuming the production team were after credibility. Second, you are assuming they are educated in the nuances of reported UFO properties and would account for every variable. They added it because it looks good. That is what the purpose of special effects are.

Now, why do they want it to look good? Because it's a commercial ad. Why do you think they shoot the water hitting a womans face at 40,000 fps(frames per second) because water falling and trickling down her skin in super-slow motion looks good.

[edit on 3-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
It's an ad

And if it wasn't, no there would not have been an uproar in the public

[edit on 3-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]

"The following footage was recently obtained by Sci-Fi."

Is this what you call and "ad"?! There are strict rules on how any ad must look like , and what their characteristics must be. If they don't keep up with that, the ad is highly illegal. So would this video be, if it really meant to be an ad!!!

It's a different thing, that Sci-Fi was well paid in order to tune this footage up as a hoax- how shameful!!