BBC World News - Unidentified Objects

Originally posted by paperplanes
reply to post by Sroek

 

I find it odd that you're quick to criticize my reasoning skills while suggesting that the BBC is attempting to subconsciously program viewers to ridicule UFOs.

Just like how parody tabloids subconsciously program people to ridicule conspiracy theories and UFOs, so does mainstream television.

Any rational person will realize that thousands of viewers will notice those flying objects on BBC, most of which will immediately know that it's computer generated, and will just laugh about it. The rest will think they're "smart" for noticing something "fishy", when there's really nothing esoteric about it. Then there are the few critical thinkers, who realize that the objects are placed there to toy with those two groups of people. To get the first group to continue to ridicule UFOlogy and to get the second group distracted from real UFOlogy.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by Sroek]

reply to post by Sroek


I think you're in the minority there, buddy. I imagine the initial reaction of most viewers to the objects rushing by would be "Hey! A jet!" or "Hey! A bird!", not "Hey! Nice CGI!". I'm going to have to disagree with the notion that it was some ploy by BBC to subconsciously promote mockery of UFO research.

reply to post by paperplanes


they were bugs or birds, he is obviously in front of a green screen, so its hard to tell what they are shooting in the background. I would go with birds over bugs but flight characteristics seems to be more like bugs.

Originally posted by alienj
reply to post by paperplanes

 

they were bugs or birds, he is obviously in front of a green screen, so its hard to tell what they are shooting in the background. I would go with birds over bugs but flight characteristics seems to be more like bugs.

Sorry. I'm still confused at why he is "obviously" in front of a green screen? I'm a film major at University at the moment and I deal w/ green screens a lot. Are you basing this on the banner behind him? Because believe me; that doesn't prove a thing.

There is also a BBC centre just opposite Canary Wharf (The big pointy tower incase you aren't from England) which would put it in perfect position.

Edited to correct my own positioning of the banner behind him.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by A55A551N]

Sigh..

I miss vintage ATS.

Originally posted by paperplanes

Originally posted by ambushrocks
There you go 020 7240 3456 bbc phonenumber, it's to expensive to call it from here but from the UK it should be okay.

I'm in the U.S., but I'm going to go ahead and try to call the number.

Tsch! Talk about having "more money than sense"!

What exactly are you going to phone for? Has it really excited you that much? Honestly?

Well, there's nowt queer as folk!

reply to post by paperplanes


Right sorry



I hate big threads me eyes go all fuzzy, and before you know it, David Icke turns out to be a reptilian,presidential,Hispanic limo driver,who puts a video on uTube 'video is for real ' it gets debunked, where-on he gets taken to Dulce base, escapes with a video, puts it up on uTube but gets debunked,he then calls up C2C screaming they are gonna get me, only to be cut off and never heard from again.

I have no idea why i just did that, unless it was to avoid the one line rule

Great thread BTW S&F for fantastic eyesight.

I want it to be real so much.

Originally posted by triplesod
Tsch! Talk about having "more money than sense"!

What exactly are you going to phone for? Has it really excited you that much? Honestly?

Well, there's nowt queer as folk!

Through Voipbuster the costs are practically zero, and it should support the USA as well. Hell I even prank called a radio station in the UK, they did requests from 1 AM, but my timezone is one hour ahead.
So it was midnight in the UK, 1 AM here, and I called them, requesting Gunther's Ding Dong Song.
They appreciated the joke though. (Either that or they thought I was serious.)


To all the others in the thread, at least if you're going to claim that it's CGI because it is ''obvious'' supply some digital evidence / method of verification.

The whole point is to *show* why something is as you say it is.

Not that I am excluding it, as I very well know it to be capable of being CGI.

[edit on 14/10/08 by -0mega-]

Still didn't get a response from you back on page 10, Sroek.

And Triplesod already spoke to them, the convo overview is on page 10.

I feel the need to point out just because there as many "It's NOTHING" Fanatics on here who wont entertain a notion as there are "It's SOMETHING" Fanatics. That I personally have not ONCE said I believe it's something E.T or whatnot.

What I have done is ask people how they can COMPLETELY 'debunk' it w/o good cause or valid reasoning.

There is no DOUBTLESS EVIDENCE it's a green screen.

There is no DOUBTLESS EVIDENCE they are birds and nothing 'out of the ordinary'.

Right now they ARE Unidentified Flying Objects and we should be allowed to discuss them as such without people being rude or ignorant about it.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by A55A551N]

Originally posted by A55A551N
I just phoned BBC World News and spoke to a gentleman there about it who (Surprise surprise) Seemed to be attempting to fob me off the second I mentioned "Something strange streaking past the window".

Nooooo!! Surely not!!



CONSPIRACY I TELLS YA!!!

Originally posted by triplesod

Originally posted by A55A551N
I just phoned BBC World News and spoke to a gentleman there about it who (Surprise surprise) Seemed to be attempting to fob me off the second I mentioned "Something strange streaking past the window".

Nooooo!! Surely not!!



CONSPIRACY I TELLS YA!!!

What are you... 4?

Trolling is so 1994 mate, seriously.

Originally posted by A55A551N
Still didn't get a response from you back on page 10, Sroek.

And Triplesod already spoke to them, the convo overview is on page 10.

I feel the need to point out just because there as many "It's NOTHING" Fanatics on here who wont entertain a notion as there are "It's SOMETHING" Fanatics. That I personally have not ONCE said I believe it's something E.T or whatnot.

What I have done is ask people how they can COMPLETELY 'debunk' it w/o good cause or valid reasoning.

There is no DOUBTLESS EVIDENCE it's a green screen.

There is no DOUBTLESS EVIDENCE they are birds and nothing 'out of the ordinary'.

Right now they ARE Unidentified Flying Objects and we should be allowed to discuss them as such without people being rude or ignorant about it.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by A55A551N]

If they were unidentified objects, BBC would report it...

Are you really seeking the truth? Or are you seeking fantasy?

Originally posted by Sroek
If they were unidentified objects, BBC would report it...

Are you really seeking the truth? Or are you seeking fantasy?

Because they are unidentified, they won't get reported.

At least what I think is, that most media no longer pay that much attention to the big ''blurry object in crappy video'' phenomenon.

And even now though they broadcasted it on tv, it's still a blurry / unknown object. Nothing of ''significant'' value since they can't tell what it is.

I don't watch the news all that much anymore but when I do I never see UFO's anymore.

Something's just worth reporting for a certain while, after that while, the whole enthusiasm surrounding the subject starts to fade.

[edit on 14/10/08 by -0mega-]

Originally posted by anyone
It looks to me that there may only be one object zooming by (the right object) while the left "object" is actually a reflection of the very big object on the right reflecting onto the sky scrapers.

Can't be, look here;

www.fileden.com...

The second object, or the one that's behind and lower is visible between 2 buildings so it can't be a shadow unless it's meant to be a shadow just a glitch.


Hey seeing as it's UFO day maybe the BBC is offering a prize for whoever spots this?


Edit: I see someone else pointed it out.. sorry I never saw.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by shoeshiner]

Pigeons have been clocked at over 58 miles per hour and average over 30. From the angle, the birds were diving down, which could be even faster. That near to the camera all you would see is the same streak or blur we are seeing. I get those streaks or blurs often on still images. Beleive what you want, those are birds.

Originally posted by Sroek

Originally posted by A55A551N
Still didn't get a response from you back on page 10, Sroek.

And Triplesod already spoke to them, the convo overview is on page 10.

I feel the need to point out just because there as many "It's NOTHING" Fanatics on here who wont entertain a notion as there are "It's SOMETHING" Fanatics. That I personally have not ONCE said I believe it's something E.T or whatnot.

What I have done is ask people how they can COMPLETELY 'debunk' it w/o good cause or valid reasoning.

There is no DOUBTLESS EVIDENCE it's a green screen.

There is no DOUBTLESS EVIDENCE they are birds and nothing 'out of the ordinary'.

Right now they ARE Unidentified Flying Objects and we should be allowed to discuss them as such without people being rude or ignorant about it.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by A55A551N]

If they were unidentified objects, BBC would report it...

Are you really seeking the truth? Or are you seeking fantasy?

ROTFL Now that was worth a laugh. That's your response to this? Your 'argument'? That the BBC would have UNDOUBTEDLY reported it if it truly were "Unidentified objects"?

The guy told me, it slipped past him. - If the BBC were going to hoax people they would have done exactly as you just said, they would have "reported it" they would have made a HUGE double big-mac and chips meal about it.

Originally posted by shoeshiner
The second object, or the one that's behind and lower is visible between 2 buildings so it can't be a shadow unless it's meant to be a shadow just a glitch.

When it goes between those 2 buildings towards the other building, it suddenly bends for a moment and goes downward as well. Seems weird for an object if people call it a reflection, but still. A bend? How's that supposed to happen?

It does support the bird theory a bit more since most craft are known not to ''bend''.

[edit on 14/10/08 by -0mega-]

Originally posted by -0mega-

Because they are unidentified.

At least what I think is, that most media no longer pay that much attention to the big ''blurry object in crappy video'' phenomenon.

And even now though they broadcasted it on tv, it's still a blurry / unknown object. Nothing of ''significant'' value since they can't tell what it is.

I don't watch the news all that much anymore but when I do I never see UFO's anymore.

Something's just worth reporting for a certain while, after that while, the whole enthusiasm surrounding the subject starts to fade.

[edit on 14/10/08 by -0mega-]

They would report that they are unidentified....

The fact is, to them, the objects are already identified. Identified as CGI. Remember, today is the big day of the Oct. 14th hype. They're merely toying with viewers, both skeptics and believers. But they can't toy with people who are keen on rationalizing what's really happening.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by Sroek]

noticed that the objects seem to bend round the features of the building behind the guy when you play it really slow.

looks like the effect you have when you run your hand underneath a sheet.Could this have anything to do with the screen it is on?

I'm not an expert , but my eyes says CGI.....