Old Somerset UK, UFO Footage

Originally posted by Phage
Sure looks like a solar balloon. A little more successful than this one.

Solar balloon, eh? Good try!

Star & flag for you!



[edit on 11-3-2009 by Exopolitico]

Wow, I can't even begin to describe what that could be. I would like to know how anyone could fake a video that good? I do wish it was better quality, but from what is shown on the video there is no way it can be debunked. (Imo)

If hoaxers get appreciation and publicity out of their hoaxes, I wonder why he hasn't fessed up to this one.

I don't buy the balloon theory. It sounded awfully windy in that video. Unless it was teathered down, I suppose.
Also, it was reported that the sighting lasted 12 minutes?
The video didn't seem nearly that long.

reply to post by Jay-in-AR

It sounds more like traffic than wind to me.
But the sound track seems to be the interview about the video, not the original track.

reply to post by Phage


Listen again.
It sounds windy. At least to me. The first time they show the footage you can hear the guy talking to someone else. There is a steady whistle in the background. I believe this is the wind.

However, I'll say that if it IS a balloon and it is teathered to the ground it could possibly do this. But I would think that the balloon would have to be of a special design... Like your solar balloon idea but one that is shaped like a wing of some sort to keep aloft despite the wind.

Im not an expert on wind but it may well be that the wind at that altitude and in the location of the object could quite easily be significantly different to the location of the camera.

Every time I paused the video (repeatedly) the object looked like a solar balloon and nothing else.

At no point of pausing did the object look like a disc.

reply to post by skibtz


I tried capturing a frame that I found in the video in which the "object" looks JUST LIKE the stereotypical "flying saucer"... But apparently I'm not tech savvy enough.

I don't buy the balloon theory and I've already explained why.
This place, wherever it is, is a very windy place. It was windy when they were interviewing the filmer AND it was windy when the video was shot.

Trade winds, I suppose. Probably near the coast.

Not a balloon. A kite possibly, but not a balloon.

That is some odd shaped kite... And it sure rocks side to side a lot.

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


Use your Print Screen button and paste in MS Paint or Word

I do not doubt you for second btw

reply to post by skibtz


I tried that. I couldn't get it to work.
Heck, I'll try it again.
(I figured that was what I needed to do... wonder why it didn't work.)

Alright, I got it. Not sure what I did wrong the first time, but here goes.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the new image requirements. I really need to brush up on that stuff. I fooled with the contrast and obviously took down the color temp a bit. I think the shape is pretty evident. Enlarge the screen and zoom in on the object to see it best. Last edit, I swear.


[edit on 13-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c4318e6ef068.jpg[/atsimg]

Definitely worth a star!

Good spot - now that does look like a disc

[edit on 13/3/2009 by skibtz]

reply to post by skibtz


Thanks.

However, I thought I would throw this out there as a disclaimer. I'm not sure what to make of the video. I think it could possibly be CGI.

If you go back to the image that I posted, enlarge the screen and zoom in on the object, you will see heavy pixelation around the "craft"...

It is just hard to tell if it is due to the compression into YouTube or some overlay work.
I'm by no means more than a newb with this stuff, so I can't tell for sure. Maybe ArMap could look at it.

Edit for two things... The guy in the video from hollywood is basically saying that it is hard to do unless HE is doing it. (stroking his ego)... This would be the perfect video to do CGI with because you can claim that the autofocus was causing the thing to fade in and out (you are actually doing this yourself) and people will overlook the CGI factor. The cloudy background gives the object somewhere to disappear to. People aren't looking for CGI in this video because it looks too good.

I think it is CGI.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


We should never forget the old methods of using real objects, those hoaxes pass any CGI test.

And I agree with the CGI expert, it looks like the object was really there.

reply to post by ArMaP


Thanks for looking at it. I thought that the pixelation looked rough around the object, but I'll heed to your call as I have no real education in this area at all.

Good video, in that case.
Very good.

If Hollywood's finest in FX say its genuine? then it is probably genuine. They would never let anyone think that their job is easy.

reply to post by Kukulcangod


He didn't said it was genuine, he said that the object does not look added to the video, that it was a real object, but that is one of the methods of faking things, using a mock-up.

reply to post by Phage


I think you may be right. There isn't a clear enough image or enough information to rule this out.