UFO Pyramid Over Kremlin in Moskow?

Originally posted by Now_Then

Originally posted by mcrom901
now there is another similar claim, supposedly coming from china....

also uk......

Both of those vids are from the same footage

Just start both at the same time (no need to be precise) - The zooming in is the same and the cloud pastern is identical!

So China or Blighty?

lmao! fake fake n fake

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by trancedanne

 

How many videos do we really have of the Phoenix Lights?

Exactly! And how many videos of the second airplane hitting the second tower on 911? How many videos of building 7 falling? And how many cell phone videos were taken just moments after the Pentagon was attacked by whatever hit it? And if any WERE taken, why have they not been uploaded to the net? Actually, when you think of how many people there are in New York, how many videos do we really have on the net that depict the important events of that day? Not many at all, that's how many.

Originally posted by Patenciq
People are so naive it hurts to read.

I hate it when people say 'if it was cgi it would be hell of a good job.' NO, IT WOULDN'T, IT'S REALLY EASY TO DO. You people have no idea about cgi. There is absolutely no problem to edit movie with such low quality at all, it is very freaking easy, even for amateurs. It was harder back in the days, now there are programs that everyone can buy and do it themselves. It's really easy, and if someone is a little more intermediate, a very convincing stuff can be made.

Come on, it's a moving triangle in the sky.. how hard is that, is there a real cgi artist here that can say that this is hard? How hard it is to put this triangle into footage and change its resolution to fit, and filter it all few times later to make it even more seamingless. Come on people. Don't be so naive. I would make stuff like that myself just to show you, but then again, you would already know it's not real so effect wouldn't be the same.

I'm not saying it's not real, and that it's not ballon, I'm not saying it is a cgi. But I am 100% sure this can be cgi and it is easy, not hard, like most people state. Go read about cgi, see examples, because you have no idea...

It is actually not that easy.

You are not taking into account

*the zooming in and out - The pyramid's proportion is always the same

*the lighting - the lighting always behaves as it is supposed to

*the environment - the pyramid gets lost in glares, gets obscured by grime on the window, and stays in perfect place, even through the bumps . . . all while taking the above two factors (zoom and light) into account. Not to mention it is shot from a moving car.

Originally posted by Patenciq
People are so naive it hurts to read.

I hate it when people say 'if it was cgi it would be hell of a good job.' NO, IT WOULDN'T, IT'S REALLY EASY TO DO. You people have no idea about cgi. There is absolutely no problem to edit movie with such low quality at all, it is very freaking easy, even for amateurs. It was harder back in the days, now there are programs that everyone can buy and do it themselves. It's really easy, and if someone is a little more intermediate, a very convincing stuff can be made.

Come on, it's a moving triangle in the sky.. how hard is that, is there a real cgi artist here that can say that this is hard? How hard it is to put this triangle into footage and change its resolution to fit, and filter it all few times later to make it even more seamingless. Come on people. Don't be so naive. I would make stuff like that myself just to show you, but then again, you would already know it's not real so effect wouldn't be the same.

I'm not saying it's not real, and that it's not ballon, I'm not saying it is a cgi. But I am 100% sure this can be cgi and it is easy, not hard, like most people state. Go read about cgi, see examples, because you have no idea...

Okay, there you go... you are not taking something very important into account. Why do you think Hollywood (or any moviemaking company) uses green screens or cycloramas? Very simply, because it is required in order to add CGI elements to real video footage, especially if there is ANY kind of layering between the real footage objects and the CGI objects.

There is no software that will easily remove this requirement. You saying it is so easy only shows that you are the one who has never actually been involved with the process. I, on the other hand have my office at a film studio, where I have a powerful Final Cut Studio work station running on an 8-core Mac, and two 20" cinema monitors.

The process of recording the initial footage with green screens, then using editing and compositing software is not that easy even with the green screens, especially if the lighting on the screens is not perfect. Also, you need to have guide marks on the screens so that the motion software has something to match to. It is true that the software has gotten much better over the years, but if you don't have green screens, it is a REAL difficult process to make even trivial CGI additions when movement is involved... that is unless the entire scene is CGI, in which case there is no meshing of worlds required.

Now, in this video, one has to determine if a green screen was hung up in the sky so that the tetrahedron could be added by computer.... I seriously doubt that, and of course people would report seeing the movie company there.

No, the far more likelier explanation is that this thing was really there, and the for various psychological reasons, people didn't see it or if they did, they didn't care to film it or report it... also, if they did report it to police, the police aren't commenting, so we don't really know if many people reported it.

Strange Skies over Russia in these days… Really!

UFO'S ON CCTV / 22nd MAY 2009 RUSSIA

What is this object that furrows the skies of a Russian city and that leaves behind a long wake and that hovering to a low altitude?
A meteor/asteroid with an horizontal trajectory?
The umpteenth failed test of a Russian Missile?
And, What is the second sparkling object that appears suddenly behind it and that follows the first one in tail?
Again: is this a hoax?
Take a look…

The first movie is little over one minute and the other is few seconds take this into account.

Zooming in and out for one minute is something that even I did manually when there was a need to in my projects. The movement is pretty simple, they are not in a helicopter flying around that thing, the path is pretty simple to generate. You have eyes, you can see the right proportions and it is not to accurate in this movie too, that's why people think it looks fake.

Lighting on what? The lighting on the object is very suspicious, but then again, I never saw a flying triangle so editor can make anything that fits his imagination, and people will have to believe their eyes. The lighting on the triangle is very minimal.

The shadows on the windows? Well, there's one filter in after effects that can make the triangle go behind them, it's not perfect, just like this clip is not perfect and people find that there's something wrong with the shadows.

I don't understand the green screen thing, since the triangle is cgi it is already on clear perfect background and is just pasted on the footage and then compressed with it, how other things work I wrote above.

I'm not professional hollywood editor, but I can do it. Besides, if you read the entire topic you probably saw a clip with a death star in it, this guy is not pro too


My opinion about this. If I saw a huge triangle floating in the air and rotating like a balloon. First thing that I would think about is 'this must be some public experiment, maybe it has something to do with weather, or maybe they are setting up a parade' those are the thoughts that would come up in my mind, and I think that's what normal human think, not UFOs or anything, but that. BUT, no matter how plain it would look I would still want to check out what's going on, cause a triangle balloon in the air is pretty cool And it's not like that place is out of limits for regular people or anything. I don't think I would bother to record the explanation though. I would just erase the video if it turned out to be something silly, or I would post it here and on youtube to see how imagination works.

Fake or something plain, but looking cool on low quality footage, like all things do.

reply to post by Patenciq


I really hope that you are very well paied for you "dirty job"!

Strange lights over the kremlin.government cover up or hoax?

reply to post by Imagir


You mean that old video, discussed at length in these very forums? The one where you posted after not checking to see if someone else had already posted? The rocket video?

Maybe this time I will get credit!

Third time the charm maybe?

No amount of wishful dreaming will make a rocket an alien spacecraft.

Originally posted by Helmkat
reply to post by Imagir

 

You mean that old video, discussed at length in these very forums? The one where you posted after not checking to see if someone else had already posted? The rocket video?

Maybe this time I will get credit!

Third time the charm maybe?

No amount of wishful dreaming will make a rocket an alien spacecraft.

The UFO'S ON CCTV / 22nd MAY 2009 RUSSIA Video....

Hmmm... is the umpteenth failed test of a Russian "rocket" ... in your personal opinion......

Slow speed... horizontal trajectory... low altitude and suddenly a sparkling light in tail... and You said: "a rocket"...

Then, may be, your chickens are....... Moles!

[edit on 21-12-2009 by Imagir]

why is the thread talking? do you here that, you guys?

reply to post by Imagir


I'm really sorry that the original thread didn't bow to your point of view. However it is clear that what you don't like you just -emoticon- away. Perhaps your geologist professor friend called one of his rocket scientist friends and thats how you came to your conclusion?

You do make some entertaining threads, I will say that.

reply to post by Imagir


I didn't get paid cause you are still here! But seriously, don't start the secret agent crap on every thread you make. Let's just stick to the flying triangles.

Originally posted by hackbart

Originally posted by free_spirit

Originally posted by hackbart

Please, reread my comment on the last page. The building to the lower left in the daylight footage doesn't exist since 2 - 3 years. It's faked.

It was called hotel rossija. Check out google earth and the related wikipedia article.

You need to capture a frame from the video and signal the building (Hotel Rossija) to
make a comparison and confirm your version, otherwise your claim is not suuported.
Please proceed.

The building in the red square is hotel russija, which was demolished in 2006.

en.wikipedia.org...

To further confirm this i made a few screenshots of some of the reference points i've used:



This building is called cathedral of christ the savior.



And the bridge we see in the foreground is the krymsky bridge.



Now have a look at google earth or just google maps. I've marked the positions with different colors (i had no photoshop installed, so it might look a little crappy, but it should do the job):


-The green square marks the position from which the footage was filmed. It's name is andreevsky foot bridge.

-The pink square marks the position of the krymsky bridge.

-The blue squae is where the cathedral of christ the savior is located.

-And last but not least, we have the remainings of hotel russija marked with a red square.


I think this should be enough to disclose the daytime video as a hoax. As i said, the footage must have been taken at least 2 years ago.

[edit on 20-12-2009 by hackbart]

Dear Mr. Hackbart,

I'm afraid you are wrong. If you look closely in Google earth and photo's from Moscow, you can see that the place where the Rossiya hotel was (till 2006), would have to be more on the right of the video. In the view of the video (from the the SSW) on the Cathedral of Christ the Savior (left) and Krymsky bridge (middle) also shows the Kremlin in the middle. So the ex-Rossiya hotel would have to be more on the right. In fact, in this 2006 photo
www.panoramio.com...
with view of the Krymsky bridge and Kremlin, you can see the top of the (now ex) hotel in the most right corner (detail of the hotel see www.panoramio.com... )

The building you "think" is the hotel, can in fact be seen in the left center of this photo (behind the Kremlin towers)
www.panoramio.com...
This building is much further away.

So, for me, it is still possible that the video's of both daylight and night are real.

Best regards,
Joris

wow, the UK daily mail in one of their photo stills circled one of the parts of the nighttime video that was NOT the supposed object - that's the guy's hand in the rearview mirror!!!

www.dailymail.co.uk...

-oleus

[edit on 22-12-2009 by oleus]

Originally posted by Joris
So, for me, it is still possible that the video's of both daylight and night are real.

But of course, the problem still is that there seem to be no other video's. For such a location this is not normal...

Greetings,
Joris

UPDATE: UFO Moscow Pyramid / Tetrahedron ENHANCED!!

Originally posted by Imagir
The UFO "pyramidal" seems hovering over the Kremlin in Moscow and its image it is taken by different perspectives.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by Imagir]

This reminds me of the video of a UFO near Niagara Falls canada.

Half jokingly: I suspect there is some sort of "prime directive" rule which prevents UFOs from turning on all of their lights over cities (and thus being too visible), but the enterprising people from other planets (aka: aliens) who pilot the UFOs find ways of getting around the rules... one of which is to park their UFO above the brightest "light" in the city... which explains both the Niagara falls UFO and this one.

People, check out this thread about a free ebook which includes the kremlin tetra. Just posting this cause it's relevant. Not taking any positions though, but it may help. I'm getting the free e-book and "waste my time" reading it. Merry Christmas! Happy Holidays folks!!!

Link to ATS Thread

Here's a link to a dailymail.co.uk article stating that there were witnesses. I cannot confirm this myself, but I'll let the article speak for itself.

Link here:

I gather that this is not sufficient evidence of local witnesses. The silence is eerie. Anyone have more on the said "witnesses"? I hope more Russian ATS members would comment now. Thanks in advance.

The UFO hovered for hours over Red Square in the Russian capital and was seen by hundreds of people. The identity of the shape has not been confirmed but internet forums are buzzing with the sighting. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...