Best UFO video ever recorded?

reply to post by shambles84


Just because it LOOKS unsteady doesn't mean it is. I don't know if the video is real or not but what I do know is that we don't know how something so exotic is supposed to perform. Ya know? lol

I sure hope the aliens passed out air sickness pills before their flight. Something THAT wobbly would make most people hurl in short time....

reply to post by Kali74


ye am afraid its just to wobbly for me, any beings with the technology to travel through the galaxy would be able to keep the craft perfectly still but then again it could be some anti gravitation field round about the craft that makes it appear to wobble but then again it could just be hanging from string thats what it reminds me of when i look at the movements

So let me get this right, a group of UFO hoaxers back in 1997 were in Mexico and decided to build a large fake saucer with some sort of rotating lights or skin covering it, rigged it with a bunch of fishing line then hired a helicopter pilot to lift it up over the city while other hoaxer's filmed it from a distance with a camcorder that shows no evidence, (other than a wobble), of fishing line or wires holding up the saucer all while nobody in the city notices this helicopter before it takes off from where this was all rigged up or during the hoax or while it flew back to where it came from and the hoaxer's were able to make the fake saucer vanish, (or had it dropped to look like it vanished), then recovered it with out anyone noticing all while being able to fool cgi experts, who worked on the film Titanic, who examined the tape with million dollar equipment, right?

Wow, I didn't know that mexican hoaxer's had such a budget to use over 20 years ago and that they were so good at it. It sure beats the budget of those using plywood and rope to make fake crop circles. I wonder how long it took to plan all that.

I am sure glad though that today we have those with some sort of psychic powers and the ability to just watch tape's online and automatically know it isn't real so the rest of us can know these things.

It doesn't "look" real so therefore it isn't, right? Because we all know what a "real" UFO looks and acts like, right? The top portion of my post must be a real paragraph and not just one long drawn out sentence, right?


Bzzzzzzz

Actually the wobbling effect has been told in countless reports from people all over the world, totally unrelated or unknowing of this aspect of the ufo phenomena. See Fuller's "Incident at Exeter" for a lot of this corroborated info...

That said, that doesnt make this video real, or a hoax. I'll reserve analysis for those not trying to watch it on a phone...

Originally posted by jesiaha
OMG the 1950's movies were RIGHT... ufos DO wobble

Lay off the moonshine ET's, dont drink and drive now and be safe out there!

reply to post by BuzzingOn


but the thing is you didnt see it vanish ,it conveniently goes behind the building and you dont see any other footage of it so are we to believe it just vanishes .why didnt one person from the block of flats get a good picture of it or even more camera footage ,where are all the eye witnesses ? i still dont think the ufo is actually there

Originally posted by shambles84
reply to post by DisturbedToo

 

a cell phone with a camera in the 90s ?
2nd line ........................

I said I believe. I wasn't sure on the date.

The Mexico City video of Aug. 6, 1997 has been studied frame by frame. Initial
reports were favorable. However, "fingerprints of a hoax" were discovered when the
motion smear or edge blur or "diffuseness" of the UFO image was compared with the
smear/blur/diffuseness of the images of the buildings.
Jeffrey Sainio published his overall analysis of the differential image smear in the
October 1998 issue of the MUFON Journal. This showed that on the average the
motion smear of the building was greater than any measurable motion smear of the
UFO image. Also discovered were two frames in which the building motion smear was
great enough as to make the horizontal top edge of the building image very diffuse.
At the same time in these frames the images of the wind sock on top of the building
were so blurred as to be difficult to see against the sky background. By way of
comparison, in the unsmeared frames (when the camera was basically steady) the
horizontal top edge of the building image is very sharp and the wind sock makes an
obvious dark image against the sky. The two smeared frames are about 1 second
apart in the video. Along with each smeared frame in the pictorial analysis below is
an adjacent unsmeared frame for comparison. One should realize that these highly
smeared frames are "surrounded" by frames in which the building image is not smeared
or smeared only slightly by camera motion. In other words, the camera motion occurred
suddenly, with the maximum amount of image motion from frame to frame taking place
between the smeared frame and the frame immediately preceding or following. Since
the frames occur at a rate of 30/second, the maximum camera motion occurred over
a time of 1/30 to 2/30 (two frames) of a second. A more explicit discussion follows.

The camera did pan with the UFO, following it quite closely, so that, overall, there was not
much image smear apparent to the naked eye. However, that was because the shutter was faster
than normal. Jeff Sainio and I independently concluded that the shutter time was probably about
1/200 sec rather than the more normal 1/60 (the time of a single field or 'half' a frame of the
video). The faster shutter reduced the image smear. I believe (I could be wrong) that most
cameras, when you turn them on, set a 'default' shutter speed of 1/30 sec. Then you have to
manually change the shutter speed if you want it faster (shorter shutter time). That
would mean that in the "heat of the moment" the witness had the presence of mind to increase
the shutter speed before beginning the video. I know that on my camera it takes a little time
to set the faster shutter.

reply to post by cluckerspud


Like I replied to the other Sherlock. In my post I clearly stated "I believe" That means I'm not 100% sure and I could be wrong about the date.

Originally posted by DisturbedToo
reply to post by cluckerspud

 

Like I replied to the other Sherlock. In my post I clearly stated "I believe" That means I'm not 100% sure and I could be wrong about the date.

Geez pal I wasn't persecuting you. Relax. Just supplying an article to clear things up.
Touchy aren't we?

reply to post by DisturbedToo


well it dont really matter what date it was filmed it looks completely fake so if it was taken by a camera phone in the 80s 90s 00s it does not change the fact that the footage is complete pish sherlock !

Originally posted by shambles84
reply to post by BuzzingOn

 

but the thing is you didnt see it vanish ,it conveniently goes behind the building and you dont see any other footage of it so are we to believe it just vanishes .why didnt one person from the block of flats get a good picture of it or even more camera footage ,where are all the eye witnesses ? i still dont think the ufo is actually there

Exactly. I don't think it was really there either. It just doesn't make sense to me. Something that low and that visible at that time of day should of had way more witnesses. If not from the ground then from someone who was in one of those buildings. Plus wouldn't there be something on radar or is that part of the city air space not monitored?

suspicious.
Bzzzzzz

Originally posted by gortex
All you need to use is your eyes

Okay, I will use my eyes:

Originally posted by gortexdoes it look look real ?

How is a UFO supposed to look like in "real" life Mr. Gortex? Like in the movies?

Originally posted by gortex
I would say it looks like a model on a string imposed onto the background .

It could be, CGI it is not, there's definitely something there

Originally posted by gortex
Where are the witness reports , broad daylight and a disk is hovering by , and then behind high rise buildings and nobody reports it , all there is is this bit of footage .

There are testimonies, but I chose not to post them because is all in Spanish, but I might as well post them, may be some of you could translate it. Is too much to translate for myself.
Thank you





8 years after an american show went to the scene to try and recreate the video, the final conclusions were shown in their tv program, although they don't say which tv program it is, can someone help me find it? anyway they did record how much trouble it was, and it wasn't as simple as "cheap cgi"



and Jim Dilettosso examined the tape and came to a good conclusion, a very interesting interview, too bad is in Spanish :/ (its actually in English, but they dubbed it in Spanish and his voice can barely be heard.

Well one thing I don't understand is how the guy in the beginning says that the movement analysis doesn't match what would be expected if it were hung from a string. In my opinion it does not look like something that could have been done with cgi in 1997 in Mexico...also the cgi guys both had the opinion that the object was physically present (and not added in later), noting the "zoom" as evidence. So I'm kinda baffled. I too wonder why the object just disappeared...also the rotating lights have me confused, as this seems something that could be easier to fake with cgi, but I just don't see it very realistic that someone spent the time and money to put rotating lights on an object, rent a helicopter and fly this thing around in broad daylight...same with cgi, I just don't think in 1997 it would be possible for most regular people (a movie studio, yes, but not some joe)...and again there's the fact that both special effect guys in the video believe the object was physically present and that it was not added in after. So yeah, I too wonder if anyone has anything intelligent to add. This is my first post, and I just wanted to add my 2 cents, because I too get frustrated when people have nothing better to say than what amounts to "looks lame! = hoax!"...so I will also await some thoughtful input (but thankyou to the couple who have already done so)

Edit: I just saw the recent post, (which I didn't see when I first typed this) regarding the witnesses. I don't speak much spanish, but I can try to decipher a bit. Haven't watched the vids yet, but hopefully there's someone a little (okay a lot) more fluent than me.

Originally posted by meeneecatpost

what a good way to make your first post. Thank you for your input.

Well one theory given on the videos in Spanish I posted is that behind those buildings, there is a big crack in the ground full of trees, so the UFO might have landed there somewhere.. although other testimonies from the building it was shot at, said the two anonymous guys who were present while shooting the video showed them the video right afterward, and that the video shown (the only video available) is not all of it, that some minutes are missing in it where the UFO is seen taking off toward the sky in ultra speed.

Also another thing people might have missed, the two "Titanic" guys said the videotape was "untouched", meaning it was not manipulated in any way, it came right from the video camera. So, no CGI

I don't know they do debunk it and believe it. What gives?

intelligently controlled? it looks like the aliens just finished downing 17 jack daniels and are going back to the mothership sh-tfaced.

Thank You for the your thread, OP.

I'm not suprised to see certain members here "debunking" immediately (lol, some without even bothering to watch/consider the evidence presented it seems! )
It must be very lonesome being so biased and narrow minded.

Same ol' same ol' - deny ignorance?...Chuckle...

looks fake as hell, right?

lol, if it don't make noise, how many will look up?

while i'm sitting here typing this, 50 ufo's could be dancing outside MY window.

right?

it's real, get over it.

besides, it's probably is tequila and not jack daniels shots!

This is probably the same type of saucer that crashed in Roswell. Wobble wobble