The only authentic UFO video I have ever seen

Yea, that's funny.
It rears up like a horse, getty up boy.

Originally posted by Alda1981
I believe flying discs exist etc. I believe some videos are true. This one though is 101% fake. And a bad one.

Trouble maker



You want to see a good fake? Good fakes look real.

thats a bad fake

if i need to explain my brain will explode

Originally posted by Chargeit
Looks like photo shop to me. I love how ufo's seem to change with our under standing of what they should look like.

Well our understanding of what they should look like today, is not like this flying disk with a bubble on top.

Thats the type the military keep claiming to see and have claimed to have seen since the 40's.

Thats the type that they used for Gazoo in the Flintstones since the 60's.

Today we expect things to be different.

Even the flying saucers where the name was coined, has morphed into a bat wing type of craft.

Kenneth Arnold supposedly claims to have coined the phrase flying saucer.

Yet, his account is that they did not actually look like saucers.

Arnold originally described the objects' shape as "flat like a pie pan", "shaped like a pie plate", "half-moon shaped, oval in front and convex in the rear", "something like a pie plate that was cut in half with a sort of a convex triangle in the rear"

Who is zooming who?

Surprisingly, long before the Kenneth Arnold sighting of 1947 and the adoption of the term "flying saucer" by the press, spacecraft of human or alien origin were often illustrated as classic flying saucers in the popular press, dating back to at least 1911.[20]

Originally posted by ohiotim2112
Due to recent threads about rules and etiquette:

I have nothing nice to say about this video so I will say nothing at all..

AND SO DO I. LOL.

reply to post by flexy123


agreed.

reply to post by Rocketman7


www.explosm.net...

That's likely one of the sketchiest UFO vids I've ever seen.

Same here.

is it me or does the camera wobble not match the wobble movement of the UFO?

It's not you, looks weird (and fake)

Such a promising thread title too...but I can't buy into this one.

Kenneth Arnold supposedly claims to have coined the phrase flying saucer.

Yet, his account is that they did not actually look like saucers.

He said that they flew almost like if you skipped a saucer on a lake. That's allegedly where the term came from, not from the shape of the craft.

The term "flying saucer" was made popular by a journalist covering Kenneth Arnolds's sighting of nine flying disks in June of 1947. The journalist misquoted Arnold, who did not describe the objects as saucer shaped, but describes their strange movement as similar to a saucer thrown on water and bouncing several times: they "flew like a saucer would if you skipped it across the water."

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Rocketman7

 

OK twist my arm, I will tell you where the other sighting was of this same disk.

Take a look top right on this page

This scan is better:

www.disclosureproject.org...

If your film was made in 1981, that would explain the cheesy optical effects. You're right, it's not CGI, it's a simple double exposure. That's why it jutters.

Better scan here.

imageshack.us...

Nice try though.

OP

If this is the best footage you have seen i can only assume you're a troll

Critique is fine, lets all keep it civil though please...

reply to post by Rocketman7


2/10 troll, now get back under the bridge, I have made better fakes when I was 15 (which was 15 yrs ago).

Originally posted by Gazrok

That's likely one of the sketchiest UFO vids I've ever seen.

Same here.

is it me or does the camera wobble not match the wobble movement of the UFO?

It's not you, looks weird (and fake)

Such a promising thread title too...but I can't buy into this one.

Kenneth Arnold supposedly claims to have coined the phrase flying saucer.

Yet, his account is that they did not actually look like saucers.

He said that they flew almost like if you skipped a saucer on a lake. That's allegedly where the term came from, not from the shape of the craft.

The term "flying saucer" was made popular by a journalist covering Kenneth Arnolds's sighting of nine flying disks in June of 1947. The journalist misquoted Arnold, who did not describe the objects as saucer shaped, but describes their strange movement as similar to a saucer thrown on water and bouncing several times: they "flew like a saucer would if you skipped it across the water."

edit on 29-12-2011 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)

Well my point is that quite clearly the publics perception was that the ships were flying disks.

As depicted for instance in the 50's sci fi movies.

But what did they call the Roswell crash originally?

On July 8, 1947, the Roswell Army Air Field (RAAF) public information officer Walter Haut in Roswell, New Mexico, issued a press release[3] stating that personnel from the field's 509th Bomb Group had recovered a crashed "flying disk" from a ranch near Roswell

The fact that Gazoo has a bubble on top of his disk and Jacobs stated and again I quote....

Lt. Robert M Jacobs
For thirty years I've held that
image in my mind. What i saw
was a circular object that
looked like two pie plates put
on top of each other with a golf
ball on top. It was a classic
flying saucer, and it shot a
beam of something at our
warhead.
Lt. Robert M. Jacobs, U.S. Air Force,

Now how does a thing get to be a classic flying saucer shape if not by numerous reports?
That then is what you should expect to see.

Not because we have this notion of what one should look like, but because that is the most common shape that had been sighted.

Originally posted by 0scree0
You know, I have no proof that this is fake. No real skills at video analysis. But at first blush from an untrained eye, when it looks too good to true it's probably because it is.

Too good to be true? hm..thats an interesting mindset to have.

Videos will never please people who don't want to 'beleive'.

If there is a video of an airplane, why should I believe that video..you know, it COULD be faked...so I will just deny it.

@OP: isn't that billy mier footage? just curious.

and thanks for the post.

if this is the only authentic ufo video you have ever seen
then i would really love to see what ufo videos you think are fake

Originally posted by Gazrok
Critique is fine, lets all keep it civil though please...

Thankyou mod.

If only we knew why we were here, perhaps we might know why they are here.

Originally posted by Rocketman7

Originally posted by dilly1

Before it approaches the tree trunk (left side),the saucer appears visible thru the branches . But after ?? Not a chance. In fact the right of the trunk there seems to be a faint grey tone (lightly flashing) before the saucer approaches the exact trajectory line. Can you say freakin fake.


But another item no one has mentioned is :the flying saucer make or type is from the 1950's. I mean the video itself is a cliché. You mite as well have Charlie Chaplin holding hands with Tin-Robotic-Alien, skipping along.


I mean to really think that this hunk of junk came from a distant galaxy 100 light years away,let alone from our orbit. Lol. You think that pour excuse of a UFO can withstand the temperatures of our atmosphere?
C'mon man!!! You know its a fake.

That's piece of bullcrap wouldn't last 2 minutes with an F-22 fighter jet. And you're telling me that came from space. ,,,,,,,oh and don't tell me its a prototype from Lockheed or NORAD. Give me a brake. You have nothing, just your delusional guesses. You're not even an expert in video. Maybe you're an expert on DVD's,,,no ,,no ,,, you're an expert on VHS tapes.


Its a fake, and all of us are idiots for wasting a single character on this thread.

If it was fake, it would show clearly as it moved through the trees. The limitation of the camera and or the codec used to compress the video, MPEG originally, lacks the ability to define the contrast since the contrast is in too narrow a band. Remember that raw video footage this size might be 400 plus megabytes, and compressed it was compressed to 2 megabytes after it was turned into a mpeg. So there is a loss of data. A substantial loss of data but it was meant to be a strategic leak, providing just enough proof of its authenticity, then, when the people approached the governments for funding in 2000 or 2001 when this was leaked, they merely had to show them a better copy and say see, this has been leaked, and we could not stop it, and it will forever be out there and we cannot remove it.

en.wikipedia.org...


A fighter jet? How about 8,000 miles per hour, flying aorund a missile in the air, shooting a beam of light, disarming a missile? That was recorded on video by the military.

And of course people have claimed speeds of 25,000 mph.

There is no reason to think it can't do the speed of light once it gets going. SInce it can apparently nullify inertia.

It has to in order to do the things people claim, such as make 90 degree high speed turns. Otherwise everything inside would turn to jelly.

There is a document at the MJ12 papers site that claims the Manhattan project came from the investigation of a crashed disk in 1941.
Here it is, its an interesting read, until they start talking about remote viewing and making references to other flights of fancy. Why do they do that if not to keep from being hit on thhe head?

The First Roswell pdf

edit on 29-12-2011 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)

Your source is "Wikipedia"?

Seriously?

Read my post correctly, I said "that saucer" is chump change verses the capabilities of dueling against a fighter jet. Regardless if its a UFO from the 50's or any era. If it came from space it should be more advanced than our best fighter jets..

You have no proof of any object flying 8000mhp,let alone a beam of light..lol... And stop with the wikipedia crap.

"People have claimed it going 25kmhp"?what???????

Listen Sheldon, eyewitness accounts,videos and photos are not viable evidence when referring to UFO or ,,,,the Yeti.. All of it can be fabricated.


Lightspeed is impossible. Do you here me Sheldon! Impossible!!!! You are aware the people reading your thread are not from some comic book.

Do you believe everything your government tells you? I'm willing to bet NOT. But you certainly blindly believe any document that conveniently falls on your lap.. Why would you gladly swallow advertised UFO/alien government information as authentic ,or credible.. Why??.... And when I say advertise ,I mean you conveniently having access to information from the government(classified or not). Are you special?


And I don't understand this UFO branding crap. Why is it Unidentified. Its not Unidentified to the people who probably designed and constructed(not saying this pathetic video displays an actual FO) the dam vessel.

Is everything man made an UO if you haven't been informed or notified to what your exactly witnessing?

So basically if someone wakes up from a coma, lost 20 years, is everything a freakin UO or UFO to them? Does that mean that person suddenly decides "if it unidentified then its alien"

You see my point

My take is ALL Flying Objects are man made and we have no freakin right to know every item in the ski. Its man made get ove

Originally posted by NowanKenubi
reply to post by Rocketman7

 

Then stop talking to trolls and answer my point!

What is your explanation for not seeing the UFO past the trunk, in the holes between branches? There is one big enough that remains white all the way...

Yes you can see it between the leaves and branches.

I've watched all versions of the video now, and you can clearly see the object behind the trees, both in the first frame, and in the last three frames.

I'm watching the Video on my Linux box with VLC player / Gnome Movie Player on fullscreen on a 24" Full HD Screen, so I got a pretty good view of it.

I'm not sure about the authenticity .. but I think I went from "total fake" to "Well maybe that is something we got here" ... the Versions uploaded to Megaupload have a tiny bit of extra detail, and I get the impression that the whole object is rotating and I can slightly see a red shimmer underneath the object .. so if that Video is certainly 10 years old, I guess it might indeed be a real object. Would have been really hard to do that 10 years ago.

Originally posted by three1zero
if this is the only authentic ufo video you have ever seen
then i would really love to see what ufo videos you think are fake

Oh here is a beauty. I am so glad you asked.

Had this been on TV in 1965 the people would have been throwing their babies out the window in Scotland, like they wanted to do during the first airing of war of the worlds.

Ho Hum,

Another hub cap.