Author Topic: UFO Video, real thing? (really cool ) (Read 1449 times)

NUKE · « **Reply #15 on:** February 02, 2003, 05:54:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
You can't be serious on offering that up as proof Nuke. Watching the normal speed replay, I can clearly see the object begin moving right. Then by the time she says "look over there", it's already there and didn't move more than a couple thousand yards.

The object didn't move at lightspeed, a good hundred miles per hour, sure... but it was no where near instantaneous.
-SW

Look at film, she says "it's over there" almost the instant it jumps "over there"

AKIron · « **Reply #16 on:** February 02, 2003, 05:55:41 PM »

Well, broad daylight, over one of the most heavily populated places on the planet, and only two reported sightings. Don't think they really expected anyone to take it seriously.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #17 on:** February 02, 2003, 05:56:51 PM »

No, it was already jumped over there when she said it was over there.

But nevertheless, I have no common sense and you are the uber-intelligent guy.

(btw, the camera didn't follow the UFO... it had already passed the copter, then the camera traversed to the UFO that had just made a 90degree left turn, then proceeded vertically, it's not like it zoomed straight at the helicopter then straight behind it)

However, I will concede... since you are apparently smarter than I am.
-SW

DA98 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 02, 2003, 05:58:10 PM »

There are some errors that clearly show taht the video is a fake. The object size varies from 3-6 meters when it's at WTC side, to +/- 0.5 meters when it passes at the side of the helo (it can be clearly seen if you stop the video at the exact frame). Plus it passes at the side of the helo, from front to back, but the smoke trail is only in front of it AND, it's (the smoke trail) immobile, while the helo is clearly advancing.

I hope the message is not lost embedded in my horrible english

NUKE · « **Reply #19 on:** February 02, 2003, 06:01:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
No, it was already jumped over there when she said it was over there.

But nevertheless, I have no common sense and you are the uber-intelligent guy.

(btw, the camera didn't follow the UFO... it had already passed the copter, then the camera traversed to the UFO that had just made a 90degree left turn, then proceeded vertically, it's not like it zoomed straight at the helicopter then straight behind it)

However, I will concede... since you are apparently smarter than I am.
-SW

apparenty I am more logical than you, I will concede that.

You think the cameraman made an instantanious transition from the UFO coming at him to the UFO going past and up? Ever try to follow any moving object from a camera?

There are so many things wrong with the film it's humorous to me, that's all.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #20 on:** February 02, 2003, 06:05:48 PM »

Iron, you ever been to NYC, specifically around the World Trade Center?

Ever looked up? The buildings there are so tall and densly located that you can't see very much at all.

Of course, this was shown to 90% of the population on 9/11 when the cameras were taping the planes run into the buildings at street level. Except for the split second before the plane hit the buildings, you didn't see it.

DA98, you are juding size in a low resolution video file. The object has no defined start and stop because of the video compressor's algorithm which blends in pixels close to it. So instead, it's simply a blur and no defined object.

As far as the helicopter moving.. it's a touring helicopter, they don't move at more than 5MPH when going over a city, and at the time of filming it actually appears as tho they are hovering.
-SW

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #21 on:** February 02, 2003, 06:10:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
You think the cameraman made an instantanious transition from the UFO coming at him to the UFO going past and up? Ever try to follow any moving object from a camera?

You may be logical, but you are severely failing on your use of words here. Instanteneous implies one second it's here

now it's here. In that time frame not even a nanosecond has elapsed. The camera panned over and caught the object going left and away from the helicopter while it was going up. And yes, I have followed objects with a camera. It's not that hard when you keep the other eye open to get a wider view.

Quote

There are so many things wrong with the film it's humorous to me, that's all.

Aside from what I have rebuttled (to which you can provide no logical explanation for my replies), what else is wrong with the film?

If you're so good at analyzing films, why don't you have a top security clearence job with the CIA?
-SW

AKIron · « **Reply #22 on:** February 02, 2003, 06:13:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Iron, you ever been to NYC, specifically around the World Trade Center?

SeaWulfe, yes, I spent several months upgrading the network and PCs at what was then the Woolworth building. You had a very nice view of the WTC from many of the upper floors. I'm not saying it ins't possible that no one else saw this, just so unlikely as to make me believe it didn't happen.

DA98 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 02, 2003, 06:18:50 PM »

At the start of the video, the buildings are clearly seen moving relative to the helo. The smoke trail doesn't move AT ALL. And if you stop the movie at the exact frame, the supposed UFO passes very near the helo, almost touching it. So the smoke trail should be left behind relatively fast...

And about the UFO trajectory, when it approaches the helo, it passes almost touching it (again, search the correct frame) but then the smoke trail starts to go up clearly in front of it.

It's a fake

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #24 on:** February 02, 2003, 06:21:37 PM »

Yeah, you do get good views from a lot of the high rises there.

But as I've noticed, people tend to not pay attention to the skies even in cities with very small buildings (DC) and even when planes are taking off from the nearby airport(JFK)- no one noticies, not even tourists.

And then who's going to report this to who? And who will put all of the reports of unusual aerial activity into one location as a means to verify how many people actually saw something?

All I'm saying is, we got a low quality video that may or may not be real.

A couple of arm chair self-proclaimed video analysts (not you Iron) have declared this to be fake while having no factual evidence. Aside from assumptions, they have nothing more than I do to prove this videos authenticity.
-SW

Hangtime · « **Reply #25 on:** February 02, 2003, 07:23:51 PM »

"Meowrrrr!!"

Daff · « **Reply #26 on:** February 02, 2003, 07:27:52 PM »

It's a fake.
Look at photo 4. The motion blur is a film style motion blur (and a bad example of that as well) and it's shot with a video camera, which interlaces stuff instead of motion blurring it.
Whoever did it, should have interlaced the render instead of using motion blur. Smoke trail is nicely done, though.

Daff

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #27 on:** February 02, 2003, 07:28:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DA98
At the start of the video, the buildings are clearly seen moving relative to the helo. The smoke trail doesn't move AT ALL. And if you stop the movie at the exact frame, the supposed UFO passes very near the helo, almost touching it. So the smoke trail should be left behind relatively fast...

[/B]

I'm having problems seeing the buildings clearly moving relative to the helicopter in the first frames. I notice a lot of "movement", but when attempting to judge how much sky has disappeared between the canopy support and the building, I just don't see any discernible difference. I see a lot of movement, yes.. but everytime the person adjusts the camera the amount of room changes so that is hardly a reliable source for telling whether or not the helicopter is moving forwards or backwards.

As for the smoke trail, I thought that was a pretty obvious diddly up if it was fake. But who's to say the smoke trail wasn't something else.

We all know what jet engines look like on normal power, and then what they look like on afterburner power. normal power doesn't have the giant cone of fire, while afterburner does.

Quote

And about the UFO trajectory, when it approaches the helo, it passes almost touching it (again, search the correct frame) but then the smoke trail starts to go up clearly in front of it.

I can't really understand what you are saying here. Are you saying the smoke trail is going up when it should of been moving perpindicular to the helo?

I'm not arguing if it's real or not, I am arguing on whether or not your accusations of it being fake are legitimate or not.
-SW

airbumba · « **Reply #28 on:** February 02, 2003, 08:14:58 PM »

Actually you missed my concern, the con trail. It takes a precipitous nuclei (sp) in super cooled moisture laden air to allow water to form a con trail, like a carbon cluster or something similar. So if alien technology was to be so advanced, i don't think it'd be emmiting an exhaust of any sort, i would presume it'd be along the lines of magnetism.

Still cool though.

bumba

DA98 · « **Reply #29 on:** February 02, 2003, 08:24:33 PM »

Heh, I'm having a hard time trying to explain it...

Ok, the UFO is immobile in front of the helicopter. Then it starts travelling very fast towards it. In just 6 frames it travels the distance. Well, in the 2 last frames, the UFO is passing the helo from front to back by the side. It almost touches the cockpit glass at the 3 o'clock position traveling to somewhere between the 4-7 o'clock region. But then, when the camera turns to the right, the smoke trail is not following the same path the UFO travelled. It goes up in front of the helo, not at the side. The point where the smoke trail crosses the helo level is not where it should be, right by the helo side, but in front of it. I mean, the UFO passes by the helo side and THEN starts climbing, but the smoke trail start the climb BEFORE arriving at the helo position. (Hell, I have the Minus
Syndrome

)

As for the buildings moving, from second 8 to second 14, there are two buildings that can be seen thru the window at the back of the woman, one appearing at second 8 with green roof and another appearing at second 12. Both are clearly moving, the second one faster, as it's nearer.

Then, the video capture... as Daff says, video doesn't works like photo or cinema cameras. It doesn't blurs a fast object, it captures it in two fields (I don't know if that's the correct word). Two fields, interlaced, make a frame. So instead of a blurred UFO, we should see two UFOs intelaced. There are distance/time flaws too. The object travels an enormous distance in the first 4 frames when approaching the helo, and then... it stays near it for 3 frames more. In the las two frames it travels less than 0.5 meter

Also (and this is pure guess by my part) the object leaving the smoke trail, in some frames, has the appearance of a little plane... could it be a RC or acrobatic plane pasted on the video?