UFO videos
- Thread starter humanoidlord
- Start date
- Copy link Copy link
Niku120
Honorable
Castle-Yankee54
Celestial
nivek
As Above So Below
Couldn't tell you, I don't live in France...Perhaps you can do some research and let us know...
...
Castle-Yankee54
Celestial
Do you have the date, time and location then?........and a simple "I don't know" would have been an acceptable answer.
nivek
As Above So Below
Castle, I generally will post any and all information I have at the moment of posting for things such as this video...If I find more information if I do some more searching I will always post it...That's why I suggested you do some research, apparently what I posted wasn't good enough for you, so I suggest to look it up yourself if you have unanswered questions...
...
Castle-Yankee54
Celestial
Well like I said.......my apologies for asking........it was just a simple honest question.
I already took care of it.
nivek
As Above So Below
No need for apologies, it's a simple question I don't have an answer and I don't not have time to get your an answer, I apologize, I have a business to run and needed most of the day today in that regard...
Could you post your findings?...
...
Dejan Corovic
As above, so bellow
OK, I went to 00:55-00:56, I can only see a continuous frames with UFO, until disappears over the edge. If by 'glitching out' you mean UFO disappearing, to me whole sequence looks expectable. Once it's engines are on, it moves very fast, so one can expect it to disappear out of the frame of the stationary camera.
As for UFOs dematerializing, I would beg to disagree. In the 99% of 200 cases that I read UFOs are described as departing very fast, actually blindingly fast. Human eye's frame rate is only about 1/15sec, so if something happens at a slow 1/30sec rate eye can miss it. That could particularly happen in areas where horizon is obscure by some obstacles, like trees, mountains or even houses etc. If UFO departs, say over the ridge of nearby mountain, in say 1/100sec, there is no chance that human eye would register actual movement. Witness will simply remember it as a sudden disappearance, or as you call it demateerialisation, while it was actually very high instant acceleration.
Niku120
Honorable
You said it better than me dude!
humanoidlord
ce3 researcher
the entire video, look at the backgound and at the UFO
humanoidlord
ce3 researcher
by glitiching i mean it switches to a weird texture
humanoidlord
ce3 researcher
people at reddit are saying its planes on landing approach, not sure if agree or disagree though
humanoidlord
ce3 researcher
man, if i could find the screenshot i saw many years ago, it showed clearly a glitch in the video
Niku120
Honorable
don't see that at all dude, maybe your computer messing up streaming the video, nope no weird anything, the UFO does what a UFO does
humanoidlord
ce3 researcher
actually it was a screenshot that i saw many years ago of the video, i din't see it in the video itselfdon't see that at all dude, maybe your computer messing up streaming the video, nope no weird anything, the UFO does what a UFO does
Dejan Corovic
As above, so bellow
In all honesty it is very difficult to be judge in all UFO video cases. You might be right. I am just listing my own objections. I am not saying that neither that it is, nor that it isn't UfO. I am just saying that on a balance of probabilities, to me, it looks credible. It would be absolutely great if you can pull out that old video.
Change of texture in the video, as you described it, even that others and myself can't see, is not consequence of CGI, but of video compression. This video has lots of blue background. From file compression point of view, when nothing is moving in the picture with a big monotonous background it's very easy to compress file. But, if an object suddenly moves over that same uniform background, its like a shock to the compression algo. From having very little to do, for say 15sec, in just one millisecond now it's busy to the maximum. Obviously, it's going to 'glitch'.
CGI renders each frame perfectly and completely independently from the previous frame, so there would be no texture change on the large monotonous background. One of the first attributes that give CGI away, is exactly this perfection. Actually, more imperfections video has, more credible it is, at least to my way of looking at this.
In contrast, if video was shot with an old handheld camera, which had hardware compression to save space on SD cards, as most of them do, there would be texture change on large monotonous background, like sky, even on the original video as processor suddenly goes from idle to completely overloaded and all memory buffers get choked up.
