Interesting UFO Video

Take a look at the video below. If it's not a hoax it's one of the best unidentifed videos ever taken.
At the very least it has a high WTF factor.

http://www.rense.com/ufo6/ufotheatre.mpg

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why can't we ever see anything other than mysterious lights? Why no solid objects?

I'm not convinced.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wtf!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The guy at ufotheatre.com has been making fake UFO videos or distributing those of others for years. He's even a "member" of sciforums:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=23479
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26025
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26668

He also has one or more sock puppets on sciforums, one of them tried to sell a "magic 8-ball" program. Ufotheatre's main gig is selling CDs with ufo video and images... or at least it was.

 

Fortunately I don't have to look at more videos of what I have seen in person. Saves me
a whole lot of time on the phone line band width.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I saw from your post SkinWalker that you didn't think such "ships" would be going the
distance between stars and I couldn't agree with you more. Little puddle jumpers like
most that are seen are either local ships, or they come from much bigger craft as have
been seen on some of the satellite images. You know, back before "they" stopped the
direct satellite feeds.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Are we still trying to "view videos"? I thought we would have been much farther along by now.

 

deleted

 

Hey! That one's really good! They must have hired a cherry-picker and used a generator and everything.

 

Ok, so how come an object so far away still manages to be out of focus? Most lenses on camcorders are effectively focussed from a certain distance to infinity, so once past say 100m away, an object will always be in focus if it stays beyond 100m, as the light coming from that object, arrives nearly darn parallel, and doesn't need much focussing at that distance.

I just checked with my camcorder. I focussed on a building some 400m away, and zoomed in, and it remained in focus. So, the only reason I can think of this footage getting out of focus, is if the camcorder had digital zoom (maybe on top of optical) and the guy zoomed to far, and it got pixellated, and then anti-aliased. That may have been deliberate, I can see on the display when I run out of optical zoom, and go into digital, and never use the digital zoom, 'cos it's pointless.

The other thing that bothers me, is the fake camera wobble. A tripod was obviously used, because the wobble pans and tracks, it does not tilt, nor sidestep, nor change vertical height, like real wobble. That said, why the wobble? Added, because the object on the horizon, the special effect, is fixed. So the fake wobble is an attempt to mask that.

I give this footage zero credibility.

 

Man.... those lights were purdy.

Im tired of every ufo spotted at night being bright as hell.

 

Hi Skinwalker : The fact that the guy that you mention is making fake videos about ufo's do not really makes me a skeptic like you.J. Allen Hynek ,a real scientist, and a more skeptic person than you right now,convinced himself about the unquestionable evidence of the ufo phenomenon.His book "Ufo's,A scientific Inquiry",could possibly shake your denial attitude toward one of the most interesting subjects around.Have you read it? If not ,then you are not a real graduate scientist.Please, stop making biased comments.A real scientist shall not be biased.You are definitely biased about ufos.

Best Regards,

Charliequimico

 

^ You suck at this forum. If you had looked, you would have seen that THIS THREAD IS DEAD.

 

I have no idea what you're trying to say there, but... okay.

Even "smart" people can believe in wierd things. His education and status as "scientist" only served to allow him to argue more intelligently. Something that has been lacking with the woo-woos that have invaded this board recently. You all seem to be so busy with the so-called "injustices" of the establishment of science for "ignoring" such "proven" "sciences" as ufology to bother actually educating yourselves in the scientific process. Or busy tossing about childish profanity and name-calling, which betrays your real ability to think critically. Or by buying into fantastic speculations simply because they're possible, however improbable, and fun to "imagine."

I have read it... when I was much younger. I've since read many, more convincing texts that range from topics of general science, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and even the topic of ufo's. Try reading UFO's: a Scientific Debate by Carl Sagan. Or Sagan's A Demon Haunted World. Hynek's book lacked the ability to make any conclusions based on testable evidence. If you disagree, cite it here and let's discuss it. The problem is, that the woo-woos that join this board an proclaim themselves "scientists" lack that ability. They can't go point by point with the evidences that actually exist in "ufology" or make appropriate use of scientific method to reach conclusions that support their hypotheses and speculations. Instead they offer us spurious evidence and data then say "WOO-WOO! LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE!" -which turns out to be unsupported poppycock.

I don't recall Hynek's bullshit being on any reading lists for any graduate science work. Do you have a link to a syllabus of a professor from an accredited university that is requiring it? For a hard science?

Wow. Pots. Kettles. Several shades of black. All these come to mind, but I shall let you have your delusions. Let me ask, however, what difference would any bias make with regard to a clear lack of physical and testable evidence for the ufo phenomena as being evidence of any ETI?

Unlike others who are skeptical, I *do* believe in ufology. But I see it as a quasi-religious experience for those that delve into it. Ironically, it is the responses that ufo-nutters and woo-woos give to skeptics that lends credibility to this hypothesis. Christian nutters respond the same way when their gods are questioned. Indeed, look at the new nut to join, Raelian1, who is spouting religious dogma strait from the cuff regarding this very topic. He goes so far as to make bold claims without evidence, expecting to take advantage of the belief engine that is kicked into overdrive among the ufo-nutters and recruit new members of the "church."

Good day.

 

errrr yes mr skinwalker pots kettles black

you hyperbole that 'woo woos' offer no real 'scientific' reponse.....oh, errr, well, neither do you----where do you offer your criteria for 'proper scientific mthod'? all you do is poo poo, and may tims swiftly disappear fromt boards if a question s beyond your ken

and is carl sagan your guru by any chance. if he went boo would you go goo

 

Cite one example. If SW does not answer it I shall.
(Cite more than one if you wish.)

 

He's talking about the alleged Brazillian mass-sighting that he can never find a link to the video for

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I offered to go down and investigate it if he funded the expedition.

 

You'll need an assistant to carry the beers. Count me in.

 

We'll start with those witnesses on the beach!

 

cant be bothered to recount ypur posts.......as for the famous Brazillian sifhtins of UFOs, i imagine theRE ARE MANY PLACES ONLINE YOU CAN GET VIDEO RESULTS...ME? I HAVE NO ACCESS TO VIDEO FEEDS.....
but hey. let me guess. you would see it and discount it with a twinkle of an eye cause it cannot be true.......right? that:

ap it must be phony messed with video?

venus?

no. go on. tell me, :

ap havew you seen the film footage? i did on TV some time baack.

if you DID see it, then what do you think?

what scientific method did you acytually use yourSELF to assure you film footage (thrre were multiple videos of thew event as many were filming the eclipse) is moat conclusively false?

have yo relied on other researchers to declare the event false for you? how do you know they are quacks?

if you have't even seen ANY footage of the event, then hpw can you say nything about it either positive or negative?

answer me this: was the event true or false?

 

The event was true. The nature of the event is what is in doubt.