Huge Aircraft of Unknown Origin Caught on Video!

[Eric J (Viking)]

Haven't got a clue what this one is...anyone??



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X0elkMz_jA&feature=feedu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X0elkMz_jA&feature=feedu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T3hk81Rki8&feature=feedu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T3hk81Rki8&feature=feedu

viking

[WhiteFeather]

Nice Vids Here The Top Video Looks Like A Drone (Spy Plane)...But We always have to ask the simple question, Is it Ours or from The Stars. Thanks Viking.

I cant see any CGI Here Peeps, Can you?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTTpZMOIqhQ&feature=channel_video_title

[KosmicKat]

The way that the objects kept pace with the chopper, flanking and in front, but not behind, above or below makes me wonder. Could they be RC drones, controlled from within the aircraft?

ET: "You are in restricted airspace and will be escorted to safety. For your own safety please do not execute any sudden maneuvers."

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Interesting stuff, but yes most likely unmanned drones. But sure would like to hear testimony from the chopper pilot.

[RMorgan]

I have no idea Viking. The first one might be some kind of human made drone or spy plane. It looks pretty authentic.

I´m not sure about the spheres around the helicopter...It might be CGI.

[CeltMan]

To be frank, without a reference point (First vid) there is NO WAY to tell exectly how big, or small that plane was?

If there were another aircraft fying in the vacinity that would give us all a ref point as to size etc.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

But we need to be very cautious with these vids - all UFO vids - as it is easy to declare that it does not look like CGI. But CGI is now so good that it is almost impossible to detect it with the naked eye.

Look at this next clip.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbqzc2jvcZQ&feature=related

You cannot see clear fakery by its quality. On the contrary. In fact its fantastic quality gives it away, (complete with sound effects) especially when it flies right overhead.

It might of course be real, but I do have serious doubts. Consider: if it is possible to render such realism, which it is, then anything is possible. We should keep this in mind when presented by those that are vague or of poor definition, like the clips already posted. They seem more plausible right? But the most effective disinfo hides behind the screen of plausibility.

[mojo]

Hi,
Unfortunately if you check out thirdphasemoon's channel you will find that it's not reliable...

[buckminster fuller]

really good cg, what rings the bell to me is the scenario... flies low, slow, already.. this guy is real lucky.. then it passes overhead... twice lucky that is.. the acceleration in the end gives it away imo. yet, really nice cg job.

[RMorgan]

But we need to be very cautious with these vids - all UFO vids - as it is easy to declare that it does not look like CGI. But CGI is now so good that it is almost impossible to detect it with the naked eye.

Look at this next clip.

You cannot see clear fakery by its quality. On the contrary. In fact its fantastic quality gives it away, (complete with sound effects) especially when it flies right overhead.

It might of course be real, but I do have serious doubts. Consider: if it is possible to render such realism, which it is, then anything is possible. We should keep this in mind when presented by those that are vague or of poor definition, like the clips already posted. They seem more plausible right? But the most effective disinfo hides behind the screen of plausibility.

Hi Star Mariner,

I agree with you. CGI is getting pretty good nowadays and you can make pretty descent materials with a very affordable hardware.

However, I work with CGI, and I´ve been working with it for a long time, so I have developed some kind of "6th sense" about this stuff. There are certain subtle characteristics that are present on almost all pieces involving CGI, that I´ve learned to observe along these years.

There is one thing that most people don´t pay much attention, which is the fact that almost every CGI UFO hoax is first filmed and edited in HD, and then deliberately reduced in quality, to make it harder to detect masking and other digital problems. However, this reduction in quality, from HD to LD, leaves traces that usually are easy to detect by someone with a good eye, specially around masked objects.

There´s also the shaking factor. Shaking in hoaxed videos are usually added in post production, along with other effects. However, these post production shakes are slightly different than natural shakes. Sometime they also add fake digital artifacts, which are also slightly different from natural digital artifacts.

This is something very common among GCI artists. CGI images are very perfect, unreal perfect, which is not good. So CGI artists add these "defects" in post production, to make the footage or image look more "natural". The problem is that, most artists, seeking natural perfection, often add too much artificial "defects", making them detectable by experienced persons.

When you try to detect if a video is CGI or not, the most important things you must look for are patterns. Post production effects are not completely random and show patterns. Try to detect patterns on camera shakes, look for patterns in film grain effects, or digital artifacts. If it´s CGI, the patterns are always there.

You might wonder why almost every UFO video is presented in low definition? The answer is masking. Whenever someone introduces a GCI object on a real life scene, and this object is manipulated to past behind things, like trees, you have to make a mask for the tree, which leaves an easily detectable trace in HD videos. reducing them to LD makes it harder to detect those masking artifacts...

These are just some tips. ;)

Cheers,

Raf.

[Lord Sidious]

Groom Lake air base, as you probably know is Area 51.
That being said, you are probably looking at a prototype spy plane/drone.
It has engine nacelles on the wings, so it isn't anything of advanced design.
And I consider the footage to be real.

[Andreash94]

honestly i dont think we can make a real video about our brother;s thenologi til they wil show up and teach us .I just trust in em

[Kamikaze]

delete it all.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

But we need to be very cautious with these vids - all UFO vids - as it is easy to declare that it does not look like CGI. But CGI is now so good that it is almost impossible to detect it with the naked eye.

Look at this next clip.

You cannot see clear fakery by its quality. On the contrary. In fact its fantastic quality gives it away, (complete with sound effects) especially when it flies right overhead.

It might of course be real, but I do have serious doubts. Consider: if it is possible to render such realism, which it is, then anything is possible. We should keep this in mind when presented by those that are vague or of poor definition, like the clips already posted. They seem more plausible right? But the most effective disinfo hides behind the screen of plausibility.

Hi Star Mariner,

I agree with you. CGI is getting pretty good nowadays and you can make pretty descent materials with a very affordable hardware.

However, I work with CGI, and I´ve been working with it for a long time, so I have developed some kind of "6th sense" about this stuff. There are certain subtle characteristics that are present on almost all pieces involving CGI, that I´ve learned to observe along these years.

There is one thing that most people don´t pay much attention, which is the fact that almost every CGI UFO hoax is first filmed and edited in HD, and then deliberately reduced in quality, to make it harder to detect masking and other digital problems. However, this reduction in quality, from HD to LD, leaves traces that usually are easy to detect by someone with a good eye, specially around masked objects.

There´s also the shaking factor. Shaking in hoaxed videos are usually added in post production, along with other effects. However, these post production shakes are slightly different than natural shakes. Sometime they also add fake digital artifacts, which are also slightly different from natural digital artifacts.

This is something very common among GCI artists. CGI images are very perfect, unreal perfect, which is not good. So CGI artists add these "defects" in post production, to make the footage or image look more "natural". The problem is that, most artists, seeking natural perfection, often add too much artificial "defects", making them detectable by experienced persons.

When you try to detect if a video is CGI or not, the most important things you must look for are patterns. Post production effects are not completely random and show patterns. Try to detect patterns on camera shakes, look for patterns in film grain effects, or digital artifacts. If it´s CGI, the patterns are always there.

You might wonder why almost every UFO video is presented in low definition? The answer is masking. Whenever someone introduces a GCI object on a real life scene, and this object is manipulated to past behind things, like trees, you have to make a mask for the tree, which leaves an easily detectable trace in HD videos. reducing them to LD makes it harder to detect those masking artifacts...

These are just some tips. ;)

Cheers,

Raf.

Thanks for that mate, yeh I’ve worked with some CGI stuff before as well, with Lightwave, but it was some time ago now. My experience with video animation is less involved than with stills (although I am familiar with certain techniques, particularly with lighting) so thanks for the tips there.

[mojo]

FYI:
3A52p0-RTqI

[1derer]

Interesting stuff, but yes most likely unmanned drones. But sure would like to hear testimony from the chopper pilot.

I agree with SM, experimental craft and also probes accompanying the Helo.

Here are some images of experimental craft that look similar to the ones in the vid

X23B

http://im.videosearch.rediff.com/thumbImage/videoImages/videoImages1/youtube/rdhash938/RKTc_UnB5lY.gif

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Convair-B36/IMAGES/convair-b36-propeller.jpg

http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/aero/virtual/demo/research/youDecide/IMAGES/SolarElecProp.jpg

Heres a drone...

pF0uLnMoQZA

[lightning23]

:closed::closed: