Faked or Too Good to be True

[Randall]

This thread is for videos, most of which are probably ( or obviously ) fakes only and its aim is to help visitors become better acquainted with the telltale signs of faked vs. genuine videos so as to be able to better identify fakes in the future. Please provide a brief explanation why you think the video posted is faked, especially if you can include evidence ( like a video analysis ) or a backstory. If you have video FX experience please help us !

 

[Randall]

Here's my first example ... a case of too good to be true.​

​

I don't have specific reasons other than it's a case of too good to be true.​

I question why the lights below aren't reflected off the water.​

Any other clues besides "it's obvious"?​

Also no backstory. ​

 

[nameless]

I think this one is faked. particularly as no witnesses have come forward to verify;

 

[Randall]

I think this one is faked. particularly as no witnesses have come forward to verify;

Thanks! That's a fun example of how easy it is to fake a video these days. Star wars stuff is always fun.

 

[exo_doc]

Each video should be evaluated on it's own merits and evidence other than the video is a must.

 

[Randall]

I'm hardly an expert, but there are some numbers we can deduce. Firstly, the object (in this case a CGI object IMO) does fly beneath the low clouds which I'm going to estimate at about 3000 feet above ground.

http://nenes.eas.gatech.edu/Cloud/Clouds.pdf

Assume the jet is at about 30000 feet. That puts the object at a minimum of 5 miles away as it is off the left wing of the jet some distance. It takes about 9 seconds for the object to follow its' path within the camera frame. The tricky part is figuring out how long that path is to estimate its' speed. If the path is 10 miles, the object is traveling at close to 10000 MPH. Since we don't know where the video was taken it's hard to say for sure. Even so, at that distance and even at that speed, I don't think you'd see motion blur like that and what is there just looks choppy, not well done. I can't prove it's CGI obviously, but it doesn't look right to me.

When I look at that video in full screen, it looks like the object goes behind the first cloud, just in front of the next, and through or just under the last one. You can see the shadow the object casts in one spot if you look carefully. You can also see the scale of some of the objects on the ground and extrapolate a rough distance. If the resulting numbers are close to accurate and it is a real object it is definitely hypersonic ... around 6000 MPH. This estimate has nothing to do with the combined speeds of two aircraft or other factors mentioned in the video commentary, but strictly time to cover distance. If it's not CGI then the only terrestrial explanation that might fit would be some kind of missile. I don't see the point in creating a GGI video like this one and don't get the impression it's fake ... but like I said ... I'm no video expert either.

 

[Randall]

Exactly. It all depends on how much distance the object covers in the roughly nine seconds it's in frame. That's why knowing where it was shot is so important.

It would help if we knew, but if you look closely you can see structures and beach front and estimate sizes within reason and extrapolate distances based on multiples of that. Although the results will be quite rough, even if we are out by 2000 MPH ... it's still moving way faster than any commercial aircraft ... and probably any military one as well, especially at that altitude.

 

[Frank Stalter]

It would help if we knew, but if you look closely you can see structures and beach front and estimate sizes within reason and extrapolate distances based on multiples of that. Although the results will be quite rough, even if we are out by 2000 MPH ... it's still moving way faster than any commercial aircraft ... and probably any military one as well, especially at that altitude.

My math was way off earlier. Just doing some really broad estimates after downloading a screen dump from the video, I'm scaling this at 50 pixels=2000 ft at somewhere between ground level and the low cloud level, so I've got the path at roughly 9 miles, basically one mile per second or 3600 MPH, close to mach 5. I really do think it's CGI though.

 

[Randall]

I think I saw this a couple of years back on another channel too.​

​

This would be just another too good to be true video.​

No backstory or witness statements.​

Probably fake because of that.​

 

[Rikki]

here is a good fake!

 

[Trajanus]

Each video should be evaluated on it's own merits and evidence other than the video is a must.

Many videos are fake, but must a video be assumed to be fake because "it's too good to be true"? Granted the phenomenon doesn't appear to want us to have very good evidence of it. But there's evidence for mishaps, so it's conceivable IMO that a "too good to be true" video may turn up which is true.

 

[Randall]

Many videos are fake, but must a video be assumed to be fake because "it's too good to be true"? Granted the phenomenon doesn't appear to want us to have very good evidence of it. But there's evidence for mishaps, so it's conceivable IMO that a "too good to be true" video may turn up which is true.

Excellent point, and it puts us in a bit of a conundrum. How many of these videos have been added on purpose to increase the noise level to the point of obscuring anything genuine. It's hard not to think that at least some of them come from some disinformation source.

 

[exo_doc]

When I look at that video in full screen, it looks like the object goes behind the first cloud, just in front of the next, and through or just under the last one. You can see the shadow the object casts in one spot if you look carefully. You can also see the scale of some of the objects on the ground and extrapolate a rough distance. If the resulting numbers are close to accurate and it is a real object it is definitely hypersonic ... around 6000 MPH. This estimate has nothing to do with the combined speeds of two aircraft or other factors mentioned in the video commentary, but strictly time to cover distance. If it's not CGI then the only terrestrial explanation that might fit would be some kind of missile. I don't see the point in creating a GGI video like this one and don't get the impression it's fake ... but like I said ... I'm no video expert either.

There is something not quite right with this vid. If the object did go under those low lying clouds, and the airliner was at 35000+/- feet, that object was at least 6 miles away, probably more.
That would be one huge object moving at mach 2?,..3? More? It's hard to tell other than it's extremely fast.
And it's movement and color just looks artificial/CG. It's too white white, even for an object that might be glowing.

This one's going in my doubtful(with reservations) box.

I didn't say anything about someone just happened to be video taping out an airliner window.....because I have done the exact same thing on numerous occasions.

 

[nameless]

GENUINE! Look at the arms!!

 

[Randall]

If I recall corecty, this one is actually a foreign sci-fi movie clip.​

​

​

 

[Randall]

Obviously CG FX - But pretty cool.​

​

The reason I think this is CG Effects is because it just​

looks too real and stereotypical sci-fi. In other words it's a totally​

subjective opinion. I really don't have any other reason.​

Is that a reflection of some sort of bias or prejudice?​

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Whenever I begin to look at ANY case, I always remind myself of Billy Myers case and evidence......and how everyone believed that Billy with only one arm even could in no way and in no how fake all these video's and pictures ........then, some 20 years later..... with better technology, the opposite is now thought by "most"...meaning how the hell could anyone think that it was NOT faked at this point.

Yeah, I agree. Just like Stan's ridiculous alien-in-the-window footage... "how the hell could anyone think that it was NOT faked[?]"

 

[Randall]

Unknown source ... too good to be true.​

​

 

[Randall]

I'm beginning to think that any video without a witness report and​

source should be automatically deemed fake and ignored.​

​

​

 

[Randall]

Don't forget to watch the comment at the end!​