New multiple witness fliming, France UFO sighting

[The Hawk]

Apparently these happened on the same day..

It's a bit suspicious that they were originally uploaded by the same person:

http://mrpiff.com/

Not unusual at all but adds to a higher possibility of hoax.
Any news from France?

 

[Rick Deckard]

<thinking out loud>

Hmmm, interesting - I dunno - the 'skeptics' will be saying 'too good to be true' (whatever THAT means).

Could be a blimp and/or a hoax - like the Channel 4 documentary here in the UK - just waiting to discredit anyone who might dare to suggest it's anything other than a blimp...

It'll have to go in my 'grey' basket along with *all* other video and photographic evidence...

</thinking out loud>

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I was just at youtube today and didn't come across these vids. Sucks. All I found was stuff like this.

K6XUUBRMEMo

I'm embarrassed to say I LMAO at that vid. What am I 3 years old!?


If the vids came from independent people then great. If not, then not so great. It sort of looks like a blimp or balloon, but it also looks like a space ship from the planet Zork or wherever.

 

[dorkbot]

Fairly impressive. If it is a hoax at least they didn't overdo it. I don't know enough about digital manipulation to say one way or the other when it something that subtle.

Couple points:
-Very stable in it's stationary position. Remember some of the discs of yore that wobbled when they were low and slow?
-Seems like it was there for quite some time.

Who is gonna start attaching these sightings reports with a google maps link in a public web database?

Maybe people should just take a different tack and start off by claiming, "Wow, look at this cool blimp!"

 

[Mogwa]

I found those videos impressive. Multiple angles from different locations and no theatrical stunt effects.
Although it's only an off the cuff appraisal with no carefully examined verification, the object's reflected light characteristics seem authentic.
I'm convinced that faking a convincing ufo video is next to impossible. I know from the experience of simply trying to see how difficult it can be for curiosity's sake. No matter how detailed and realistic a 3D model I've created, textured, illuminated, animated and anti-aliased, the result is always easily recognizable for what it is.

 

[Miah]

Isn't this the part where David Biedny comes in to have a look?

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Isn't this the part where David Biedny comes in to have a look?

Maybe try over at Jeff's ats forum if you want someone from the show to have a look. Last I was there Jeff was asking for video and pic submissions.

 

[Miah]

Maybe try over at Jeff's ats forum if you want someone from the show to have a look. Last I was there Jeff was asking for video and pic submissions.

Even though there's a lot more traffic is at ATS, the majority of it is quacks. The mods are asses too, they cater to the nuts over the ones who call them for what they are. I don't play well with others.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Even though there's a lot more traffic is at ATS, the majority of it is quacks. The mods are asses too, they cater to the nuts over the ones who call them for what they are. I don't play well with others.

I'm not a fan of ATS either - I didn't like the inconsistent way the mods applied the forum rules. They seemed to give their 'buddies' the run of the place while those that they disagreed with, often got warnings over petty interpretations of the rules. I'm glad I left the ATS forums and even though this forum is less busy, there are still enough regulars to offer a wide enough range of opinions...

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I'm not a fan of ATS either - I didn't like the inconsistent way the mods applied the forum rules. They seemed to give their 'buddies' the run of the place while those that they disagreed with, often got warnings over petty interpretations of the rules. I'm glad I left the ATS forums and even though this forum is less busy, there are still enough regulars to offer a wide enough range of opinions...

I haven't spent enough time at ATS to know their culture, or the attitude of the moderators. The problem I see, from a surface glance, is that, when you have a large organization, there can be wide variations in how regulations might be applied. This is particularly true if all or most of these moderators are volunteers. From one forum to the next, you might see things vary.

Here you have just three moderators -- at least so far. But the forum is a little over 13 months old, and we are growing rather fast. So I expect it'll become harder to keep the focus consistent as we grow. I ran into that, too, while a forum leader over at AOL during their golden years long, long ago.

 

[Miah]

I'm not a fan of ATS either - I didn't like the inconsistent way the mods applied the forum rules. They seemed to give their 'buddies' the run of the place while those that they disagreed with, often got warnings over petty interpretations of the rules. I'm glad I left the ATS forums and even though this forum is less busy, there are still enough regulars to offer a wide enough range of opinions...

Exactly! The mods there need modded themselves, they act like gods rather than just watching for blatant rule breaking. They don't like for a common peasant poster to point that out either

Glad to be here with ya. I am very interested in the field and take it very seriously. I just want to know wtf is really going on, and don't take kindly to fanciful BS.

I haven't spent enough time at ATS to know their culture, or the attitude of the moderators. The problem I see, from a surface glance, is that, when you have a large organization, there can be wide variations in how regulations might be applied. This is particularly true if all or most of these moderators are volunteers. From one forum to the next, you might see things vary.

Here you have just three moderators -- at least so far. But the forum is a little over 13 months old, and we are growing rather fast. So I expect it'll become harder to keep the focus consistent as we grow. I ran into that, too, while a forum leader over at AOL during their golden years long, long ago.

If you mod anything like you handle the BS on your show, I'll be right at home.

 

[Raccoon]

So any comment from David yet?

I thought it might be suspect how they have the "presence of mind" to zoom in and out to get the nearer objects in the video, almost as a "see it has to be real" commentary.

Then again, they could just be making sure the auto focus is locking on. Obviously would be great to watch a few minutes of the footage uninterrupted and watch the object get behind things.

Would have been great if the "shooter" moved himself so the objects went behind foreground stuff, but that might make me suspicious as well.

Can't win hey? But looks compelling to me.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Even though there's a lot more traffic is at ATS, the majority of it is quacks. The mods are asses too, they cater to the nuts over the ones who call them for what they are. I don't play well with others.

I'm not wild about ATS either. At least a lot of the "nuts" as you put it, and some of the ways they moderate. Jeff's forum isn't like the rest of the site it seems though. I think you'd be fine just submitting a link or two

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I haven't spent enough time at ATS to know their culture, or the attitude of the moderators. The problem I see, from a surface glance, is that, when you have a large organization, there can be wide variations in how regulations might be applied. This is particularly true if all or most of these moderators are volunteers. From one forum to the next, you might see things vary.

Here you have just three moderators -- at least so far. But the forum is a little over 13 months old, and we are growing rather fast. So I expect it'll become harder to keep the focus consistent as we grow. I ran into that, too, while a forum leader over at AOL during their golden years long, long ago.

Where's Tom been? I over work him as a moderator and he need a vacation already?

I saw this the other day and wondered if it was the Tom from here.
Home - Coast to Coast AM

 

[Mogwa]

I found those videos impressive. Multiple angles from different locations and no theatrical stunt effects.
Although it's only an off the cuff appraisal with no carefully examined verification, the object's reflected light characteristics seem authentic.
I'm convinced that faking a convincing ufo video is next to impossible. I know from the experience of simply trying to see how difficult it can be for curiosity's sake. No matter how detailed and realistic a 3D model I've created, textured, illuminated, animated and anti-aliased, the result is always easily recognizable for what it is.

I may have to eat those words. After debating whether it was worth the cost, I took the plunge and upgraded to Photoshop CS3 for the...gulp...pc. Damn! This app is killer. Lots of new features that streamline and expand editing possibilities. And it runs smooth as silk with none of the lag or long load times we wretched Windows peons sometimes had to endure with a large CS2 install.
If a hoaxer had the patience to edit a video frame by frame, the results could be extremely impressive. Only an expert with lots of time could discover any perceptible errors, assuming the boob who faked the thing was marginally competent.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to create my own personal scandalous hoax:a phony nekkid Kathy Griffin layout, one that might have been shot in her Seinfeld days,before her head turned into cottage cheese.
Shame on me.

 

[musictomyears]

Shame on me.

Only if you don't PM the final result to every one of us.