• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

ufo videos

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Good video. I've seen most of them. I would say about 50/50 fake to real ratio but- 1.how do you prove it's real 2.if its proven real then what? 3.what is real? :) at any rate the videos are real and imagination is real, really.
 
stonehart said:
... what is fake? what ones are not.... maybe?
Click to expand...

Not a bad compilation, but as usual, it consists of vague and unremarkable lights off in the distance, mostly at night, or some other fuzzy looking thing that is indiscernible, or most probably special effects ( e.g. the London clip ). Of all the videos I've seen in the last year, there was only one that made me wonder, and it was also a vague light off in the distance. But the way that it moved, combined with the circumstances it was captured on video came across to me as more credible than most. It wasn't really popular online, and I don't think anyone here even bothered to comment on it. It's an example of how something that isn't all that sensational, but potentially worthwhile gets lost in all the noise.

But then again, in the end, videos don't really prove anything. Even when combined with on scene investigation, video analysis, and witness interviews, they still don't qualify as scientifically verifiable material evidence. These days the bottom line is that the camcorder revolution has added more noise to the picture than anything else in the history of the subject. The one segment that caught my attention in this one was the news story that suddenly got cut about the guy leaking the Top Secret UFO files. But for all we know, it was part of a sci-fi movie. You know though, that would make for an interesting thread ( UFO censorship ).
 
The (June 24th, 2011- London) video is really intresting to watch. The way those objects moved reminded me of the description given by Kenneth Arnold, when he said, they looked " like a saucer would if you skipped it across water." Whether they be real or not is aynbody's guess,but that thought is what came to mind, while watching that particular clip. The UFOs compiled in this video, have very similar likeness to each other as far as they look on film. My question to other forum participants is do they appear to be solid craft(UAOs), or are they Unidentified Aerial Phenomena(UAP)? The reason I ask is for feedback purposes, when trying to analyze any piece of footage posted online. Any feedback would be most helpful.:)
 
the london ones look really fake particularly the soho ones that street coincidently is home to a bunch of post production digital effects studios. It weird how a majority of "UFOS" are saucers when ironically Kenneth Arnold described them as cresent shaped not saucer shaped.
 
nameless said:
the london ones look really fake particularly the soho ones that street coincidently is home to a bunch of post production digital effects studios. It weird how a majority of "UFOS" are saucers when ironically Kenneth Arnold described them as cresent shaped not saucer shaped.
Click to expand...

While I agree that the London clips are most probably special FX, the smaller glowing orbs that come streaking in are fairly realistic.
 
ufology said:
Not a bad compilation, but as usual, it consists of vague and unremarkable lights off in the distance, mostly at night, or some other fuzzy looking thing that is indiscernible, or most probably special effects ( e.g. the London clip ). Of all the videos I've seen in the last year, there was only one that made me wonder, and it was also a vague light off in the distance. But the way that it moved, combined with the circumstances it was captured on video came across to me as more credible than most. It wasn't really popular online, and I don't think anyone here even bothered to comment on it. It's an example of how something that isn't all that sensational, but potentially worthwhile gets lost in all the noise.

But then again, in the end, videos don't really prove anything. Even when combined with on scene investigation, video analysis, and witness interviews, they still don't qualify as scientifically verifiable material evidence. These days the bottom line is that the camcorder revolution has added more noise to the picture than anything else in the history of the subject. The one segment that caught my attention in this one was the news story that suddenly got cut about the guy leaking the Top Secret UFO files. But for all we know, it was part of a sci-fi movie. You know though, that would make for an interesting thread ( UFO censorship ).
Click to expand...

That is a nice video and I guess it gets over looked as it is not sensationalist and flashy.Now as for the video I posted most are either indistinct moving lights, CGI, Chinese lanterns (there is one that is most certainly this), or so fuzzy they could be anything which makes me wounder in this age of the camera phone why there is no really good footage........... but then again with all the fakers and fakes out there would we believe the real thing if we were shown it anyway?

makes you think
 
nameless said:
the london ones look really fake particularly the soho ones that street coincidently is home to a bunch of post production digital effects studios. It weird how a majority of "UFOS" are saucers when ironically Kenneth Arnold described them as cresent shaped not saucer shaped.
Click to expand...


If the London vids are fake so be it. I'm of the opinion that I don't know for sure, and hold that position on the subject, even the trained eye can make mistakes. How can anyone ever come to the conclusion, that a video is 100 % authentic? Nobody mentioned them physically looking like saucers, but that they appeared to "move" like a suacer would if you skipped it across water. I believe that is what Kenneth Arnold said, that their flight looked "like a saucer would if you skipped it across water." He never said they had the physical appearence of saucer's and neither did I. Kenneth also said "their flight was like speed boats on rough water." The small orbs in the London video give that appearence in my opinion.
 
Astrocat said:
If the London vids are fake so be it. I'm of the opinion that I don't know for sure, and hold that position on the subject, even the trained eye can make mistakes. How can anyone ever come to the conclusion, that a video is 100 % authentic? Nobody mentioned them physically looking like saucers, but that they appeared to "move" like a suacer would if you skipped it across water. I believe that is what Kenneth Arnold said, that their flight looked "like a saucer would if you skipped it across water." He never said they had the physical appearence of saucer's and neither did I. Kenneth also said "their flight was like speed boats on rough water." The small orbs in the London video give that appearence in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Although I suspect the video is FX, you are absolutely right about the orbs. They look quite realistic. I can say that because I've seen a real one. The reasons I suspect the video is FX is because, as was mentioned by nameless, the location corresponds to a digital FX studio that was working on exactly these kinds of FX. There was also a thread on another site where the video was analyzed in detail by some specialists who concluded that the movement of the objects when stabilized compared with the frame indicated that they were inserted with an FX program. I'm no expert on video FX and processing, but when combined with the seemingly lackluster performance of the civilians who supposedly were watching these things, and the lack of other independent corroborative footage ... well ... you get the idea. In ufology, the evidence is all in the gray area ( pardon the pun ). Few things can be supported with absolute certainty. But then again, few things period can be supported with absolute certainty other than problems involving pure logic. We need to be careful not to handicap ourselves with unrealistic expectations. Even hard scientists admit that every practical application and experiment has a margin of error.
 
Check this for a multi-witness event. I am sure it's not CGI, normal aircraft or lanterns/balloons. I would be willing to entertain secret test craft because the flight characteristics are not in the amazing category. This is either a cluster of smallish craft or one very large one. Because the formation is held so exactly, it's hard to escape the conclusion that at least some of the lights belong to the same structure - but in the end, it's just lights in the night sky albeit 'good' lights in the sky video.
Thoughts?

 
That thing appears to be pretty big. It's intresting because, it has a strange tail of lights at what seems to be the backside of it. It reminds me of a dragon, or something out of a sci-fi flick. Ha! I'm of the opinion that it is one big object flying through the sky.Its kinda reminiscent of the Phoenix Lights large overhead craft description in my mind, but not as big. Who knows what it really is at the end of the day. Good find!
 
Mira los objectivos. This thread reminds me of why I love the Paracast forum. Always interesting, informative and entertaining. Keep up the good work. Thanks to all who contribute to this site, my hats off to all of you.....cheers.
(sry for nd-ing)
 
Looks like someone got lucky and got a video of a rare cluster of Eta Aquarids ( Apr 21-May 12 ). They have a rather indistinct peak around May 05 and best viewed from the equator to 30 degrees south latitude ... right about where Argentina is. The seeming stable positions of the fragments is due to the force of gravity and thin air. Unlike birds or aircraft that can maneuver at will, the fragments have no choice but to obey simple laws of physics with equal effect, and because they are actually very far away, it looks very precise. But if you look closely at more than one shot of them, the fragments do tend to span out and disintegrate. Or perhaps it was a reentry of some space debris. Cool video anyway.

Meteor Shower Schedule
 
Back
Top