Do Aliens/UFO's exist?

Harvez · 30-11-09, 07:35 AM

Space is so vast and ever expanding I don't doubt for 1 second there are other forms of life somewhere.
would be cool if some turned up and told us what fookwits we are for killing off our own planet.

tronsmith · 13-12-09, 10:13 PM

I just came across these videos.

Some analysis on the first video (which is not mine):

"The car is driving towards the left, the driver is in the left seat, the man using the camera is in the right seat, shooting out the left window in front of the driver's face.

As they drive along, the object is clearly behind the power line. The first apparent anomaly occurs at:

Time 00:11 - the object appears to jump in front of the wire. At this point, the car has hit a bump as evidenced from the jostle in the background that is from the camera bouncing with the car. When blowing the picture up and watching this point carefully, it is clear that the wire is quite distorted from the video compression (which is common with thin video portions), and at the precise location where the wire appears to jump behind the object, the wire is actually distorting downwards, blending in with the black background.

Time 00:12 - the driver begins to make what appears to be a U turn, so the camera operator aims the camera out the front windshield, since the car is now heading towards the Kremlin building.

Time 00:14 - the camera operator zooms out. The object's change in size and position are exactly consistent with the surrounding objects, indicating either a true recording, or a very good fake.

Time 00:15 - because the car is still turning, the camera operator continues to keep the object in the view finder, but because the windshield is quite dirty outside the windshield-wiper sweep area, the object disappears as it goes behind the grime on the windshield. By comparing the luminescence of the object to a similarly bright object (the top portion of the tower in the bottom-middle of the image), this is valid, since both the object and the top of the tower disappear behind the dirty windshield area. During this same second, the car continues to make the U-turn, and the camera operator points the camera out his own side window, which is obviously tinted, since the light levels coming through that glass is much less than what was coming from the front windshield or the driver's side window. This means either the driver's window is not tinted, and indeed it is not as dirt on the window can be seen in later portions of the video. Perhaps tinting the driver's window is not permitted for safety reasons.

Time 00:16 - before they go under the bridge there is a brief moment where the object seems to disappear. A possible explanation for this is that a very hard-to-see tree (pure black in the image) moves across the field of view, in front of the spot where the object should be in the sky. Since this is the first time we would see the object through the side window, it is hard to say for sure where the object should be. Plus, because the side window is tinted, it has reduced the light levels passing through the glass. Given the tinted glass and tree, this does not appear to be a flaw in the video. Only by simulating the actual car trajectory and speed in relation to the floating object, could we be sure of where the object should be, and only then could we determine if the tree explains the obscured object. What IS apparent from this portion is that the driver has both hands on the wheel, and the camera is a nice video camera, since it's large lens can be seen in the glass reflection.

Time 00:23 - after going under the bridge, they emerge into a well lit area, and the object is there, behind the lights in the foreground. The reflection of the camera is also quite clear.

Time 00:26 - the object is clearly behind the light poles protruding out from the building. Throughout the entire preceding 3 seconds, the object maintained correct lighting, angle, and relationship with all the other parts of the image, and is QUITE clearly not something inside the car.

Time 00:31 - after going under another bridge, they continued to drive straight, while the camera operator moved the camera to look out the front windshield again. At this point, he turned the camera off while the driver drove the car back towards the Kremlin for another pass.

Time 00:36 - heading back for another pass by the Kremlin, the camera operator is shooting out the front windshield. The object first becomes visible as a very small blob floating in the air.

Time 00:37 - the camera operator zooms in to maximum, introducing digital zoom artifacts. These same artifacts appear in all the objects of the image, including the floating object and the buildings. This indicates that the object pixelation is consistent with the entire image. These artifacts are primarily caused by the low-light conditions. Under low-light conditions the CCDs used in home cams can't pull in enough light, so software is used to boost the values, which in turn reduces the number of possible color shades. So on something like a windshield, where there is reflecting light, and lots of gradient shades, you get that blotching effect.

1:14 - As the car passes by the object, there is a light pole shining it's bright light, with a blooming effect towards the left side of the object. As the car continues past, the light from the light pole moves past where the object is. Now, if you know how the video camera works, you will see that the bright light shining in front of and towards the left side of the object will cause the low-light software in the camera to try and turn down the brightness in that area, thereby causing the left side of the floating object to go black. Plus, the object is rotating on 2 or 3 axis, causing the light to hit different surfaces.

1:17 - as soon as the bright light leaves the frame of the image, the left side of the floating object shows up again briefly before it gets obscured by the driver's sun visor.

1:23 - as they pass by the Kremlin, the camera operator moves the camera down and practically in front of the driver in order to get one final shot of the object, which does appear at the top of the side window. No increasing of light is needed to see the object.

After making this careful analysis of this video, I can state with almost certainty that the object was indeed filmed live. If a fake were to be made, it would have been MUCH simpler to do it from a fixed position. The fact that they were driving gives credence to its authenticity, since the effort to create this would be much more difficult."

So what do you guys think?

The Russians would not authorise any flights over the Kremlin.

I have been trying to think of something... Anything that would rationally explain this but I simply can't.

Larkino · 13-12-09, 10:44 PM

surely there would be more videos of this pyramid? I'm not saying I know what it is, or ruling out that it could be a "UFO", but it seems a bit weird that there is a floating pyramid in a city and only 1 person decided to film it.

**rider900** · 13-12-09, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tronsmith

I just came across these videos.

Some analysis on the first video (which is not mine):

"The car is driving towards the left, the driver is in the left seat, the man using the camera is in the right seat, shooting out the left window in front of the driver's face.

As they drive along, the object is clearly behind the power line. The first apparent anomaly occurs at:

Time 00:11 - the object appears to jump in front of the wire. At this point, the car has hit a bump as evidenced from the jostle in the background that is from the camera bouncing with the car. When blowing the picture up and watching this point carefully, it is clear that the wire is quite distorted from the video compression (which is common with thin video portions), and at the precise location where the wire appears to jump behind the object, the wire is actually distorting downwards, blending in with the black background.

Time 00:12 - the driver begins to make what appears to be a U turn, so the camera operator aims the camera out the front windshield, since the car is now heading towards the Kremlin building.

Time 00:14 - the camera operator zooms out. The object's change in size and position are exactly consistent with the surrounding objects, indicating either a true recording, or a very good fake.

Time 00:15 - because the car is still turning, the camera operator continues to keep the object in the view finder, but because the windshield is quite dirty outside the windshield-wiper sweep area, the object disappears as it goes behind the grime on the windshield. By comparing the luminescence of the object to a similarly bright object (the top portion of the tower in the bottom-middle of the image), this is valid, since both the object and the top of the tower disappear behind the dirty windshield area. During this same second, the car continues to make the U-turn, and the camera operator points the camera out his own side window, which is obviously tinted, since the light levels coming through that glass is much less than what was coming from the front windshield or the driver's side window. This means either the driver's window is not tinted, and indeed it is not as dirt on the window can be seen in later portions of the video. Perhaps tinting the driver's window is not permitted for safety reasons.

Time 00:16 - before they go under the bridge there is a brief moment where the object seems to disappear. A possible explanation for this is that a very hard-to-see tree (pure black in the image) moves across the field of view, in front of the spot where the object should be in the sky. Since this is the first time we would see the object through the side window, it is hard to say for sure where the object should be. Plus, because the side window is tinted, it has reduced the light levels passing through the glass. Given the tinted glass and tree, this does not appear to be a flaw in the video. Only by simulating the actual car trajectory and speed in relation to the floating object, could we be sure of where the object should be, and only then could we determine if the tree explains the obscured object. What IS apparent from this portion is that the driver has both hands on the wheel, and the camera is a nice video camera, since it's large lens can be seen in the glass reflection.

Time 00:23 - after going under the bridge, they emerge into a well lit area, and the object is there, behind the lights in the foreground. The reflection of the camera is also quite clear.

Time 00:26 - the object is clearly behind the light poles protruding out from the building. Throughout the entire preceding 3 seconds, the object maintained correct lighting, angle, and relationship with all the other parts of the image, and is QUITE clearly not something inside the car.

Time 00:31 - after going under another bridge, they continued to drive straight, while the camera operator moved the camera to look out the front windshield again. At this point, he turned the camera off while the driver drove the car back towards the Kremlin for another pass.

Time 00:36 - heading back for another pass by the Kremlin, the camera operator is shooting out the front windshield. The object first becomes visible as a very small blob floating in the air.

Time 00:37 - the camera operator zooms in to maximum, introducing digital zoom artifacts. These same artifacts appear in all the objects of the image, including the floating object and the buildings. This indicates that the object pixelation is consistent with the entire image. These artifacts are primarily caused by the low-light conditions. Under low-light conditions the CCDs used in home cams can't pull in enough light, so software is used to boost the values, which in turn reduces the number of possible color shades. So on something like a windshield, where there is reflecting light, and lots of gradient shades, you get that blotching effect.

1:14 - As the car passes by the object, there is a light pole shining it's bright light, with a blooming effect towards the left side of the object. As the car continues past, the light from the light pole moves past where the object is. Now, if you know how the video camera works, you will see that the bright light shining in front of and towards the left side of the object will cause the low-light software in the camera to try and turn down the brightness in that area, thereby causing the left side of the floating object to go black. Plus, the object is rotating on 2 or 3 axis, causing the light to hit different surfaces.

1:17 - as soon as the bright light leaves the frame of the image, the left side of the floating object shows up again briefly before it gets obscured by the driver's sun visor.

1:23 - as they pass by the Kremlin, the camera operator moves the camera down and practically in front of the driver in order to get one final shot of the object, which does appear at the top of the side window. No increasing of light is needed to see the object.

After making this careful analysis of this video, I can state with almost certainty that the object was indeed filmed live. If a fake were to be made, it would have been MUCH simpler to do it from a fixed position. The fact that they were driving gives credence to its authenticity, since the effort to create this would be much more difficult."

So what do you guys think?

The Russians would not authorise any flights over the Kremlin.

I have been trying to think of something... Anything that would rationally explain this but I simply can't.

Bloody hell big post!

well there is no other explaination really, it is a UFO, whether it is aliens i dunno lol but theres nothing to explain it. I would say genuine, anyone else?

tronsmith · 13-12-09, 11:58 PM

It's certainly a UFO in that it's flying an unidentified. I was thinking advertising balloon, but this wouldn't make sense for the following reasons:

1) Why fly it at night, less viewers+difficult to make out any text.
2) I still don't think they would allow it over th Kremlin.
3) The shape

It could be an elaborate hoax but if it was these people deserve stardom in Hollywood.

30-11-09, 07:35 AM	#141
Harvez Mini Mac Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: l33dz Posts: 9,421	Space is so vast and ever expanding I don't doubt for 1 second there are other forms of life somewhere. would be cool if some turned up and told us what fookwits we are for killing off our own planet. __________________ Freebiejeebies \| Free iphone \| Free Blackberry \| Free Wii U \| Free laptop ^^^^ its not real stop begging losers ^^^^ Someone once said "Life is what you make it", I disagree sometimes life makes you into what you are.

13-12-09, 10:44 PM	#143
Larkino Call me Vlad Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: South London Posts: 9,503	surely there would be more videos of this pyramid? I'm not saying I know what it is, or ruling out that it could be a "UFO", but it seems a bit weird that there is a floating pyramid in a city and only 1 person decided to film it. __________________ Free Xbox 360 S \| Free Wii \| Last.FM Last edited by Larkino; 13-12-09 at 10:44 PM..

13-12-09, 10:13 PM	#142
tronsmith iPod 60gb Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Brighton Posts: 1,663	I just came across these videos. Some analysis on the first video (which is not mine): "The car is driving towards the left, the driver is in the left seat, the man using the camera is in the right seat, shooting out the left window in front of the driver's face. As they drive along, the object is clearly behind the power line. The first apparent anomaly occurs at: Time 00:11 - the object appears to jump in front of the wire. At this point, the car has hit a bump as evidenced from the jostle in the background that is from the camera bouncing with the car. When blowing the picture up and watching this point carefully, it is clear that the wire is quite distorted from the video compression (which is common with thin video portions), and at the precise location where the wire appears to jump behind the object, the wire is actually distorting downwards, blending in with the black background. Time 00:12 - the driver begins to make what appears to be a U turn, so the camera operator aims the camera out the front windshield, since the car is now heading towards the Kremlin building. Time 00:14 - the camera operator zooms out. The object's change in size and position are exactly consistent with the surrounding objects, indicating either a true recording, or a very good fake. Time 00:15 - because the car is still turning, the camera operator continues to keep the object in the view finder, but because the windshield is quite dirty outside the windshield-wiper sweep area, the object disappears as it goes behind the grime on the windshield. By comparing the luminescence of the object to a similarly bright object (the top portion of the tower in the bottom-middle of the image), this is valid, since both the object and the top of the tower disappear behind the dirty windshield area. During this same second, the car continues to make the U-turn, and the camera operator points the camera out his own side window, which is obviously tinted, since the light levels coming through that glass is much less than what was coming from the front windshield or the driver's side window. This means either the driver's window is not tinted, and indeed it is not as dirt on the window can be seen in later portions of the video. Perhaps tinting the driver's window is not permitted for safety reasons. Time 00:16 - before they go under the bridge there is a brief moment where the object seems to disappear. A possible explanation for this is that a very hard-to-see tree (pure black in the image) moves across the field of view, in front of the spot where the object should be in the sky. Since this is the first time we would see the object through the side window, it is hard to say for sure where the object should be. Plus, because the side window is tinted, it has reduced the light levels passing through the glass. Given the tinted glass and tree, this does not appear to be a flaw in the video. Only by simulating the actual car trajectory and speed in relation to the floating object, could we be sure of where the object should be, and only then could we determine if the tree explains the obscured object. What IS apparent from this portion is that the driver has both hands on the wheel, and the camera is a nice video camera, since it's large lens can be seen in the glass reflection. Time 00:23 - after going under the bridge, they emerge into a well lit area, and the object is there, behind the lights in the foreground. The reflection of the camera is also quite clear. Time 00:26 - the object is clearly behind the light poles protruding out from the building. Throughout the entire preceding 3 seconds, the object maintained correct lighting, angle, and relationship with all the other parts of the image, and is QUITE clearly not something inside the car. Time 00:31 - after going under another bridge, they continued to drive straight, while the camera operator moved the camera to look out the front windshield again. At this point, he turned the camera off while the driver drove the car back towards the Kremlin for another pass. Time 00:36 - heading back for another pass by the Kremlin, the camera operator is shooting out the front windshield. The object first becomes visible as a very small blob floating in the air. Time 00:37 - the camera operator zooms in to maximum, introducing digital zoom artifacts. These same artifacts appear in all the objects of the image, including the floating object and the buildings. This indicates that the object pixelation is consistent with the entire image. These artifacts are primarily caused by the low-light conditions. Under low-light conditions the CCDs used in home cams can't pull in enough light, so software is used to boost the values, which in turn reduces the number of possible color shades. So on something like a windshield, where there is reflecting light, and lots of gradient shades, you get that blotching effect. 1:14 - As the car passes by the object, there is a light pole shining it's bright light, with a blooming effect towards the left side of the object. As the car continues past, the light from the light pole moves past where the object is. Now, if you know how the video camera works, you will see that the bright light shining in front of and towards the left side of the object will cause the low-light software in the camera to try and turn down the brightness in that area, thereby causing the left side of the floating object to go black. Plus, the object is rotating on 2 or 3 axis, causing the light to hit different surfaces. 1:17 - as soon as the bright light leaves the frame of the image, the left side of the floating object shows up again briefly before it gets obscured by the driver's sun visor. 1:23 - as they pass by the Kremlin, the camera operator moves the camera down and practically in front of the driver in order to get one final shot of the object, which does appear at the top of the side window. No increasing of light is needed to see the object. After making this careful analysis of this video, I can state with almost certainty that the object was indeed filmed live. If a fake were to be made, it would have been MUCH simpler to do it from a fixed position. The fact that they were driving gives credence to its authenticity, since the effort to create this would be much more difficult." So what do you guys think? The Russians would not authorise any flights over the Kremlin. I have been trying to think of something... Anything that would rationally explain this but I simply can't.

13-12-09, 11:58 PM	#145
tronsmith iPod 60gb Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Brighton Posts: 1,663	It's certainly a UFO in that it's flying an unidentified. I was thinking advertising balloon, but this wouldn't make sense for the following reasons: 1) Why fly it at night, less viewers+difficult to make out any text. 2) I still don't think they would allow it over th Kremlin. 3) The shape It could be an elaborate hoax but if it was these people deserve stardom in Hollywood.