Friday, February 11, 2011
2 comments :
Dear Contributor,
Your comments are greatly appreciated, and coveted; however, blatant mis-use of this site's bandwidth will not be tolerated (e.g., SPAM etc).
Additionally, healthy debate is invited; however, ad hominem and or vitriolic attacks will not be published, nor will "anonymous" criticisms. Please keep your arguments "to the issues" and present them with civility and proper decorum. -FW
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
LIVE SIGHTING REPORTS BY MUFON
How can 3...independent videos...be faked?
ReplyDeleteThis is the real thing.
John,
ReplyDeleteIf one looks closely between video #1 & #2, you'll notice that there is missing data (lights) between the two recordings.
These shots are alleged to have been taken in the same place and at the same time (obviously); you'll note the the luminance of the lights is much brighter (and the shot is closer) in the second then the first; henceforth any (easily) visible lights seen in the first shot, would not only be seen in the second, they would be "brighter"–that is simply not the case!
The second video also shows "two" lit objects as it begins to exit the shot–the others don't. The evidence dictates that these are two different pictures!
In the 4th video, the most impressive to date, you will notice the luminance of the city lights is "enhanced" to the point they are "bleeding together" when we see the flashes (right before the object exits the screen); empirical data culled from other videos with extremal bright flashes (e.g., "low flying meteor shots") show that an external light flash does not effect the static lights in the image.
Conversely, if one uses "software to enhance or brighten the light" in video or static images, it "increases the luminance" of all the static lights in the area the "effect was applied. I personally use this effect often myself and am very familiar with it.
In conclusion the preponderance of evidence clearly indicates that these images are products of a hoax.
Cheers,
Frank