I think its fake... look how the object barely moves? It stays in one position during the whole video!?

That looks exactly like a light fixture pasted into the video.

I'm not sure what to make of it- it doesn't look like it's spinning or moving, just hovering. It's a little dark and shaded when she zooms in as well making it hard to make out any details. Interesting though! Thanks for sharing it! Where was this supposed to be?

If you look close there are I believe 4 lights on the bottom. You probably have to have a nice computer monitor to see them like I can. They are flashing in a sequence. We have planes here on earth that can hover in 1 spot.

It is a little convenient that the person filming it had his batteries run out so we didn't get to see this thing move. He didn't even comment on how it moved, or if it even did so I am skeptical.

it looks fake to me.. although I dont have any scientific reason for believing this, it just what I think..

I found a pic of a UFO at UFO Casebook that looks EXACTLY like the one in this video!

April 11, 2008 - Houston, Texas




April 24, 1993 - Jalisco, Guadalajara

Turn the pic upside down and it is an exact match!





1993-Jalisco, Guadalajara, April 24-This photograph was taken in the state of Jalisco in 1993. Several years later more reports of UFOs are made: On Saturday, January 3, 1998, at 3 a.m., airline pilot Gary Sanders who has 24 years of flying experience in the USAF saw a reddish-colored light move rapidly from east to west, then the object suddenly changed direction by about 135 degrees of turn and very sharply, twice, defying "any laws of flight and physics that I am aware of." On Saturday, December 5, 1998, between 7 and 7:30 p.m., thousands of people in the states of Jalisco and Aguascaliente in Mexico watched a UFO described as "a very bright white light" fly over the Sierra Madre mountains.

http://www.ufocasebook.com/bestufopictures5.html


I've been talking with the guy who shot this video for a while now and I think he's telling the truth. I deal with trolls & cons all the time, and IMO he's not one of them.

Here are his follow up videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu7ZE3U1nA0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdKMi365YHc


I would at least remain neutral until you have all the data.

I forwarded the video to Stanton Friedman to get his take.

Here is another thread on the video:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread349517/pg1

Here is some more info on the UFO from 1993 that is an EXACT match with the one in this video:

http://www.analuisacid.com/ocotlan_ufo.htm


Also, another witness has come forward!

His testimony will be in Jaime Muassan's report!

Here is some more info on the UFO from 1993 that is an EXACT match with the one in this video:

http://www.analuisacid.com/ocotlan_ufo.htm


Also, another witness has come forward!

His testimony will be in Jaime Muassan's report!

Regardless of the detective work the 2 images are NOT an "EXACT match" with the one in the video. First, you had to turn the new one upside down to get the similarity. It would have been preferred if the new didn't have to be turned upside down.

Second, I just drew both images for reference and there is no "EXACT match." Good try, though.

Besides, since there is a 1993 source, who is to say that this 1993 image was not used in CGI to emulate an old sighting that could give credence to the new one as you've done? I don't buy it.

if the footage is clear, then its obviously a fake, because its so clear and detailed it must've been CGI.

if the footage is unclear, then its obviously a fake, because its so unclear and blurry it must've just been a plane or refracted light or other natural occurance.

Ill mostly repeat what ive said in a previous thread, but any actually real video (or photo) of a supposed alien spacecraft would always be considered a fake. You simply cant win with any of the footages we've seen of late, with the super clear UFO sighting footages, that are so obviously CGI, to the traditional out of focus shaky-cam footage, which could be anything.

if the footage is clear, then its obviously a fake, because its so clear and detailed it must've been CGI.

if the footage is unclear, then its obviously a fake, because its so unclear and blurry it must've just been a plane or refracted light or other natural occurance.

There will always be little details people will focus on, that are apparently absolute proof that what they are seeing is a fake, that we will never know how many real videos have been thrown in the junk pile along with all the hoaxes.

So by this flawed logic, if I posted two pics of an F-16, one right side up, the other upside down, it wouldn't be a match???

Skeptical Ed: "It is YOUR logic, if you can call it that, that is flawed. If you posted 2 pics of an F-16, etc., they could only look like themselves right side up or not. They would have to be a match."

Actually they are a match. Print the pics out and flip the second two and put them right next to each other. Or somebody computer savvy can do it on this forum.

SE: "I don't have to do as you say to see that they are not an EXACT match, there are many differences. Similarity, yes. EXACT match, no."

lol ... you're giving Mauro (the guy who shot this video) waaaaay too much credit, no way in hell he knew about the 1993 pic from Guadalajara.

SE: "You miss my intent. If it's in the past it can be copied in the present. And how do YOU know that Mauro was not familiar with the 1993 pic?"

It's NOT CGI, most of the computer nerds at ATS agree too.

SE: "I would not use anyone from ATS as a reference for anything, just like many on THIS forum."

If it was fake it would be a remote control, which I doubt.

SE: "Only the person responsible for the video knows."

No matter what people believe, we won't have to wait too long because this video is going public in the next few weeks!

SE: "So what? The people responsible for publicizing the Majestic-12 documents are a couple of idiots. Publicizing something doesn't give it the reality that's not there. The History Channel is notorious for showing non-historical "documentaries." That's probably where the video will be shown."


PS I'm new to this forum, what % of people here would you say are UFO believers vs. skeptics/debunkers?

SE: "I would say that 95% of the people here are believers. Me and a couple others are skeptics/debunkers with me being about the only debunker, as you can see in some of my threads. Being a skeptic or debunker doesn't automatically mean were negative and don't accept UFOs as a real for I have had 6 sightings with one videotaped."

So uhhh... what's left then? By what your saying basically any video of anything is going to be considered fake. Awesome. The pure skeptical view.

Thats exactly my point, unfortunately no video will be considered proof either way, because the skeptics will always shoot it down for different reasons...

Back when all we'd see was blurry footage, the skeptics would always make a point of that, and suggest that if they ever saw a clear video of a UFO, then maybe they'd take it seriously.... but then... when we do actually start to see clear videos of unusual objects, the skeptics go and shoot that down too for being clear, and start picking at minuscule details that they believe is evidence that its CGI or a well-made prop.

You could be holding in your hands, crystal clear, detailed footage of an object you truthfully in your heart saw and captured on film, present it to the world, and it will be labeled eventually as a fake, a hoax, CGI, or whatever else.

To be clear, i am not at all saying aliens and alien spacecraft absolutely do not exist, all i'm saying, is that video footage will never be treated as proof.