Incredible TR3B UFO Video Footage?

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
22,247
Likes
18,112
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
#4
Quite.

I don't have any opinion on the UFO footage, but Wisconsin was discovered long before the invention of the movie camera.
 

Shady

WHOOOOOOO ARE YOU?
Joined
Apr 24, 2011
Messages
4,820
Likes
4,589
Points
159
#5
Balloon
And if it is real they must be awefully dizzy in there
 

Mungoman

Mostly harmless...
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,105
Likes
3,078
Points
159
Location
In the Bush (Peak Hill, NSW)
#6
I have seen UFO's and Flying objects that I recognise as non-terrestrial georgeP - unfortunately, too many of those on public media seem to be associated with contemporary technology of the day.

We look at those of the forties and fifties, and too many of them resemble loudspeakers; through the sixties and seventies they resembled something like hub caps, while now they resemble stealth technology.

The UFO's that I've seen have been formations of lights in the skies that move parallel to each other, perform various manoeuvrings, and then shoot off at incredible speed - with uncanny quietness.

The one FO that I experienced started off as a light in the night sky, which became brighter over a period of a couple of minutes. It gained solidity from light into a classic shape of two opposing saucers with a blister, both top and bottom, which soon could be seen as windows on the top blister.

It had a revolving 'waistband' of red and clear lights.


By now, I'd called out to my partner and our daughters, who came outside to watch. It positioned itself about 500 metres away from us over wetlands which enveloped the Tuggerah lakes, at about 50 metres elevation, and was as large as my thumb with arm outstretched - a goodly size. It then produced a cone of light which instantly illuminated itself on the wetlands, moving around as if it was searching for something.

This continued for about ninety seconds, then the light stopped moving and withdrew slowly from the ground, up into the flying object - all in all a classic, cheesy experience - the object then rose up to a height where it's solidity then became nothing but light, maybe five thousand feet, and then the classic exit - incredibly fast, and incredibly without sound. It would have taken less than a second to move across the sky, into nothingness.


At the time, the nineteen eighties, there were many observations over the Central Coast of New South Wales, with people gathering night after night to watch UFO's streaking out of, or over, the sea and then up into the night skies.


One thing I noticed on my observed flying object was that the object didn't rotate - just the 'waistband' of light - the windows kept still on the upper 'blister'.


Just one unreported experience out of a multitude.
 

dannycheveaux1

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Apr 30, 2003
Messages
124
Likes
19
Points
49
#11
I have seen UFO's and Flying objects that I recognise as non-terrestrial georgeP - unfortunately, too many of those on public media seem to be associated with contemporary technology of the day.

We look at those of the forties and fifties, and too many of them resemble loudspeakers; through the sixties and seventies they resembled something like hub caps, while now they resemble stealth technology.

The UFO's that I've seen have been formations of lights in the skies that move parallel to each other, perform various manoeuvrings, and then shoot off at incredible speed - with uncanny quietness.

The one FO that I experienced started off as a light in the night sky, which became brighter over a period of a couple of minutes. It gained solidity from light into a classic shape of two opposing saucers with a blister, both top and bottom, which soon could be seen as windows on the top blister.

It had a revolving 'waistband' of red and clear lights.


By now, I'd called out to my partner and our daughters, who came outside to watch. It positioned itself about 500 metres away from us over wetlands which enveloped the Tuggerah lakes, at about 50 metres elevation, and was as large as my thumb with arm outstretched - a goodly size. It then produced a cone of light which instantly illuminated itself on the wetlands, moving around as if it was searching for something.

This continued for about ninety seconds, then the light stopped moving and withdrew slowly from the ground, up into the flying object - all in all a classic, cheesy experience - the object then rose up to a height where it's solidity then became nothing but light, maybe five thousand feet, and then the classic exit - incredibly fast, and incredibly without sound. It would have taken less than a second to move across the sky, into nothingness.


At the time, the nineteen eighties, there were many observations over the Central Coast of New South Wales, with people gathering night after night to watch UFO's streaking out of, or over, the sea and then up into the night skies.


One thing I noticed on my observed flying object was that the object didn't rotate - just the 'waistband' of light - the windows kept still on the upper 'blister'.


Just one unreported experience out of a multitude.
That's a great post MungomanII - It's refreshing to hear such a detailed first hand experience
 

Zeke Newbold

Carbon based biped.
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
676
Likes
977
Points
94
#12
Well then...!? Is nobody going to debunk the video on the O.P? All the remarks so far have been supercilious, or off message: what about the image?
Likewise there are other sites on the web which take particular hard-headed glee in tearing to bits any would-be UFO shot - like worker ants swarming onto a dead sparrow - but I've looked in vain for anything on this.

So, it's down to me then is it? Here are the options I can think of:

The obvious one for starters: that it's a CGI job. Well, if it is then that's an awful lot of effort (and money) to throw away on such a short sequence that so few people will see. It might, of course be a promo for a new film or series - but it doesn't have the look of one, and I'll be damned if I know what it'd for anyway.

Dirigible ? Could be, but there are no identifying marks on it (which I believe are required by law) nor any promotional display. Also why is it rotating in that consistent fashion ?

Drone ? Is there a drone that looks like this, and which doesn't have any clear external means of propulsion ?

Then there is the notion that it might be a secret prototype, one which, by the looks of it, employs something approaching ant-gravity technology. A `TR38`, in fact. Now I'm not convinced that such a thing exists outside the fevered hopes of a handful of freelance would be astronautical engineers. The reason for this is, in short, is that I fail to see how any government of the world would have such know-how without taking advantage of its use for industrial and military purposes (in which case we'd all have to know about it). To imagine otherwise flies in the face of everything we know about how a global free market economy operates (even one which has a strong corporatist element). Even many of the proponents of the existence of the `TR3B` seem to invoke reverse engineering to explain its existence - and, of course, that just adds another layer of exotic conspiracy to the whole question.

So hurry up all you clever guys and gals out there and debunk this thing! Otherwise some of us may start thinking the unthinkable - viz that it's a rare, authentic UFO shot hiding in plain sight.

Meanwhile, I'm cautiously intrigued.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
5,491
Likes
6,601
Points
294
#13
The obvious one for starters: that it's a CGI job. Well, if it is then that's an awful lot of effort (and money) to throw away on such a short sequence that so few people will see.
How expensive are we talking about? If you had access to certain CGI software through work say, you could do it for free.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
32,144
Likes
16,071
Points
284
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
#14
CGI to do that wouldn't cost much at all. Mr Plankton is correct.
A difficult job to do it, because it appears to be flying behind trees, but not impossible.
I'm not debunking it outright, but my best guess is a small dirigible balloon just a few feet across, made just for the shot - no passengers on board (too small).

Edit: See this one? Clearly a drone made up to look like a flying saucer:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/is-this-t...captures-flying-saucer-054842214.html#KC3gJzU

 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
9,143
Likes
8,652
Points
294
Location
Out of Bounds
#15
Well then...!? Is nobody going to debunk the video on the O.P? All the remarks so far have been supercilious, or off message: what about the image?
Likewise there are other sites on the web which take particular hard-headed glee in tearing to bits any would-be UFO shot - like worker ants swarming onto a dead sparrow - but I've looked in vain for anything on this.
...
I tend to agree with UFO Theater's Speedebunking video on this particular event:


... which offers some interesting observations about the tree(s) - rather than the flying object - providing clues to this video's probable origins as a wholly fabricated CGI job. The novelty in this case is the apparent digital tweaking done to the setting itself.
 

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,485
Likes
8,822
Points
284
Location
Under the moon
#17
Yup - good find, EnolaGaia. That solves it for me, and explains the tree.
Me too. I felt that there was something odd about the tree, but I didn't look carefully enough.

After all, there are millions of trees, and not many UFOs, so what are you going to concentrate on?

Classic magician's trick to divert your attention from what's really going on. Doh!
 

Zeke Newbold

Carbon based biped.
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
676
Likes
977
Points
94
#18
^ Nnnoooope, not so impressed. `Speedebunking`? More like boil-in-the-bag debunking, if you ask me!

The sneering-jeering tone got my back up immediately - I've heard it elsewhere, and it almost always betokens a pre-set agenda at work.

I found the idea that the tree is a CGI job both confusing and unconvincing. Why the need for a CGI tree in the first place ? To divert our attention from what exactly? And, I say it again, that's a lot of work to do just to (presumably) make the craft (which would also have to be CGI ) look as though it's going past some branches.

And I actually had a look at some trees: I know as little about these as I do about CGI, but I did notice a similarity in pattern between separate branches, in the way that nature produces patterns (and the branches in the example given didn't look identical to me anyway).

I would say that Mythopoelka's original suggestion - that it is a small dirigible - seems much more feasible, (and reduces the amount of complexity the debunking needs too).

One final point (not often made): there's fun and kudos to be had in being an internet debunker every bit as much as there is in being an originator of hoaxes. Our guard needs to be up against easy explanations almost as much as it is against easy deceptions.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
32,144
Likes
16,071
Points
284
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
#19
I found the idea that the tree is a CGI job both confusing and unconvincing. Why the need for a CGI tree in the first place ?
I have to say, it is actually a really good CGI sequence, because it all looks pretty authentic.
The CGI tree is needed because photo-compositing a CGI UFO onto a video sequence of a real tree will leave editing artifacts all over the place. You'd see the masking if you looked close-up.
So, doing it all in CGI will create a perfect shot.
That short sequence would not take a lot of work with today's CGI software. I know a little bit about it, because I have software that can do this. However, I only use it for 3D designing and digital painting.
 

hunck

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
3,408
Likes
3,571
Points
159
Location
Hobbs End
#20
Well Zeke it seems you're in a minority thinking this footage is of a physical object. My initial reaction was CGI & having watched the debunking video has further endorsed this. The debunker guy is a bit sneering but maybe he's seen scores of similar videos. In addition to the identical tree branches which I'd not noticed on first viewing, if you're filming an actual object, why wouldn't you continue filming in expectation of picking it up when it emerged from behind the trees? All we see is a very short slo-mo repeated segment of it going behind the 'trees' from which it never emerges & the video simply stops.

The CGI explanation is far more likely & not too arduous a task for a savvy software manipulator with some spare time. I'm open to the possibility that it's a physical object should further evidence appear but this video on it's own is not it.
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
2,858
Likes
828
Points
129
#21
There is no way a tree could have exactly the same branch formation repeated three times in different places. There is even a paraedolic 'face' there that can be seen in each instance. Note that one of the repeated branches is the one the 'ufo' passes behind, although it is partly hidden by another fake branch in front.

 

Coal

Polymath Renaissance Man, Italian Wiccan Anarchist
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
7,699
Likes
8,559
Points
279
#22
There is no way a tree could have exactly the same branch formation repeated three times in different places. There is even a paraedolic 'face' there that can be seen in each instance. Note that one of the repeated branches is the one the 'ufo' passes behind, although it is partly hidden by another fake branch in front.

Quite. Those are identical barring some shading. For those outlines to match that well 'naturally' is pushing the boundaries of coincidence somewhat. And once one bit is CGI everything else has to be assumed bogus.
 

Zeke Newbold

Carbon based biped.
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
676
Likes
977
Points
94
#23
Okay guys, I concede defeat. I kicked the hornets nest and got stung: this is most probably CGI then.

I must be a bit behind the times on these things. I'd assumed that if you had the skill and means to produce something like this then you could be calling the shots in terms of job opportunities and pay, and hence wouldn't be wasting your time on a skit which you are neither credited for or (presumably) compensated for. Then again, I never play computer games and avoid CGI based films....

So it appears that we are already living in a Philip K. Dick world where the `reality` of any image can be automatically doubted (and that would apply to ghost and cryptid shots too). Photos and movies can no longer be called on to produce reliable evidence for anything.

It follows though - for those of us who do believe there is a UFO phenomenon - that there must be some authentic pictures and films out there of the things - it's just that there is no way of picking them out from the slush-pile of CGI based dross.
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
2,858
Likes
828
Points
129
#24
That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that no pictures and films actually show alien spacecraft; the rule of thumb generally is: if they look too good (like this one does) then they are fakes, and if they are just wobbly lights then they are misidentifications.

If there are any alien craft in our skies, they would probably have technology that was sufficiently advanced so that we wouldn't see them.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
32,144
Likes
16,071
Points
284
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
#25
I must be a bit behind the times on these things. I'd assumed that if you had the skill and means to produce something like this then you could be calling the shots in terms of job opportunities and pay, and hence wouldn't be wasting your time on a skit which you are neither credited for or (presumably) compensated for.
There are lots of people out there who do stuff like this to add to their portfolio (called a showreel). When they have enough good material, they show it about in order to get a good job. If they produce something that gets watched all over the world and gets a lot of attention, that gains them more kudos when looking for a job. So, they'll do it for free and hand it over to people such as ThirdPhaseofMoon.

So it appears that we are already living in a Philip K. Dick world where the `reality` of any image can be automatically doubted (and that would apply to ghost and cryptid shots too). Photos and movies can no longer be called on to produce reliable evidence for anything.
Sadly, yes. Now, anybody can produce really convincing fakes.
 
Top