Hey there.. Only read this if you’ve the time, okay?
I’m writing about the -now over a year since it surfaced on the net- clip about the WTC Ufo. Well, on your page you said “send us your feedback”, so here it is:
First, my stance: I am open to the idea that SoMetHiNg could be flying our skies – whether it be man-made, a deeper spiritual thing or otherwise, I don’t know – but I don’t rule out the possibility and find “caught on tape video” quite interesting, after all, I ended up on this site, didn’t I? Anyhow.. on we go then.
I’ve seen some pretty convincing video here and there in my time – and when it comes to the WTC Ufo video, I’m, to be quite honest stunned, sincerely STUNNED that the video has garnished as much attention as it has. While it looks like a fun little project, I don’t understand how those who live and breathe this stuff have bought it.
And frankly, I base my thoughts on things that NO ONE has mentioned yet anywhere – not that I’ve seen. -Not too sure why, because to me, they stood out like my grandmother at a punk show. I digress. Let me explain.
I have 3 points (well, 3 and a half). Two are based on the video. One is based on human nature – again, something no one has mentioned.
— My half point is based on the fact that “expert video analyzers” on this video stem from Adoni films — the very company that released low budget “UFO caught on tape” videos. Hardly the Hollywood/Computer Cafe (Hollywood’s outsourcer for CGI and special effects) calibre “expert”. (Besides, what’s a “special effects” guy doing working at a film company that makes “Reality/Caught on Tape Movies” anyway? Ouch.)
If the “expert” was from Dreamworks, ILM or Computer Cafe, I’d listen. Adoni? No.
Anyhow, The first two:
1) The size of the craft. The size of the captured “object” fluxuates during the video to, coincidentally, provide the camera with a “really cool”, yet fuzzy, image. I’ll explain.
– First, during the final “fly-by” swoop – How close do you think the object comes to the helicopter? — No seriously. Stop for a second, watch the video if you have to. How far? 10 feet? 20? 50? It’s certainly in that ballpark – 50 would be pushing it by the looks of it – it seems a LOT closer.
– Now, I want you to back pedal to the frames where the camera is zoomed in on the object as it is ~just~ about to zip away from the tower. – The jerky camera movement will occasionally give you a reference of where the other side of the wtc is – resulting in a nice comparison shot of how wide the “object” is to the tower. From that shot, the “object” is just over 1/3rd the width of the World trade center. — If that was the case, that final “swoop” shot wouldn’t look like a 12-foot wide object at 20 feet, but rather a mansion flying by at close range… But that would make it too big to see and wouldn’t look nearly as slick.
– The biggest error in the film is this: The sound effect. Head forward to the “Fly-by swoop”. Listen carefully. Up the volume a bit. The sound doesn’t only exist as it passes ~directly~ by the helicopter – but there is a very quiet, maybe .3 of a second of “creshendo” building up to the “swoop” noise. Turn up the volume, play it back slowly. — Try and stop the video the instant the “swoop effect” begins playing – The object hasn’t even begun moving yet – and somehow, a sound effect of high-velocity rushing air can be heard. Let’s not even get into points like “speed of sound” – (that the object is clearly shown to be breaking) – in which case, you wouldn’t hear ANY sound until the object had passed by because the object would’ve beaten the initial “rush” sound to the helicopter. Why oh why they put in a, granted, very cool sounding “swoop” effect is beyond me.
Here is my final point – that, even if the first two errors didn’t exist I still wouldn’t buy it. This one erases all doubt. I’m shocked, that on any site, no one has mentioned it. Are you ready? Here it is:
My job – my real job – is an actor. Granted it’s a humble lifestyle, but I’m quite good at it and the acting job in this video is awful. Why? Simply because, as any solid actor will tell you “Acting is Doing”. It is responding and reacting to scenarios as if they were real – because to the actor, it should be real. The lady in this video does NOT do this.
I don’t care who you are. I don’t care where you grew up or what your belief system is but… If you saw a strange, cylindrical object float in front of you and, from a stationary position, LAUNCH at break neck speed across the horizon right in front of you — While You Were Filming It, no less — No One: And I mean NO ONE would silently wait for our “mystery disc” to stop and then respond with a lax: “it’s over there.” I cringe every time I hear it.
– Is there a reaction to the fact that an object is just floating/drifting in front of them? Nope.
– Is there a reaction to the fact that this quiet, floating, still, mysterious-looking object suddenly BOLTS across the sky DIRECTLY in front of them? Nope.
Her reaction? “it’s over there” as if she was pointing out where she left her jacket. I’m sorry. It wouldn’t happen.
Seriously, play back the “sudden bolting” of the object and be amazed that she, oddly enough, has absolutley NO reaction to the fact that the “mysterious object”, the very same object that “caught her attention” a mere 3 seconds earlier, the object she’s currently staring at, begins searing through the lower atmosphere. No response. Nothing.
There is no reaction … because there was no object in the original footage. – Her line was “it’s over there”, so she said it.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present my thoughts and comments. Thanks for your time.