>> video…can be [created and manipulated] with simple visual effects…and then posted on the internet to make a stir.… <<

You mean as the Italian self-styled astrophotographer, Alberto Mayer, did with his "UFO over the Moon" video hoax, that simple-minded wannabe skeptics like you misinterpreted as a literal "balloon" in front of his telescope? And that was exactly what he wanted, to get his name known as the "UFO" nutter who got bonehead "skeptics" to squeal "weather balloon."

>> the “nutter” label fits pretty well. But then I’m just a mean old rationalist.<<

Keep telling yourself that, you nutter-apostate. Noobs to skepticism like you are the worst sort of metareligious fanatics. And having absolutely zero scientific expertise doesn’t help.

>> What gets me most riled is the way you can continually explain to people….<<

So maybe one day you'll graduate from negative pseudoskepticism to positive debunking. But I DOUBT IT!

Skeptimus Maximus

“you can’t fix stupid” – Ron White

maker of the video is lolrofl @ all the beLIEvers

this is just hype for psychout of 2011

to debunk this video look at the metadata or analyze the video’s anomalies any 9/11 nutjob will show you how to spot them

Kuhnnigget, you crack me up. In the same sentence, you call me a “UFO nutter” and then claim to be in a logical debate.

Nope, he called you a UFO nutter (which, BTW, is pretty damned obvious from your comments) and then pointed out that you refuse to participate in a logical debate.

Prime example – how about you respond to the actual points he and I have raised instead of sniping at trivia?

You guys can spend the next couple of days figuring out the different ways you’re going to beat me up after school.

Actually, your comments can be torn to shreds without much need for extensive thought. Your “arguments” really are that lame.

I am out of this “discussion”.

You never even entered it.

It happens over and over again. Yet, still they believe.

Steadfastly, desperately, believes that unidentified lights in the sky are alien spacecraft or other such outlandish explanations, despite no evidence supporting such.

Ignores commonplace explanations for same, despite solid evidence supporting such.

Equates own opinions, typically presented in grand poobah pronouncement mode, with solid evidence.

When called to task for his unsupported opinions masquerading as fact, complains that he is an “outsider” and “obviously not welcome” in the debate, despite the fact he doesn’t actually debate.

Calls others out for name-calling, when he plays the same game himself. (Oh, you old people, you!)

Makes endless “final comments” appended with the standard “I’ve got better things to do” whine.

Fails, repeatedly, to actually counter any arguments presented against him.

Co-mingles with fellow nutters swapping phoney youtube videos, conspiracy theories, and assorted nuttiness rather than actually learning something new, such as critical thinking skills, or in this case, the basics of digital video manipulation, that might actually help advance his standing relative to the population at large.

So, yeah, Tom, I think the “nutter” label fits pretty well. But then I’m just a mean old rationalist.

Funny, but you seem to have again forgotten the part of your latest comment where you actually address the arguments made by kuhnigget and others in response to your earlier comment. And you’re the one accusing others of not wanting to have a “logical debate”? Amusing. Pot meet kettle, have a nice day.

Edit: Event/video – as far as I’m concerned, my comment addresses both. This is hardly the “best” example of a UFO video *or* a UFO event. As others have pointed out, only relatively basic video editing techniques are required to replicate such a video and many aspects about the “event” itself are highly questionable (like how we have multiple videos of such a bright object over an important landmark but essentially no other eyewitnesses – certainly nowhere near the number you should expect?). The whole thing stinks of phooey. And yet it’s being lauded as some excellent example of UFOery. It’s inane.

Also, as I said, this isn’t the only place I’ve seen such a comment made (for example, see the Universe Today article on the subject – comment 1 by ‘ufojack’) – my comment wasn’t referring solely to you.

I’ve seen this sort of comment made for other UFO videos in the past. I guess it’s really one of the only defences that UFO proponents have to prevent the “fake video is more likely than alien spacecraft” (read: rational) debunking.

Any chance this could actually be a Poe?

Nah, Mr. Niedenfuer is a fan of various forms of woo, from crop circles to the whole, “after 2012 things will be different” silliness.

He is also at least marginally familiar with Apple’s Final Cut video editing software, or so he claims. Yet, how he could use it and not be aware of the fairly sophisticated effects built into even the most basic versions of that program remains a question. Perhaps he never read the manual.

As with most UFO nutters, he’s not really interested in logical debate or reason, he only wants his expert wisdom to be received as the earth-shaking proof he himself believes it to be.

Oops. Sorry to participate in this “forum”. Sorry to have to have an opposing point of view. It is obvious by your defensive, snide reply that I offended you. And, I am sorry to hear that you won’t be hiring me. I can tell by your extensive use of the word duh that you hire many video producers. As you youngsters say, my bad.

Any chance this could actually be a Poe?

If not, I’ll back up what kuhnigget said with a few points of my own…

First off, as kuhnigget points out, your participation is welcome, as are opposing views. What is not welcome is you making claims without any support, apart from an argument from authority (a classic logical fallacy), citing yourself as the authority.

Second, when you post stuff that you seem to have just made up, what do you expect but that someone will rip it to shreds?

If you really are a video producer, how come you’re so agog at effects that can be produced trivially erasily with the right software? Are you really so naive that – even were you unaware of the software that kuhnigget mentions – you would think it is difficult to produce digitally the effects to which you refer as “proving” the video to be “genuine”?

am i saying its real? no, but to dismiss this moment with one of the worst videos that even ufo believers thinks are a plant doesn’t help.

phil time after time you complain that ufo videos don’t have multiple viewers yet this incident does. why wouldn’t you show each video? and comment on each? be fair or don’t comment on the subject at all, simple as that, it makes you sound like a hypocrite.

First off, man you need to get your shift key fixed. In English, sentences and proper nouns start with capital letters.

Second, you quite obviously don’t get it.

The concept of intelligent alien life that is capable of casually-routine interstellar travel but that refuses to make contact with us and yet is so incompetent at hiding that they get seen all the time is a pretty unlikely scenario. This does not mean it is impossible.

However, what this does mean is that it will take some pretty hard evidence to convince a rational person that this is real. As Phil said, when they land and make contact, then we will believe in them. If they leave some kind of residue behind that can be shown to be non-terrestrial in origin, then we will believe in them.

Otherwise, the explanations for UFO sightings about which we do know (such as hoaxes) are orders of magnitude more plausible than “alien spaceships”.

In the absence of genuine evidence, the assumption of the existence of alien space travellers violates the principle of parsimony.

As for snide…puh-leeze! You caught me in a pleasant mood! Stick around.

And as for video producers, I hire quite a few, actually, given that I’ve worked in the entertainment and media industries for…oh, let’s see….25+ years now?

Gosh, where to start?

Um…the “mirror” effect also happens during the stabilization process, which was probably done

Uh, nope. The standard way of stabilizing shaky footage is to track a fixed point, zoom in a bit, then compensate for the motion of that fixed point. Zooming in prevents the edge of the frame from showing. And, uh, what exactly do you mean by the “stabilization process,” as the video is quite obviously not stable? Duh #1.

Think about it. Why would they fake camera shake?

Well, probably because jittercam style is in vogue right now? Every two-bit commercial director, and quite a few 4-bit film directors, seem to think it adds “verite” to their crappy images? Duh #2.

All these video “expert” wanna-bes have found the dumbest theories to prove the 3 real videos are “fake”.

How, exactly, is explaining how to produce the said effects, including pointing out the obvious artifacts of said effects, “dumb?”

“That word you use, I do not think it means what you think it means.” Duh #3.

study those aspects of the 3 videos in question, and it appears they are real.

Uh, no, again, they appear to be the result of standard effects you can generate with Adobe After Effects. Moving lights…check. Flash…check. Motion blur…check. Duh #4.

I’ve been in the video biz a long time, and if this event is a fake, it’s the best one yet.

Well, at least you didn’t say, “It’s the pixels.” Remind me never to hire you to produce media. Not that I’ll be needing a wedding video anytime soon. Duh #5.

One other point: where are all these debunkers coming from and why the debunking frenzy?

Well, gee, Badastronomy is a blog by a guy who is a fairly noted personage in the skeptic movement? His blog is devoted to just this sort of thing? He promotes critical thinking and real science over incredulity and pseudoscience?

Duh #6 and we’re out.