UFO OR SPHERE FILMED IN MEXICO FEB 2010

Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:10 pm » by **Kris75**

UFO recorded by a professional cameraman Cadena Tres. This happened while doing the story of a restaurant in Mexico City on 25 February this year. The cameraman was focusing on the shot and did not realize the object that was crossing the sky. The segment was led by Karla de la Cuesta.

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ADH08CKVhCw&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=es_ES&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ADH08CKVhCw&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=es_ES&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Note .- When the production of "The Desktop" noticed the object sought to analyze my opinion and I gave a copy of the original video. I did the studies in collaboration with Humberto Villafuerte. For us it's a UFO, because we can not identify it. Also interviewed Karla de la Cuesta and the cameraman (who wishes anonymity). It is noteworthy that, due to technical problems, the analysis was not televised and so include them at the end of the video (in addition to presenting the result of lack depth of field). The producer, Edgar Espinoza, authorized the dissemination of this material, same we got on Youtube with watermarks, following the request for protection of claims.

TRY TO DEBUNK THIS VIDEO AND TELL ME ITS A FAKE,JUST TRY!! :mrgreen:

Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:39 pm » by **Kris75**

kris75 wrote:UFO recorded by a professional cameraman Cadena Tres. This happened while doing the story of a restaurant in Mexico City on 25 February this year. The cameraman was focusing on the shot and did not realize the object that was crossing the sky. The segment was led by Karla de la Cuesta.

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ADH08CKVhCw&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=es_ES&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ADH08CKVhCw&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=es_ES&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Note .- When the production of "The Desktop" noticed the object sought to analyze my opinion and I gave a copy of the original video. I did the studies in collaboration with Humberto Villafuerte. For us it's a UFO, because we can not identify it. Also interviewed Karla de la Cuesta and the cameraman (who wishes anonymity). It is noteworthy that, due to technical problems, the analysis was not televised and so include them at the end of the video (in addition to presenting the result of lack depth of field). The producer, Edgar Espinoza, authorized the dissemination of this material, same we got on Youtube with watermarks, following the request for protection of claims.

TRY TO DEBUNK THIS VIDEO AND TELL ME ITS A FAKE,JUST TRY!!

Subsequent analysis showed that the object was not a balloon.

Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:47 pm » by **Pindz**

user deleted the video :scary:

Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:49 pm » by **Kris75**

pindz wrote:user deleted the video

HERE PINDZ

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DLUHeCMUReg&hl=sv_SE&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DLUHeCMUReg&hl=sv_SE&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:51 pm » by **Nickelson**

Now where are those ignorant lowlife fagots to bitch on you when you need them? :lol:

Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:55 pm » by **Kris75**

nickelson wrote:Now where are those ignorant lowlife fagots to bitch on you when you need them?

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!! :flop:

Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:20 pm » by **Nickelson**

concrete wrote:Hi kids.

Unlike others. I'll try not to 'shoot the messenger'. Only the message.

Nick, you missed the follow up to the rod thing.

Anyway.

IMO. It's a good fake.

For two reasons.
1. Proffesionals involved. That would mean access to editing equipment.
2. The shading on the object seems wrong. An example. If the camera was at 12:00, with the reporter at 6. The shadows on the buildings would imply that the sun was at 10-11:00. Because they are long shadows, that would imply the sun is low/lowering.
Got that in your heads yet?
Now, watch the 'orb' (or graphic as I like to call it). The shading would indicate a light source that is more at 0800 to 0900, due to the shading on the lower LHS of the orb. It would also imply a light source higer than the light on the buildings.

Just a thought.

I wasn't refering to you and yes I read the follow up on the Rod thing. :lol:

You convinced me it could be something else. You gave good arguments :flop:

And to go on topic. You might be right on this one, but you might also be wrong. We won't know for sure, till we torture the maker to death :lol:

Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:58 pm » by **Nickelson**

concrete wrote:
nickelson wrote:You might be right on this one, but you might also be wrong. We won't know for sure, till we torture the maker to death

Thats the thing. I don't ever recall claiming to be 'right', I don't like people that do. It's an arrogance thing.
It goes both ways though. There are people that claim UFO (which it may be, until it's identified), then there are others who 'know' exactly what it is.
It comes down to perception. Without proof (or at least reasons why its real) from either side, both are as loony as the other.

If you can look at something objectively and wonder. Then explain it away with reference. Then that is a 'proffesor'.
To claim something is either real or fake (no offence RoF) simply by a vid or a one line statement does nothing to help people that may actually be interested.
If you're gunna prove it true. A Youtube vid ain't gunna do it. If you're gunna prove it wrong. A statement of false won't do it either. Gotta prove why it may be false.
The problem is. The onus is always on the disprovers.

I couldn't agree more on that one. And if I may add, your explanation is absolutely right :lol:

and true.

I can never conclude some video is true or not, because I do not have the experience with Photoshop or some other editor program. Certain peeps here do have that experience and they indeed can convince me on their statement.

Kris is doing a good job posting all those video's some are fake and some are questionable, but he never states it IS real, so for the other bitching on him (and I don't mean you) I can only say, read before you reply and reply with an explanation, without an explanation it consists out of thin air.

Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:11 pm » by **Kris75**

nickelson wrote:
concrete wrote:
nickelson wrote:You might be right on this one, but you might also be wrong. We won't know for sure, till we torture the maker to death

Thats the thing. I don't ever recall claiming to be 'right', I don't like people that do. It's an arrogance thing.
It goes both ways though. There are people that claim UFO (which it may be, until it's identified), then there are others who 'know' exactly what it is.
It comes down to perception. Without proof (or at least reasons why its real) from either side, both are as loony as the other.

If you can look at something objectively and wonder. Then explain it away with reference. Then that is a 'proffesor'.
To claim something is either real or fake (no offence RoF) simply by a vid or a one line statement does nothing to help people that may actually be interested.
If you're gunna prove it true. A Youtube vid ain't gunna do it. If you're gunna prove it wrong. A statement of false won't do it either. Gotta prove why it may be false.
The problem is. The onus is always on the disprovers.

I couldn't agree more on that one. And if I may add, your explanation is absolutely right and true.

I can never conclude some video is true or not, because I do not have the experience with Photoshop or some other editor program. Certain peeps here do have that experience and they indeed can convince me on their statement.

Kris is doing a good job posting all those video's some are fake and some are questionable, but he never states it IS real, so for the other bitching on him (and I don't mean you) I can only say, read before you reply and reply with an explanation, without an explanation it consists out of thin air.

thx for your coment nicelson and me to agree what concrete wrote in his coment, i post all this videos for i know like you nicelson that there is some people here on this site who can this photshop programs and can se if its a fake ,and that helps me wery much so i now which one are fake and which one coud be for real,but i think those people here who are skeptics and are angry on me becuase i think the videos which they cant debunk make them to :think:

twice

Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:59 pm » by **Kris75**

concrete wrote:kris75.

When you post things, that have either been proven fake, or are addmited fake.

Makes me wonder what you are trying to do.

Even your misspellings seem fake.

becuase you think this video is a fake ?? ha ha you think you have proof it this was a fake,
then show me some evidence is a fake, all you skeptics can say its a fake bla bla bla or this is photo shop, and sorry for my bad english but its not easy to write in 3 diffrent Languages
evry day,if you dont like my posts then dont read it :mrgreen: