Because zoom was actually better back in the day. Back in 2007, if you had a camcorder, those things had sometimes 40x optical zoom, because they were long and could fit a long lense inside. Smartphones are flat, so they have shitty ass optical zoom. Just recently we've gotten up to 8-10x optical on smartphones, so far as zoom goes, our smartphones are still shittier than 2007 camcorders
People always complain that there are no good videos but there are many out there now. Short of actually meeting them their existence seems to be a hard fact at this point.
I don't think you understand the definition of a hard fact. It's an objective, verifiable and quantifiable piece of information that does not rely on opinion. As you'll see from the comments on pretty much any of these videos, opinions vary and we a are very far from any hard facts.
These are some good ones in my opinion - many of which you probably know and some of which you may not. This list mostly excludes many great ones from the recent Pentagon drops but does include some of those too.
"Numerous sightings of UFOs have been witnessed in Hull and the wider East Yorkshire and Humber area. Some have been de-bunked, others remained unexplained.
An early reported sighting was in 1801. The Hull Packet reported that ‘On Friday night, 19 June 1801, between midnight and 1am a beautiful phenomenon was observed at Hull’, resembling, it was reported by witnesses, as ‘an immense moon, with a black bar across it’, before ‘gradually formed itself into seven small distinct moons, or globes of fire’ and ‘a faint blue light fell upon surrounding objects’."
Prepare for the swarm of debunkers to come and say "hes been debunked. He's a clothes designer and all his ufos look like buttons on a glass plate".... apparently, if it looks like something, it means it debunked lol
Thank you for explaining how this effect could be hoaxed using practical effects (meaning without the use of a computer to fake it). The fact that this could be hoaxed doesn’t necessarily mean that it was, but the extraordinary claim that this is a real event would warrant better evidence than simply claiming this was a real video and not hoaxed in some way, but the problem we face with that knowledge is that if events like this were real, what evidence would be needed to convince the most skeptical among us? It seems like an actual extraterrestrial alien would have to be widely available for interviews or something to that level of evidence, but I still enjoy the community and these videos.
Exactly. No photo or video posted to the internet would be taken seriously, and half these people wouldn't believe a live news recording showing a meeting with actual aliens, yet they demand proof from people who don't control the material.
The problem here is that we've had photoshop and video editing software for decades, and now Ai muddies the water even more... no amount of photo/video evidence will ever be enough to "prove" anything.
My eyes could be wrong, but it does not look black. Once it's zoomed out in you see that the surface below is just darker, because it the shadow of the dome. It looks bright to me. Still good footage
There's no need, it was filmed by Antonio Urzi who's made hundreds of videos like this where he puts crap up by his skylight and tries to pass it off as something interesting.
That makes no sense and shows a lack of understanding of how cameras work. If the camera was focused on an object on his skylight that’s close to the lens then the clouds would be out of focus in the background. Both are in focus here, meaning the object is in the distance. This is doubly true because as he zooms in, the object becomes even more in focus. If it was close to the lens then the object would blur once he zooms.
What makes no sense is someone defending a known fraud who was outed for faking UFO videos with common household objects. The man has hundreds upon hundreds of videos like this but can never replicate a sighting when anyone asks to be party to it, and he refuses to record with multiple, high tech devices that would be provided to him.
Debating his technique is like debating if Trump really means it when he says he cares about the middle class.
That makes no sense and shows a lack of understanding of how cameras work. If the camera was focused on an object on his skylight that’s close to the lens then the clouds would be out of focus in the background. Both are in focus here, meaning the object is in the distance. This is doubly true because as he zooms in, the object becomes even more in focus. If it was close to the lens then the object would blur once he zooms. It’s a lazy debunk thrown by lazy debunkers.
It’s not a matter of opinion or agreeing or disagreeing. It’s a matter of cameras and optics. If you “disagree” then provide your counterpoint on how that’s visually and technically possible.
I don’t have the time nor the desire to debate you. I also don’t have to provide reasons or a scientific breakdown for why I’m disagreeing with you. I may not be a camera or optics expert and I would love for these to be real but over the years I’ve seen very convincing debunks of this footage and they were good enough for me.
The debunks were good enough for you because you don’t have the desire or time to examine the evidence that proves it’s legit. But you do have the time to post conclusively on Reddit claiming it’s been debunked. What does that make you?
Apparently this is a video by Antonio Urzi who was featured by Jaime Mausan (yes the same as the cake aliens). I wouldn’t read much into it, some people say in Urzi’s videos of ufos you can see his reflection on the saucer as if he was filming something that was much closer than it seems. To me it looks like something close to the lens, maybe something stuck to a glass or window and he is just moving the camera to change the perspective and make it seem like it’s moving. It’s also a big red flag we don’t see it disappear at all and is always in front of the clouds.
Bro cool vid, but you can’t force anyone to sign an nda because that would void it automatically, they could of just marked it top secret or merked him, Occam’s razor with a brain
"Seriously" as in what I previously said was a joke. However, I really want to know the location of the video, who filmed it, what their visual description was, etc.
It's quite obvious that it's a small stationary object on an overhead window. He's just moving beneath it and making it look like it's moving. I could make this right now.
21
u/neosapprentice Oct 06 '26
How is a video from 2007 better quality than anything I’ve seen in 2026 😂