Dance &amp; Drink &amp; Screw

The dome is gold-covered, apparently, and yet when the light is hovering just above it, there's no reflection on the dome itself. That seems rather suspicious to me.

From:

It got filmed by two other people in different parts of the city, which I suppose doesn't mean much if they all know each other, but still...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qKigSlK4ic (halfway onwards)

I want to believe! :-)

From:

Hm... in the other video, the light hovers for longer, and there's a really bright flash just before it ascends...

I'm a skeptic, I'm afraid!

From:

That's because the second video is from TV news and they cut the second piece of footage as they didn't consider it worth showing people another long bit of "UFO pauses, bright flash, quick ascent".

Uncut the second piece of footage shows the same -- long pause, bright flash, rapid ascent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ-bNOy_CKQ

In fact it was caught from three angles you can see them combined here -- the footage appears consistent from each in terms of timing (one of them you don't get the bright flash -- but given video camera technology at night that's not that much of a surprise if it was brief)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuuTVLS6eVg&feature=related

I don't believe it's an "alien" myself but I'm at a loss to explain it.

From:

arkady.livejournal.com

Some form of test craft perhaps.

From:

No no, not the first one ion the second clip (which is the same footage Ollie originally posted, but with added voiceover); the second one. The footage in the original post is not cut (listen to the talking in the background), and in it, the object hovers for around twenty seconds and then takes off; in the other pieces of footage, it hovers for 30 seconds, and there's a bright flash before it takes off. Of course, the footage in the OP has various other problems too; the lack of reflection on the roof, the fact that the lights of the city have dazzle-patterns that remain totally static when the camera moves; I'm fairly sure it's a still photo that's been messed with.
As for the flash, are you seriously saying that a bright flash which is very noticeable from a long way off might be _less_ noticeable from closer to?

From:

You said in your first post "in the other video, the light hovers for longer, and there's a really bright flash just before it ascends...".

That is because in one of those videos the video has been cut (depends which you call "the first" but the news clip with the news anchor voice over has a cut in the film the news man is talking over). I posted a link with all three clips together side by side so you can see that the timing actually does match up in the unedited clips.

are you seriously saying that a bright flash which is very noticeable from a long way off might be _less_ noticeable from closer to?

Absolutely if you're looking at what a phone camera sees of it. It might indeed simply not be seen on one or the other if the flash is very short, it would depend on lots of factors about the camera settings.

Note that I'm not saying the footage is genuine just that two of your criticisms (the timing and the flash) are misguided. The point about the reflections remains true.

From:

(depends which you call "the first" but the news clip with the news anchor voice over has a cut in the film the news man is talking over).
Which is why I specified that I wasn't talking about that one. Some of the other videos (not the three-way ones) seem to show a longer period between descent and ascent; I guess maybe they've been slowed down.
Or, y'know, they're fake.

As for the flash, in the closest of the three videos, where you can hear the Americans in the background talking, they don't respond to the flash at all (unlike the voices in the background of the other one where you can hear voices). Which suggests it's nothing to do with the camera, and more to do with the fact that the image they're looking at is a still image (look at the light flare and the complete change of perspective as the camera moves) edited into a video with a bright spot and some voice-overs.

From:

Which is why I specified that I wasn't talking about that one.

Gotcha. I was confused by the fact that this was the one you replied to and there were only two videos linked from the post at the time one of which has obvious cuts in the footage.

From:

*heh* So... there were two videos, and one of them wasn't the one I was talking about, but you were confused as to which one I _was_ talking about? Long week, eh? :-)

From:

Um... now I'm even more confused. If you were only talking about ONE video how did you find discrepancies in the timing?

From:

I was talking about the original, uncut videos of which Ollie posted cut versions from a newsreel. The very-obviously-faked-from-a-still-image one (in the OP) differs (in its uncut form) from the blurry-long-distance-can't-see-much-other-than-digital-flare ones (in their uncut form). Even in their cut form, from the newsreel, discrepancies (like the lack of flash and reaction to flash in one) are fairly clear, which means that at least one of the videos is definitely a fake, and chances are the others are too.

From:

Hmm... They differ in timing? Not when played side by side.

From:

*headdesk*
Which is why I said, a few comments back, "Some of the other videos (not the three-way ones) seem to show a longer period between descent and ascent; I guess maybe they've been slowed down.
Or, y'know, they're fake."

You really have had a long week, huh?

From:

The three way ones include the first one ollie posted.

From:

*headdesk*
That's right, they do. And that has absolutely no bearing on, well, anything. Get some sleep; perhaps you'll be able to follow this better in the morning... :-)

From:

Heh. Guess I will.

From:

I've just had a chance to watch the footage more carefully... that weird thing in the sky afterwards is so creepy! It's like something out of Cloverfield.

From:

You were right! That first video is clearly a photo with sound added as well as the ufo effect. The street lights don't twinkle!

From:

It's like a 21st century Cottingley!

From:

Another thing with the first one you linked is that if you watch it in really high definition (set the you tube definition up to HD) when they zoom in you can see pixelation from a computer monitor screen. In other words, to get the camera wobble and the zoom they've played back on a computer monitor and filmed that.

From:

Sneaky! Well, good for them that they got their footage so much news attention.

From:

Indeed. Think the other two are not by same people though.

From:

moveslikegiallo.livejournal.com

Oooh. I want it to be a real thing! Alien or angel, I don't really mind. I've seen enough BSG not to need to differentiate. ;)

From:

Maybe an angel from another planet? ;-)

From:

verybadhorse.livejournal.com

i LOVE the woman in the background saying, "we seen 'em in mississippi like this, but... never like this."

From:

I guess she's right! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKMzDeCiy1g

From:

verybadhorse.livejournal.com

AMERICA!

From:

jupiterjuniper.livejournal.com

i don't believe in angels but i SO SO SO want to believe in aliens. and that seems pretty amazing regardless.

From:

jupiterjuniper.livejournal.com

3 sychnronized:

and the 4th and closest:

From:

jupiterjuniper.livejournal.com

weird, the embed didn't work. so the hard links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwkP8InNISU&feature=watch_response

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYEOLwgGzPg&feature=fvwk

From:

Watching the footages again with the sound on... it's pretty convincing! Maybe one footage can be doctored... but four from different points, involving bystanders? Unless it's some really smart viral marketing for some upcoming movie...

From: