Pyramide au dessus du Kremlin. Pas réglé!

Quelqu'un a fait une analyse : En englishe

Citation :

I have taken the time to analyze this video frame by frame, accounting for all anomalies mentioned:

The car is driving towards the left, the driver is in the left seat, the man using the camera is in the right seat, shooting out the left window in front of the driver's face.

As they drive along, the object is clearly behind the power line. The first apparent anomaly occurs at:

Time 00:11 - the object appears to jump in front of the wire. At this point, the car has hit a bump as evidenced from the jostle in the background that is from the camera bouncing with the car. When blowing the picture up and watching this point carefully, it is clear that the wire is quite distorted from the video compression (which is common with thin video portions), and at the precise location where the wire appears to jump behind the object, the wire is actually distorting downwards, blending in with the black background.

Time 00:12 - the driver begins to make what appears to be a U turn, so the camera operator aims the camera out the front windshield, since the car is now heading towards the Kremlin building.

Time 00:14 - the camera operator zooms out. The object's change in size and position are exactly consistent with the surrounding objects, indicating either a true recording, or a very good fake.

Time 00:15 - because the car is still turning, the camera operator continues to keep the object in the view finder, but because the windshield is quite dirty outside the windshield-wiper sweep area, the object disappears as it goes behind the grime on the windshield. By comparing the luminescence of the object to a similarly bright object (the top portion of the tower in the bottom-middle of the image), this is valid, since both the object and the top of the tower disappear behind the dirty windshield area. During this same second, the car continues to make the U-turn, and the camera operator points the camera out his own side window, which is obviously tinted, since the light levels coming through that glass is much less than what was coming from the front windshield or the driver's side window. This means either the driver's window is not tinted, and indeed it is not as dirt on the window can be seen in later portions of the video. Perhaps tinting the driver's window is not permitted for safety reasons.

Time 00:16 - before they go under the bridge there is a brief moment where the object seems to disappear. A possible explanation for this is that a very hard-to-see tree (pure black in the image) moves across the field of view, in front of the spot where the object should be in the sky. Since this is the first time we would see the object through the side window, it is hard to say for sure where the object should be. Plus, because the side window is tinted, it has reduced the light levels passing through the glass. Given the tinted glass and tree, this does not appear to be a flaw in the video. Only by simulating the actual car trajectory and speed in relation to the floating object, could we be sure of where the object should be, and only then could we determine if the tree explains the obscured object. What IS apparent from this portion is that the driver has both hands on the wheel, and the camera is a nice video camera, since it's large lens can be seen in the glass reflection.

Time 00:23 - after going under the bridge, they emerge into a well lit area, and the object is there, behind the lights in the foreground. The reflection of the camera is also quite clear.

Time 00:26 - the object is clearly behind the light poles protruding out from the building. Throughout the entire preceding 3 seconds, the object maintained correct lighting, angle, and relationship with all the other parts of the image, and is QUITE clearly not something inside the car.

Time 00:31 - after going under another bridge, they continued to drive straight, while the camera operator moved the camera to look out the front windshield again. At this point, he turned the camera off while the driver drove the car back towards the Kremlin for another pass.

Time 00:36 - heading back for another pass by the Kremlin, the camera operator is shooting out the front windshield. The object first becomes visible as a very small blob floating in the air.

Time 00:37 - the camera operator zooms in to maximum, introducing digital zoom artifacts. These same artifacts appear in all the objects of the image, including the floating object and the buildings. This indicates that the object pixelation is consistent with the entire image. These artifacts are primarily caused by the low-light conditions. Under low-light conditions the CCDs used in home cams can't pull in enough light, so software is used to boost the values, which in turn reduces the number of possible color shades. So on something like a windshield, where there is reflecting light, and lots of gradient shades, you get that blotching effect.

1:14 - As the car passes by the object, there is a light pole shining it's bright light, with a blooming effect towards the left side of the object. As the car continues past, the light from the light pole moves past where the object is. Now, if you know how the video camera works, you will see that the bright light shining in front of and towards the left side of the object will cause the low-light software in the camera to try and turn down the brightness in that area, thereby causing the left side of the floating object to go black. Plus, the object is rotating on 2 or 3 axis, causing the light to hit different surfaces.

1:17 - as soon as the bright light leaves the frame of the image, the left side of the floating object shows up again briefly before it gets obscured by the driver's sun visor.

1:23 - as they pass by the Kremlin, the camera operator moves the camera down and practically in front of the driver in order to get one final shot of the object, which does appear at the top of the side window. No increasing of light is needed to see the object.

After making this careful analysis of this video, I can state with almost certainty that the object was indeed filmed live. If a fake were to be made, it would have been MUCH simpler to do it from a fixed position. The fact that they were driving gives credence to its authenticity, since the effort to create this would be much more difficult.

[url="http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread525779/pg22"]source : abovetopsecret.com[/url]

Et de la fox news :

Citation :

UFO Flies Over Russia's Kremlin?
Updated: Friday, 18 Dec 2009, 9:56 PM EST
Published : Friday, 18 Dec 2009, 9:29 PM EST

By LILY FU

(MYFOX NATIONAL) - It's a bird? It's a plane? Media reports indicate that hundreds of people spotted what appeared to be a triangular-shaped UFO flying in the skies above the Red Square in Moscow.

The Daily Mail reports that two separate amateur videos were shot, one during the day and one at night, that show the same object in the sky. The UFO made its appearance on Dec. 9, the same night mysterious lights were spotted in Norwegian skies. The lights were later identified as a failed rocket launch from Russia.

Russian television has been showing the videos non-stop, according to the Telegraph . Police have refused to comment on the object, but Nick Pope, a former Ministry of Defense UFO analyst, called the footage[color:64a6="#FF8C00"] "one of the most extraordinary UFO clips I've ever seen."

Many have said the videos are likely fake. If hundreds of people witnessed the event, why weren't there more photos or videos? Others believed that the object in the videos was likely a reflection off the car windshield of the person who was doing the filming.[color:64a6="#FF8C00"] But Pope said he was convinced this was no ordinary event because he said "it appears to move behind a power line, ruling out this theory."
Last week many were mystified by mysterious blue-green lights the stopped mid-air and circulated over Norway. Some people believed it could be a meteor or possibly a UFO.

[url="http://www.myfoxmaine.com/dpps/news/dpgo-ufo-flies-over-russias-kremlin-lwf-20091218_5165027"]fox news[/url]

vidéo : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-viHA8j5rwQ&feature=player_embedded

Salut, c'est intéressant. J'ai soumis cette question à une connaissance qui peut analyser les videos, et je reviendrai là-dessus.

Chose que je n'avais pas dite (parce qu'il ne voulait pas...mais anyway, vous ne le connaissez pas, alors!!!) mon mari a fait une observation avec mon fils, à quelques heures d'intervalle avec celle de Dark-Ragae, cet automne. Il s'agissait d'un énorme triangle stationnaire. Mon fils était avec lui et l'a vu aussi. Mais...personne d'autre, il semble! Pourtant, c'était gros et au-dessus de Québec. La pyramide ressemble à ce qu'il avait vu, sauf qu'ici, le triangle était lumineux et orange. La couverture nuageuse ne permettait pas de voir si c'était plat ou pyramidal.

Chose qui est sûre, pour moi, l'argument que personne d'autre n'a signalé l'objet, ça tient plus ou moins, vu notre expérience!

Réel...BlueBeam Project...Fake???

Ça m'intéresse...

Au dessus de Québec, la ville ??? Dans quel coin ?

Ou ca, quand ca ?
Le soir, le jour ?
Raght, je l'ai manqué! J'avoue que triangulaire, ca m'aurait peut etre fait peur!

Pas de photo, vidéo ?

Merci Axi-Ohm! Chut, on le dira pas a ton mari que tu nous l'as dit!


Il faut le signaler, non ? Plus on signale, plus on confirme, donc plus on se rapproche de l'impossible.

ça me fait penser a un vaisseau-cité.. Je me demande juste si les vaisseaux d'atlantis et ceux du passé sont les même qu'aujourd'hui... Mais ça peut être autre chose.

Vous avez bien de la chance de pouvoir le voir comme ça...

Sinon, le gouvernement Américain détiennent tellement de choses qu'il n'oseront jamais le faire sortir à la lumière du jour.. ah moins que le monde change et qui découvrent tous les secrets les plus cachés. Déjà, aujourd'hui, nous avons vraiment les connaissances nécessaires pour construire des véhicules qui nécessite aucun carburant, l'énergie utilisé est bien sûr la force électromagnétique de la planète! En utilisant des bobines de hautes intensités, tous relié en cercle ou en hexagone, tel que montré dans cette maquette :

http://www.anakinovni.org/images/1944/cedric3.jpg

et le plan d'Hans Coler de 1937:

http://www.anakinovni.org/images/1944/colerconverter.JPG

Aussi bien dire que les véhicules flottant dans les films de sciences fictions sont désormais réels! Je pense que nous devons quitter l'ère industrielle et de se diriger vers l'ère technologique et spatiale.

Faut ce que ça change..

Axi-Ohm a écrit:

Salut, c'est intéressant. J'ai soumis cette question à une connaissance qui peut analyser les videos, et je reviendrai là-dessus.

Chose que je n'avais pas dite (parce qu'il ne voulait pas...mais anyway, vous ne le connaissez pas, alors!!!) mon mari a fait une observation avec mon fils, à quelques heures d'intervalle avec celle de Dark-Ragae, cet automne. Il s'agissait d'un énorme triangle stationnaire. Mon fils était avec lui et l'a vu aussi. Mais...personne d'autre, il semble! Pourtant, c'était gros et au-dessus de Québec. La pyramide ressemble à ce qu'il avait vu, sauf qu'ici, le triangle était lumineux et orange. La couverture nuageuse ne permettait pas de voir si c'était plat ou pyramidal.

Chose qui est sûre, pour moi, l'argument que personne d'autre n'a signalé l'objet, ça tient plus ou moins, vu notre expérience!

Réel...BlueBeam Project...Fake???

Ça m'intéresse...

peu importe ce que c'est pour le moment, l'important c'est que ça viens de toi, de ta famille et que ça s'est passé ici au Québec, donc, c'est un témoignage qui compte parce qu'il vient donner une certaine crédibilité à la pyramide de Russie, parce que un petit film sur une soi-disant pyramide dans le ciel de Russie, ce n'est pas nécessairement convaincant. Il y a tellement de canulars et apparamment, en Russie, cela a été vu par très très peu de gens. Alors, c'est facile de truquer mais si quelqu'un ici viens témoigner qu'il a vu la même chose ou une chose semblable au Québec, bien, il y a plus de chances que ce soit vrai et que celle de Russie le soit aussi, car " a beau mentir qui viens de loin" mais si c'est vu à différents endroits même si ce n'est pas au même moment, on peut accorder un certain crédit.

je me demande si ça ressemble pas comme celui la au New Jersey en 1984:

http://www.anakinovni.org/images/1984/newjersey1984large.jpg

Citation :

Ou ca, quand ca ?Le soir, le jour ?

J'ai plus la date exacte, mais c'était en septembre, nord-ouest de Québec, vers 20h.

Citation :

Pas de photo, vidéo ?

Non

Citation :

Merci Axi-Ohm! Chut, on le dira pas a ton mari que tu nous l'as dit!

Citation :

Il faut le signaler, non ? Plus on signale, plus on confirme, donc plus on se rapproche de l'impossible.

D'accord, mais je ne peux pas faire le signalement moi-même, je ne l'ai pas vu, je n'étais même pas là ce soir-là. Et oublie le projet...mon mari ne dira jamais à personne d'autre que moi qu'il a vu ça!

Sidi, je ne sais pas si ça ressemble à cette photo. D'après ce que mon mari et mon fils ont vu, c'était grand, orangé et lumineux, triangulaire, pointe orientée vers les montagnes (Laurentides). Il y avait une couverture nuageuse légère, l'"objet" ou "phénomène" traçait un triangle bien défini dans les nuages et a disparu d'un coup. Voilà, vous savez tout de ma vie.