The FLIR video is scary even if debunked

Generate New Template

public (1567) , uap (1561) , disclosure (1383) , ufo (1296) , transparency (1220) , government (1066) , information (1011) , disinformation (943) , ufos (919) , campaign (862) , congress (769) , people (678) , phenomena (648) , national (632) , urge (586) , regarding (565) , issue (565) , unidentified (561) , security (538) , truth (506) , american (506) , support (503) , potential (498) , know (477) , trust (469) , uaps (467) , writing (462) , accountability (461) , time (424) , scientific (410) , intelligence (381) , understanding (370) , act (363) , rep (357) , members (354) , defense (331) , action (314) , efforts (311) , research (310) , committee (309) , objects (302) , related (301) , legislation (297) , house (290) , secrecy (288) , oversight (286) , template (283) , ndaa (282) , concern (280) , being (274) ,

So apparantly the portal effect is very similar to a vfx of the nineties, but there are still some little details that differ between the two.

The only two options for explaining this is that:

A. (most plausible) The vfx team that made the video went through the hassle of altering an existing effect, but what for?

B. (most tinfoily) The FLIR video is the original, and the effect was altered altered after the video took place to make it look like it. This of course would be invalidated if the original effect was to be found.

If A is the case, then I still don’t understand why making all these efforts to make a fake video with all the details we know of by now, but still using a basic vfx effect, but then alter it so that only on or two frames kind of match the original… I just can’t understand the point of all this.

Edit: I reference the first image of this post when talking about a similar frame Link

submitted by /u/majin-qlf
[link] [comments] 

Read More