Chisinau Flying Saucer Video (Molodva)

Nourali

Member
A video is currently circulating online, accompanied by imprecise or potentially misleading titles, alleging a police-recorded flying saucer sighting in Chișinău, Moldova, on June 30, 2024.

Capture d'écran 2026-02-01 191825.png


Contrary to what is circulating, it was not recorded in 2024, nor was it recorded from a police car, as some claim. The video dates back at least to the winter of 2012.
It was recorded on Cuza-Vodă Street, at the corner of Independenței (Botanica sector/46°58'56"N 28°51'40"E) in Chisinau (capital of Moldova) by a taxi driver (they used radios back then; the police are not the only ones to use them) named (allegedly) "Michania" (Мишаня).

The oldest available publication of the video date is May 8, 2012 on youtube : https://m.forum.md/ru/896124
I contacted the person who published the video in 2012, but received no response, and it is unclear whether my messages were seen.

The content remained accessible on YouTube at least until May 2016. It was re-uploaded in Russian in 2017 on Youtube and later by "Cycling and Music 1988," a local guy, who subsequently removed it as it did not align with his channel's intended content. Other random re-uploads exist.
The 2012 publication may be a re-upload itself because two locals whom I talked to dated the video between 2005 and 2010, or, for the other, around 2007 and 2008. But maybe they are mistaken.

I found no serious discussion addressing the authenticity of this video. ChatGPT 5.2 thinking (which I know is not very reliable) did not detect any clear signs of fakery. Personally, I see three arguments that raise doubts about its authenticity, but also several points that argue in its favor.
First, the movement of the flying saucer at the very beginning of the video is suspicious. It could move that way—who knows—but this aspect clearly deserves closer examination.
Second, the sighting is said to occur in broad daylight, above the Moldovan capital. Yet, apart from this video—which comes with very little additional information—there seems to be no other report or discussion about such an event. That said, this argument has limits: people may have been busy, it appears to be near sunset, the weather may have been cold, and even if someone noticed it, they might not have reported it online.
Third, if the video is genuine, one may wonder why the original uploader eventually deleted it. However, this is a weak argument, since—as mentioned earlier—one of the people who re-uploaded the video later removed it simply because it did not fit the theme of their YouTube channel. The deletion could therefore be due to lack of interest or other trivial reasons.

Arguments in favor of authenticity:
The audio is one of the most interesting elements. The person filming reacts in real time and precisely localizes what he is observing. He says it is a UFO over the Botanica sector, names the street, and—most importantly—mentions another street when the object moves away. He states that the UFO went toward Starogo (старого), now known as Strada Nicolae Zelinski.
This kind of spontaneous geographic detail strongly suggests a real-time observation rather than a staged or edited sequence. In a fabricated or composited video, the creator would have little reason—or ability—to anchor the object's movement to a precise, verifiable location, since doing so constrains the scene to a real geography. That said, this remains an indication, not definitive evidence.
The second point is that I have looked into Moldovan UFO hoaxes and did not find any that come close to this visual effect (you can check for yourself—it's actually quite amusing). If this is a hoax, then it would be a particularly good and unusual one. Still, anything is possible.

I'm sharing this here so that people with stronger expertise in fake UFO videos, visual effects, or video compositing can provide elements that either challenge or support the authenticity of this footage—and possibly also offer a more complete translation of what the person filming is saying.
Thanks in advance for your contributions.
 
The person filming reacts in real time and precisely localizes what he is observing. He says it is a UFO over the Botanica sector, names the street, and—most importantly—mentions another street when the object moves away. He states that the UFO went toward Starogo (старого), now known as Strada Nicolae Zelinski.
This kind of spontaneous geographic detail strongly suggests a real-time observation rather than a staged or edited sequence. In a fabricated or composited video, the creator would have little reason—or ability—to anchor the object's movement to a precise, verifiable location, since doing so constrains the scene to a real geography.
My initial reaction is super skeptical...but I'll let those here who are more skilled (& motivated) at determining locations, etc.,
address the bulk of it. As far as the audio, wouldn't it be easy to add whatever audio one wanted, days, weeks, or even years later?

And it seems odd that when zoomed out, the "object" gets much more distorted...somehow it's a clearer shape when zoomed in. That's unusual.

...the sighting is said to occur in broad daylight, above the Moldovan capital. Yet, apart from this video—which comes with very little additional information—there seems to be no other report or discussion about such an event.
This (combined with the fact that origin dates are already known to be misrepresented) is always a biggie for me.
This remarkable flying saucer stayed above the city for how long? (We have at least 3 minutes, here) And only one person notices & films?
 
As far as the audio, wouldn't it be easy to add whatever audio one wanted, days, weeks, or even years later?
Or shoot a model on a string with live audio, or shoot it with live audio with the intent to add the visual of the UFO later.

I do not think the audio differentiates between real and fake at all.
 
Second, the sighting is said to occur in broad daylight, above the Moldovan capital. Yet, apart from this video—which comes with very little additional information—there seems to be no other report or discussion about such an event.

I think that is a significant observation. There's steady traffic on the road, it's dawn or dusk; Chisinau has a population of approx. 720,000 (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chișinău) so there would be people out and about, some with camphones or in vehicles with dashcams.

The claimed UFO is easy to see, and reasonably well-defined like the nearby streetlamp, a more distant building down the road, lower right of picture, is less distinct (pic from approx. 7 secs into video).

Could it be a small shape stuck onto a windscreen or car window?

ch1.jpg



It's pretty much a classic pop culture flying saucer shape; as talked about elsewhere on this forum the term "flying saucer" came about due to a pressman's misunderstanding of a description made by Kenneth Arnold in 1947 (generally taken to be the first UFO report in the modern sense), people subsequently reported seeing flying saucers but not the shapes described by Arnold.

The basic shape as seen above- a broad "skirt" topped with a round "cabin" of lesser diameter was popularised by the hoaxer George Adamski, and inspired the flying saucers of many SF movies in the 50s (and 60s TV series The Invaders), so we all "know" what flying saucers should look like. But the clearest, probably most influential photos of flying saucers (Adamski, Billy Meier) are known hoaxes.
 
And it seems odd that when zoomed out, the "object" gets much more distorted...somehow it's a clearer shape when zoomed in. That's unusual.

Just some impressions from a few views. I get the vibe that at first, the UFO is just a cut out on the windshield of the car, as @John J. mentioned above. It doesn't really move in relation to the street lamps that are visible before the zoom in. The car never seems to move, so someone could be sitting in the back seat and as they zoom in on a paper cutout on the front windshield it comes into focus, sorta, but just stays static. Here is where the UFO is in relation to the street lamps when the video starts, say 11:00 from the lamp:

1769998639813.png


After the zoom in, the UFO moves around the frame, but it seems to be just the movement of the camera. Then the UFO ends up near the bottom of the screen before it zips off (00:42), or I think, the camera pans rapidly to the right. There's lots of random movements before we eventually get an out of focus blob (01:05) that is now at about 2:00 to the lamp AND the previous location at 11:00 is no longer visible:

1769999088655.png


Eventually the scene does zoom out, but long after someone could have removed the cutout from the windshield. As the scene is zoomed out, the flickering out of focus blob disappears, or more likely becomes unresolved due the crappy video. However, a point of light does seem to appear where the UFO was (01:15):

Screenshot 2026-02-01 6.27.13 PM.png

Possibly an aircraft? The whole thing is the usual crap video, but maybe the flickering blob was just an out of focus aircraft. The video is bad enough that if the camera moves too fast, even the street lamps nearly get lost in the compression (01:02):

1769999761351.png


At the end of the video, it just seems to repeat. The audio, which seems to include a constantly yammering someone, could have just been added afterwards as @JMartJr alluded to.

Classic UFO footage: Shaky, often out of focus, poor quality, low light, no context and questionable provenance.
 
the ones on youtube seem a bit clearer to me
A "bit" I guess. At least enough to see some other flickering point of lightish thing during the "flickering blob" section. It flicks in and out before and after the blob appears:

Screenshot 2026-02-02 8.19.56 AM.png


I suppose it's marginally better, but still crap.
 
I suppose it's marginally better, but still crap.
at least we can see landmarks a bit better. so i did try to line things up better on map...

google car has a high camera..so a bit wonky.. and i do agree with OP that tree size and lamp posts not being in correct position do seem to indicate an older video.
(Botanica sector/46°58'56"N 28°51'40"E) in Chisinau



1770053954397.png


1770054608575.png
 
Last edited:
ok my height is wrong.. was the guy filming sitting on the street (to get the brown street lamp above the building with the diner car on top?)..

looks like something that got stuck to the wire. ?? someone male should check my angles though.
april 21. 2020 at 4131 in the video
rr.png


the wires disappear in video as his white over saturates at times.. but i assume these little doodads mean there are wires coming off it.
1770061015199.png
 
Last edited:
looks like something that got stuck to the wire. ??...
rr.png

Maybe a pair of trainers (sneakers) thrown over the line?

Throwing pairs of laced-together shoes over telephone / powerlines "is a thing". I've seen it, never understood the rationale, apparently there are several, see
Wikipedia, Shoe throwing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_throwing, also
"Here's The Real Reason You See Shoes Wrapped Around Power Lines", Opposing Views website, Ruth Kamau, 22 February 2025
https://www.opposingviews.com/society/heres-the-real-reason-you-see-shoes-wrapped-around-power-lines

Sort of like this,

shoefo.jpg


...though it wouldn't explain why they aren't visible, or are a lot less visible, in some parts of the footage.

And it might be unlikely for a pair of trainers to end up in such a neat arrangement with the soles aligned, but if they looked like a pair of shoes dangling from a cable they wouldn't have got the same interest.

ShoeFOlogy. An upwards step for science.
 
though it wouldn't explain why they aren't visible, or are a lot less visible, in some parts of the footage.
the ufo never comes back in its original location (so whatever was stuck blew off or fell off?), the sparkly/flashy bits later in film are in a different location.
 
the ufo never comes back in its original location (so whatever was stuck blew off or fell off?), the sparkly/flashy bits later in film are in a different location.
We don't know if the camera is moving, so we don't know what the motion of the object might be. Much of the video shows it against a featureless sky.
 
oh and by august 2021 the building changes its signage.. so video is pre aug 2021 for sure.
View attachment 88253
timestamp 2:19

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bjihXJQp8g

The video is pre 2017, for sure (read that with Macron's voice).
Here the 2017 repload :
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKmIROHmKmI


We can also see when one of the buildings was modified on Google Earth. I'm not sure whether this building appears in the video (the one next to the pharmacy).
Capture d'écran 2026-02-03 155549.png
Capture d'écran 2026-02-03 155608.png
 
Maybe a pair of trainers (sneakers) thrown over the line?

Throwing pairs of laced-together shoes over telephone / powerlines "is a thing". I've seen it, never understood the rationale, apparently there are several, see
Wikipedia, Shoe throwing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_throwing, also
"Here's The Real Reason You See Shoes Wrapped Around Power Lines", Opposing Views website, Ruth Kamau, 22 February 2025
https://www.opposingviews.com/society/heres-the-real-reason-you-see-shoes-wrapped-around-power-lines

Sort of like this,

View attachment 88254

...though it wouldn't explain why they aren't visible, or are a lot less visible, in some parts of the footage.

And it might be unlikely for a pair of trainers to end up in such a neat arrangement with the soles aligned, but if they looked like a pair of shoes dangling from a cable they wouldn't have got the same interest.

ShoeFOlogy. An upwards step for science.
I don't think this is a shoe. When the object accelerates, the camera stays steady. Since the footage is zoomed in, you might assume the camera moved, but if you look closely, the pixels in the sky don't shift abruptly at the same speed as the object.

No, if this isn't genuine footage, then it would almost certainly have to be the result of post-production manipulation. Since the video appears to date back to around 2012 or earlier, it seems highly unlikely that it could be a drone designed to mimic the shape of a flying saucer. I also considered the possibility of a balloon that burst, but that explanation doesn't strike me as very convincing either.
At this point, the only rational explanation I can see is that it may have been altered in post-production — but without clear evidence, we can't assert that. We'd need solid proof either way : showing it was edited, or ruling that out to back up the footage's authenticity.
 
Just some impressions from a few views. I get the vibe that at first, the UFO is just a cut out on the windshield of the car, as @John J. mentioned above. It doesn't really move in relation to the street lamps that are visible before the zoom in. The car never seems to move, so someone could be sitting in the back seat and as they zoom in on a paper cutout on the front windshield it comes into focus, sorta, but just stays static. Here is where the UFO is in relation to the street lamps when the video starts, say 11:00 from the lamp:

View attachment 88216

After the zoom in, the UFO moves around the frame, but it seems to be just the movement of the camera. Then the UFO ends up near the bottom of the screen before it zips off (00:42), or I think, the camera pans rapidly to the right. There's lots of random movements before we eventually get an out of focus blob (01:05) that is now at about 2:00 to the lamp AND the previous location at 11:00 is no longer visible:

View attachment 88217

Eventually the scene does zoom out, but long after someone could have removed the cutout from the windshield. As the scene is zoomed out, the flickering out of focus blob disappears, or more likely becomes unresolved due the crappy video. However, a point of light does seem to appear where the UFO was (01:15):

View attachment 88218
Possibly an aircraft? The whole thing is the usual crap video, but maybe the flickering blob was just an out of focus aircraft. The video is bad enough that if the camera moves too fast, even the street lamps nearly get lost in the compression (01:02):

View attachment 88219

At the end of the video, it just seems to repeat. The audio, which seems to include a constantly yammering someone, could have just been added afterwards as @JMartJr alluded to.

Classic UFO footage: Shaky, often out of focus, poor quality, low light, no context and questionable provenance.

The video appears to be filmed from the driver's seat, because when you zoom out you can see the steering wheel and the top of the windshield.

As for the blurry spot after the UFO departs, it doesn't seem to be moving like an airplane. It could be a helicopter. But it seems like a strange coincidence that a helicopter would be in front of it and appear the same color as the object (note: it's far away, so the color isn't so improbable in itself, but I think it's important to point out).

In post-production it's possible to create a blurry point with the same color as the object to make it look like the same object filmed from a distance, to give the impression that the video is authentic.
 
The video is pre 2017, for sure (read that with Macron's voice)
Macron the French President?

he only has the one video on his channel. and you haven't provided any proof it is pre November 2017. Can you see with your browser a video in your m.forum link?
The oldest available publication of the video date is May 8, 2012 on youtube : https://m.forum.md/ru/896124


Since the footage is zoomed in, you might assume the camera moved, but if you look closely, the pixels in the sky don't shift abruptly at the same speed as the object.
i dont think 360p pixels work that way. ie parallax. to be fair, im not sure even higher resolutions would work that way.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[...not needed..]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it is lined up exactly with the electric/telephone wire. and there are lower wires down the street which could explain the flashing bits to the right of the street lamp.

obviously this could just be a coincidence, the wire being in the right spot. or he saw something stuck to the wire that resembled a ufo shape, thought it was cool so filmed it.
 
Last edited:
@Mick West quick question: if i am filming an object like 20 feet from me with a sky background, and i move my camera abruptly to the right.. would the sky pixels "move" at the same speed as my nearby object pixels?
If you straff to the right, the background pixels will move right relative to the foreground object because of paralax.
If you pan to the right, there will be no such relative motion.
 
When the object accelerates, the camera stays steady. Since the footage is zoomed in, you might assume the camera moved, but if you look closely, the pixels in the sky don't shift abruptly at the same speed as the object.

The sky is a constantly changing shade of blue-grey, even when the camera is just filming the UFO. Even in the slightly better version in post #8, it's still just a random changing pattern of low resolution and compression. After the UFO zips off screen and the camera is clearly moving, the sky still looks like the same shifting patchwork. The pixels are constantly changing color regardless of the camera movement.

Pause the video just before the UFO leaves, then use these keys: < > on your keyboard to scrub back and forth 1 frame at a time. It takes about 4 frames for the UFO to exit the screen and it's only 10 frames later that the streetlamp appears in the lower left:

1770157988220.png


As the common frame rate for phone cameras is 30fps (actually 29.97), then 10 frames is about 1/3 of a second. If it happened to be at 24fps, then that's a little less than 1/2 a second. The camera is clearly moving when the streetlamp (or whatever that is) appears in the lower left, meaning it started moving before the streetlamp came into the scene. So, if the camera was still when the UFO moved off and the camera was moving 10 frames or less then 1/2 a second later, it had to start moving within 1 or 2 frames of the UFO moving off. That's somewhere less than 1/8-1/4 of a second. The movement was not the result of the UFO moving and then the camera moving to look for it. There would not be that fast of a reaction.

The camera is clearly moving when the streetlamp comes into view only fractions of a second after the UFO appears to move. I would argue that this is likely because the movement of the UFO is an illusion caused by the suddenly moving camera.

The video appears to be filmed from the driver's seat, because when you zoom out you can see the steering wheel and the top of the windshield.

I was speculating that it was possibly from the back seat, but actually I think it's the front passenger seat, the right one, as it appears they drive on the right side of the road. Or as I like to remind my UK friends, the correct side of the road. In the zoom out we can see what looks like a phone or mapping device mounted to the dash in the lower left (red) and the dashboard rising up on the right (blue):

Screenshot 2026-02-03 3.12.02 PM.png


Later at about 02:00, they pan out the left side of the windshield with the dash still in view lower left:

1770160570306.png


Unless the mapping device is somehow mounted between the dash and the left door, instead of in the center of the dash, the camera is in the right seat.
 
so...your answer is "no"?

No.

My answer was "It depends on what you mean by 'move'." Don't blame me if you don't frame your question unambiguously. I love the fact that the post to which I'm responding displays ambiguity between "playing dumb for kicks" and "snark".
 
The sky is a constantly changing shade of blue-grey, even when the camera is just filming the UFO. Even in the slightly better version in post #8, it's still just a random changing pattern of low resolution and compression. After the UFO zips off screen and the camera is clearly moving, the sky still looks like the same shifting patchwork. The pixels are constantly changing color regardless of the camera movement.



As the common frame rate for phone cameras is 30fps (actually 29.97), then 10 frames is about 1/3 of a second. If it happened to be at 24fps, then that's a little less than 1/2 a second. The camera is clearly moving when the streetlamp (or whatever that is) appears in the lower left, meaning it started moving before the streetlamp came into the scene. So, if the camera was still when the UFO moved off and the camera was moving 10 frames or less then 1/2 a second later, it had to start moving within 1 or 2 frames of the UFO moving off. That's somewhere less than 1/8-1/4 of a second. The movement was not the result of the UFO moving and then the camera moving to look for it. There would not be that fast of a reaction.

The camera is clearly moving when the streetlamp comes into view only fractions of a second after the UFO appears to move. I would argue that this is likely because the movement of the UFO is an illusion caused by the suddenly moving camera.



I was speculating that it was possibly from the back seat, but actually I think it's the front passenger seat, the right one, as it appears they drive on the right side of the road. Or as I like to remind y UK friends, the correct side of the road. In the zoom out we can see what looks like a phone or mapping device mounted to the dash in the lower left (red) and the dashboard rising up on the right (blue):



Later at about 02:00, they pan out the left side of the windshield with the dash still in view lower left:


The sky is a constantly changing shade of blue-grey, even when the camera is just filming the UFO. Even in the slightly better version in post #8, it's still just a random changing pattern of low resolution and compression. After the UFO zips off screen and the camera is clearly moving, the sky still looks like the same shifting patchwork. The pixels are constantly changing color regardless of the camera movement.

Pause the video just before the UFO leaves, then use these keys: < > on your keyboard to scrub back and forth 1 frame at a time. It takes about 4 frames for the UFO to exit the screen and it's only 10 frames later that the streetlamp appears in the lower left:

View attachment 88270

As the common frame rate for phone cameras is 30fps (actually 29.97), then 10 frames is about 1/3 of a second. If it happened to be at 24fps, then that's a little less than 1/2 a second. The camera is clearly moving when the streetlamp (or whatever that is) appears in the lower left, meaning it started moving before the streetlamp came into the scene. So, if the camera was still when the UFO moved off and the camera was moving 10 frames or less then 1/2 a second later, it had to start moving within 1 or 2 frames of the UFO moving off. That's somewhere less than 1/8-1/4 of a second. The movement was not the result of the UFO moving and then the camera moving to look for it. There would not be that fast of a reaction.

The camera is clearly moving when the streetlamp comes into view only fractions of a second after the UFO appears to move. I would argue that this is likely because the movement of the UFO is an illusion caused by the suddenly moving camera.
The sky is a constantly changing shade of blue-grey, even when the camera is just filming the UFO. Even in the slightly better version in post #8, it's still just a random changing pattern of low resolution and compression. After the UFO zips off screen and the camera is clearly moving, the sky still looks like the same shifting patchwork. The pixels are constantly changing color regardless of the camera movement.

Pause the video just before the UFO leaves, then use these keys: < > on your keyboard to scrub back and forth 1 frame at a time. It takes about 4 frames for the UFO to exit the screen and it's only 10 frames later that the streetlamp appears in the lower left:

View attachment 88270

As the common frame rate for phone cameras is 30fps (actually 29.97), then 10 frames is about 1/3 of a second. If it happened to be at 24fps, then that's a little less than 1/2 a second. The camera is clearly moving when the streetlamp (or whatever that is) appears in the lower left, meaning it started moving before the streetlamp came into the scene. So, if the camera was still when the UFO moved off and the camera was moving 10 frames or less then 1/2 a second later, it had to start moving within 1 or 2 frames of the UFO moving off. That's somewhere less than 1/8-1/4 of a second. The movement was not the result of the UFO moving and then the camera moving to look for it. There would not be that fast of a reaction.

The camera is clearly moving when the streetlamp comes into view only fractions of a second after the UFO appears to move. I would argue that this is likely because the movement of the UFO is an illusion caused by the suddenly moving camera.

After a closer look, I think you're right, it does look like he moved his camera abruptly.
 
Macron the French President?

he only has the one video on his channel. and you haven't provided any proof it is pre November 2017. Can you see with your browser a video in your m.forum link?




i dont think 360p pixels work that way. ie parallax. to be fair, im not sure even higher resolutions would work that way.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Mick West quick question: if i am filming an object like 20 feet from me with a sky background, and i move my camera abruptly to the right.. would the sky pixels "move" at the same speed as my nearby object pixels?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it is lined up exactly with the electric/telephone wire. and there are lower wires down the street which could explain the flashing bits to the right of the street lamp.

obviously this could just be a coincidence, the wire being in the right spot. or he saw something stuck to the wire that resembled a ufo shape, thought it was cool so filmed it.

Oh, sorry! I forgot to include the link. The video doesn't load anymore, but the description leaves no doubt that it's this one: https://web.archive.org/web/20130724004238/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kALKpqBlLi0

I found the video link in the page's source code.
I was able to connect this video to the forum link thanks to a local resident from the Botanica district who had previously shared the video.

Capture d'écran 2026-02-04 012231.png

Capture d'écran 2026-02-04 012016.png


And regarding the camera movement, I now think I was mistaken : he actually moved the camera, which created the illusion that the UFO itself was moving at that particular moment.
 
No.

My answer was "It depends on what you mean by 'move'." Don't blame me if you don't frame your question unambiguously. I love the fact that the post to which I'm responding displays ambiguity between "playing dumb for kicks" and "snark".
i wasn't playing dumb or being snarky.. i quoted the move option (you gave me two) that wasn't "pan". i said "so..." because i wasnt sure if you were saying the speed would be different.

Oh, sorry! I forgot to include the link. The video doesn't load anymore, but the description leaves no doubt that it's this one: https://web.archive.org/web/20130724004238/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kALKpqBlLi0
cool. it's linking me to other videos that's giving me translations to try in searching.

i do have one easter day 2010 where the signage (on the store/clinic) is red. trying to find betters videos so we can confirm dates a bit better.
 
i wasn't playing dumb or being snarky.
Phil answered "yes or no, depending on the kind of movement". You took that simple explanatory answer to be "no". It's hard to see how that doesn't fall into the "playing dumb or being snarky" category.
 
If you're sitting in the seat of a parked car, you're not going to get a streetlight to move through the shot any appreciable distance unless you turn (pan) the camera.
 
If you're sitting in the seat of a parked car, you're not going to get a streetlight to move through the shot any appreciable distance unless you turn (pan) the camera.
I find myself thinking in terms of something stuck on the windshield, and thus much closer to the camera than the streetlight etc.

IF so, you could also create apparent movement of the foreground object by moving the camera laterally, or of the background by moving the camera laterally while panning to stay on the UFO... though I am not sure that's what we see here.

To produce the UFO darting away to the left followed by trees coming into frame FROM the left, you'd have to move the camera sharply to the right to make the UFO exit to the left while also panning slightly left to bring the trees into view. Which would be possible, either through a subconscious or inadvertent pan, or through having thought this moment out carefully and wanting to bring the trees into view to make it look like the camera was trying pan after the UFO, while being careful not to pan so far you brought it back into view.
 
followed by trees coming into frame FROM the left
it's the street lamp bulbs/heads.

I find myself thinking in terms of something stuck on the windshield

found a vid from 2013/2014 and there's no upper wire going across the street then, so unless CyclingandMusic1988 is WAY off on his recollection of time frame.. not something stuck to the wire.

so i'm going with windshield too now. esp if the filmer was in passenger seat.


1770215748820.png



easter 2010 where the signage (on the store/clinic) is red.
forgot pic

1770216634186.png
 
Back
Top