Improving the Signal to Noise Ratio

this is exactly why UFOlogy is so difficult. Not only are the phenomena extremely rare and unpredictable, but you have folks like those over at 'weirdnewsfiles.com' mixing in what is almost certainly a hoax with actual, real video footage of something weird.
Over here on their video page, they have two videos.
The first is a news report from New Jersey of a 20 year veteran pilot who took some video of what, to a trained UFOlogist, seem a lot like your classic black triangles. His whole family saw the objects, they got video (and from listening to the news report, perhaps also some stills as well, although those aren't shown), the control room at the airport saw them, as did at least 9 people who called 911.
The (CBS, mind you!) newscaster writes it off as flares tied to a balloon (Again? Where do people get all these flares and balloons? Is there like a club or something?) but the witnesses say the lights 'took off' extremely quickly, which balloon-laden flares have a difficult time doing. So I'm going to say this footage is likely authentic and worthy of investigation. This counts as actual 'signal'. 

The second video is however, complete 'noise'.  It ostensibly shows a Moldovian (WTF?) reporter who is interrupted in her report about maybe geese or whatever (sorry, I don't speak a word of Moldovian) by a mysterious brilliant light that then shoots away.
This is obviously a hoaxed video. Let me count the ways:

1. If it were real, why would they show us the nicely (edited!) preamble of the nature story presumably getting interrupted? Why not just show us the raw footage clip of the UFO? The answer is because they want us to unconsciously feel like our nature show is getting interrupted by a UFO, which is what the reporter is presumably experiencing, and so that draws us into the 'story'.
2. Related to this, there's all sorts of (Moldovian?) news commentary sandwiching the thing, and even (presumably) discussing it and showing it over again. Once again, not being terribly up on my Moldovian language lessons, I have no idea what they are saying -- for all i know they could be discussing the price of rutabegas in Minsk and it's just edited to look like they're discussing the UFO. Whatever they're actually talking about, I think it's more window dressing to make you think the 'footage' is authentic and all over the Moldovian news while we remain benightedly ignorant over here in the USA, 'cause everyone knows the cool stuff is coming from Eastern Europe these days. Barf. The attempts of these former soviet bloc hucksters to hoodwink us gullible yanks for a buck or two is painfully transparent.
   
3. The UFO makes a pretty standard sci-fi-ish sound effect, about what you'd expect a UFO to make. Any student of UFOlogy knows that UFOs either make no sound at all, or weird sounds that bear no resemblance to hollywood UFO sound effects. But for a UFO to make a cool sound is automatically suspect. Though for most ignorant folk maybe it would make it seem more real if it was just like in the movies? Are people really that dumb? That's sad. 
4. The UFO just happens to come down in the corner of the cameraman's frame, so that the reporter has to turn her back to see it. This is awfully convenient; for one, we see the UFO come down along with the cameraman, so we can share his reaction, drawing us further into the 'story'. For another, the reporter turns her back to us so we can't see where she's looking, exactly -- convenient for the purpose of, say, adding postproduction visual effects. 
5. Wouldn't a real news cameraman have automatically zoomed in on the thing to see WTF and get the best footage possible, rather than keeping the reporter nicely in the frame? He knows he can always shoot the reporter later! The only reason she stays in frame is because he wants us to see her 'reaction' to the UFO.