It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

UFO Destroyed the Falcon-9 Rocket /SpaceX/Facebook & Israeli Aerospace Industries

page: 20
143
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Again you are the alleged video expert so please educate me.




posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: westernstar22
I hate to do this kind of postings but here you are:




So you admit there is something odd with the slomo video? Otherwise why would you claim that it is fundamentally different from the original?

1.) You twist my words. I explained to you how a camera operates and that´s quite common knowledge. You were the one naming me a "video expert".




Can you use your video knowledge to prove that this person has edited in his own CGI effect right at the moment of explosion?

I told you often enough what the reason for the artifact is. All the frames ("pictures") in between the original frames were CREATED by an algorithm. So they HAVE NOT been shot physically. They were GENERATED.
Those algorithms can´t do magic. You can´t make something out of nothing. They work by looking at the differences between two frames and then the algorithm generates all the other artifical frames in between.

There is no need for any additional CGI. The one who made that video obviously does not know what he is doing. I´m not saying he edited it in, it´s just an error!



If we take other recordings of explosions on youtube and slow them down, will we see portals and effects and missing information on regular, repeatable basis?

You can´t slow down video infinitly because at one point it get´s laggy. To prevent this, the algoritm morphes the frames in between so you get the impression it runs smoothly. But those are just estimates and sometimes it goes wrong.

At least try to understand.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter



If this is such a common video artifact, can you show me any other examples close to it?


When people start slowing down other explosions which they surely will, do you think it's going to show the same kind of effect on a regular basis?
edit on 5-9-2016 by westernstar22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

So, if someone else replicated the slowmo video then the anomaly could look different or not there at all?



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Corruptedstructure

Exactly. As long as you do not use the exact same settings and algorithm the outcome will be different.
If you look at what we have originally, we have the last frame before it explodes and the next frame there is already the fireball visible. All those images in between are not representative of what was going on.


The artifact is there because those two frames show the most difference of all. No fireball and then a huge fireball.
edit on 5-9-2016 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1



thank you for posting that.


Video artifacts indeed. I wonder why our resident video expert is incapable of detecting these or posting his own screenshots and examples?



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Top secret drone at work
www.liveleak.com...



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: all2human
Top secret drone at work
www.liveleak.com...


Holy drone # batman.. now that really looks convincing if not cgi.

More likely than aliens bombarding our rockets.
edit on Mon, 05 Sep 2016 13:27:36 -0500271America/ChicagoMonday4 by rigel4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: westernstar22

Must be a good topic. He doesn't seem to say much for a 6 year old account



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: westernstar22
Stop calling me a "video expert", because you coined that term on me! It´s like arguing with a child with you.

The material between the frames have been generated.
Those are the original frames:




posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: rigel4


More likely than aliens bombarding our rockets.


While what you say is true. Please don't buy from liveleak. They obviously are heavily biased.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Corruptedstructure

What? Wasn´t it enough myself repeating on and on, I even brought him an example video but that was not enough.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

I was talking about Ophiuchus1



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Corruptedstructure
Okay, the picture he posted was generated. What else is there to say? Even he did not understand that those artifacts are from the algorithm.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

Several other videos available without the annoying alex jones style commentary



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: westernstar22

And they all have the same issue you refuse to understand.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

I fully understand what you are trying to imply, I think everybody does. I'm just saying you're wrong and you certainly haven't proven anything. You still fail to produce any similar examples despite having the entire internet at your fingertips and a supposed wealth of knowledge on video artifacts that makes you qualified to dismiss the entire thing from your first viewing.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: westernstar22

I also find it odd that youtube was flooded with dummy accounts and videos that don't even show the explosion. It's very likely that there are several version of the same video floating around now in various edited forms.

You seem to just assume none of this editing was done by someone involved in the project itself. Why you are so confident about this I've yet to see you make a valid point on that.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: westernstar22

If you understand it, what is your point? Why should I "produce similar examples"? Let alone I already gave you a video where you can see the effects of a morphing algorithm miscalculating.

So what´s your point?




top topics



 
143
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join