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.

 

Convincing video... real or fake?

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   
If anyone remembers, I have a background in cinematography and filmmaking, so I hope I can be of some assistance on this. Now, like Gazrok, I am also a believer in UFO and contact and I agree with Gazrok that this most likely a hoax. I am not saying this to agree with him, as many would know Gazrok and I, have several disagreements on several subjects on ufology and I do agree that Gazrok's skepticism can sometimes be very misguided and quite hypocritical I must say, sorry Gazrok.

The first quibble I have with this, and it a rather minor one, but I am going to mention it nonetheless; is that the camera man has to proclaim twice "it's over my house" - is that a note to himself, or a note to the future viewers of his footage.

The biggest thing that strikes me about this is that the footage is so short. Now, why would this person get a camera, then film it for a few seconds, and then stop recording? We can see that the "UFO" has not moved. So why stop?

Now, someone mentioned that it was too jerky, I will give it the benefit of the doubt, as zooming in does exaggerate slight movements. However, I don't understand why the person would zoom in the first place. It is clearly visible in the original zoom setting, and as soon as the person zooms, it becomes blurry and distorted and this is the first time an apprent motion of the UFO is seen, which is actually an optical illusion caused by the jerking of the camera and the simultaneous zooming and moving of the camera man.

Now, take note it does not move at all in the original zoom setting, at the beginning of the clip and at the end of the clip. So, we can therefore conclude that this "UFO" is a completely stationary object. Again, it beckons to question, that if it is stationary and is not going anywhere, why would the camera man be in such a frenzy and stop recording.

The biggest give-away that this is a hoax is the attempt at a reverse zoom effect(well, technically a reverse zoom is zooming in while moving backwards) and a sudden whoosh sound, which seems like an obvious suggestion that the UFO has just accelerated into the distance. This takes place exactly at the time the camera man zooms out and moves backwards. All of this happens simulataneously and on the cue: UFO zooms - Camera zooms out - camera man walks backwards a little.

So, suppose the UFO did actually zoom into the distance, why does it stop at only a few meters from it's starting position? Actually, we know, that it did not move at all, however it does seem the camera man is trying to make us think it moved a few meters into the distance.

Now, if you consider all of the above, the only explanation that makes sense, is that it is a hoax.

What I think it is, is either a bush fire in the distance or perhaps a computer generated model. It does have quite a star wars feeling to it. The first indication that it is done on a computer is the addition of the whoosh sound clip. I think I also heard a sort of jet-noise sound towards the end, also did not seem natural, probably an insert.

[edit on 1-3-2005 by Indigo_Child]




posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:26 PM
link   


Check the thread containing the report about the sighting, as Skibum mentioned, there are other videos showing the site (and the hill) in the daylight....



I may have been wrong about that.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   
You're not, I saw them too...(at least the hill)


I am not saying this to agree with him, as many would knowGazrok and I, have several disagreements on several subjects on ufology and I do agree that Gazrok's skepticism can sometimes be very misguided and quite hypocritical I must say, sorry Gazrok.


Hehe, that's an understatement.....we pretty much came to blows over Billy Meier, hehe....but I'll also add that sometimes Indigo Child's pointing out of when I'm being a hypocrite is pretty helpful actually....
And I will bow to her technical knowledge in relation to videography, as she's more qualified than I in this arena....


d1k

posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   
posted deleted. to harsh after looking at it again.

[edit on 2-3-2005 by d1k]



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
I'm a big boy, I can take it...


I stand by my opinion of this as a hoax though....


[edit on 2-3-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
The first quibble I have with this, and it a rather minor one, but I am going to mention it nonetheless; is that the camera man has to proclaim twice "it's over my house" - is that a note to himself, or a note to the future viewers of his footage.


Indigo_Child, like I responded to SkepticOverlord's post yesterday.......so what? What does him saying that have to do with it possibly being a hoax?
"A note to himself"!! He could obviously be surprised and just be talking to himself. "A note to future viewers of his footage"!! What the hell do future viewers care if that's his house or not?



The biggest thing that strikes me about this is that the footage is so short. Now, why would this person get a camera, then film it for a few seconds, and then stop recording? We can see that the "UFO" has not moved. So why stop?


To me the guy could have very well been up on a hill, hence more wind, filming something else when this thing came along. He saw it and started filming it instead. Maybe the film is so short because he stopped filming to run back towards his house to get a better shot, but when he arrived it was gone. These things have been known to dematerialize in the blink of an eye.



Now, someone mentioned that it was too jerky, I will give it the benefit of the doubt, as zooming in does exaggerate slight movements. However, I don't understand why the person would zoom in the first place. It is clearly visible in the original zoom setting, and as soon as the person zooms, it becomes blurry and distorted and this is the first time an apprent motion of the UFO is seen, which is actually an optical illusion caused by the jerking of the camera and the simultaneous zooming and moving of the camera man.


Like I said before, it looks like the guy is up on a hill quite a distance from his house. He zooms in to get a better look, then zooms back out........so what??



Now, take note it does not move at all in the original zoom setting, at the beginning of the clip and at the end of the clip. So, we can therefore conclude that this "UFO" is a completely stationary object. Again, it beckons to question, that if it is stationary and is not going anywhere, why would the camera man be in such a frenzy and stop recording.


Answered this already.



The biggest give-away that this is a hoax is the attempt at a reverse zoom effect(well, technically a reverse zoom is zooming in while moving backwards) and a sudden whoosh sound, which seems like an obvious suggestion that the UFO has just accelerated into the distance. This takes place exactly at the time the camera man zooms out and moves backwards. All of this happens simulataneously and on the cue: UFO zooms - Camera zooms out - camera man walks backwards a little.


Are you kidding me with this? When does it even appear that the UFO accelerates in to the distance? To me he's just zooming back out. You say the man walks backwards a little. I think it could be that he moved back because of the wind. It does sound like it's blowing pretty hard.



So, suppose the UFO did actually zoom into the distance, why does it stop at only a few meters from it's starting position? Actually, we know, that it did not move at all, however it does seem the camera man is trying to make us think it moved a few meters into the distance.


What are you looking at????

This is exactly the Pavlovian response I alluded to in one of my previous posts in this thread.



Now, if you consider all of the above, the only explanation that makes sense, is that it is a hoax.


I've considered it and I'm dumbfounded by it. Maybe you need to watch it a few hundred more times just to see what else your eyes can fabricate.



What I think it is, is either a bush fire in the distance or perhaps a computer generated model. It does have quite a star wars feeling to it. The first indication that it is done on a computer is the addition of the whoosh sound clip. I think I also heard a sort of jet-noise sound towards the end, also did not seem natural, probably an insert.


You're right, it does have a Star Wars feel to it. It looks like the Millenium Falcon, but that's neither here nor there. It could still be a UFO. "Whoosh sound"! Are you listening to the same thing I am. How can you differentiate between high wind and a "whoosh sound"?? Well, I didn't hear a jet, but you're quite right, a jet flying at night would seem odd.



If that's the best that an "expert" can come up with, I'm leaning towards it being real. If you were a prosecutor and you presented that "expert" testimony, Johnny Cochrane would have a field day with you. Bring something better to the table and stay out of my wheelhouse.


Peace


p.s. sorry for all the edits. I'm OCD when it comes to grammar and punctuation.

[edit on 2-3-2005 by Dr Love]

[edit on 2-3-2005 by Dr Love]

[edit on 2-3-2005 by Dr Love]

[edit on 2-3-2005 by Dr Love]

[edit on 2-3-2005 by Dr Love]



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   
If you haven't done so already, I'd highly recommend watching it with the sound OFF. Since I first saw it at work this way, this is why it was so easy to be objective when viewing it, and why I wasn't impressed. You'd be amazed at how much sound impacts your initial emotion, etc. and this is akin to watching a dramatic movie scene on mute...to then pay closer attention to the actual visual in a scene.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
If you haven't done so already, I'd highly recommend watching it with the sound OFF. Since I first saw it at work this way, this is why it was so easy to be objective when viewing it, and why I wasn't impressed. You'd be amazed at how much sound impacts your initial emotion, etc. and this is akin to watching a dramatic movie scene on mute...to then pay closer attention to the actual visual in a scene.


I've done it, and my opinion remains unchanged. What should I be paying close attention to? It certainly could be something other than a UFO (an optical illusion perhaps), but then it could also be a UFO. I'm waiting for somebody to support the hoax theory with something legitimate.

Peace



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   
On the contrary...most would argue extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof..
However, something I want to check, and I'll be back....


EDIT: Damn, can't seem to capture a still here at work (just comes out black), will try at home....

Anyhow, look at the video, and then look at "video 12" on the worldblend site... www.worldblend.net...

According to the author and videographer, these videos were the same area, and all show the hill, so the author himself is establishing that there is a high hill there beyond the streetlights (easily seen in video 12). We've also got the description from the videographer of the "object" "hugging the hills". So, regardless of WHAT the light is from, we CAN easily establish the presence of a high hill there....

Then, we have the absence of any movement of the lights in the video...they are stationary.

So now we have stationary lights, on or above a high hill.

So we're left with two conclusions....either it's some kind of stationary "object" on the hill, or an airborne object hovering slightly above the hill, in which the videographer for some reason never continued filming until it left the scene, but instead ONLY while it was motionless. So, which is more plausible?

[edit on 2-3-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
It's hard to tell because there's no common point of reference between the two videos. The question I have is, if these are just lights on a hillside at night, why do they show up in one video and not the other? If these are lights, do you have any idea of what kind of lights they are? Is it the big hill on the left, or the small one on the right? Anybody? Anybody?

Peace



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   

It's hard to tell because there's no common point of reference between the two videos.


True, (other than possibly the streetlight in both videos, but hard to tell), but we have the videographer's own admittance to them all being of the same area.


The question I have is, if these are just lights on a hillside at night, why do they show up in one video and not the other?


Well we can all agree on the fact they are "light" of some kind. Whether it's from a small brush fire or electric lights, etc. we can't tell from the resolution on the video. Either explanation could have numerous reasons as to why they're "on" in one video versus another. As you mentioned, we can't see the same exact reference point, so difficult to judge.


If these are lights, do you have any idea of what kind of lights they are? Is it the big hill on the left, or the small one on the right? Anybody? Anybody?


See above, a myriad of possibilities (including I suppose, a UFO) but also including a home, warehouse, building, brush fire, bonfire from some people on the hill, etc. etc. In any event, those explanations NOT of a UFO nature would fit the circumstances seen on the video as well, and are certainly more plausible than a UFO for which only a few seconds of stationary footage, is provided...



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   


quote: If these are lights, do you have any idea of what kind of lights they are? Is it the big hill on the left, or the small one on the right? Anybody? Anybody?


I think they look alot like common road flares. Very bright, red flame.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   
``

i have no credentials or expertise..

my 'gut feeling' is the 'millinium falcon' video is contrived or staged
my 'gut feeling' of 'video 12' @worldblend.net...that flash at the 8second
mark is a 'heatlightning' arc

but what do i know...i unequivocably seen a dark greyAMC Gremlin type UFO
darting between clouds (1 full second) down at Apopka FL back in '72
~~~

it seems our shared 'Court of Public Opinion'
also operates with consensus rules of evidence:

A) probable cause
B) reasonable doubt

& just like our trial courts, only approximate truths are hammered out
...............
more sky anomalies at Jeff Willies'-> ufos over phoenix.com



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Dr Love, why do I get the impression that you want to believe this?
Anyhow if you want to believe this you can, I will still answer some of your points:



"A note to himself"!! He could obviously be surprised and just be talking to himself. "A note to future viewers of his footage"!! What the hell do future viewers care if that's his house or not?


A potential hoaxer would try to establish that the UFO is over their house to try and make it seem more believable as this identifies the location and makes the camera man seem like a resident, and not some some stranger in the middle of nowhere, who saw a UFO and started filming it. As the hoaxer really knows it's not over their house, but in the distance on a hill or a computer generated model. Now, saying it twice is telling others - "Look, it's over my house - it's not on a hill and it's not a computer model, I know this place, I live here" As I said it a minor quibble, it may indeed be what you said, the person is surprised, even though he did not actually sound surprised to me, his voice was sort of monotone. It does support the Hoaxer hypothesis though.


To me the guy could have very well been up on a hill, hence more wind, filming something else when this thing came along. He saw it and started filming it instead. Maybe the film is so short because he stopped filming to run back towards his house to get a better shot, but when he arrived it was gone. These things have been known to dematerialize in the blink of an eye.



Like I said before, it looks like the guy is up on a hill quite a distance from his house. He zooms in to get a better look, then zooms back out........so what??


Unless, his house is on a hill and there is a lamp post there, I wouldn't entertain that. And, remember "it's over my house" so no he's not quite a distance from his home. He's only standing outside just a few yards from his house on the road from the object. If he was much further, it would be apparent. We can see at the lowest zoom setting the the distance is still quite small. To have this confirmed I suggest you submit this clip to a video lab - who will be able to tell you the exact distances.

As for him running back to get a better shot. You do realize a camera can be kept running during reframing and moving with it as well? So, it does not compute. Now, as both the hill, large distance from home, running away to get a better shot are all your suppositions, I don't see much good discussing them. All I am going to consider is what we can see, I am not going to invent new variables for the sake of making it seem believable.~


Are you kidding me with this? When does it even appear that the UFO accelerates in to the distance? To me he's just zooming back out. You say the man walks backwards a little. I think it could be that he moved back because of the wind. It does sound like it's blowing pretty hard


Now, I am saying he walks backwards and zooms out at the same time and this happens at the exact moment we hear a whooshing sound, and that is not natural, and does not serve any purpose other than to change perspective and create an apparent acceleration of the UFO. It is quite obvious to me, but I don't think that is because I have a trained eye for camera, it's because it's right in your face.


Are you listening to the same thing I am. How can you differentiate between high wind and a "whoosh sound"?? Well, I didn't hear a jet, but you're quite right, a jet flying at night would seem odd


How can I differentiate between high wind and a whoosh sound? Because I am not deaf? If your hearing faculty is so impaired, open it up in a sound editing software and view it, you will clearly be able to see that there is another sound(the whoosh) that is added to coincide with the zoom out. It's what we call an editing transition in filmaking terms, and it happens the exact moment the person zooms out, and no it is not the wind.

Will someone else confirm the "whoosh" sound for this person.


]You're right, it does have a Star Wars feel to it. It looks like the Millenium Falcon, but that's neither here nor there. It could still be a UFO.


Well yes, and the chances a UFO would look like something from a popular science fiction film, makes it seem even the more dubious. To me, it is obvious that this is a hoax, but if you want to continue to believe it is real, that is your choice. It does not surprise me, I remember explaining the WTC hoax too, but there was still someone who was adamant on believing. I cannot reason with blind belief. I wish I coud, but it's beyond my means, maybe I just lack the ability to formulate convincing arguments, or maybe, your belief is so blind and so strongly entrenched, that logic and reason just won't work.

[edit on 2-3-2005 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Dr Love, why do I get the impression that you want to believe this?
Anyhow if you want to believe this you can, I will still answer some of your points:


This is not the case. I have said in my posts that it could be a hoax and that it could be an optical illusion. What I did say was that the so-called abnormalities that you were using to form your educated opinion could easily be explained away as something else also very logical.



A potential hoaxer would try to establish that the UFO is over their house to try and make it seem more believable as this identifies the location and makes the camera man seem like a resident, and not some some stranger in the middle of nowhere, who saw a camera. As the hoaxer really knows it's not over their house, but in the distance on a hill or a computer generated model. Now, saying it twice is telling others - "Look, it's over my house - it's not on a hill and it's not a computer model, I know this place, I live here" As I said it a minor quibble, it may indeed be what you said, the person is surprised, even though he did not actually sound surprised to me, his voice was sort of monotone. It does support the Hoaxer hypothesis though.


Somebody has to help me with this because I'm lost.

That very well could be his house. In the video that Gazrok alluded to in his previous post, the same guy is filming in the same general direction, and guess what, he's talking to himself during that video as well. Where as you see yourself seeing the obvious, and me grasping for straws, I see just the opposite.



Unless, his house is on a hill and there is a lamp post there, I wouldn't entertain that. And, remember "it's over my house" so no he's not quite a distance from his home. He's only standing outside just a few yards from his house on the road from the object. If he was much further, it would be apparent. We can see at the lowest zoom setting the the distance is still quite small. To have this confirmed I suggest you submit this clip to a video lab - who will be able to tell you the exact distances.


I might agree with your evaluation here.



As for him running back to get a better shot. You do realize a camera can be kept running during reframing and moving with it as well? So, it does not compute. Now, as both the hill, large distance from home, running away to get a better shot are all your suppositions, I don't see much good discussing them. All I am going to consider is what we can see, I am not going to invent new variables for the sake of making it seem believable.~


I tell you what, go out to the nearest track and bring your camera. Turn your camera on and find an object to center on. Start filming, with the object centered, and hauling arse at the same time. Then post your video in this thread so we can all evaluate and verify if what you say is correct. Also, I didn't say he ran away to get a better shot, I said he may have already been where he was when the video started, filming something else before this thing appeared.



Now, I am saying he walks backwards and zooms out at the same time and this happens at the exact moment we hear a whooshing sound, and that is not natural, and does not serve any purpose other than to change perspective and create an apparent acceleration of the UFO. It is quite obvious to me, but I don't think that is because I have a trained eye for camera, it's because it's right in your face.


Well, I guess I'll have to go dig my Miracle Ear out of the drawer then.

I still don't think the intention of the guy filming this was to "create an apparent acceleration of the UFO". I don't see how even a skeptic can come to that conclusion. "Right in my face"! Are we watching the same video? I just dropped five grand on laser surgery, and now Im thinking about asking for my money back.



How can I differentiate between high and a whoosh sound? Because I am not deaf? If your hearing faculty is so impaired, open it up in a sound editing software and view it, you will clearly be able to see that there is another sound(the whoosh) that is added to coincidewith the zoom out. It's what we call an editing transition in filmaking terms, and it happens the exact moment the person zooms out, and no it is not the wind.

Will someone else confirm the "whoosh" sound for this person.


I'll wait for a confirmation. See above reference to Miracle Ear.



Well yes, and the chances a UFO would look like something from a popular science fiction film, makes it seem even the more dubious.


Yeah, I kind of wished it had looked like that giant vacuum cleaner from 'Spaceballs'.

Peace


[edit on 2-3-2005 by Dr Love]

[edit on 2-3-2005 by Dr Love]



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   
This reminds me alot of the thread with the "discs in the backyard" which turned out to be (at least to most), the silhouettes of houses. Something tells me it'll likely be about 20 pages till many come to the conclusion that this is likely lights up on a hill too, hehe....


Good arguments though, but case is satisfied in my opinion, at least against holding it up as an example of "best evidence" as some have claimed... It isn't...



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I have watched those 12 videos that skibum linked to at least 50 times
and I cannot say that this is the same site. Where's the streetlight? Where's the house? Where's the road? At the end of the video, if you pause it right before it ends, you will notice a car coming down a road. All I see in those videos is a desert hill; no house, no streetlight, no road. What has led you to believe that this is, in fact, the same site filmed during the day?

I still agree and am open to the possibility that these are road flares, a brush fire etc..., but I'm seriously wondering how anyone can definiteively claim that these videos are the same location?



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I already posted my retraction of that statement.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
After reviewing the thread (whilst I had more time and could do so in more detail) I saw your restraction. My apologies.

To date I have not been able to uncover any other information about this video, however I intend to keep looking



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   

What has led you to believe that this is, in fact, the same site filmed during the day?


1. The author and videographer stated as such on the site!

2. In the other video I linked to (night shot, shows what looks like a lightning flash, etc.) on the hill, you can see a streetlight to the left of the frame...could even be the same one in the first video...



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join