A reply from Bob Lazar to our analysis of his video footage taken at Area 51

a reply to: A51Watcher

Nice work!

The second song in the video was John Digweed right?

I love that song! Remind me what album that was on?

Any information on how the video enhancements were done?

a reply to: KKLOCO

Astral projection - The nexus 🤙🏻



(Sorry OP and Mods!)

🍻

originally posted by: MerkabaTribeEntity

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: A51Watcher

i shall be rude :

i CBA reading emails on youtube

just publish the dammed reply on this thread as plain text

its quite simple - why are you making it complex ?

Would you like that on a silver spoon?

Excellent analysis OP, S&F 👍

Platter.... Silver Platter.

a reply to: MerkabaTribeEntity

Thank you! Love that song! It used to be one of my favorites to do cardio at the gym, 10+ years ago.

a reply to: terriertail

I agree that it is time we find out about the agenda of the "phenomenon".

My personal theory for the moment is that there is a spiritual world (where we go when we die and where we come from when we are born). Some aspects of the phenomenon (orbs, but mostly ghosts) may directly originate there, but the major part is from this physical universe and is based on material technology.

If you have the stomach to digest ideas by Dr. Steven Greer, you may find the following interesting:

The Crossing Point

By definition any ET civilization which is here has interstellar travel and communications capabilities. This means that they operate on the other side of the light/matter barrier as easily as we use radio signals and fly on jets. This is their reality and world. This is their cell phone and automobile. This is their existence technologically, theoretically and every-day practically. But it sure looks like magic to us.

originally posted by: Caver78
a reply to: fromtheskydown

Can't believe not having Lazars thank you note posted here is the inanity being fixated on.
Not the mind numbing, time consuming work of years of development in producing the programs to enhance video's such as these, the hours spent cleaning this one up and unpaid hours of labor.Nice way to derail a thread and attempt to minimize the discovery.

Some peoples kids, right?
SMH

I'd like to ask A51Watcher if the Team has been able to pull out any details from other video's, and if so are they seeing any similarities or properties that strike them as significant? Preliminarily of course, I would suspect the data set is still to small to be able to draw any absolutes yet?

Hey Caver, thanks for the recognition and awareness of what all goes into these analyses.

Actually yes we have a pretty good data set going at this time and are seeing several similarities and properties that strike us as significant. I will be going into these with explanations and examples in future posts.

One example being - at 6:45 in the Op video you can see we are scrolling through the footage frame by frame, and the shape of the craft changes radically from frame to frame.

Last May I had a chance to speak with Bob personally and ask him about this. I mentioned this radical change of shape and asked is this caused by localized gravity lensing like astronomers frequently see?

He said yes and made a motion with his hands like he was holding an egg in the palm of each hand and was spinning them.

He then said when the 3 gravity emitters produce a gravity distortion field they create 3 spinning prisms around the outside of the craft that distort our view.

Another observation is that the colors seen emanating from the craft are noble gasses in the atmosphere being excited by voltage on the surface of the craft, much like a neon light does.

He was also asked if there was any more information on the source of the crafts in our possession in the S4 project. He said yes most of them came from archaeology sites dated to 10,000 years ago.

In a recent Joe Rogan interview he said at least one but last May he said most.

Either way that is pretty amazing.

originally posted by: roadgravel
Any information on how the video enhancements were done?

At 5:52 and again at 8:26 in the OP video there is an explanation that BAS Redfield and PTM technology was used for part 2.

A few of the applications we use on a daily basis include:

BAS REDFIELD
DEUEM-SMD
GEN2
ELC
FIVE
FOCMAC
FOREVID
FUSION
(Astro) ImageJ
LCSA
MC Lightworks
LUCIS PRO Edition
PICOLAY
QESR
REINDEER
RETINEX
ROBUST MD

The rest are applications that required that an NDA be signed.

Nuff said about that.

In this video we list each process as it is applied -




"Things to consider when enhancing a video or photo:

The first step is the most important: your screen

Screen? Yes, your workspace. Your screen should be set to neutral. With the wrong settings, e.g. too much contrast, brightness or worse too dark, you lose valuable information as you will overlook the finer details. With an overbright screen pixels will start flowing into eachother and edges disappear. An over-contrast screen will cause the problem that gradients of coulours begin to fade as you go from tertiary, to secondary to primary colours: in other words the number of unique colours decreases.

Second step: choose your software wisely. Photoshop, Paint Pro and a dozen other programmes offer a lot of nice filters but these are not meant for forensic enhancement. In my personal opnion most of these filters do not perform the way they should. These filters intend to make an image look more artistic or beautiful but this over-enhancing of edges, gradients and colours leads to creation instead of enhancing.

Third step: Know that a perfect enhancement does not exist. Not even the high-end applications I (am allowed to) work with do a perfect job but with some knowledge of how these filters behave and what you should- and most of all should not do, you can reach a maximum 95-96 % quality enhancement. Yes only max. 96 % so when you have a complicated object with lots of fine details or faint colours at the end your project still has lost 4-5 % of its data. Point is that with every filter you use you also undo the effect(s) created by a previous filter. E.g. It is impossible to sharpen edges without losing detail as you literally manipulate pixels in order to get a better border between gradients. So in the end you will have a clear line or border but have lost colours in that specific region. That is why I prefer using different colour space and selecting various channels. In each channel you can see lots of different borders but also see the gradients you normally would not see or tend to overlook in a full colour image.

Fact is: Whatever you do with a video or image you will never reach a 100% enhancement. The only thing you can do is to prevent damage as much as possible but in order to that you have to understand how your filters work and what their influence will be on your project. Furthermore each filter has its limitations. You cannot expect from a sharpening filter that it can also maintain gradients or that a microcontrast filter considers additionally generated gaussian (grey) noise. My advice: use only one high quality filter for each single step in the process.
The best filters (imho) are the filters used in (medical) science and of course law-enforcement but latter is of course not available for the general public unless you have a lot of money or as in my case have a license to use it.

Algorithms: The problem with algorithms is that none are perfectly written. Each algorithm has its own priority. One performs better on straight lines, the other is better with gradients or colours but in the end they all fail. So we have to make a choice and for forensics I only use the basic algorithms as they introduce lesser artifacts and also create a more natural look.
E.g. when upscaling an image or video (zoom / increase resolution) I select bicubic, Bilinear or a combination of both. There are the much more fancy ones like splines and variants like Lanczos but these are for amateurs (and professionals) who do not want to spend much time on properly upscaling a video or image. I too used to use them as I did not want to spend days or weeks on a single image / or video in my spare time too but in the end I never was satisfied with the result. I stepped away from going the easy way and now the projects I work on are the result of many years. The Kaikoura project e.g. already started back 2005 but it really began when I received the original films in May / June 2015.

You all probably know that when you upscale an image the pixels are guessed and therefore created. When you zoom in on something the pixels are not there but they have to be created through interpolation. When interpolation is done few things happen. You create new borders but also new gradients and depending on how clear the original was your end result will be different. I prefer a non clear, non sharp image, preferably with fadings edges. Each time a pixel has to be guessed the original colours fade more. Most algorithms do not take this into account so when you upscale an image more than 3-4x (300%-400%) you have already lost a lot of quality colours and the more you lose the more it affects the sharpness and clarity.

To make this fading visible you can draw two lines next to each other, e.g. one red and one green. Now you upscale the line. What happens is that the border between the green and red line begins to decolorize and turns to grey. This is the colour valley. Now imagine an image with lots of colours. After upscaling the image these colours have faded. In order to prevent that you must also during the process of upscaling correct the colourshift by adjusting the hue, saturation levels, intensity and contrast. You can do this by taking several points (pixels) or a small area within the original image, measure colour value with a colour picker (marking) and after upscaling try to adjust the larger created area of pixels to that same colour value. You will never be able to fully correct the difference but at least you have an image that has not colour faded too much.

The best results you get when upscaling an video or an image is by enhancing a series of frames / images in different colours spaces and than stack them again. This way you will have a more complete image. When you have done things right, your circle will still be a circle and a triangle will still be a triangle and Venus will still be round and not a diamond or square.

Finally: Always save an image without compression: Preferably PNG with zero compression and when you perform enhancements using several filters in a row, do not save an image in between in JPG as you will lose quality each time you save. To the eye it may not be visible but the more you enhance the less useable data will be left over for other filters."


The above quote comes from our chief processor and I must say humanity in general and UFOlogy in particular are very lucky to have a professional Forensic Image Analyst of his caliber and reputation willing to even look at this subject.

Most wont touch it with a 10 foot pole.

a reply to: A51Watcher
Good to know that they gave access to the original film to skilled researchers and analysts. Absolutely incredible work. It looks like the Philadelphia Experiment perfected...



I can see, what appears to me, in the main larger body part is two toroid rings laying flat, stacked on top of each other. There appears to be another current surrounding the whole craft.

Can you explain the differences in color, particularly why something is red, blue, yellow, or green? Is it an enhancement your team did or is it an effect from the video?

Also on a side note, if I were a UFO hunter, would you prefer I use old analog film or a good digital camera?

originally posted by: SouthernForkway26
a reply to: A51Watcher
Good to know that they gave access to the original film to skilled researchers and analysts. Absolutely incredible work. It looks like the Philadelphia Experiment perfected...

I can see, what appears to me, in the main larger body part is two toroid rings laying flat, stacked on top of each other. There appears to be another current surrounding the whole craft.

Can you explain the differences in color, particularly why something is red, blue, yellow, or green? Is it an enhancement your team did or is it an effect from the video?

Also on a side note, if I were a UFO hunter, would you prefer I use old analog film or a good digital camera?

Nice pic. Looking at it I get pareidolia symptoms. I imagine seeing alien heads in the top right of the object.

'Nah' (shakes head)

Kind regards,

bally

originally posted by: SecretKnowledge
a reply to: A51Watcher

.. Also in the last seconds of the video what are we looking at there? Looks like light coming from all around the craft

We do not know.

It appeared after we performed a DEUEM process over the original image. Our guess is that this is air turbulence made visible by the glowing of different gas molecules. For each gradient made by the DEUEM process a different colour is generated with a separate border. We think we see these borders.

I'm going to go out on a limb and just toss this out there.

The shape of what has turned up is VERY reminiscent of the multitude of alleged craft filmed over Mexico City. It was a fleeting thought I had, but a nagging one.

Just 'What if" these are actually ours and are being taken out for their test runs south into Mexico since we're generally not taking their UFO people/reports all that seriously? Without meaning to be insulting to Mexico I'm not aware they have the same capabilities as China/Russia/UK to glean any serious intel from overflights.

It's not that I don't think we're being visited, it's just that until it's proven something isn't ours we're not doing our due diligence.

a reply to: A51Watcher

What did you use as your source video?

originally posted by: spf33
a reply to: A51Watcher

What did you use as your source video?

Check the theard title, BIG clue in it

a reply to: SecretKnowledge

Yeah, I got that.

I'm asking where the specific analyzed video came from.

Was the analysis performed on a 1st generation digital transfer from the original VHS tape?

Was it pulled from one of the many Youtube videos?

a reply to: spf33

The analysis was done on a 1st generation VHS recording of the original broadcast from KLAS-TV in Nevada.

a reply to: A51Watcher

Thanks.

Apologies for nitpicking.

It seems to be a safe assumption that your analysis is based on, at least, 4 generations from the original;

1) the original analog camcorder version
2) the analog television broadcast of the analog camcorder version
3) the digital transfer of the analog broadcast of the analog camcorder version
4) the uploaded/online version of the digital transfer of the analog broadcast of the analog camcorder version

Which brings me back to my first more simple way to ask; where did you get your source video?

a reply to: spf33

I possess the VHS recording made of the original live broadcast.

I transferred it to digital format.

We have not used any of the uploaded/online versions. Only the version I transferred.

a reply to: A51Watcher

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

I've seen your Lazar videos for a number of years now, so I know there is zero chance of convincing you of anything contrary to your analyses. Plus, I'm sure you've heard it all before.

A 3rd gen video (original VHS>VHS recording of the NTSC broadcast of the original VHS>digitized version of the VHS copy of the NTSC broadcast of the original VHS recording) and all the noise, artifacting and loss in quality that's inherent in this conversion process is, in my opinion, fundamentally and unarguably useless for analyzing minute details.

The original VHS camcorder data has been so thoroughly twisted, cajoled, filtered, altered and beaten the hell outta of that your analysis is utterly, and quite frankly, meaningless.

Further, in the OP video, you claim "I extracted this particular frame (243) from the original raw and uncompressed video material from 1989". This statement is false.

Honestly, I like what you are doing, I like the fact that you are examining this stuff. But, the technical methodology is a mess and I couldn't disagree with it more.

Your analyses seem at best, misleading. At worst, deceptive. Whether this is deliberate or is born from ignorance, I can't say.