Remarkable UFO footage

I don't know whether or not this has been discussed before, so sorry if it has.

This video clearly shows a UFO that hovers then slowly moves while wobbling and it also seems as if it's spinning. It seems almost to clear to be real.
Any thoughts?

www.ufocasebook.com...

I think this footage has been proven to be a fake. Im sure most people around here have seen it.

Originally posted by _Anubis_
I think this footage has been proven to be a fake. Im sure most people around here have seen it.

Yeah, I kinda figured, looks fake.

Originally posted by _Anubis_
I think this footage has been proven to be a fake. Im sure most people around here have seen it.

Well, here we go again!!

Who proved it a fake? When?

It's movements all tie in with Bob Lazar's explanation of UFO propulsion. It looks to be operating in it's own gravity field.

Peace

Ive never seen it proven fake just hear a lot of people saying/thinking its fake. Thats probably how it is for a lot of the cases.

Originally posted by CmptrN3rd5
Ive never seen it proven fake just hear a lot of people saying/thinking its fake. Thats probably how it is for a lot of the cases.

Me either! I do remember seeing it on ats though, and with a lot of replies, but nobody proved it to be fake.

I do kinda question the wobbling that the ufo is doing. You would think that a ship that can manipulate gravity would be able to stop itself from wobbling.

One thing I noticed, could credit it to be fake, is that even though the object is behind the building, the camera still tracks it dead on. Now while it wasn't behind the building for a long time, I find it strange that when it reappears it is right in the center of the frame and no adjustment needs to be made to bring it into the center.

yeah, the tracking does seem a bit odd...but then the ufo was traveling at a constant rate of speed, so its not implausible that he was able to keep it in the center of the frame...

If you ask me it looks real. But im a noob so what do i know?, lol. j/k

Hi all-
Yes it is 100% CG generated. (Or you could say the disc is)

It's been many years but I was one of the first to do analytical work on this video. I obtained a 1st generation dub and within no time the evidence for a composite CG was evident. I went onto the 21st Century Radio Program to talk about my findings.

Short of the story, there are many tells. One foremost would be that when the disc goes behind the building then re-emerges, the camera "shake" and the disc do NOT shake together at the same rate, nor the same angle. You can keep an eye on the buildingtop, and the disc and see this in many places.
The disc also as it goes behind buildings, is obscured *just* slightly ahead of where it should be were it actually going behind it.

This is all consistent with a composite within actual video footage in a 3d rendering program. The tells are stemming from a user error called "camera matching", where the video is re-rendered within a 3d motion program using original footage and a 3d disc, complete with haze filters applied along with blur to object effects, not to mention lighting adjusted to match. The virtual camera is matched to the real camera used to make the original background video. It's a process involving measurements and reference points that allow the disc to fly and be zoomed on with the virtual cam to match the real footage.

The "going behind" the buildings involved modeling blocks of matte texture, which are invisible in the final output render, BUT block out the 3d disc. Therefore it appears the disc travels behind the building. The virtual camera sees the model blocks, and those model blockout blocks are put into a like perspective to lay over the real video buildings. Do your motion, and input your data for camera matching, and it's ready to render.

While it sounds complicated, once you learn it, it's not that difficult. The problem is it requires good accurate measurements. The errors present in this video are the result of using approximations, and possibly frame by frame adjustments for the virtual cam and the matte blockouts. The disc going behind "something" slightly before the building, that cant be seen, is the result again, that the matte blocks are not in perfect line to the virtual cam, (not overlaying perfectly to the original video) and comes down again to bad camera matching.

It's a fairly good try, but with more time could have been *really* good..and therefore much harder to detect. This was not hard to see.

The often put forth argument that this is not a composite piece, is the witnesses. Almost 100(?) people claimed to have actually seen this in person.

But there's a hitch.

NO ONE came forward, NOT ONE, til the video was broadcast over nationwide TV...TWO TIMES. Not to mention, that there would be MANY more, then 100 should this have actually been there on the day in question, and as the video presents.

Yup, the reason there's not more, and no one came forward before it was put on tv twice, is because it wasnt there. That disc was residing in a computer, waiting to fly high..and dissapear.

For a little background on 3d matching, check out www.cgarchitect.com...
which reviews a program addon to achieve better results. Or try just doing a Google search on 3d camera matching, there's a ton of good articles and in depth explanations.

I hope this puts any questions to rest.
Jeff@Hypergraphics Imaging, Baltimore
[edited for spelling]



[edit on 6-4-2005 by jritzmann]

Originally posted by Termite197
I do kinda question the wobbling that the ufo is doing. You would think that a ship that can manipulate gravity would be able to stop itself from wobbling.

I don't know if I can remember exactly what Lazar said, but it had something to do with these craft being less stable at very low speeds, which this one obviously is. I've seen the wobbling in other UFO footage as well.

Peace

Originally posted by UnMature
One thing I noticed, could credit it to be fake, is that even though the object is behind the building, the camera still tracks it dead on. Now while it wasn't behind the building for a long time, I find it strange that when it reappears it is right in the center of the frame and no adjustment needs to be made to bring it into the center.

The ship wasn't moving very fast and if you watch, it was moving upwards once it started moving to the right so I think the guy was just moving the camera at the speed of the ship and since the ship wasn't moving fast and because it wasn't behind the building long the guy couldn't have possibly gotten ahead of it. Does that make sense? I had alittle difficulty trying to type it lol. I'm not sayin this is a 100% real but I think it's decent so far. The camera is shaking too and wouldn't it be really hard to move a computerized ship with the movements of the camera?

Another point that was brought up was the wobbling... if a ship with advanced tech that people like Bob lazar explained, wouldn't the aliens be able to control the wobbling?

I first saw this video on the Out of the Blue DVD and was amazed. It would seem to me that the producers of that video would have done a more thourough investigation of this video before adding it to the production. If this is a hoax as jritzmann claims, wouldn't that lend to dicredit the whole Out of the Blue program? What's your take on that jritzmann, and have you seen OOTB???

Peace

[edit on 6-4-2005 by Dr Love]

Originally posted by UnMature
One thing I noticed, could credit it to be fake, is that even though the object is behind the building, the camera still tracks it dead on. Now while it wasn't behind the building for a long time, I find it strange that when it reappears it is right in the center of the frame and no adjustment needs to be made to bring it into the center.

Result of the fact that he/she was only filming a plate. A background to composite the disc into. The motion of the camera is incidental, this disc is wherever you want to put it....and going as fast as your camera is moved. I liken it much to what hollywood does with CGI characters and live actors, the actor imagines or looks at a dot. There's nothing there, where they look decides where the CGI character is and what postion it's in.
Because the cameraman is only shooting air and imagining the disc in the shot, of course he's gonna follow it perfectly...he made it...he placed it, and he rendered it in.
Jeff@Hypergraphics Imaging, Baltimore

No I havent seen it. But one bad apple doesnt spoil the whole bunch. Right?

I make no assumptions about anyone, but you do have to realize that a video you paid money for is earned therefore by the makers. They have a right to present it any way they choose, and due to trying to make a living (like everyone has to)have more of a vested interest in it being "real".

Would you buy a video full of fake UFO footage?

Originally posted by jritzmann
No I havent seen it. But one bad apple doesnt spoil the whole bunch. Right?

I make no assumptions about anyone, but you do have to realize that a video you paid money for is earned therefore by the makers. They have a right to present it any way they choose, and due to trying to make a living (like everyone has to)have more of a vested interest in it being "real".

Would you buy a video full of fake UFO footage?

But because UFOlogy is such a fringe subject, their future credibility would be severely tested, and I think that would matter to them as well. It's not like the video broke any sales records or anything.

Peace

While it has never been fully disproved, there was always a lot of evidence to suggest that it was a digital enhancement. One of the most obvious was also the pixelation "haze" around the craft, as well as the excellent points made above.... It's in my "likely hoax" category, but hasn't been fully proven to be a hoax.

Originally posted by Gazrok
One of the most obvious was also the pixelation "haze" around the craft...

Could be just a distortion caused by the gravity field. Any expert can tell you how they could computer generate anything, even if the video was REAL.

Peace

Thats true, but then again, there's an old saying
"No matter how good your evidence 50% will believe you and 50% won't"

The same applies to proving a case to be...well...not what it seems.

Let's look at this angle. Long after I announced findings, years after, I was approached in emails by a man who tried to tell me that the bad camera matching errors, were the "aliens" making the ship move WITH the cameraman's movement...so as to give skeptics a "way out" and still reach those who were "ready" to believe.

So essentially the aliens were making it look as if this was a CGI composite.

There are many angles to approach UFO recorded data from. That one isnt gonna be one of mine anytime soon. Thats speculating the "alien" mind...and it's also just friggin silly when the evidence points strongly to the CG answer. Going by this kind of speculation and grasping at straws, then has to go back from square one...every disc on a thread is now a real saucer that just looks like it's on a string....the aliens want us to believe, but want to give skeptics a way out.

Aggh. It's frustrating when people put forth such flimsy speculation in support for thier opinions.

I digress. Yes it might hurt slightly the maker of the film, but again, alot of people want desperately to believe, and will NOT accept any answer but their own. Therefore the product still sells.

Most of the dissenting discussions I get from people refuting hard duplicatable data contrary to their belief in a photo or video, are usually vested emotionally or financially.

I have no attachment, and I never will, from any case I work on. I wont accept cash for analysis work, and never will. My personal beliefs are that there is a genuine enigma in regard to UFOs. It's not all fakes, human fallacy, or misinterpretations...at least in my opinion. There's good data yet to be proven. That being said, the truth is far more important than my feelings or my money. And, it's worth my time and my money to work and separate wheat from chaff.
Hope that answers your question.

Originally posted by Gazrok
While it has never been fully disproved, there was always a lot of evidence to suggest that it was a digital enhancement. One of the most obvious was also the pixelation "haze" around the craft, as well as the excellent points made above.... It's in my "likely hoax" category, but hasn't been fully proven to be a hoax.

What would constitute "fully proven"?

We dont have the cameraman admitting he did it, but that doesnt always happen, he's anonymous after all.

The pixelation "haze" is not the artifact suggesting CG composite, that is noise generated by the movement in re-render. Haze when used on an object such as this is applied only (in the majority of applications) to the object ONLY. This would not effect surrounding sky, therefore no artifact is from that proceedure.

The shake and cam matching errors are really more than enough "proof", but there is more.