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.

 

Amazing new UFO Footage, June 8 Phoenix

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Musclor
.. i find the video very suspect. It looks like computer generated lights. I hope i'm wrong, but i really do not feel this footage.


What exactly does a computer generated light look like? Be specific.

I am very familiar with computer generated graphics but your statement
means nothing to me.




posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
It's hard for me to tell if those are really there or are a reflection in a window.


Typically, refelections in a sheet of glass will not be in focus if the camera
is focused at a much greater distance like in this footage.

The lights are in focus and so is the background (in the second video)
so glass would not work in this case. The first video gives no reference point.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Great work ! As others, I don't look up into the sky as I should. But others such as yourself do and Thank Aliens UFO Hunters are here to stay..

Dallas



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
What I question is the perfect framing


perfect framing? How hard is it to frame stationary objects with a tripod?


Originally posted by jritzmann
, and lack of commentary. I'd like to think most people would say something along the lines of "holy sh*&" when they start goin into formation. Then again the perfect framing....hell we dont know where the shooting starts and ends...just because this file ends doesnt mean thats where it stops...it's edited.


The audio seems consistant with a home video. I expect it is edited
to make it a reasonable size for the internet. How many people want to
DL 100MB or more?



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   
As of yet, I haven't seen anything about this video that would make me imagine its a fake. The objects shown move with the camera's movements and don't stay static in one place while everything else is moving. Very hard to fake camera movements.

Other than that, the objects depicted are simply lights. So once again, the video will prove useless for evidence other than to provoke thoughts amongst believers. It is going to take more than just lights to create solid proof no matter how fancy they move around on a video. Video of structured craft at close range in daylight is probably the only thing that will gain mass attention.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Can the light freqencies not be anaylized to see if they are genuine.

I remember seeing a film once about some lights 'falling from the sky and dissappering - This guy anaylized the light freqencies and they were like nothing he'd seen before as in all the freqencies were on the same wave lengh - Unheard of for any type of light we know according to the guy.

Im not a light tech but aren't there 3 bands or something that make up viable light ?



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   
This video would be easy to reproduce in the most mediocre of 3d modeling and rendering software. That should not be enough to condemn it as a hoax, but it sure does nothing to recommend it as real.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
This video would be easy to reproduce in the most mediocre of 3d modeling and rendering software. That should not be enough to condemn it as a hoax, but it sure does nothing to recommend it as real.


The lights would be easy to reproduce but not the synching of the lights to
the background images. Also, when the camera zooms beyond its resolution
the camera movements look exactly like a hand held video camera motion.
That would be very hard to reproduce with CG. If you had a CG filter that had
such an effect as an option then the motion pattern would be recognizable.
Also, the "zoom beyond resolution" (if any common CG program has such a
thing) would also produce a recognizable pattern.

So if you're debunking this video, name the program and the effect. Otherwise,
your statements mean nothing.

[edit on 9-6-2005 by TruthCanHurt]



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthCanHurt
What exactly does a computer generated light look like? Be specific.

This is a video clip I captured for the Profit Noway thread that I think is also relevent here. It is from a National Geographic documentary about creating balls of light. It is from a series called “Is it Real? Crop Circles”. First they use a plastic bag, then plant seeds, and then at the end they show how balls of light are added with video editing along with some pretty amazing effects on the crop circle.

Creating Balls of Light 8.2MB

Cheers.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthCanHurt

Originally posted by groingrinder
This video would be easy to reproduce in the most mediocre of 3d modeling and rendering software. That should not be enough to condemn it as a hoax, but it sure does nothing to recommend it as real.


The lights would be easy to reproduce but not the synching of the lights to
the background images. Also, when the camera zooms beyond its resolution
the camera movements look exactly like a hand held video camera motion.
That would be very hard to reproduce with CG. If you had a CG filter that had
such an effect as an option then the motion pattern would be recognizable.
Also, the "zoom beyond resolution" (if any common CG program has such a
thing) would also produce a recognizable pattern.

So if you're debunking this video, name the program and the effect. Otherwise,
your statements mean nothing.

[edit on 9-6-2005 by TruthCanHurt]


It could be done in Paint Shop Pro, Corel Photopaint, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe After Effects, Bryce 5, Rhinoceros 3, Amapi 7, Carrara 3, Shade 6, 3DS Max 7, or any number of packages. I am busy with modeling and animation projects at this time or I would duplicate this effort for you. Just because you cannot figure out how to operate the software, does not mean that others cannot.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Here's some additional pix....







The above is a map made by the person who shot the vid.



Some alleged facts about the clip:

- Event took place June 5th, 2005 at 10:14PM

- The camera was a sony dcr-trv series and the steadyshot was on

- The footage was taped from Avondale in the friendship park looking southwest into the mountains (Arizona)

- There were apparently a handful of witnesses (TBA)

In reference to it being CGI, I'm not an authority on the matter but I'll quote another poster from the source website:

blury/pixelated motion effect, perfectly in accordance with the trees and mountain in the background. A pro at dreamwork could do it, of course (using pixel tracking and the like), but that's always the case for any video.
UFO theater forum post - source

Great comments btw guys....debunking or believing, makes for a great debate.


I'll definatly keep an eye on this and post any additioanl info I can find!









[edit on 9-6-2005 by quadricle]



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   
usually the local news covers stuff like this. i havent heard anything about this otherwise, outside of here. i will certainly keep an eye out.

[edit on 9-6-2005 by justdj]



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
Just because you cannot figure out how to operate the software, does not mean that others cannot.


I don't want to get into a pissing contest with you. I just think that
it is reasonable to expect that if you're going to attempt to debunk a piece
of video footage that you offer some sort of concrete theory on how it
was done. I see way too many comments on this site that offer no
intelligent input into the discussion. How many times have we read
the "looks fake to me", "its a photoshop job", type of comments that add
nothing to the discussion.



[edit on 9-6-2005 by TruthCanHurt]



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthCanHurt
... The first video gives no reference point.


I misspoke here. The first video does give a reference point. (the trees)

The focus here seems a little odd. My experience with camcorders is that
at night with no significant scene to focus on they tend to hunt for focus.

In these videos I do not see any "hunt for focus" going on. Perhaps this video
camera is smarter than mine and just sets the focus to somewhere between
10ft and infinity when it can't determine the focus point.

I need to look again for focus hunt. If we see this then this would tend to
make the video more legitimate.

Someone may argue that "focus hunt" could easily be put in with CG.
This is true but I think what we need to consider is not what is possible but
more likely what is probable. Each level of detail requires more and more
time spent on a possible CG fake. Typically CG fakes don't have that many
levels of detail which makes them fairly easy to spot.

While I'm debunking the video that I've been defending I'll add: The CG
text overlay which reads "UFOTheatre.com" and the date and place obviously
indicate a CG overlay post process. So the first question to ask is who did
the text overlay? Was it the same person that shot the live video footage?

Anyone have background information on the video? The source, the editors?



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Must be Yahweh calling this one down.

That is the next evaluation I am waiting to hear... If it is fake, debunkers reproduce it using whatever idea you may think of. Get yourself your handy dandy camera, and go outside and recreate it.

Don't forget the Adobe and Maya video processing software to drop in your CGI work.
I can't make an evaluation but the video was clear and well taped.

Who knows



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Andersonr-
The analysis of lights in any video is impossible. The light itself is not the light as if it were really there...it's the light hitting a CCD in a camcorder. Trying to analyze the lights and do database comparison to determine anything, is like testing a painted portrait of Lincoln for his DNA. It just isnt there.

The lights are not all pulsating at one time. They are flickering. Product of a warm earth and a distance viewed low on horizon. If they were NOT flickering, I'd be suspicious.

Really, coming up with *any* conclusions on an edited, web based video isnt very smart. Compression hides a multitude of sins...lets see this off a raw dub.

[edit on 10-6-2005 by jritzmann]



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Update:

I finally manage to find some additional info corroborating this event, this was found on KTVX Channel 3 in Phoenix that originaly aired the clip:

07:56 PM Mountain Standard Time on Thursday, June 9, 2005
Mysterious video was taken Sunday, June 5 in the West Phoenix area. Videographer Brian Bessent says he captured this strange formation around 10 p.m., looking toward either the Estrella mountains or the White Tank mountains.
source


Videographer Brian Bessent



KTVX Channel 3 site



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Ya know what gets me...the formation is not only in perfect frame (which can be put to him filming long before what we actually see) but one nagging thing to me is that the formation looks almost as if it's face forward to him. Perfect flower petals...just doesnt look too much off of absolute face forward. If it were shaped like a disc, it'd be more eliptical...I dunno just kinda off from what you'd expect to see.

EDIT: Has anyone said yet that he appears to be using a nightshot (not super nightshot which does frame drops) setting? That can have major effects on how the lights appear on the tape. Most likely they were not (by eye) that large.

I'm still not sure it couldnt be a scrim with lasers pointed onto it. There are many animatronic controllers out there....but then again that doesnt explain the scintellation effect, which tells me it's far away on the horizon after a fairly hot day. The wind is adding to the twinkle. Anyone wanna look up a weather report for that day and area?

[edit on 10-6-2005 by jritzmann]

[edit on 10-6-2005 by jritzmann]



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Btw, does anyone wanna persue getting me a copy of the tape? I would love to get ahold of it, but I'm so swamped I just cant take time. I'd be glad to compensate you for time.

[edit on 10-6-2005 by jritzmann]



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
the formation looks almost as if it's face forward to him. Perfect flower petals...just doesnt look too much off of absolute face forward. If it were shaped like a disc, it'd be more eliptical...

I think we are both saying the same thing, except I used Saturns rings as an analogy.


Originally posted by Hal9000
It looks like one main orb in the center, with several smaller orbs surrounding the one in the center. So these smaller orbs are forming an organized circle on a single plane. Think of the planet Saturn and it's rings. From Earth we cannot see the rings flat, because we are not perpendicular to the plane of the rings. I find it highly unlikely that they would film this formation while the plane that the orbs form is facing them almost perfectly. It would be more likely it would be offset like Saturn’s rings.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join