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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Compare this video with the video of the phoenix lights. Like this one can see the differences in the videos.




posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Perhaps the Admins can post a "permanent" thread on how to best record UFO's on video and photograph?

Perhaps steps like - cut to yourself after the event is over.

and Perhaps take unedited film immediately to such and such buisness or UFOlogy group for verification.

As these recording technologies continue to go down in cost we should be seeing a linear increase in successfully captured UFO sightings.

Could anyone here - who knows video/photo tech - please give advice on how to best authenticize such a UFO capture?



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Unfortunately, there is no "one" authority for doing authentication of any footage. I know alot of "analyists" who would and have come to far different conclusions then I ever have, one only need look at Gulf Breeze, and the Meier Case. Outcomes vary by whatever "camp" the analyist is from or what school of thought he approaches it with...or if he's being monetarily compensated.

I guess I'm always gonna be on the outs with someone because I dont belong to a camp, nor do I give a crap if a video is legitimate or not, all I want is what the truth of it is. Taking money for any analysis is morally wrong, and it's that damn simple. You should want to do it for the knowledge of it, and any outcome of any analysis should be able to be publicly posted, with detailed methodologies for your outcome.

In shooting any UFO footage, there's always been things I've stressed:

DAYLIGHT:
-Brace against anything you can to steady a hand held cam
-Try not to zoom frequently, one time is fine, then zoom out and leave it alone. Use normal view...not zoomed.
-Try to say the date and time
-If you can capture a stationary object (non moving) within frame with the UFO...do it. A blue sky with a sphere floating in it does nobody any good.
-Use manual focus if object(s) are very distant (and they often are)

NIGHT:
-Brace against anything you can to steady a hand held cam (tripod is great)
-Try not to zoom frequently, one time is fine, then zoom out and leave it alone. A light at night is going to fuzz and flare...no zooming....youre not going to get detail...so forget it. (Unless it's a lighted structured object..in which case get one good closeup look if possible. Stay at a normal view.
-Date and time, again.
--If you can capture a stationary object (non moving) within frame with the UFO...do it. Again, a light against black isnt much good for anything. Reference has to be there. (It also aids in location verification)
-Manual focus. If you want to use auto focus, and have time to switch, say out loud "switching to manual focus"/"switching to auto focus" Dont do this at risk of getting no shot at all....if youre getting it good...stay with it.

But ya know what, more often then not, you dont have enough time to consider all this. The focus and reference points are the biggest help. Stop with the zooms...zooming on something you cant make out thinking it'll make it better...isnt going to work.
Remember, you aint got gobs of time usually with these things...zooming can cost you big when the opportunity presents itself.

In my opinion, this latest Pheonix footage detailed in this thread (from what I can see of it) is shot pretty solid. The view is good, few zooms, and fairly steady cam. But ya know what, it's night, and I'm fairly certain (without talking to shooter) that he may have used a night shot setting.

Hope this helps...bottom line, shoot it like you see it if you were standing there. Even trees and telephone pole are important.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Is there any one here from Phoenix, Arizona and oif there is, did you see these lights? It will be a pity if this is a fake, but we must find out!



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
My 1st post.... So let me start like this... This place is simply awesome! I myself do believe in UFO and extra terrestrial life but have never seen one or the other with my own eye.

I'm shocked to see how so many users believe that this video is real. I'm new here but was lurking for some time. I just had to join up to give you all proof that this and some other videos are FAKES! (created with home CG Programs like some of the privies users said " Adobe After Effects / Digital Fusion

As soon as I have a little time to wast I will be posting shots from this video that will make it clear to you all. As a new member to this site I have had my eye on this thread and "Prophet Yahweh Maybe Real UFO?? Footage. " This Prophet Yahwah guy has to be the biggest UFO faker ever!!! this guy is a real trickster! Hines the name PROPHET! $$$

Menacer out!



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Well, if you can determine this from internet based video, youre better than 100% of the analysts out there.

Please, take my job. I wanna do watercolors on the beach to sell to tourists.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
the dude above said meier-case!

please dont do that, my brain cannot cope with that b#+!*&§t anymore. at least call it what it is, it is a hoax not a case.

see admins, i learned. i did not use bad words in response to someone mentioning billy meier, but you can warn me anyway if it makes you happy.

back to topic: amazing footage, wish i could believe it is real but i say it is fake because at second 30 the cam shakes to the left a bit and the lights also do, i think that was what the guy with the gif meant!?

and finaly thanks for the guy posting the vid of the cropcircle, that was very interresting to watch, though i never doubted its fakiness too.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   


I'm shocked to see how so many users believe that this video is real. I'm new here but was lurking for some time. I just had to join up to give you all proof that this and some other videos are FAKES!


We would all enjoy your insight ........




This Prophet Yahwah guy has to be the biggest UFO faker ever!!! this guy is a real trickster! Hines the name PROPHET! $$$



Although i agree this guy is a fraud and the nut cases are coming out of the wood work but i truly hope your insight into video is better then your understanding of English. First the word is hence not hines second the word prophet does not mean for monetary gain it has a few definitions none of which have to do with money. The word your looking for is profit , personally i wouldn't take so much offense to this grammar mistake but my real name is Prophet.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Yes please excuse my English and grammar. But I will still attempt to get my point across.. And thanks much for the schooling.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Ok well here we go... there is so much in this video that screams fake I don't even know where to start. I will start with something easy that I think most people will understand. If you have the video on your computer load it up and take a look at around 30 sec he cuts.. Why? Because there is meager camera shake. His tracking software probably had a hard time holding his CG lights ( If thats what you want to call them ) with the frame.

He has the lights tracked to the hard to see mountain in the background witch is a perfect object for tracking software to mountain and hold a track on any image or 3D object you would like to add in your video.

Next! Go to 38 sec in the video... This is where he gets busted... He zooms in on the lights so you can get a good look of the outline. If you advance frame by frame ALL of the lights have the same EXACT shape that changes frame by frame and this goes on till the end of the video...

Basically all of the lights are the same graphic image sequence and he cloned scaled / stretched / repositioned even added more glow effect to the center light.

He did a overall ok job on this fake but he was a little lazy and slipped in a couple of spots. I have pics that I edited / removed fields so that you can clearly see and understand what I'm talking about.. So if someone could tell me how to add them or would like me to E-mail them to you please help.

jritzmann - You will never see the original tape... If you do it will be real easy to tell how fake the CG lights are. Also I already have your job


I still have a LOT of ammunition for this fake.


[edit on 13-6-2005 by menacer]



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Interesting! I would just like to say that I think it's possibal that they all change at the same time, I meen, it IS a UFO.

I'm interested in these pics. You can e-mail them to me at cownosecat@gmail.com and I'll post them here, or go to photobucket.com and make your own free image account.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by quadricle


Additional video


well, i do not have any comments on the 1st video,
thats better left to the CGI analysts/officenadios here on ats.

but on the 2nd video,,, heres my take on it...
look at this map here

anyhow, Avondale...almost 10 miles West of Phoenix...is almost due South of Luke Air Force Base...and the video appears to be directed at WSW of Avondale
-> which is the location of the Goldwater (target) Range, just beyond those mountains!!!

i sorta figure those points of light are only the engine exhausts of missles shot from fighters that were doing
'live-fire-practice=exercises'!!!

the voice tends to direct you(i.e. suggest) into a false reality, such as the comment about 5 sighted points-of-light.....when there was actually 7, if you bothered to count those points-of-light(UFOs) during your 'witnessing episode'...and basically were; Told-What-You-Are-Seeing-By-The-Commentator.....


i rate video #2 (see link) as a 1% probability of being unidentified phenomena...............imho










[edit on 9-6-2005 by quadricle]



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   
THANKS cownosecat!

OK... So here is pic one.. See how all the lights have the EXACT same shape.., with the exception of some being stretched vertically or horizontally.




If you cant see it let me give you a little help. In this next pic all I did was draw one outline and copied that one outline over the other lights.. I stretched the outline to fit the light just as he did to make the lights.



I also did this on the next frame... The outline shape changes on each frame but all lights have the same EXACT shape. In video 2 real lights would never have the EXACT same shape if you where to zoom in on them. yet there are 8 lights in this video that do???



Now this is where the magic happings... I will fill in my red outlines to make them solid and add a blur to my balls of light just as he did and you will see what I get.



Walla.... Perfect fit.. Keep in mind that the objects I made are all the same.
I did this in photoshop 1 frame at a time.. But you can do this just as easy with a (HOME) video editing program for video 1000's of frames at a time.

Here is the next frame.. without my lines... Can you see how all the lights change shape from the last frame but each light is exactly the same shape. Also note how he has his the glow intensity of the center light bumped up to 25% just to make it look defrent...




You do this in video to simulate a bright light. What you get is a little blob that changes shape so fast that it flickers like its glowing candle light. If you where to record 5 candles and pause the video and zoom in on each candle light there might be a chance that 1 looked like the other but theres no way that all 5 candles would change to the exact same shape every frame. Yet this video has a good 3000 frames of matching lights.

Its funny how people are quick to defend this simple video with CG lights added to it. If I showed you some shots from killer movies with awesome CGI ships crated by top notch VFX artiest and told you it was real what would you say? Startrek , Starwars ?? Take a look at the movie " Close Encounters Of The Third Kind " You might think thats real also??? Or not why because you know its a movie? LOL






[edit on 13-6-2005 by menacer]



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Some how I missed this second video... I just now looked at it and I'm now 300% sure his hoaxer.. If you look at his liens flairs there shaking this is because his tracking software is having a hard time tracking the video image. especially the last on shakes from left to right I know because I work with software like this and have the same problem with a image thats not 1st stabilized. Or its just a wounded ufo... mmm K..., Nice try Jeff..,



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 12:50 AM
link   
I'll never see the original? Funny I just got a reply saying I have a copy coming.

Menacer-If said objects were all of the same lumin., then they would react the same in lens. The shape of the light is not more then how the light is "seen" by the camera. This is no proof of any cloned or duped objects or lights.

The "flicker" you point to as a CG artifact, appears alot more like scintellation. This would cause all the lights to behave in the same "flicker" at the same rate, due to close proximity of eachother.

I think if you had my job, you'd know this.

All conclusions better left til more pointed data arrives for study. Thats really the bottom line.

[edit on 14-6-2005 by jritzmann]



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 02:15 AM
link   
jritzmann

1st off I'm talking about the 1st video thats in this post... Anyways jritzmann for a Slayer of Hoaxes you seem to be pretty defensive about this WEB video... Second you don't know me or what I do so please don't try to tell me what I do for work. And about that flicker... I did not say its a CG artifact... Its what you do in the CG world to simulate the way REAL light effects a camera lenz in th real world..,


MMM can't wait till you get that tape... If you don't mind I would like one myself.. Would be happy to pay for the cost. And trust me if its any deferent from the 1st web video I already downloaded ... As in replaced light objects made for TV resolution I can tell..

I'm a believer and would LOVE for that tape to be real... But you expect me to just say its real win I can tell clearly that its the worst CG job I've ever seen... Just look at the tracking!!!!!! All the lights are perfectly still / stuck to each other yet there all sliding on the video backdrop frames. Also with that dark a$$ hill top and 8 lights bright enough to add bloom to the camera lenz your telling me the hill would not have some type of lighting??? And please don't give me that behind the hill crap. In my line of work I don't think anyone would pay $10 to air this video... not even the Frickin!!!!!!! news on a day without news!!!!



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I think you misread. I have said nothing but that it looks good, and I wanna see more. It looks consistent with what I'd expect.

Dont tell you it's behind the hill? Why not, may I ask. If scintellation is happening, it's FAR past that hill. Way far.

You negate to mention the "bloom" can be caused by a night-shot setting, which seems apparent by the tint and tree monochromatic look. I havent gone deep into looking at the web video, but I dont see any evidence of "sliding" altho I'll look more.

If you insinuate that the lights are capped objects such as a flame or whatever, then why is it the video resolution lines match the original backplate? Sure, might ascribed to the web compression, but you nor anyone else can know that without viewing and studying the dub or the original tape.

I dont have any more faith in this video then the mexico city footage of the large disc in the city...until I see more. Until I see a good dub.

But, I certainly dont dismiss as you do out of hand based on information you dont take into account...without even viewing a dub. Based on what I see now, with what we have now, it looks significant enough to warrent more study. Thats what I'm saying. I perfer this not get into a personal issue with "you dont know what I do"...you have no idea either. Nor my prior history of exposing hoaxes...believe me, I'll find it if it's there.

But, you are mentioning things that are not definitive. That are more likely then not, camera artifacts or web compression artifacts...and flat out ignore other issues that dont fly.

Lets just wait and see.

[edit on 14-6-2005 by jritzmann]



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I would also like to add that it's plausable that they all change there shape to the exact same shape because they are UFO's and they just do that.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   
The question I ask is; What agencies, departments, installattions were contacted regarding this "authentic pre-Wal-Mart footage?" This would make it to a few local broadcasts as a filler on a slow news day, right? Credibility of the hosting site seems iffy as well. No one more than I would like at least one or two of these to pan out as genuine/real, but the odds are in favor of the hoaxsters who pray on people like us. There's also the possibility of "OJ Syndrome," where you begin believing your own fabrications.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by menacer
OK... So here is pic one.. See how all the lights have the EXACT same shape.., with the exception of some being stretched vertically or horizontally.


Ya know, the other day I drove by the car dealership and saw an entire row
of objects that looked exactly the same. I then knew that I must be looking
at CG because how else could so many objects look exactly the same?




Originally posted by menacer
If you cant see it let me give you a little help. In this next pic all I did was draw one outline and copied that one outline over the other lights.. I stretched the outline to fit the light just as he did to make the lights.

I also did this on the next frame... The outline shape changes on each frame but all lights have the same EXACT shape. In video 2 real lights would never have the EXACT same shape if you where to zoom in on them. yet there are 8 lights in this video that do???


Really?, "real lights would never have the EXACT same shape"? You know,
I'm pretty sure those objects I saw at the car dealership would look exactly
the same at night with their lights turned on. Again must be CG???



Originally posted by menacer
Walla.... Perfect fit.. Keep in mind that the objects I made are all the same.
I did this in photoshop 1 frame at a time.. But you can do this just as easy with a (HOME) video editing program for video 1000's of frames at a time.


Okay, since it is so easy and you seem to think you are an expert at this then
show us your video. It should only take a few minutes of your time, right?

menacer, you make the mistake of thinking that many of us are ignorant
with CG and video. I think you'll find there are more than a few of us that
know both in great detail.


Originally posted by menacer
You do this in video to simulate a bright light. What you get is a little blob that changes shape so fast that it flickers like its glowing candle light. If you where to record 5 candles and pause the video and zoom in on each candle light there might be a chance that 1 looked like the other but theres no way that all 5 candles would change to the exact same shape every frame. Yet this video has a good 3000 frames of matching lights.


Again, I think you're wrong here. The video does not show shape changing
CG lights that appear to re-size in sync. It shows a scintillation effect as
jritzmann has already pointed out. It is consistent with high winds kicking
up dust. If you look through a mile of two of atmosphere filled with dust then
lights are going to flicker in sync. The video shows that there is a lot of wind.

Most of us know that it is possible to create just about any type of effect
you want to with CG. If you want to PROVE CG though, you'll have to come
up with something more concrete than, "they're all the same size" or "I can
do that with my home program" type of comments. We want science damnit.







 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join