Looks like a fresh one to debunk

Anyone care to debunk this one? Shouldn't take long as it looks a bit too good.


www.youtube.com...

It looks like amateurish CG to me.

About 1/3 into the clip the saucer shakes like the artist made an error.

Hi jbondo, yep, I think this video has been trashed before. It's a pretty good fake if you ask me. The first time I saw it, I was impressed.

Thats not a Seagull!.

Only thing I find not quite right is the way the clouds move so quickly half way through the clip.

Looks interesting though.

Looks good to me...
Haven't ever seen it before...

it is either a UFO of the alien type, or a HOAX...
there is no gray area on this one...

If it isn't a hoax, then it ought to be studied, due to the preaccelleration of the vehicle. It "bumps" up, and then goes forward...

It does look a little lighter than the surrounding sky, like a black and white object being superimposed on a color image, but not bad...

Someone spent some time with an editor, or someone got lucky...

Ok maybe it is just me but if you follow this thing until it disappears into the trees on the right then you may notice something. You can follow it for a while through the gaps in the trees and then it disappears all of a sudden, like someone got bored drawing it through the gaps. As i said you can follow it for a while but then it goes suddenly.

I wish i could download this thing instead of having to watch it in flash player! Maybe i could take a better look then.

Looks good to me too. UFO's have been observed to shake before as they are not designed to deal with aerodynamic issues and thus our environmental conditions affect their flying at low speeds.

The disk was also slowly spinning which is also common in observing these kind of craft. There is no way that this was CGI, at best it would have been a model, but the model would have had a number of motions that would have been difficult to replicate

How about this video I found at the same site:

UFO video

I gave up on youtube because their flash compression murdered my work.

This is the guys profile:

www.youtube.com...

somebody with more time and energy than me could send him a message and request the originals...

anunaqi has a few other ufo/alien movies up there... the Video From A Military Camera (full version) 1997 is kinda cool..


hmmm... my daughter has turned one of our potted plants into mud pies here in the living room... and now she seems to be getting bored with that...

soooo

we're off to have a bath and then do some mopping.

rock on
twj

Looks like a test render composite, the dark levels dont match, the camera matching is pretty bad, and you can see the alpha masking edge on the tree edge when the disc intersects. (Nevermind the statement already made about the disc not rendered in between the fine edges of the trees) The jumping is bad keyframes, a common mistake for beginners.

Looks most assuradly CG.

(Nevermind the statement already made about the disc not rendered in between the fine edges of the trees)

Don't just dismiss my view dude. Remember that some poeple may not see the technical details. I thought my point was valid.

Slinks away feeling very hurt

Originally posted by jritzmann
Looks like a test render composite, the dark levels dont match, the camera matching is pretty bad, and you can see the alpha masking edge on the tree edge when the disc intersects. (Nevermind the statement already made about the disc not rendered in between the fine edges of the trees) The jumping is bad keyframes, a common mistake for beginners.

Looks most assuradly CG.

What problem with the disk intersecting the tree edge? I'm not seeing it. If you are an expert on CGI then please put up some images for us and educated us. The disk from start to finish is behind the tree line and I see no visible effects to indicate it was added as a background.

No problem, when I get home, I'll do some grabs and show ya.

Well, i kinda find strange how it kinda shakes up and down some time before it accelerates.But, at the start, and it comes from the trees, the location of it seems very realistic.I'm gonna try to explain myself.You can see the UFO with a tree on the front, and other on the back, and it looks pretty realistic.
I'm not sure if i'm explaining myself well, sorry.

Ok, til I do, here's the easy one.

The tree at right is out of mask with the disc. It's alpha channeled environment material doesnt interact at exactly the right time, probably due to user error.

You'll see in one frame the tree behind the leading edge of the disc...



and then when the mistake is noted, they try and correct it:



Still, you can see the fine dots of white, that shouldnt be there, but they are due to poor masking. Now add the camera matching errors, the fact that the disc isnt seen moving thru the fine little openings of the trees at far right, and you got a average CG composite.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

(Nevermind the statement already made about the disc not rendered in between the fine edges of the trees)

Don't just dismiss my view dude. Remember that some poeple may not see the technical details. I thought my point was valid.

Slinks away feeling very hurt

Dude, you totally misread me, I'm adding you into the already long list of why this isnt anything but a CG job. Youre 100% correct, I aint dissin' ya.

Originally posted by jritzmann
Ok, til I do, here's the easy one.

The tree at right is out of mask with the disc. It's alpha channeled environment material doesnt interact at exactly the right time, probably due gto user error.

You'll see in one frame the tree behind the leading edge of the disc...



Still, you can see the fine dots of white, that shouldnt be there, but they are due to poor masking. Now add the camera matching errors, the fact that the disc isnt seen moving thru the fine little openings of the trees at far right, and you got a average CG composite.

Still not seeing it man, the first image looks good to me. You will really have to blow it up to see it I assume.

The quality of the rendering is very good in this video since most high cost movies in Hollywood (eg. Starwars), are still not making CGI images 100% believable.

That is why I say that at worst this is a model but I even doubt that because of the size and the various rotations and movements here which would be very difficult to replicate. Also the motions are in line with the observations of many ufo reports I've seen.

Obviously the video could still be fake but if it is it is quite a good one and it would need more analysis done on it. Besides we don't know much about where it came from etc.

This looks like a simple composite job with some errors in motion tracking. Probably using Adobe Premiere or After Effects. Note how the UFO bobbles when its traveling on the left side of the screen. This is an error in the tracking computation. The editor could have cleaned up the stray key frames but decided instead to leave them in and render the scene out.

The reason people are posting fake CG stuff is because they are tired of the blurry night lights and puny metalic dots in the daylight. I personaly don't blame them. C'mon we all want to see the big rounds metal discs of yester-year.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by nullster]

The faults you describe in the motion may well be issues with using CGI but again many observers of UFO's say they have seen this effect. Other than that I don't see the other problems that have been mentioned here.

The idea that people should make fake UFO vids so that it will somehow encourage real ones is illogical I think because look at the ridicule people face now bringing stuff forward. The fake stuff makes it even riskier for an honest person to show what they have since the automatic reaction is to attack whatever people see first with no thought behind it.

Some have suggested that this is a composite job, then what are the components here and where would they UFO itself come from then?

Well, I cannot help those who refuse to see.

If you cannot see the obvious errors, especially the overlap of a bad mask job on the trees in th first shot, there's no amount of anything to convince you.

I think in another post you ragged someone for their belief system interferring with what they categorize as a hoax. Is it possible your might suffer the reverse of that same affliction in judgement.

No ill will intended, but like I said, if you cannot see the overlap of the disc on the tree, then youre not looking with the intent to see it.

Originally posted by jritzmann
Well, I cannot help those who refuse to see.

If you cannot see the obvious errors, especially the overlap of a bad mask job on the trees in th first shot, there's no amount of anything to convince you.

I think in another post you ragged someone for their belief system interferring with what they categorize as a hoax. Is it possible your might suffer the reverse of that same affliction in judgement.

No ill will intended, but like I said, if you cannot see the overlap of the disc on the tree, then youre not looking with the intent to see it.

You have more expertise than many of the rest of us here, then please show some blowups then because I am not seeing the masking you are talking about here and I'm not taking anybody's word on it either.

In regards my views on UFO's I have personally seen them so I believe, my question to you is this: what are your beliefs on this subject since it may have bearing on how you analyze this video.

Once again if the masking is there then make it more apparent to people because it is not obvious to me. Furthermore, now you have dropped the issue of the movement of the ufo for some reason. You probably realize that it has nothing to do with whether the vid is real or not, as I suggested on a few ocassions now.


[edit on 20-3-2006 by denythestatusquo]