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.

 

CGI killing real UFO sightings. Take a look at this Australia video.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   
I found a couple of New UFO sightings from Australia which in my point of view are totaly CGI. I could be wrong, but have a pretty good Fakeometer. Lately, there have been a number of whell done CGI ufo clips. Pretty soon, we will not be able to tell the difference between real and fake. UFO pics and film will be noncredible and people will view ALL ufo sightings as faked or CGI even if they are not. God help us all, the ufo video clip and pic are going into extinction.


What can be done? Nothing.


Here see this video here


More ufo fakes here at Australian UFO wave



[edit on 30-7-2006 by Cabanman]




posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cabanman I could be wrong, but have a pretty good Fakeometer. Lately, there have been a number of whell done CGI ufo clips. Pretty soon, we will not be able to tell the difference between real and fake.

What can be done? Nothing.


Another tool for the governments disinfo teams.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cabanman
Pretty soon, we will not be able to tell the difference between real and fake.

To be honest, we cant do that today and hasnt been able to for the last 5+ years. Most CGI fakes are probably done by a single person with "internet hobby" knowledge of 3D enviroments and rendering.

If a proffessional CGI company would spend millions on making a UFO scene, you wouldnt be able to tell if its a fake or not. The evidence is in the movies. Hell come to think of it, they did a pretty good job in Star Wars quite a while ago without CGI


[edit on 30-7-2006 by merka]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by merka
Most CGI fakes are probably done by a single person with "internet hobby" knowledge of 3D enviroments and rendering.


Do they even have to bother with rendering? Isn't it more a matter simply of compositing two or more layers of video (i.e. overlaying a layer of a real environment/witness on top of a layer which has a light/ufo moving about in a 3D environment)?

Has anyone seen any detailed descriptions of how any existing CGI video fakes have been put together or the software used? Do we have anyone on this Forum experienced with, say, Adobe After Effects that could comment on the level of skill required to fake such videos, and the mechanics of how they go about it (and how the application of such methods can be detected from a video)?

Perhaps members with some expertise with CGI and After Effects etc can at least point us at interesting articles, such as the one below?

www.rense.com...

[edit on 30-7-2006 by IsaacKoi]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   
I hate hoaxters. They have ruinded everything, now everything UFO will be labeled as fake and crap. Is there hope on the other end? No, All is lost.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   
CGI fakes and genuine sightings may be undistinguishable to the untrained eye, but there will always be a way to find out. Professionals with computer software can break down the video's data to determine whether somehting was added, removed, etc.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainKirk
CGI fakes and genuine sightings may be undistinguishable to the untrained eye, but there will always be a way to find out. Professionals with computer software can break down the video's data to determine whether somehting was added, removed, etc.

But what if those proffessionals with computer software was the ones that made the video


There is no doubt in my mind that a crew with good computers, a ton of money and lots of skilled people could create something that would fool even the trained eyes.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   
It might fool your eye but not the computer.

Photo analysts can take apart a digital image or video and can determine based on its data whether it was edited.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Yeah if it wasnt for the good people analysing these vidoes and pictures then we wouldnt have any idea if these are graphical or real objects, Well some of them I should say. But again, That costs time in knowing how to determine whether the image is edited or just one captured shot.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Given the present state of technology available, some people may make what they want without any evidence that it is a fake, it is only a matter of time or money, if they have the time they can do it with little money, if they have enough money they can do it in little time.

And I do not think that we can in any way know if it is a fake or not.

If I was to make a fake that looked like a real movie maybe I would make a high-definition video that would be projected in a high quality screen. That movie would filmed by a "normal" video camera, and the result, if analysed, would show that it was a real video made by that camera.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainKirk
It might fool your eye but not the computer.

Photo analysts can take apart a digital image or video and can determine based on its data whether it was edited.


i agree with you 100%

the problem is (and i dont think it has happened yet) somebody will eventually reverse engineer that. then they will be able to fake anything.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
im not sure why everyone is writing thses off as cgi. has anyone done any tests to prove or disprove either way?



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 01:20 AM
link   
IMO these sighting look real, I have seen many and many cgi created ufo sightings and these seem to be real. As u said, cgi is getting every increasingly better and complex and it just doesn't rule out a ufo sighting such as these. If you come to Ufo sighting with an already preconcieved notion if that it is too really it is cgi then you will be very shorthanded to the real ones compared to the fakes. I'd advised u to not use ufo fake to describe videos of sightings you have saw becauseyou do not know that they are indeed fake.

[edit on 31-7-2006 by Revelmonk]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 04:29 AM
link   

but have a pretty good Fakeometer


Well.. you talk about fake videos making people think all videos containing unidentified flying objects are fake. Well.. arent they?

To my knowledge so far, no one has ever put forth a picture that isent obvious fake, or that wasent debunked later or showed to be like 747 or so.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Isaac Koi, you don´t need 3D but it makes it easier because you are in better control of the elements. Sometimes people underestimate the complexity of 2D compositing. If your elements don´t line up you got lots of work ahead of you as opposed to rendering out the pieces you need. Browse through cgtalk.com or any other major board and you will find a batalion of people skilled and more than willing to make this stuff for the fun of it.

That said, i will not completly disregard UFO footage but it has to be seen as an element in context with other things.

1. Good UFO footage - nah, interesting but...well, you know, probably fake.
2. Good UFO footage and a witness - getting better but still...
3. Good UFO footage and separate multiple witnesses - yeah, now we´re talking...
4. Good UFO footages of the same object along with multiple witnesses and perhaps some physical mark on the ground due to a landing or smiliar - now it´s really getting gooood!

Just to illustrate my point, footage/video/still images are still important but no longer as a standalone piece of evidence.

About software and the tech, first thing needed is skill and interest, if you don´t put down the countless hrs of passionate work/learning there isn´t a piece of software in the world that can save you. Once you got a fairly good grasp of things you can do it with free software, a free 3D application like blender does what you need and it really is a snap to do.

Once things go digital it´s very hard to separate the truth from the hoax. Not saying it´s impossible because impossible is a very strong word. A pixel is a pixel...one square filled with a solid color/luminance value. Here´s a thing for those of you who got Photoshop, find a still image from any of the latest Star Wars movies, find a really poor image you have snapped with you digital camera, zoom into both images 1600% and have them side by side...can you separate the poor image from the hollywood magic?

[edit on 31-7-2006 by tomra]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 06:52 AM
link   
I do work in the FX industry, it simply isn't easy to fool the human eye as we all know.
Some things to check for.

Camera movement is it organized or too precise(dead give away), this simplifies camera tracking, or is it more random or handheld (much harder to deal with).
Zooming is very tricky. Generally the more erradic the camera the more work you have, camera matching is excruciating if not prepared for. Even with the best software. Look at the camera mans actions and reactions.

Motion blur does it match with the object and enviroment, also any focusing of the camera does it match?
video noise does it match?

Check if the object passes behind anything this would have to be masked out in compositing, especially if it moves behind sparse foliage see how natural and clean it appears. although some camera artifacting can give wierd artifacts here sometimes under low light or hi speed.

Also the obvious light and shadow if any, this is hard to replicate well, the points of lights are an easier option.

Look for fringing on the object signs of compositing especially if the object has motion blur, although some cameras can show fringing under bad circumstances.

I've seen the videos, none of them stand out as being obviously fake.
I'm no photoanalyst all I'm saying is it's really hard to pull off reality well.

Hope that helps in making up your own mind.







[edit on 31-7-2006 by EB_GB]

[edit on 31-7-2006 by EB_GB]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 07:09 AM
link   
I don't see that these are necesarily faked.
I think the aerodynamic looking one could be some sort of military craft, there has been similar sightings of this type before.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I think they're interesting to look at, but it would certainly be foolish to consider them as anything other than just more bits of data that mean nothing by themselves but might add up to something later on.

As for them being hoaxes or not, I'm sure it's possible for somebody using professional equipment to break them down to data and see what they're made of. But most people aren't looking at the original footage, just the Quicktime dubs, so what we see is what we get. New Zealand certainly has a very active movie industry, and plenty of people honed their special effects skills on those Lord of the Rings films.

But we've had relatively clear UFO footage for 50 years, and it doesn't mean much of anything without additional witnesses, additional footage from another source, physical material to back it up, official verification of the material, the footage, anything else, including a piece of the ship, a real, working ship, dead aliens, live aliens, the whole thing reported live on CNN, the President or Prime Minister verifying it's real, etc. Then MAYBE it could mean something and we could all accept that it's real.

At this point, though, it's just interesting pictures to look at that may be "fake" or "real," but it doesn't really matter one way or another because none of the other evidence is there to back them up.

I would like to see one of these things in the videos fly in from a distance, land, aliens get out, hand an artifact to a recognizable person or group of people, and either fly off or stick around for interviews. I haven't seen that one yet, and it would be pretty hard to fake.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Several years ago, I came across a ghost hunter's web site (I'm embarrassed to say I don't remember whose,) that stressed their rules regarding what media were used to record "evidence."

There were adamant that no digital equipment be used; all recording was to be done on VHS tape, 35mm still camera film stock, 8mm or 16 mm film camera stock, etc.

This rule was to help ensure the public unimpeachability of their product -- not as a 100% guarantee, but at least as some degree of defense against being accused of CGI or the relative ease of manipulating digital material.

The upshot was that these people maintained a pretty high standard of credibility, at least by the standards of their particular community.

It's always occurred to me that the UFO researching community, as disorganized and fractious as it might be, would do well to establish some similar standards, if for nothing else than peer-reviewed material, much less camcorder cassettes being promptly fired off to a local TV news organization.

Just a thought...

Baack


Toc

posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cabanman
I hate hoaxters. They have ruinded everything, now everything UFO will be labeled as fake and crap. Is there hope on the other end? No, All is lost.


There is hope. Educate yourself, search for the truth and then educate the people around you that trust you. That's how you spread it.

That is what i have set myself to do. I'll educate myself then spread the information to relatives and friends.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join