Ray Stantz?!?! You've got to be kidding me?!?!
(sorry couldn't resist)
Anyway, I don't suppose you watched part 2 of that program did you? If so you'll see that David Soroda goes into the depth of field debate with the
cameras. It is here that he shows himself up to not know a lot about video cameras, as well as doing quite an unfair comparison test with the key and
the trees. (I'll only be talking about the tether footage here by the way as that seems to be the stickler
Anyway, the camera is out of focus, simple as really. He claims the tether isn't so that rules out dust/particles that are illuminated (which will
look like glowing orbs out of focus), but it is in fact out of focus. The tether is so out of focus that it actually looks like a huge tube! A
glowing one at that. Nothing in the shot is in focus, hence why everything looks bloated and glowing.
Illuminated objects out of focus look like white orbs, that is a fact. That is what we have here. End of debate really.
But then he dances around that by saying the particles/objects are going behind
the tether. Well, they're not.
in the shot is in focus, it is completely out of focus. Therefore none of the blurry objects within the entire shot would cover
each other up because they're out of focus. The particles appear
to be going behind the tether because the out of focus/blurred tether is
brighter, much brighter. Plus the fact that most of the mass of the particles/objects isn't even there but an illusion of the focus being out of
The black dot will be the actual size of the particle, the mass around it is created by the camera being out of focus. When it looks like it's going
behind the out of focus tether the much brighter tether is just winning the battle of the blurs by being the brightest.
Did you notice that objects that he doesn't claim to be UFO's also blatantly look like they're disappearing behind the tether? Any objects that
pass by it look to be behind, even the objects that he himself would agree are particles.
His comparison is unfair and I suspect he knew this, but did it just to prove his point. First off, none of the objects are out of focus.
Second of all, its day time and the two objects are not emanating light. If he were to put the camera to night vision so that the background became
black and the objects became bright we'd have a much better comparison.
Third, again the tree and key are not emanating light (with the tree being MUCH more brighter) which probably would've shown the theory that it'd
create the illusion of 'passing behind' the further object. Maybe he did this, and upon discovering this fact backed away from it.
And lastly, the serious lack of comparison in distance is horribly unfair. Yes, video does not work in the same way film does when creating depth of
field (depending on f-stops used) but when we're getting into hundreds of miles of course it does! A tree a few hundreds of yards away is a horrible
The footage is intriguing but it didn't blow me away, I could right away see other possibilities for the effect. There's certainly no proof of
alien craft here, just a few maybes as with anything else you've ever seen. I hope I'm wrong, but nothing about this footage proves we're being
[edit on 7-9-2006 by GringoStarr]