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.

 

Check this (UFO) video out.

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by JackJuice

I Salute your Skepticism
, My video must be pretty good for you to us this line so i will accept it as a compliment.


Your video is excellent dude! I salute your skill with video imaging. Quite amazing. But I really am not an expert on the computer graphics so I need to learn more about it. I know that some amazing effects can be achieved through it. However, some films have been made of ufos before there was digital video. Some of those films were made using nothing but old 8mm film cameras and yet the quality of the images and their movements were at least as good as the images you produced. That is enough to convince me.


Seriously though, how does me proving that the youtube account is mine prove whether the video is fake or not? I could of easily gotten that video somewhere else and just posted it to my youtube account.


You're absolutely right. Your having the account does NOT prove the video is fake or real. But it lends much more credence to your claim that it is fake. At some point the balance tilts toward believing rather than disbelieving what you say. Once you prove that the account is yours, it would become more like cynicism than skepticism to disbelieve you, though there can still be some question. After all, isn't there still some way that you could take a piece of video with a ufo in it and digitally remove it from the video? As I indicated above, I am not too familiar with the methods for special effects through data manipulation on digital video, but it does seem to me that any digital image could be easily "erased" from digital photos and videos. I guess if you did such a thing we could only find out about it if the person who originally taped the ufo on video were to spot the clip on youtube and file some kind of complaint that you were falsely claiming that you made the video which had been made by him.


So I decided to take it step further than just proving the account. I have just recently posted the source footage of the video to my youtube account. As you can see there is no UFO there. It was all an act, and the UFO was composited in.

Source Footage

Well there you have it, I await your responce SkyWay.

[edit on 12/10/2006 by JackJuice]


Indeed, you took it far enough to completely remove any doubts I had that the account containing the video is yours. The verdict is in, and you have been found truthful!


[edit on 10-12-2006 by SkyWay]




posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkyWay

Your video is excellent dude! I salute your skill with video imaging. Quite amazing. But I really am not an expert on the computer graphics so I need to learn more about it. I know that some amazing effects can be achieved through it. However, some films have been made of ufos before there was digital video. Some of those films were made using nothing but old 8mm film cameras and yet the quality of the images and their movements were at least as good as the images you produced. That is enough to convince me.


Thank you for your compliments. As for the stuff done in 8mm film, well there has been image manipulation since there have been images. There are ways of faking 8mm film that are even easier than what I have done. In the film Industry they are called in camera effects. The early star wars used In Camera effects. Always remember images can Lie. That being said it doesn't mean that all video's are fake. However I've yet to see one that convinces me that it is real.



Originally posted by SkyWay

You're absolutely right. Your having the account does NOT prove the video is fake or real. But it lends much more credence to your claim that it is fake. At some point the balance tilts toward believing rather than disbelieving what you say. Once you prove that the account is yours, it would become more like cynicism than skepticism to disbelieve you, though there can still be some question. After all, isn't there still some way that you could take a piece of video with a ufo in it and digitally remove it from the video? As I indicated above, I am not too familiar with the methods for special effects through data manipulation on digital video, but it does seem to me that any digital image could be easily "erased" from digital photos and videos. I guess if you did such a thing we could only find out about it if the person who originally taped the ufo on video were to spot the clip on youtube and file some kind of complaint that you were falsely claiming that you made the video which had been made by him.


So I decided to take it step further than just proving the account. I have just recently posted the source footage of the video to my youtube account. As you can see there is no UFO there. It was all an act, and the UFO was composited in.

Source Footage

Well there you have it, I await your responce SkyWay.

[edit on 12/10/2006 by JackJuice]


Indeed, you took it far enough to completely remove any doubts I had that the account containing the video is yours. The verdict is in, and you have been found truthful!


[edit on 10-12-2006 by SkyWay]


I've been considering borrowing a Microphone from someone and doing a complete how to video on how i made that. I am increasingly finding how important it is that people understand how easily these video's can be made. I think it's important that we not take them at face value but are far more critical than we currently are.

Yes it is possible that i can digitally remove an object from a video clip. I assure you though that is much more work than actually putting the UFO into the clip


Also if your interest, in my thread which you can find in my signature I give a somewhat detailed explination of how I made the video.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Wow nice find, and thanks David Spore for sharing the videos.

They're definately 100% real, the first one looks like a plane, but the second and third?!? what the hell?



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Just from viewing the videos of what he saw, they did look pretty authentic, no immediate reason to declare hoax or fraud.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 04:38 AM
link   
The first video could have been anything. The second clip I found really interesting and there is no way in my opinion that it was a cloud.

The night video at the end I think was definately fake. I have seen quite a few videos of the fast moving UFO's that are so obviously faked the Japanese one for a start that disappears at the end and that one caused a right storm.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I'm not sure I'm going to add anything of value to this topic so far, but as someone who has been trained in interogation, there are a couple of facts that speak louder to me than the footage.

First, as someone else pointed out earlier, his life seems a bit bemused by the whole issue. Her enthusiasm extends to, "well, I saw something, but I had to go to work..." She's also a public official, which could explain why she's taking a hands-off approach to her husband. It would be very interesting to see if these two are still married.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, is he's described as an out-of-work photographer. That right there should dictate skepticism by everyone. Let's face it, there is a ton of motivation to somehow fake UFO footage -- or even work the camera to capture completely natural or explainable sightings and tweek the way its filmed to make it sufficiently unexplicable -- in order to build a name for yourself in the UFO community. The payoff can be astounding (Stanton Friedman, Dan Burisch, Greer, etc. to name just a few who have made careers off of UFO believers).

As for the videos, I think the opening clip is clearly an airplane in superzoom so its blurred. But if you look closely, you can see the hazy shades of wings from either side of the craft with blinking lights.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
The First ufo appeared to be real, the second, disk, appeared to be a hologram. The third, at the end appreared to be real.

I would urge all those researching this UFO experiance, not to come to conclutions prematurly, especially if you havent research ancient texts for clues.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
The First ufo appeared to be real, the second, disk, appeared to be a hologram. The third, at the end appreared to be real.

I would urge all those researching this UFO experiance, not to come to conclutions prematurly, especially if you havent research ancient texts for clues.


Ancient texts? What does that have to do with this man's alleged UFO videos?

All Seeing, I am not here to personally flame you, but I have to take exception to that comment and hold it up as an example of why Ufology as a whole gets such a bad wrap. We can't take a "sighting" at face value and analyze it without wrapping everything we do or say in mysticism, Gods and demons, transdimensional warfare, Area 51 conspiracies and what not.

I mean, I get berrated on here regularly for being such a skeptic and dismissing everything. But it's more than fair to say we have our share of members who see a video and immediately declare the sighting as genuine evidence of Thor driving his celestial stallions across the heavens with a bunch of grey from Area 51.

If the debunkers sometimes lack for scientific reasoning behind their dismissal of "evidence," then the supports seriously lack reality behind their championing of those claims.

And in the end, it's why books on UFOs or any published work that attempts to seriously delve into the subject matter gets packaged with the Occult books at Barnes & Noble or why publications like Popular Science and Discovery will forever pooh-pooh the topic.

[edit on 11-12-2006 by behindthescenes]



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by JackJuice

Thank you for your compliments. As for the stuff done in 8mm film, well there has been image manipulation since there have been images. There are ways of faking 8mm film that are even easier than what I have done. In the film Industry they are called in camera effects. The early star wars used In Camera effects. Always remember images can Lie. That being said it doesn't mean that all video's are fake. However I've yet to see one that convinces me that it is real.


Although there have been image manipulations since the beginning of photography and film, I have to say that the old special effects before the availability of digital processes were rather obvious. I mean, they were interesting but you really needed to apply your imagination to compensate for the rather obvious discrepencies. Star Wars was an interesting movie with some fun special effects but I really don't think anyone could mistake the spaceships and lasers and monsters in that movie for the real thing. And yet the special effects in that movie were about the best that was possible before digital imaging. So, taking that into consideration, it is really amazing to see some of the 8mm films of ufos that were taken by non-professionals using simple home movie equipment that produced images of ufos that were so real and convincing. I mean, these guys such as Billy Meier, did not have the kind of equipment that the movie industry employed in producing Star Wars, and yet those home movies of ufos are much more convincing....much more authentic...than the best of the Hollywood stuff.



I am increasingly finding how important it is that people understand how easily these video's can be made. I think it's important that we not take them at face value but are far more critical than we currently are.


Although that is true, isn't it rather easy to prove when a digital video clip is fake by examining the digital code of the video? As I said I am no expert on this, but I think I heard or read something to that effect somewhere. So, if a piece of digital video that shows a ufo is analyzed in that video's graphics code, and does NOT show any photoshop code then that would be a good indication that the video has not been manipulated and is authentic.

There's one more thing I'd like to add about special digital effects, and how much better they are than the special effects that could be created before digital came along. I have seen the tremendous visuals that can be produced using digital equipment in the movie industry. Most of us are quite familiar with the fantastic scenes in recent SciFi movies such as Independence Day and Men in Black, etc. I am well acquainted with the improvements in the precision with which fantastic images of spaceships and monsters can be introduced into preset backgrounds. But, they are still not totally convincing to me. Yes they are much better than movies of the past, but I can, with very little effort detect when an image of a digital spaceship is being made smaller in order to create the illusion that it is moving away...and when a digital image is being enlarged to create the illusion that it is moving closer. Fantastic stuff, but still not quite completely convincing. On the other hand, with real images that were actually present in the landscape that has been video taped, the impression is of something that fits very naturally into that landscape. Things just seem to fit better into the surroundings when they were actually present when video taped, as opposed to being introduced into the image through digital manipulation.


Yes it is possible that i can digitally remove an object from a video clip. I assure you though that is much more work than actually putting the UFO into the clip



Now THAT is surprising! I would have thought that the opposite were true. I thought putting objects INTO a video was much more difficult because I assumed that the work involved in creating an object and then integrating it artificially into a prerecorded video would be much more difficult and complicated than merely removing something that is already there.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkyWay

Although there have been image manipulations since the beginning of photography and film, I have to say that the old special effects before the availability of digital processes were rather obvious. I mean, they were interesting but you really needed to apply your imagination to compensate for the rather obvious discrepencies. Star Wars was an interesting movie with some fun special effects but I really don't think anyone could mistake the spaceships and lasers and monsters in that movie for the real thing. And yet the special effects in that movie were about the best that was possible before digital imaging. So, taking that into consideration, it is really amazing to see some of the 8mm films of ufos that were taken by non-professionals using simple home movie equipment that produced images of ufos that were so real and convincing. I mean, these guys such as Billy Meier, did not have the kind of equipment that the movie industry employed in producing Star Wars, and yet those home movies of ufos are much more convincing....much more authentic...than the best of the Hollywood stuff.



The reason you can tell the star wars films are fake is because you are seeing detailed close ups of the models, this makes it easier to tell if it is fake. When you get some distance and a little blur like most UFO films I have seen then this becomes much easier to fake.

Also I would like to point out, that in the beginning of the film industry one of the first films made was just a short shot of a train coming towards the camera and passing right between it. When they screened this film the audience jumped up and ran out of the room because they thought they were going to get run over. My point is that sure it's easy to spot the fake effects from a movie made in the 1970's but thats only because we have seen better effects. At the time If effects like that were used to hoax a UFO film I'm sure there would be plenty of believers

I see your gonna force me into proving this to you with another video using an in camera effect. That's alright though because I am now dedicated to making sure others understand these tricks for the betterment of the communities investigations. I would pull out the old 8mm film camera if i had a cheap way of digitizing the footage. Infact it would be easier to do the video with film than with Video. It has to do with depth of field .





Although that is true, isn't it rather easy to prove when a digital video clip is fake by examining the digital code of the video? As I said I am no expert on this, but I think I heard or read something to that effect somewhere. So, if a piece of digital video that shows a ufo is analyzed in that video's graphics code, and does NOT show any photoshop code then that would be a good indication that the video has not been manipulated and is authentic.


Not neccesarily, not all programs will attach any kind of code to a video. Infact I'm not sure that i know any that do. Usually when you compress a video the program will delete any uneccesary code attached to the video, so the most you will get would be "this video came from this program" which doesn't prove anything. Besides anyone could bypass that by sending the video out analogue and redigitizing it with a simple program like windows movie maker.




Now THAT is surprising! I would have thought that the opposite were true. I thought putting objects INTO a video was much more difficult because I assumed that the work involved in creating an object and then integrating it artificially into a prerecorded video would be much more difficult and complicated than merely removing something that is already there.


Most of the automated systems in Video software are designed to put objects in, not take them out. This alone makes it much easier to add objects then blending them out.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Jackjuice, did you happen to check out this video clip? It involve as close-up a video shot of a ufo as you're going to find anywhere. I am not sure what kind of camera was used to tape the ufo, but if it was 8mm film, then it would be very convincing.


Low flying ufo...Duck!



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkyWay

Jackjuice, did you happen to check out this video clip? It involve as close-up a video shot of a ufo as you're going to find anywhere. I am not sure what kind of camera was used to tape the ufo, but if it was 8mm film, then it would be very convincing.


Low flying ufo...Duck!


I haven't seen that, it's impressive although i have issue with the lighting effects that are cast on the house and ground at the same time. Truthfully though this whole video could be 3D animation and we would never know it because it is so muddied up and compressed. I would need to see a higher resolution copy before passing any kind of real judgement. I looked for a google copy but couldn't find one.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkyWay

Jackjuice, did you happen to check out this video clip? It involve as close-up a video shot of a ufo as you're going to find anywhere. I am not sure what kind of camera was used to tape the ufo, but if it was 8mm film, then it would be very convincing.


Low flying ufo...Duck!


Haha you can find the other version of this film with American kids laughing.

Fairly fake. The World Trade Center (Faked) UFO was more convincing.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by behindthescenes
As for the videos, I think the opening clip is clearly an airplane in superzoom so its blurred. But if you look closely, you can see the hazy shades of wings from either side of the craft with blinking lights.


Good spot, behindthescenes!

The size and motion reminded me of an aircraft, but I didn't have the time to look at it that close. But yep, there's a regular strobe blinking in the same place.

Way above, case closed!



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   
First..i was sure ..100% that the clips were real
Then i started to read some of the arguements, and now im undecided, but hasten to add, more inclined to believe them as truth.

I think the main problem with any footage and or stills there ALWAYS too good or not good enough.
By this i mean, if someone was to take some real quality footage in the daytime, with surounding features, with eyewitness accounts, with perhaps some , i dunno peice of debris (for example) THEN THIS WOULD ANTOMATICALLY be called a hoax or a fake......why?
because we have everything there.
The argument against it wouldnt be, oh well there is nothing in the background so we cant measure the size, speed etc, we havent got any eye witness, etc etc.

And the same would apply to a person who takes a still of a white shiney blob in the sky at night, the arguement against that (and rightly so) would be simply that there is nothing other than the bolb in the picture for there to be any investigation.

I hope ive made some sense, basically what im saying is it will never matter how good the footage is, what the footage contains, how many witnesses there are, what the footage shows, it will ALWAYS be debunked.

Im not talking about people in this forum, but in general, until such a time (That will never happen) when the Government come out and say "listen, we had been in contact with people/things from other planets for the last 60 yrs" then people will be out there for the sole purpose of debunking anything that is put in front of them.

We need someone higher up the food chain to start letting us know what is really going on.

Thanks



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by eaglewingz


Good spot, behindthescenes!

The size and motion reminded me of an aircraft, but I didn't have the time to look at it that close. But yep, there's a regular strobe blinking in the same place.

Way above, case closed!


Case closed? Which, the first vid? Perhaps this might be a plane as mentioned, but one must also have in consideration that the plane appears to be motionless. To really close that particular case, we might want to obtain the original video and see if the object moves or stays motionless. Planes do not stay motionless.

Anyway, there are those other two videos that are simply breathtaking. How does one explain those. That last video is just out of this world.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by spymaster


basically what im saying is it will never matter how good the footage is, what the footage contains, how many witnesses there are, what the footage shows, it will ALWAYS be debunked.


This is like this always here at ATS. I sometimes wonder why I still visit these forums. Most of the good videos and unexplained events are easily debunked, and the way out of this world theories about reptilians, Androids, Nordics, etc. are the most popular.

Everything is debunkable, this is the truth, that is why the government can still pull off those swamp gas, weather balloon stories and people will just chug it up.

Keep an eye out, and use good common sense; it is what is going to help you identify most hoaxes from the true.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cabanman

Originally posted by eaglewingz


Good spot, behindthescenes!

The size and motion reminded me of an aircraft, but I didn't have the time to look at it that close. But yep, there's a regular strobe blinking in the same place.

Way above, case closed!


Case closed? Which, the first vid? Perhaps this might be a plane as mentioned, but one must also have in consideration that the plane appears to be motionless. To really close that particular case, we might want to obtain the original video and see if the object moves or stays motionless. Planes do not stay motionless.

Anyway, there are those other two videos that are simply breathtaking. How does one explain those. That last video is just out of this world.


First, that plane only appeared "motionless" cause the cameraman was so close in on it. Can you prove it wasn't slowly gliding across the sky? I mean, really, we're talking a solid blue field in the background. There was no perception reference.

As for the other two, neither object appears solid to me. I would be more willing to bet, if we were to find out a couple of factors, such as camera make, ambient surrounding lighting, that those "UFOs" were in fact light artifacts on the lens. And I'm more than willing to assume that our cameraman, being unemployed and down-on-his-luck, knew about those artifacts and was able to manipulate an external light source in such a way as to create the illusion of a ufo on the horizon.

Evidence to support? The second UFO looks way too transparent, almost like a light artifact that happens to appear classically UFO-shaped. Also, anyone else feel that the trajectory of that UFO was a little too straight across the horizon?



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cabanman

Case closed? Which, the first vid?


Taking the first vid as a hoaxed view of a convential aircraft, any other material from that source is bogus in my book, especially when combined with the first one. He took a video of what had to be known by him as an aircraft. He then passed it off as a genuine vid! Anyone interested in the genuine truth would not be deceptive. Perhaps there are those who believe that hoaxers make good witnesses. I'm not one of those.


Perhaps this might be a plane as mentioned, but one must also have in consideration that the plane appears to be motionless.


Appears being the key word, of course. There is no frame of reference to judge the motion by. So it's most likely a trick of perspective caused by the camera tracking the motion of the plane. Given the appearance of navigation/anticollision lights, this is the most likely.

Edit : In Mr. Spoor's own words, the object was NOT motionless.
"...coming over from the west...it was just unusual to see something coming without any wings, no sound, anything."

[edit on 12/12/2006 by eaglewingz]



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Cabanman
 




Still up and running.
And very promising images.
For reasons of my own however I think they are all the
triangle type ship. Even the classic saucer shape.




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join