posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 07:39 AM
What's happening everyone...
This is the first time I've ever been to this forum. And the reason I stumbled upon it, was because of the Haiti UFO video.
After reading all the posts in this thread (up until about the 10th or so page, then skipping to the last couple pages) I'm going to add my two
This video is definitely a product of CGI. Admittedly, a quality produced one, but still CGI nonetheless.
I do some work as an audio engineer for the entertainment industry. And I have, and still do work with plenty of engineers that are on the visual side
of things. I've seen a widespread spectrum of CGI visual effects being created.
And from what knowledge I have - Which I'm not saying is enough to make me a CGI expert, but based on things I have actually witnessed first hand,
this could definitely be done by someone in their home.
Granted, that person would have to have a really good system to do it. It still wouldn't be the type of money that most people seem to be thinking it
All you would need is a full blown Mac, some legit software, and the rest would just be about having the skills, good eye, good elbow, patience,
I've seen a lot of various material that people have submitted (that are trying to get work in the industry) with stuff easily as good as this. And
most of them are young college kids too (for those who think this could only be done by some high-profile employee of Steven Spielberg or
Aside, from the other factors that other people have already made - There are some things that I see from the video, that are tell-tale signs to
If someone wanted to create a video of this nature, there are a few things that would make the process a lot easier. As well as, help to mask various
For one, basically everything in this video, makes for almost a perfect setting, to create a video like this (clear sky, objects for point of
reference, distant mountain range, etc.).
The sky is essentially clear - Which makes for an optimum backdrop to edit against. In this case, the clear sky is almost serving the same purpose as
a "green screen".
For the record, "Yes" there are a couple of clouds at the very beginning and ending, but they're way too far off in the distance to pose any
If there had been any cloud coverage overhead, it would create way too many overlays between the UFO and the clouds. Which would not only make the
editing way more harder to do, but it would open too many windows of potential inconsistencies. And the clouds would be mentioned as the giveaway,
just as much as the palm trees are.
The time of day is also fairly optimum as well. Good enough light to see, but not bright enough to create editing issues (like with the palm
Which speaking of the palm trees - They make for good props that serve excellent purposes.
In this case, they're good cover up objects (especially being at dusk, they almost appear black). They're also used to help make the whole video
appear to be more believable, by offering some points of reference, and depth perception.
If you saw this same video without any palm trees (or water tower), against the same clear sky, it would immediately look a lot less realistic,
because you wouldn't have anything to gauge the UFO's distance, or remotely guess how big they might be.
It'd be like, "Aaah the good ol' toy on a fishing line across a bedsheet trick huh".
Also, if the time of day, was earlier in the afternoon (and brighter), then editing the UFO's from behind the palm trees would be a lot harder to do.
If not, just too hard to make look believable.
But being that it's dusk, and from the camera's view, the underneath of the trees are almost black, it's like car headlights coming out of a
tunnel. Much easier to create, and more importantly, it can be made to look a lot less suspect.
As far as the UFO's themselves - If they would have made them a stereotypical shape (disc or saucer like) it would create very evident "hardlines"
against that clear sky. In turn, making the UFOs look very superimposed and less realistic (like the first wide UFO in the Dominican Republic video).
Especially, when making them appear to pass overhead, somewhat close to the ground.
But making them look almost hairy-like with a lot of antenna looking things, this is not only a good way to prevent from having any hardlines, but it
also gives a good reason to blur around it. That way you'll be less suspect, at any point, to question their clarity.
I can go on about that type of stuff, but I'll move on to other factors.
Plus, that's more than enough factors already, for it to all be coincedence.
Outside of the visuals, the most obvious other element is the audio. And if this video was legit, the waveform for the audio track would prove
If you were to extract the audio track from the raw video, and looked at the waveform from a visual perspective (spectral, phase or frequency
analysis, etc.) it would reveal certain frequency characteristics and continuity.
But if the audio track was produced (meaning the video was fake), it's more than likely, you'd be able to tell if there were overdubs, if it was cut
n' pasted, etc.
Before this post gets any longer, I'm going to stop and continue some more thoughts in another post. Just to keep this one from been too long of a
Like I mentioned above, I read only about the first 10 pages of this thread, so if any of this has already been covered, I apologize.
To be continued...