[HOAX] Haiti UFO Video - YouTube - [HOAX]

@Leigh Scott-
Not sure if you saw it, but the "supposed" hoaxer(or one of a group), already said that Vue,Lightwave, and modo were used(as well as some capured footage). There was a Vue/Lightwave package that came out when version5 was out...before the "ecosytems" feature was added. This would help explain why the trees are all the same, as the newr version will change each plant(and its coloring) slightly so they don't match. The palms in question have been a standard preset for years, and they match exactlty(10+ points of matches)the palms in the Haiti/Dom videos. Also, in one of the versions that has the original audio(with the girl gasping) near the end some passery by says "What are you filming?You shooting for planes or something?"...if people on the street fail to react to "ufo flyovers" it seems suspect right out. Thier are also shadow color differences that seem suspect as if the textures on the ships and trees have wildly different diffuse or ambiance setting within Vue. Or it could stem from render/texture differences across the multiple apps used. I think if you had more exposer to Vue, some of vues little quirks would jump out at you in the videos.

Anyway, welcome to site.

Originally posted by ItHasToEnd

Originally posted by casu10
Is the video CGI?

Yes, it is CGI, but this was never intended to fool the public. I wan't to make something clear. We never set out to fool anybody with this into believing it was real, that was not our goal. Some of us working on the project wanted different things out of this as the project was near completion, one of those people was me. I do not want to say how many of us there were working on this, but towards the end some of 'them' had different agendas.

LOL, nice try. Sometimes the BS that takes place on this board amazes me. As if people are really gullable enough to beleive you. THe footage was shot by a Malaysian man who barley has command of the english language. And Whitley Striber is a well known cover up artist. Whats more disturbing is how the ATS Admin blackholed this entire event. You people need to stop playing games and just admit the truth already.

well, ive been following this since the start, and i just wanted to say that i dont trust "ItHasToEnd" at all!

as far as the screenshot is concerned, it proves absolutely nothing. i am sure you all realize how EASILY that could have been faked. any one of us could have done it.

if it were me, i would sign up to youtube, make a new account, choose a user name that is the same as "barzolf's", but i would add an extra number or character, send a message from that account to my own, take a screenshot, and just delete the extra character. a blue number on a white background, nothing easier...

and there you have it.

of course, i could be wrong, but its just that "ItHasToEnd" hasnt provided anything that would make me think he is telling the truth.

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by Leigh Scott

What will you say if the hoaxer on Friday lays out the entire project and vue was never used and the "cartoon" truck was actually a real 1972 Ford pickup sitting in the background?

Actually, you are wrong, if it was a Ford it would have to be 1960 and below. I believe it might be a 1940 Chevy though..

www.stovebolt.com...

..only because it has an mini oval rear window.

Do you always take everything everyone says literally? He was using the Ford simply as an example...

Keep on digging that hole...

J.

Originally posted by 11 11

Actually, you are wrong, if it was a Ford it would have to be 1960 and below. I believe it might be a 1940 Chevy though..

www.stovebolt.com...

..only because it has an mini oval rear window.

ROFLMAO....last time you posted 3D trucks from Turbo Squid to prove CGI, and now you are posting real trucks. Too "honking" funny.

Ya know 11 11 , if I didn't know any better I am beginning to think that in fact YOU are the hoaxer ( or at least part of it). I mean all of the talk of "reverse engineering" software, programs and "studying the psychological implications" of people who post. And you said, "the hoaxer is in these forums". Since you claim to be on the hardware side, I am sure you Beta test with the best 3D animators out there. Hmmmmmmmm.

It would be kinda like the Volunteer Fireman who gets bored getting little kitties down from trees. He goes and commits arson to start the fire, then is "first on the scene" to save a couple of babies, put the fire out and thereby becomes a local hero. Front page news! A key to the city!

So yeah, you were so smart to figure it all out because YOU are in fact invovled. OK, stupid theory...moving on.

So 11 11, quit harrassing new and credible members like Leigh Scott.
As John Wayne would say, "Hey cowboy, you're scaring the horses."

And one last thing. Since my "Foe" list is growing faster than the waiting list for the new Harry Potter book at the local library.....

I believe one of the admins / owners mentioned that you had been WARNED twice. HOWEVER, I see no WARNING flags next to your avatar.

What's up with this?

good morning everyone.....kk

Also find it odd that 11 11 joined this thread on page 22. 11 + 11 = 22
He is just sly like that. And I am just that paranoid.


[edit on 14-8-2007 by kinda kurious]

I thought it was fake from the off...mostly because of the audio.

No I am not an expert in the av field and if I were so what...courts everyday have expert witnesses on competing sides of the case arguing for and against the same bit of evidence.

The main thing that got me was the soundtrack. That gasp / sigh (sounds female to me!!) was the only human commentary at the time...can you believe that? No "Wow", "Oh my god" or other sounds of excitement? Is the person mute? To me the CGI debate ain't relevant the commentary says it all. You can hear the sounds of the camera creaking as its internal microphone had its automatic gain right up..and then you hear the UFO fly pass. Of course now we are told that the sound track is a post film dub...could have been better.

All I have is life's experience and instinct perhaps. But this looked like a production scene to me, I swear to god if they had opened fire...Bruce Willis in a vest would have turned up to save us all Why are alien craft following the roads...do they steer by GPS? It felt wrong, I suppose some would say.

Anyhow, I would not accept a bit of footage as evidence anyway. I would would want more corroboration than that.

Also why was the camera filming in that direction...coincidence?

Yet again all I see is people too willing to believe anything. I really thought that we were getting past the point where a bit of footage alone is "proof". Ho hum, never mind.

Someone once said I don't want to believe, I want to know. Sounds right.

SS out

QUOTE:'Ya know 11 11 , if I didn't know any better I am beginning to think that in fact YOU are the hoaxer ( or at least part of it). I mean all of the talk of "reverse engineering" software, programs and "studying the psychological implications" of people who post. And you said, "the hoaxer is in these forums". Since you claim to be on the hardware side, I am sure you Beta test with the best 3D animators out there. Hmmmmmmmm.'

Hey! You may have something there! It all makes sense now....He spent 2 years making this video so that he could debunk it pulicly, in the process selling us a few of his nifty new 3D UFO models that's he's meticulously designed with the new DirectX 55 graphics board that he cobbled together last weekend in his garage - yeah, I see where your heading here.... It's shocking stuff, no?

J.

J.

Originally posted by gyroscope
LOL, nice try. Sometimes the BS that takes place on this board amazes me. As if people are really gullable enough to beleive you. THe footage was shot by a Malaysian man who barley has command of the english language. And Whitley Striber is a well known cover up artist. Whats more disturbing is how the ATS Admin blackholed this entire event. You people need to stop playing games and just admit the truth already.

ItHasToEnd, it's unfortunate you didn't use a traditional saucer shape for these. Mr. Gyroscope here wouldn't have believed you even if you sat him down at your workstation and ran him through the raw animation frame-by-frame. In fact, it sounds like a lot of people here wouldn't.

I don't think an apology from you is necessary. If you had made a claim in your YouTube video that this were real, I could see the desire to apologize.

Hey ATS members, when it's the REAL thing, I'm convinced that the debate will be nothing like this. The question will probably be "is it ours or is it theirs?"

Hi there, just registered after reading all 67 pages LOL

Some good insight on these, but I wanted to explain the capabilities of these programs that he said he used, since I use them all the time - when I saw this video, the first thing I thought was fake, because of the camera motion, angle and the lighting. However, I recognized it as a marvelous animation, because of the nice focus effects and rendering.

First off, Modo - that's an excellent modeling package. Very powerful.

Next up, we have Lightwave. A marvelous 3D program. They do Battlestar Galactica entirely with this software, and they've recently updated it with photoreal motionblur and a Real Lens camera (you want a Nikon D1 with 135MM dicomar lens? three clicks gets you the actual algorithm that duplicates that camera and lens)

Last is Vue 6. There are two iterations of this program, Infinite and Xstream. I believe they used Xstream on this, because it actually works within Lightwave, giving you the Real Lens system and the motionblur. Vue has nice motionblur but not as good as LW's (yet).

Now some people have been talking about Direct X and Cryengine2. While I am gobsmacked at cryengine2's DX10 render power (I would kill to be able to have that interface in Vue) none of these programs use DX9 or 10. Their interfaces are driven by OpenGL, and all the images you see have to be drawn (rendered) frame by frame.

For the kind of realistic lighting and shading that we see in this video, they would probably have set the scene up as a radiosity scene (radiosity is a way to bounce light around so that you get better shading) in both programs.

Now, to be sure, I don't know the artists who made this video, but I've done it enough myself (though never to their degree of mastery) to know the illusion behind how its done. This is how *I* would do it, and indeed a scene using these techniques is rendering NOW, and I will post it to my youtube page to show how easy it is. :-) The render time, by the way, says 179hours. 49 minutes a frame even on my QX6700 quad overclocked 3.2ghz.

1) the original artist said they filmed something, so I guess so. A good way to get camera motion data to be used later.
2) load up Modo and model yourself something cool, texture to taste.
3) Load up a motiontracker like Boujou (costs $10,000, but he said he had a company, right? There are free motiontrackers though) and get the camera motion data.
4) load this data into Lightwave. Load the video as frames into Lightwave as a background plate for alignment.
5) load your UFO. Make it match the camera move you now have loaded. Add in lights and glows.
6) Load in Vue 6 Xstream plugin. Load up a sunset atmosphere, tweak until it matches the background plate.
7) Tweak lighting further in Lightwave and Vue. This does take time because of the need to render out a frame to see what it actually looks like.
8) Add in some foliage from Vue. The palm trees all look alike because the artists apparently used single instances and DID NOT use the ecosystem painter - if they HAD used the ecosystem painter the trees would have all been grown slightly differently and oriented at different angles. The object used, in case anyone is interested, is the Coconut tree object.
9) Tweak some more. Time consuming. Though.. 2 years? Definetely in no hurry, months probably passed with no work done.
10) Render with photoreal blur, real lens camera (hopefully matching what lens you used on the real camera that's giving you the background plate). Either send to a renderfarm or be patient. Renderfarms arent too expensive nowadays amazingly. And there are people (like me) who like to leave their PCs on. Why not render? Go on vacation.
11) Compress nicely and upload to Youtube.

I'm not saying this is precisely how they did it, but its what I would do.

And to the people that did it, could you post the objects and scene file? Would be fun to play with. PLEEEEEEZE

Originally posted by Leigh Scott



2. Living in Hollywood I see palm trees everyday. Looking out my window right now, Sunset Blvd. is lined with them. I could easily take a still photo then compare them to the Vue demo or even cut and paste them to make them look cloned. They look that similar in real life, let alone low res screen grabs from a low res youtube video.



Wow, though, fascinating stuff to watch a conspiracy unfold right before our eyes. This should all be in a movie....

Leigh Scott
www.imdb.com...

As someone who also lives in Hollywood, I assure you that Palm Trees do look similar, but not that similar. Please refer to above post. I do uderstand what you are saying though. Welcome to ATS by the way.

Jarid

www.imdb.com...

[edit on 14-8-2007 by kleverone]

Originally posted by jimbo999
Hmmmm...the only people who actually benefit from this whole episode are E-onsoftware, makers of Vue 6. They couldn't buy publicity like this! They must be rubbing their hands right now....


J.

If the facts presented are accurate and this indeed was started in 2005, then it has to be noted that Vue 6 was not released until late 2006 - a pre-release version at that.

*IF*...

I'm not CON-vinced at all here, it seems just too CON-venient...

And Id be rather saddened to think that 'false confessions' have migrated to E-hoaxing.

Well, actually, 2 years ago we have Vue 5 Infinite and then shortly thereafter Vue 5 Xstream. The only difference, really, between V5 and V6 is that V6 is faster and has a new atmosphere model called Spectral Atmosphere. Also, the integration between LW and Vue 5 is limited. The V5Xstream plugin (I had that too) really sucked and never left beta... however, it paved the way for V6X which I have to say (aside from crashing) is a very nice product.

And Lightwave's been around since 1992. This entire production could have been done in Lightwave, to be honest, trees and atmosphere included. Just that Vue makes it SO much easier.

As you can see, Vue 5 is more than capable of making this video. And look, there's a whole ISLAND of them coconut trees, eh? :-)

Vue 5's been out since 2005.. revisions throughout those 2 years.

Don't want to spam this board with product videos, but I just thought everyone should see what these programs are capable of in talented hands.

these jet planes are ALL fake. Some of the environments are too.

This animation was entirely done by a small team of people (I think 4 or 5) from menithings.com



And in case anyone is interested, a Lightwave demo reel. I wont bother posting the video, just the link.

Lightwave Demo Reel

In this day and age of increasingly powerful digital visualization software, its going to be increasingly hard to distinguish fact from fiction.

You know, when I saw the Haiti video.. for one moment I WANTED it to be real, I will admit that.

Originally posted by beverins

8) Add in some foliage from Vue. The palm trees all look alike because the artists apparently used single instances and DID NOT use the ecosystem painter - if they HAD used the ecosystem painter the trees would have all been grown slightly differently and oriented at different angles. The object used, in case anyone is interested, is the Coconut tree object.

This is what I dont get, why did they fudge up the trees? Why didnt thet use the ecosystem painter? Its as if the makers of this wanted to be caught out?

And then the viral marketing angle. Because of this thread I now know about Vue 6 and whatnot, but that doesn’t mean Im going to get the software, in fact what use is this software to those who are not involved with CGI? Wouldn’t people interested in CGI already be aware of new software?

So, Im thinking the only entity benefiting from this bit of film is... well... ATS...

I have two feelings on this:

One part of me is in awe at how cool and realistic that video looked-the folks behind it should be signed by Spielberg on the next ET-based flick.

The other part of me is SO SICK of these @*$&ing hoaxes! We already have enough crap to weed through all the time with the gov and media disinfo and cover-ups, now we have to contend with CGI experts screwing with us. AAAAARRRGGGGGHHHHH

Cool.

Do you happen to know any of the backstory behind the creation of 'Dogfights' on the History Channel? Are they using the same software, if you know?

I haven't tried it but there even appears to be a 'Dogfights' game you can download and play:

www.history.com...

Sorry to get a bit off track, but since the discussion has turned slightly to CGI rendering software, it's not too far afield, istm.

Originally posted by beverins
Now some people have been talking about Direct X and Cryengine2. While I am gobsmacked at cryengine2's DX10 render power (I would kill to be able to have that interface in Vue) none of these programs use DX9 or 10. Their interfaces are driven by OpenGL, and all the images you see have to be drawn (rendered) frame by frame.

DX10 is not just for CryEngine2. It's the future of graphics with Microsoft Windows Vista.

Although Vue runs in OpenGL, if for any reason the hoaxer wanted to run Vue on Windows Vista, they would be forced to use an installable client driver (ICD) which ports OpenGL over to DirectX because OpenGL is not fully supported in Windows Vista at this time.

Even then, there is still differences in lighting between OpenGL 2.0, 2.1, and 3.0. As much as there is difference with DX9 and DX10.

I would love it if Vue's editor window matched the cryengine2 sandbox. I really, really wish they would implement that.

I have a somewhat simple question I think. I am very unfamiliar with all of this technical jargon, as I just learned how to upload a picture to the internet!

But, here is my question. Many are saying that the palm trees are "100%" match. Now, if we are simply matching how many branches a tree has, I can agree with this statement. However, if you look at the whole shape of the trees,the 2 used in 11 11's comparison, they are NOT identical. This is something that has been bothering me.

Now, here is the part where I am not very educated in this field. Are we assuming that the trees are exactly the same, simply because you can count 11 points on each one? Or is the claim that you can cut out one and lay it exactly on top of the other? Because if is the cutout theory, then you are flat out fabricating things, because it is painfully obvious to me that these are not the exact same shape.

Possibly it is the delivery of this info that makes me not so sure, I don't like people trying to cram anything down my throat. And in my opinion, there are a couple members here that are exceeding rudeness and should maybe cool their jets before they make themselves look more foolish.

Springer, I am a little disappointed you did not keep your word.