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

I totally agree. No wonder the Et's don't get us. We like entertainment. We learn to speak, so we lie, we learn to write, so we lie, we learn to draw, so we make everything more "beautiful", euuh we lie. You won''t believe my lies, than I will smash your head in.

In short, we try to imitate reality, we don't accept it, we can't even live with it. We are ugly apes stuck on this (gorgeous) planet (most of us), we destroy it, we hate ourselves, we try to be more than we are and when we don't succeed we fake it. And as a last resort we just entertain each other with ourselves and things we make, because we need the attention and can't stand the silence of the universe. We have to learn to let boredom sink in, don't chase it away, it opens our mind.

I think I am part Et (not CGI) and I am very puzzled ;-) Now I am trying to be funny, because I have been part of a 67 page carnival of opinions and a depression is lurking, nobody laughing?

Well it is depressing. I am checking the internet for *&$ sakes because I want disclosure and see some UFO's. I am certifiably crazy.

Silence. Ok, we will wait on the goods (proof) that will be brought to us by this fine last young man/woman with a conscious and then go OUTSIDE talk to some aliens, OK?

Originally posted by sputniksteve
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.

Can you PLEASE point out what part of these trees do not match besides the obvious "point of view" differences, since this is a 3 dimensional object.




Also, these are NOT the only trees that are identical, and it is not the only flaw in the videos. So I see no reason what so ever for you to not see that its a fake.

[edit on 14-8-2007 by 11 11]

Well 11 11 that is exactly the problem I am having. There is a reason I put up a disclaimer about having absolutely zero knowledge.

If you look at those 2 trees straight on, it is impossible to convince me they are one and the same. BUT, I dont know what is possible. I can see how a different point of view COULD make this the exact same tree. So this is where I am at. Do we just assume that they are the exact same tree because if you rotate it a bit to the left it will match up perfect? If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.

Is it possible for someone to do exactly this, rotate one tree so that they can be laid exactly on top of each other? Or do we just assume that would happen and take it at that value?

Maybe it is just me, but just because you scream that what you did is correct, does not make it correct. I am not trying to say you are wrong, but do you get my point? There are people in this thread with less knowledge then you, so you need to have a little more patience and understanding if you really want the masses to understand. Do you have any idea what so ever as to what I am saying?

Hi all, I'm new here, and have been reading this thread for the past two days, as to not jump in and bring up something already posted.

Regarding the message ITHASTOEND recieved on YouTube from the Barz guy who posted the video. That screenshot is in fact a fake. I tested by sending a message to myself on youtube, opening it up and screenshotting it, then putting the two side by side. In the one posted by ITHASTOEND, the username bor Barz is one line lower than it should be. It's obvious that the name that it was truly sent from was removed and Barz's username typed in.

Try it and compare for yourselves I've got screenshots I can put up if need be, but it's an easy enough test for any of you to do, I'm just amateur.

Back to lurking now.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
If you look at those 2 trees straight on, it is impossible to convince me they are one and the same.

There are a number of things to consider. Obviously they wont line up with a perfect symmetry because these objects are rendered in a 3 dimensional space. POV will affect the angle at which you can see them in an artificial 3D space, as it would if you were to look at real life trees.

Also, and I have no experience with VUE but have used Bryce, Brycian trees start with a default set of values that define it's default shape. You can change these values (foliage density, branch length, etc) to create a vast array of different trees from a single 'seed' object. So the point of the argument with these trees is that they match a default, unaltered object.

You can't get 2 images from google images of the same type of tree and have the same unique appearances match up as exact as these do.

Sure, they will appear similar, but the obvious shape of each tree will not correspond, with an almost perfect match. You would expect different areas of foliage density, different branch length, different overall angles that mere changed POV would not explain.

And for these similarities to appear in not just both videos, but also appear in the default VUE demo, as well as a within the same clip is beyond natural, and no amount of rotating/stretching will give you as perfect a match as we've seen.

However, having said that, I'm more than willing to be proven wrong if someone can prove 2 different trees of the same species can be superimposed on one another with an almost key/lock like perfection...

BUT, I dont know what is possible. I can see how a different point of view COULD make this the exact same tree. So this is where I am at. Do we just assume that they are the exact same tree because if you rotate it a bit to the left it will match up perfect? If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.

Well that makes no sense, unless your uncle had breasts.

No one has rotated the tree to make it 'fit'. What is being said is that the slight differences that are causing people to claim they are not the same is due to a slight difference on POV.

That there are defined areas that are dead set matches (poor quality of youtube compression forgiven) that simply do not occur in nature, is what is being shown.

You take a branch of a certain species of tree, and then get an equally sized branch from a different tree of the same species, and you would not be able to line up the details as shown here.

Either nature has started cloning itself, or these are not natural objects.

Maybe it is just me, but just because you scream that what you did is correct, does not make it correct. I am not trying to say you are wrong, but do you get my point?

personally, I do get what you're saying, however, I don't think you're taking into consideration that two trees, be they in the same clip, both UFO clips, both UFO clips AND the VUE demo, in nature, could be so easily superimposed onto one another.

But as I said, Serve me humble pie - if you can get 2 separate images of 2 trees from 2 locations, and have all the extremities and densities match up as well as these do, I'll bring the spoon !

Originally posted by sputniksteve

If you look at those 2 trees straight on, it is impossible to convince me they are one and the same. BUT, I dont know what is possible.

I believe the reason the palm trees aren't exactly identical is because they are programed to move like there was a wind blowing.

That motion itself will make it awfully hard to stop the video and find that all the palms on the trees are exactly in the same positions.



[edit on 14/8/07 by Keyhole]

Originally posted by Layla
That screenshot is in fact a fake. I tested by sending a message to myself on youtube, opening it up and screenshotting it, then putting the two side by side. In the one posted by ITHASTOEND, the username bor Barz is one line lower than it should be. It's obvious that the name that it was truly sent from was removed and Barz's username typed in.

Try it and compare for yourselves I've got screenshots I can put up if need be, but it's an easy enough test for any of you to do, I'm just amateur.

Back to lurking now.

I did that earlier, and found no difference in the location?? Compared one I sent to myself with the one reposted here - same spot, same font and size. It is slightly lower in location to "videos - Favorites - Friends" but so was the one I sent myself, and the font is slightly larger.

But think about it.. What is it we've just done...

You and I have taken screenshots of PM's we sent to ourselves - seems a lot easier to take screenies of our own PM's, block out our names up the top and claim to be someone else than to make a fake one, imo..



Take that mask off, Barzloff814..

Ithastoend wrote "Not as many as you think, but enough to pull it off. This started out small and just grew into something else that made others want to make it something else that was never intended. The project started off slow and then after about 3 months it was being worked on every single day for at least a year. All in all from start to finish, it took almost 2 years to complete. Quite a long time I hear you say for something so short, but some of the people working on this had to learn things along the way."

Without getting into to much detail about what I do for a living let me say that this makes some sense. A handful of artists working after hours on a pet project teaching themselves the neccessary software as they go. What was it originally intended to be if not a hoax? A proof of concept for either a video game or movie. I talk to artists all the time who have pet projects like this and similiar hopes. Flashy supporting material for a pitch to a Video Game Publisher or a Movie Studio for a more elaborate game concept or movie script. They are hoping for an initial payment based on the footage and concept and then take the money, quit their day jobs and flesh it out. Ithastoends partners have been too preoccupied with ego stroke to realize this doesn't neccessarily help their cause (movie or game pitch) or careers. There is backlash potential. Any boasting done in a meeting the bigwigs at a game dev pub or movie studio has to start with the admission that they are decietful. Who wants to sign a deal based on that premise? What a waste for the sake of decietful ego stroking.

If this was viral marketing or to promote a given software..it wouldn't have taken that long or would have involved just one software package.

IthastoEnd seems like a good guy...if you are reading this my advice is to distance yourself from any of the crew who thought this hoax would be a good idea, take what you learned and move forward. Keep listening to that voice that tells you what is right and wrong. In the end Karma will catch up to you...as well as those that surrender themselves to uglier motivations and ambitions. Treat the man in the mirror with respect. Give yourself the gift of integrity and honor.

Originally posted by badw0lf

But as I said, Serve me humble pie - if you can get 2 separate images of 2 trees from 2 locations, and have all the extremities and densities match up as well as these do, I'll bring the spoon !

Nice post Badw0lf, although you missed another thing that could make these trees look slightly different, even though they are so blatantly 100% the same.

Vue 6, and 5, are known to have "wind effects" so the branches of the trees will move, or shift slightly. There is a chance that the images were taken just at different moments in their "wind animation". But, that is still irrelivant, because the tree is so damn obviosuly the same, with the same bent trunk, and same branches and all...

I don't even know why this is still being questioned by these people... do they not see the tree branches are exactly the same?

---edit---

doh! I just read someone already mentioned the wind above lol! ignore this.

[edit on 14-8-2007 by 11 11]

Badwolf, thank you for that explanation. That is exactly what I was looking for. Although I still am not sure you understood my post fully. The point that I was trying to get across, is that I am retarded when it comes to Graphical Images. Things that are obvious to you guys, are far from obvious to me, and I am sure I am not alone. Hence, why I needed it explained to me. I do not believe in coincidences, and can grasp the whole concept of all the trees looking very similar. I can not comprehend "They are identical" because, bottom line is they are not. Glad you guys know this stuff. Please have patience.

11 11 says:
Although it can be explained away, the best bet is that this "ItHasToEnd" is not the real deal, and I never once thought he was. Instant Messages are easyer to fake then UFO videos.

You people are really incredible. Now ItHasToEnd is a hoaxer too?
It is beginning to sound like ATS is an association for reborn lunatics/digitalists. In a neverending quest for being the biggest brain on ATS bubble is build on bubble. Let the man/woman present his evidence first, please.

[edit on 14-8-2007 by Pjotr]

Originally posted by 11 11
Although it can be explained away, the best bet is that this "ItHasToEnd" is not the real deal, and I never once thought he was. Instant Messages are easyer to fake then UFO videos.

There is another angle to this new information...

Perhaps, "ItHasToEnd" is really our 3D software-authored UFO video hoaxer (or one of a handful who worked on it) and is now laying brown bricks in his shorts because of the massive and rapid world-wide attention. His posts here (and possibly fake YouTube PM) are an effort to diffuse the ruse without admitting he tried to perpetuate a fake UFO hoax.

Just a thought.