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.

 

New Australian Video? Hmmm...

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Hi all,

My first post here and have been following ATS for a while and it's great. When I first saw this I had to get others opinions, looks kinda real. I appologize if this has been posted before.



Video www.youtube.com...


[Mod Edit - video link]

[edit on 3/2/2008 by Sauron]




posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Well no background information and nothing except the video, its hard to give a thorough opinion. I'd say its cg work though. The movement of the craft seems very convenient together with the sluggish camera operator. In particular when the craft moves upwards at very high speed, the guy with the camera still move it at the same slooooooooooow speed. If I'd done it, my reaction would be to quickly follow it and probably overshoot by far, lol.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 06:08 AM
link   
I would have to agree with merka, the 'ufo' seems added in to me, although someone has put a lot of effort into replicating their movements.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Welcome splitn and good job getting that video out there. Hey, that's what ATS is for...when you find something that seems curious, get it out there, let the great people here dissect it, and they WILL dissect it, and then draw your own conclusions.

My first impression, as well, is that the relationship between the object and the person filming it is a little suspect. Is that enough to debunk it...no.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 07:58 AM
link   
There is indeed no reason to indicate that we was following the ufo. It also seemed close, it might just be me but it didn't seem like he zoomed in.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Well, if it's real then it is the hallowed smoking gun.

If it's real, that is, and I'm afraid I'm sharing the majorities opinion here in that it's not.

IMO it's CGI, nicely done but ultimately unconvincing.

It's very easy to criticize the cameraman's movements not being up to speed as the object (bunch of pixels) zips around, but who can tell how any one would react given they were actually filming a real event?

Saying that, I definitely feel that this camera work, as compared to real footage, would be more urgent, more skitish, and ultimately be affected by the nerves aflicting the person behind the lens.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Australian UFO wave anyone ever heard of that ?

australianufowave.blogspot.com...

Well it's a big hoax and this seem's to click with some of the fakery on there !

Regards
Lee





[edit on 3-2-2008 by h3akalee]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by h3akalee
Australian UFO wave anyone ever heard of that ?

australianufowave.blogspot.com...

Well it's a big hoax and this seem's to click with some of the fakery on there !

Regards
Lee





[edit on 3-2-2008 by h3akalee]

Hi Lee: i've already checked in all the videos of AUW, and and it seems tat this one is not there.



[edit on 3/2/2008 by internos]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Hi internos how are you ?

Hay you took the time to look for some clip's that was great of you !

And you are right it's not there !

But on the video you provided fast forward to the 40 second mark see anything that ring's a bell when lookng at the op's video and your own ?

Look at the object carefully and let me know what you think.

Regards
Lee





[edit on 3-2-2008 by h3akalee]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by h3akalee
Hi internos how are you ?

Hay you took the time to look for some clip's that was great of you !

And you are right it's not there !

But on the video you provided fast forward to the 40 second mark see anything that ring's a bell when lookng at the op's video and your own ?

Look at the object carefully and let me know what you think.

Regards
Lee





[edit on 3-2-2008 by h3akalee]

You are absolutely right: i'd say that it's the "same hand": not sure, but i too have noticed it, (now we are two
) especially if we comparise its first part with the AUW one: the movement looks to be the same.
I' trying to download it with an online converter in order to preserve its original format: maybe there's a CGI fingerprint just in the moment immediately before the UFO vanishes, but i need a better resolution in order to confirm it: definately fishy, for these and other reasons already pointed out by other members.

[edit on 3/2/2008 by internos]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by h3akalee
 

Here's what i mean for CGI "fingerprints"

Here, in the first frame the object appears clear, but in the next one is
surrounded by some kind of artifacting, that cannot have been created by the movement, since its shape is not the one expected for a "trail"


but most important, is that after a certain movement, there's an area, the one pointed by the arrow, which remains dark for some frames: this does not make much sense: if determined by the movement, its appearance should be the one of a stripe and besides should be very close to the object, but this is a dot alone, far from the object, if i'm correct.


and right before vanishing, its texture looks to be "splitted" in two parts, vertically. I wonder how could this happen on a 3D object uniformly enlightened


Well, i know that it's not conclusive, but in my opinion this is CGI.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


Good work there internos !!!

Honestly you have take a little time to look into this video and in my personal opinion have cracked it.

I would call it CGI aswell.

Well done and take care.

Regards
Lee



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   
For the reasons mentioned above (the camera movement) this, IMHO, is most likely an added effect to an existing video of the countryside.

Springer...



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


Internos, you have worked powerful magic yet again.

Thank goodness for dedicated researchers such as yourself. Where would we be without you?
Where indeed; we'd all be at the mercy of calously minded CGI artists, lost in a mire of videos designed to create false optimism that would effortlessly draw in the gulible with no reply possible from the rest of us. We are in your debt once again.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Hay what about me i helped aswell !!!

LOL

Na big credit to internos well done mate.

Regards
Lee



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Beamish
 



Thank you Beamish. But mine is, as always, a very modest contribution: one can post thousands of possible explanations: but is the reader, at the end, who gives value to it. I was forgiving this thread, but after reading Lee's comment about AUW, and realizing that we noticed the same vague detail, i've heard a bell ringing and i just took the time to convert the video and take a closer look at it. Lee has been decisive, on this one.
It was a matter of time: me or another one, it doesn't matter: wat's important is that another fake video stopped its career once posted here



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Great job int. The thing i noticed . Is when the camera jiggles the "thing" doesn't blur.
We have all see what happens when you shake a camera a bit when something small is in frame. It makes squiggles . This just seems to track the thing no mater tha camera movement . And don't line up . It travels in the same part of the frame even tho the frame has moved.

Thanks for the vid OP.
Gonna star/flag for your effort . Don't get discouraged. I'm sure all of us have posted a questionable video lol . Heck ain't they all ?



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
hehe, look at 1:05. The airliner isn't even moving! It's just a still photo composited



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   
100% Completely fake, of that there is no doubt. ANYONE who knows anything about camcorders and photography can tell that without even bothering to do an in-depth analysis.

For those that get miffed when someone dismisses a video like this so quickly, it is no different than someone showing you a crayon drawing of a UFO and passing it off as a real photo. You would not need to bother with a real investigation of the "photo" because you know crayons like the back of your hand. No different here. Don't get upset because some of us can see the "crayon" marks of a video like this so quickly and clearly.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I think this perfectly illustrates how the classic "zoom away into the distance/clouds" is the hardest part of these things to fake. The Italian one in the riverbed is another example of this. It's very difficult to get just the right amount of blur (if there should be any in the first place), increasing atmospheric haze, contrast, etc., so that it looks real as it zips off into the distance.

It's so hard that the grandfather of all these videos, the Mexico City saucer, just gave up trying. The saucer goes behind a building and just "vanishes."

As for it being the legendary "Gun That Smokes," even if it was in clear, 3-D, high-definition video, it would still have very limited value without knowing all the background information. And even then, would it be proof of aliens? That would show a very limited imagination.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join