Originally posted by Tuning Spork

Originally posted by Palasheea
In fact, if a line was there or even if it was somehow erased in an editor, some indication of that line or any indication of tampering to erase it would be EVEN MORE noticeable in later generations from the original.. especially when it's also one that's gone through a You Tube conversion to their flash format...

Can you expound on that? How can details become more ... er... detailed after successive generations? My life-long experience with recorded sound (and my anemic experience with video) tell me that clarity is lost with each generation.

I'm not saying that detail becomes more enhanced when a vid is saved over and over again and when it's ALSO, on top of that, converted to flash via You Tube. But what I am saying is that when saving from the original, the vid's details undergo more distortions ... the pixels become more distorted and if the vid has been tampered with in some way, those alterations would show up more in later generations from the original and most definitely when it's also converted to flash.

But in my view, so far, I'm not seeing any indication of a line or any indication of any tampering either as far as erasing a line like that. So because of this, most likely it's CGI. That the videographer has yet to show up here also indicates that it's CGI --- as we already know, hoaxers of fake UFO clips don't show up here to chat....

It would be easier to just insert one CGI object in a vid where any distortions seen when it's saved over and over and also converted to Flash can be explained away as compression artifacts.



[edit on 19-4-2008 by Palasheea]

Instead of arguing over whether a fishing line would appear in a video, why doesn't someone go out and find out for yourself? It shouldn't be hard to rig something up with fishing line just to see if it will show up. If it doesn't appear in a first generation video then it wouldn't show up in whatever generation this video is.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
Instead of arguing over whether a fishing line would appear in a video, why doesn't someone go out and find out for yourself? It shouldn't be hard to rig something up with fishing line just to see if it will show up. If it doesn't appear in a first generation video then it wouldn't show up in whatever generation this video is.

Not necessarily, if the line does not show up in the original, but then it's saved a few times and then converted to flash, any very subtle tonal variations of that line that were not seen in the original version would probably show up more in later generations. Not as a finer detail but as distorted pixels i.e a short stream of pixels scattered here and there in a straight line that have a slight tonal difference from the background.

[edit on 19-4-2008 by Palasheea]

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
Instead of arguing over whether a fishing line would appear in a video, why doesn't someone go out and find out for yourself? It shouldn't be hard to rig something up with fishing line just to see if it will show up. If it doesn't appear in a first generation video then it wouldn't show up in whatever generation this video is.

"Recreations" don't really prove anything, you know. They only suggest the possibility that a hoax could have been done, not that it was. But we already know that it could have been hoaxed, even if we don't know exactly how it was done. Just because you don't know how a magic trick is done, doesn't make it less of a trick.

The only thing that counts in the end is positive proof, not negative suggestive inference. As far as I'm concerned, anyway.

Originally posted by Palasheea

Originally posted by internos

It's the same old problem and these are problems BIG TIME because number 1, we don't have the original and number 2, the videographer has yet to show up here for a chat.

If his clip is for real, no matter how many people here try to debunk it, he would be here in this forum doing his best to show that it's real. This is what people do when they know that what's showing in their video is real and not CGI or something that's been faked in some way.

So common sense tells us that he's hiding something and that's why he is not coming here to chat with us.

Why would the videographer come here as you wish just to be crucified
and ridiculized by the debunking army. Why the videographer would come
here to be subjeted to a summary trial when in fact this is only a
discussion forum not a place where a ufo case can ve validated or
authenticated just discussed and in most cases debunked.

Why the videographer would come here instead of going to a professional
research group like MUFON or any other or consult directly to any
qualified researcher he chooses because it's his right and he decides what
he can do with his life.

So your common sense is TELLING YOU the videograhger is hiding
something ? I did'nt know you have psychic powers to read the
videographer's mind and guess he is hiding something just because
he does'nt come here to chat with you. I'm sorry but your line of
reasoning is not right. I'm sure that there are some qualified researchers
in line requesting to investigate this case in wich apparently Maussan was
the first to knock the videographer's door.

I'm sure that time will come when we will know more about this case from
the researchers in charge of the investigation and maybe the story will
appear on national television. Then we can learn true facts, testimonials
and analisis without falling into speculations. Time will tell.

You've made a few good points Free_Spirit. You went a little overboard though with your criticisms of me but in retrospect, I should not be guessing why the videographer of this clip is not engaging in any conversation with us about it.

Let's just see where all of this goes and I'm looking forward to finding out if Massoun does anything with it.

At any rate, it's a very intriguing video, albeit an ambiguous one, and it's definitely worthy of expert analysis IMHO.

Everybody is different and some people, even though their material is real and not fake, are extremely hesitant about arguing with those who are debunking their material and it's understandable why some prefer not to subject themselves to such confrontations.

No one wants to be ganged up on. I've been there myself and I know what it's like but I'm just one of those out there who don't care what the debunkers are saying because I know that what's in my photo or movie clip is real. I'm just more invested in the phenomenon itself than anyone else's opinion of such material in terms of if it's real or not. All I want to do is talk about the phenomenon with others.

I know that it's real and that's all that matters.

But some people are very super sensitive to others opinions on whatever they are seeking opinions on and those ones don't like to involve themselves in debates on such issues.

But usually those types don't bother to show their stuff in public forums in the first place for the reason I just stated above.

I already know this because I have friends who are like this who get extraordinary results in their work but don't like to show it publicly because they abhor ridicule also -- and not just the "real or fake" debating part. I don't care about being ridiculed because I know that the debunkers are wrong and that I am right -- but once again, not everybody is like me.

But while we're on the topic, I can see how some of those CGI hoaxers would not subject themselves to a gang of debunkers because it's their art work and skill in CGI that's being debunked. So I can see how some of these people would find it very upsetting to be ganged up on where those debunkers would be telling them that their CGI skills are substandard because it looks so fake. That's a hard thing to take for someone whose aspirations are to be employed by a company like PIXAR for example or a video gaming company... or doing special effects for a movie productions company and so on...
I can see why such individuals would not want to confront debunkers of their work as it's too humiliating to do so especially when they've put their "all" into producing something that they thought looked very realistic where they are even trying to pass it off as "the real thing".


[edit on 19-4-2008 by Palasheea]

4Its convincing at first glance..I mean you look and say "Oh Wow" "a thing thats not a blury dot and it appears to hover"..But why is it that alot of pix and vids even UFO art always seems to be a craft right out of a 50s Sci-Fi pulp comic? with the goofy "fat" saucer shape with a stovetop cockpit deal on top? This thing could be a model or a balloon...its floating there... it's just not from space...Common sense dictates this one..PhilVoid.

There is overwhelming propaganda and social conditioning for our programmed brains to be skeptical. As far as we know we are probably plugged into alien machines having this so called free will conversation.
Open your minds lets get over discussing is it fake ..

Originally posted by internos

No.
I'm not hiding one dot.
I've reduced the size of the branches: and if i've managed to do that, then i would able to hide a fishing line: THIS IS MY POINT.
Show me a video of something hanged on a fishing line and i'll hide it for you, if you have enough time to waste.
Now, the airbrushing process you are talking about....
WHO talked of airbrushing processes here? Mmmmhhh?
Please, don't mix my points with other people's ones.
Thanks

[edit on 19/4/2008 by internos]

Well, the size of the branches are reduced when you brightened up the one with the blue background. I know this because I just tried it in an editor.

But I'm unclear where that fishing line would be. If you are saying that that object is hanging from a fishing-line that's hanging from something like a crane then I suppose it would be much easier to hide that line because it would be vertical coming from above that object.

Anyway, now I understand why you think it could be hanging from a fishing line... if it's hanging like a Christmas tree bulb from a vertical line that's on top of it then I agree with you that that line would be very easy to hide.



[edit on 19-4-2008 by Palasheea]

Originally posted by coastlinekid
Looks good,...why not show the last moments of the sighting?

Like when it moves away, that would be more convincing.


Or did the witness just get bored and stop taping...

In the comments under the video, the person that filmed this stated that his/her camera quit.
The thing that bothers me about it is that the object is so static (unmoving). I hope that it is real footage and not a fake.

Not a bad fake, but the pixilation issues at the beginning and end give it away. When the zoom is out the resolution mismatch is too much.

The whited out sky is also a give away.

I have seen hundreds of better fakes in my time. I'm no expert but come oooon! I am not a non-believer. I'd love it if there were visitors flying about in hovering ships. But why waste everyones time posting fakes everywhere. Was this in the UK cos there are many newspapers that'd pay good money for a good scoop?

Why does he tell us about his dog's feeding time? why is he justifying his reasons for being up early and when he feeds the dog(s)? If someone was out walking their dog's and "just happened" to have their camcorder on them then I'd be wary. YOU'RE IN YOUR GARDEN! THE CAMCORDER IS MOST PROBABLY IN THE HOUSE SO WHY EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR HAVING IT?

That was my first thought. Secondly, when the object is zoomed in upon it is blurry because it is out of focus and it is out of focus because the camcorder is zooming into a point further than the object. SO this would mean the object is actually a lot smaller than is suggested.

Someone asked where the string is? It's string. Very thin. Quite a distance away. Maybe even white to blend in with the background or fishing line? We've all heard of tying similar cords to two trees and watching cyclists stop dead in their tracks or knocking some old lady's hat off as she walks past. Almost invisible.

Does he live alone? Personally if I seen an object like that in the sky I'd be shouting everyone to get up outta bed. Neighbours and all! After all it's a freaking UFO. It's not as if they'll hear him being so far away, up in the sky. How long did it take him to run into the house, pull the camcorder out of the box or bag or whatever, and get back outside? Did the object wait to pose?

Och, I can't be bothered with people making fake videos. It ruins the credibility of those who have real footage (if such a thing exists).

Unfortunately, in this day and age with all the Photoshops and the likes, and technology readily available, people will do anything to get hits on their webpages, 15 mins of fame, and blah blah blah blah.

Know something? It's a fake and that's it. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong. I'm gonna have my opinion until all freedom of speech is irradicated.

Now maybe the object is really small and some sort of Lilliputian invaders are coming for us. Or fairies have mastered flight to save their wee wings from over-exertion. I'm more convinced fairies exist than this being real. Get a life bud. Log-off and get some fresh air - it'll clear your mind and you'll see the error of your ways. Come to Scotland and take in the air and go to Bonnybridge where there's loadsa alien space ships flying around. And you'll see loadsa wee green men hanging around outside pubs projecting substance via their mouths.

Another thing is if all the videos out there are true or any are, why do these "visitors" make their ships visible but not themselves. Noone, to my knowledge, although I could be wrong, has ever had a camcorder at hand when the meet aliens. We have to make do with sketches.

And most of you here are only encouraging the likes of this guy.

Originally posted by Palasheea


Anyway, now I understand why you think it could be hanging from a fishing line... if it's hanging like a Christmas tree bulb from a vertical line that's on top of it then I agree with you that that line would be very easy to hide.

Exactly: i'm not saying that IS hanging from a fishing line:
i'm saying that IF is hanging from a fishing line, then all that he would need to do in order to hide it is to change a little bit some settings, and no particular skills are needed in order to do that.
He has the best way to prove me wrong: to share the original.


[edit on 20/4/2008 by internos]

I don't know if this is legitimate, but after reading "Jaime Maussan" as one of the keywords, my best bet would be that it's fake. This man once passed off a picture of a galaxy formation as a "giant UFO".