reply to post by miguelbmx
Hi Miguel, and thank you for your post, my friend
The first one of those videos,
has allegedly been filmed in france:
nothing but its description on youtube is available, but it's fishy, imho.
A problem with this video, occurs from frame 872, (24.400 Ms) when the camera has a sudden shake but the shape of the object doesn't seem to be
affected by any motion blur: besides, nothing in the object suggests a 3d shape.
Another issue is the inconsistency if its appearance ratiO:
due to lack of better points of reference, i've used a leaf visible to the left
this means that while the leaf appearance is consistent with the zoom, the object is not:
of course, if we assume that it doesn't shift shape nor it moves throught the "Z" axis:
what's important in the ratio variations is not that it changes, but that it sometimes increases, and sometimes decreases: basically it's
inconsisten with the surrounding environment.
So, it's hard to say something conclusively: the video has many incongruences, it's suspect, but i absolutely can't prove it being 100% fake.
This is also what happens in the second one, the UFO sighting that allegedly took in Nanjing, Cina, in 2006:
there's an accurate analysis by Bruce Maccabee, who has found more "hoax fingerprints":
It can be found here
www.brumac.8k.com...
Better res available:
(Right click and save target as...)
Download in .wmv format
www.ufocasebook.com...
Download in .mpeg format
www.ufocasebook.com...
Conclusion:
This video is suspect because the UFO image focus does not change as much as the building focus (the focal changes should be the same if the UFO were
far away, like the building). It is also suspect because the UFO image size does not change as much as the building image where the camera "zooms"
in or out. And finally, the "construction" of the UFO image does not seem consistent with what might be expected from a symmetric circular craft.
Of course, UFOnauts can make unsymmetric vehicles, one supposes, so perhaps this is not as important as the issues related to defocus and
magnification change.
Without further information that could provide reasonable explanations for the "fingerprints of a hoax" this video has to be considered a
probable hoax.
Source:
www.brumac.8k.com...
The third one looks to be an obvious CGI, besides its author has posted it in Film & Animation category:
It seems that he has also made this one:
anyway, the quality of the video is horrible: it prevents any possible attempt of serious analysis, imho.
I don't recall to have seen the fourth video, before:
it's claimed to have been filmed in Saransk (Russia), 2007.
Its ratio variations have the same problem:
it increases, than decreases:
needless to say, the ratio variation by itselsf proves nothing, but in this case i think that the smoking gun is somewhere else.
The object vanishes from sight in 134 ms, but:
1) While travelling at that extraordinary speed, it stills for 66 ms (three frames) in the same, EXACT position: i would expect to see the movement
splitted in more frames, like in the following rough example:
2) While travelling at that extraordinary speed, the object does NOT show any motion blur:
look at the following comparison between the object while was still (frm. 456) and the object while was allegedly moving at super-fast speed (frm
1.201): image enlarged with pixel resize, preserving what has actually been caught on camera, by a factor of 15;
the TOTAL absence of motion blur indicates no variations between when it was static and when it was moving, no matter its supposed "propulsion
system".
The more is fast the movement, the more the motion blur has to be obvious: here we see basically the same appearance.
That said, in my opinion this is CGI, unless someone could provide some corroborating evidences in order to prove me wrong.
But, of course i
can be wrong: this is just my opinion, my friend
[edit on 15/5/2008 by internos]
. i hope i didn't steer this thread in the wrong direction, i simply posted
what i thought to be cgi fakes. 
