Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

CGI UFOs | Some of the best ones

page: 2
55
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   
My personal rule of thumb is if the image is sharp and clear... and the UFO is hovering or flying... its 99.99999% chance that it's faked

If it's 'fuzzy' I will look at it further...

The reason? When its in the air it has it's 'engines running'

Here is a video clip of (appropriately) the Mirage taking off

watch at about 1:30 as you see the planes from behind...



In this case the distortion is caused by the drive unit... namely the heat of the jet engines...

With UFO's imagine an electro-gravitic 'shield' around the craft... same effect it becomes 'fuzzy'

[edit on 14-5-2008 by zorgon]




posted on May, 14 2008 @ 10:21 PM
link   
I don't know if this bulgarian ufo has been discussed but to me it looks authentic. I have looked this one over and over and it looks good to me. Theres another video claiming RV Ed Dames remote viewed this and said it was from another dimension.



Than this video I find very interesting.



[edit on 14-5-2008 by Peepers]



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


i see what you mean but when its on youtube every thing looks blurry
. i hope i didn't steer this thread in the wrong direction, i simply posted what i thought to be cgi fakes.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


I've been lead to believe this is an actual working craft that is owned by the Italian Air Force (?) to appease their whining over not getting anything for their financial contributions. Supposedly this flight was leaked and planned similar to what happened with Lazar and his inside information. My source could be wrong since it supposedly involved remote viewing.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon


so... what about this one?


[edit on 14-5-2008 by zorgon]


I've always liked this one for some reason. I don't think it's ET craft, but possible a black craft, useing some type of gravity distortion propulsion, or electro-magnetic type thing.

It's just something about how the camera shake, and the "ufo" move in comparison to eachother, it just seems authentic to me for some reason, it always has.

But it's just a gut feeling. It could easily just be CGI I suppose.


Though I have to say the grannies flying the remote "haiti" craft was priceless. I watched that 3 times, and laughed harder each time.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nola213

I've always liked this one for some reason. I don't think it's ET craft, but possible a black craft, useing some type of gravity distortion propulsion, or electro-magnetic type thing.


I would not go with anti gravity or gravity distortion propulsion on this one...

It looks like simple Coanda Effect propulsion the movement of the flanges gives it away...

Compare it to this demo...

www.thelivingmoon.com...




posted on May, 15 2008 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Hi Internos,

This thread should prove to be a useful resource to the members of ATS.

Thank you for taking the time to prepare it.

Starred and flagged.

All the best,

Isaac



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Thanks Internos for this great thread! I for one think this is exellent work, well done!


This will open all our eyes to spot the difference between cgi and the real thing!

Thanks Internos



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Star and flag for you Internos,

This is a very important post and one which should/could/will be, used to measure what we see on the 'net' dished up as a 'genuine' unidentified flying object. (just needed to reiterate what ufo is! - for my own purposes)


H



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


interesting clip to say the least.


I have to admit I'm not up on this "coanda effect", but there are some defenite asthetic similiarities between the two craft.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Internos, thanks for compiling this post. There are lessons to be learnt from these videos, hard and important ones.

We simply cannot trust new UFO footage. Unless, as I stated a long time ago, it is caught on a live TV feed, and how likely is that?

There's nothing that can't be faked anymore with the advent of cheap, accesible software and the proffusion of talent out there. Kinda makes me feel sick...

If only there was a way to persuade software manufacturers to encode an unremovable watermark in anything created on their products, that can only be seen via the use of a specific filter.

Do you think they'd do it for the sake of research into a very real, ongoing phenomena that is being hampered by these programmes?

No, neither do I.



[edit on 15-5-2008 by Beamish]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Oh great.

I almost feel sorry for all those people that put massive man hours trying to convince others these vids were real.

I hope ATS doesn't shutdown now as a result.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
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]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Nicely done internos as always
What's the % of hoaxed video & pictures compared to unsolved video & pictures? I'm thinking the % for hoaxed ones outweigh the unsolved ones by miles.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
This is why ALL UFO videos in the Internet are FAKE!

FAKE! FAKE! FAKE!

UFO/Aliens don't exist. They're ALL either misidentified or CGI.

Thanks for clearing this up.

Case closed. UFOlogy has been officially been announced the most useless, mindless, unproductive and thoughtless time wasting endeavour ever. Watching grass grow is much much more prductive than seeking 'lights in the sky'.


Next time if you saw a 'UFO' or 'alien' video in the Internet it's fake.

FAKE! FAKE! FAKE!

Case closed.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by Macrotus]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Macrotus
 


Case still open for me. I don't know about aliens but I sure would like to find out about some of the ufo's that are out there. You have to go through all the chunks of coal to find that diamond, so I'm not closing the case and I'm keeping my mind open.

This video is a good one to look at. Tallahassee Florida




[edit on 5/15/2008 by Solarskye]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nola213
I have to admit I'm not up on this "coanda effect", but there are some defenite asthetic similiarities between the two craft.



There are several threads on here dealing with the subject... and of course many skeptics saying "it ain't so"


Well just to take a little side step... though not really off topic as this does help to show what some "UFO's" might be...

Coanda Effect is real...

Start with Henry Marie Coanda

The first practical demo was in the FIFTIES with the Avro Car... a joint Canadian - USAF venture. They had a single engine... and it was very unstable... and basically was a flop and supposedly scrapped...

Here is a good video of several test models...



The concept however was NOT scrapped... and today many 'garage labs' are making small working models

JLN LABS (the clip I showed) has been making small ones for some time as have many other 'garage scientists' Simply do a search for 'Coanda effect UAV'

LJN Labs will show you how to build one....
jlnlabs.online.fr...

Here is a British Company doing the same...
www.gfsprojects.co.uk...

"If you thought flying saucers didn’t exist, think again. Rebecca Pool meets the UK hovercraft engineer who wanted to fly."
Flights of Fancy

I have files showing that work on the coanda effect craft was not scrapped by the military and they use this effect for video surveillance craft

U.S., British Militaries May Deploy Flying Saucers
www.foxnews.com...

Cypher 2
Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, San Diego
www.nosc.mil...


www.nosc.mil...

Now for a modern application...

For the 'reasonable' price of just $90,000.00



The Moller M200G Volantor is entering production at a whopping height of 10 feet and max speeds of up to 50mph for 90 minute flights. Although this bad boy won’t be turning heads on the highway just yet, it is being marketed as a form of off roading. Dr. Moller is quoted,

It’s not a hovercraft, although its operation is just as easy. You can speed over rocks, swampland, fences, or log infested waterways with ease because you’re not limited by the surface. The electronics keep the craft stabilized at no more than 10 feet altitude, which places the craft within ground effect where extra lift is obtained from operating near the ground. This lets you glide over terrain at 50 mph that would stop most other vehicles.

It seems as if the crafts have ample orders, counting in at 67. Maximum payload is 250 pounds at a cost of about $90,000.






So I would say that the Aviano UFO is just another piece of the puzzle and it would not surprise me at all if the Italian Military was working on similar craft...

On a final note...

Wouldn't they make a cool Remote Control toy? Be the first on your block to have your own 'flying saucer'

This is a must watch video... as it clearly shows how easy it would be to film a REAL flying saucer... who needs CGI when you have one of THESE








[edit on 15-5-2008 by zorgon]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Hi Zorgon,
The aircraft, flying car etc all rely on the movement of air to support the vehicle. Would they work in vacuum of space?

This begs the question, if we are being visited by beings from 'out there' they would have to know the rudimentries in the theory of flight in a condensed atmosphere first before manufacturing and then learning how to 'fly' in the Earths atmosphere. Or (if they are from some place other than Earth!) they would have to transport their air reliant craft with them from whence they came.

Just a thought!
H



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Havalon

Hi Zorgon,
The aircraft, flying car etc all rely on the movement of air to support the vehicle. Would they work in vacuum of space?


Well the Coanda effect works on ANY 'fluid' Water would work, but carrying enough water is a little ummm impractical


HOWEVER Plasma is a 'fluid' as well and all you need to generate a useful plasma flow is a powerful fusion reactor...

Now Sci Fi you say? Not possible?

Well the Air Force Research Lab has already presented publicly accessible info on Plasma Actuators... (6-6-2006) IE making a plane turn without the need for ailerons...

www.thelivingmoon.com...

So this gives you the design in principal... applyed in this case to... guess what? TRIANGULAR Planes



And that Fusion Reactor? For that we want to go to MIT

Levitated Dipole Fusion Confinement Concept




Welcome to the Levitated Dipole eXperiment (LDX) web site. LDX is a novel experimental device designed to explore the physics of plasma confinement in a magnetic dipole field. What makes it unique? Besides levitating a 1/2 ton superconducting ring, we will conduct the first experimental test on the theory of plasma confinement by adiabatic compressibility. If this concept turns out to be correct, levitated dipoles may one day make an attractive magnetically confined fusion energy source. LDX is a collaboration between Columbia University's Dept. of Applied Physics and the MIT Plasma Science & Fusion Center and is funded by the Department of Energy's Office of Fusion Energy.


www.thelivingmoon.com...

Now all this research is related... the MIT experiment has been upgraded since I did this page but I have not had time to update my files Google will find the latest public info...

The Levitated Dipole is a HE3 Fusion device that actually LEVITATES and isn't levitation a form of anti gravity?


So all this is tied in to current project that show UFO's could very easily be Government projects...

However it was not my intent to get into all that here in the CGI thread... I just wanted to show the 'state of the art' in remote control UAV's that could very easily be used to film convincing UFO footage... All you need to do is de-focus the camera




they would have to transport their air reliant craft with them from whence they came.

Just a thought!


Well the Plasma flow works in or out of the atmosphere


The Coanda Effect is only a step in proof of principle... and this was in the 50's so they have had a little time to work on this



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


Cool. I don't put any time into isuues/topics/events until I see a dozen or so somewhat independent references and those need to be asides when another topic is the focus. If it meets that criteria, then it goes into my "maybe examine" file.
With CGI, films are just part of the picture. Corroboration is the key.





new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join