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.

 

Wow! Close Footage of a UFO?

page: 4
33
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kenan
You guys serious? This is clearly a CGI.

1) it's not blurred
2) the camera guy doesn't have an arthritis
3) it's not blurred


Surely you're being sarcastic aren't you?




posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
watch at 48seconds to 50 seconds - the object clearly goes OUT OF FOCUS then back into focus

the object does in fact get blurred

this is a excellant video! one of the best

so this is either

1) one of the best hoaxes

or

2) a real video of a flying saucer


one thing id love to point out tho is the hypocracy of the debunkers

Their favorite complain usually is "Why does every video have to be so freakin blurry?!"

and then when a good video comes out the complaint becomes "This is not blurry enough to be real"

Obviously no video is good enough for them NO MATTER WHAT!

debunk time 48seconds to 50seconds
it does get blurry cuz he changes focus

The only Rational Logical position to take is this

"Either this is a great fake or its for real - theres no way to know since i wasnt there!"

anything more or less is just pure ignorance and prejudice!


You are right. When they see a blurry video they ask for a clear video, but then when there is a clear video they ask for a blurry video lol.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by bloodsearch
 


I would like to chime in. I have seen a lot of CGI videos and while I am sure the very best CGI may be so good that I can't tell (cause how would I know otherwise?) most CGI tends to fall short in the post production.

The other areas that are often missed on CGI are inconsistencies in the following attributes between the original footage and the CGI superimposed UFO: Chromatic aberration, sharpening filter on the camera, white balance and iris changes, timebase error if the original footage was analog (like this footage)

The cheap way to avoid those being noticed is to add a lot of blurring/grain filters to the final footage to mask the inconsistencies, but this is also detectable by doing a grain analysis because grain is generated using pseudo random algorithms that can be easily tested for.

To fully reproduce the chromatic aberration and sharpen filter filter effects probably requires software that may not even yet exist. But, again, if somebody knows of good post production effects that can fix these anomalies without just spraying a lot of blur and grain, please let me know.

When footage happens to be CG, on the audio side, the voices usually sounds acted. and badly.

Not that one could not hire really good voice talents to get realistically surprised witnesses on the sound track. But the typical CG artist does not go hiring professional voice talent.

With that said, *this* video looks at least in my opinion like the object is really there. However, whether or not the object is a spacecraft, a toy or something else, is another matter altogether. The most convincing UFO video I have seen shows some wobbling and what seems like heat waves around the bottom area of the craft, which are absent in this video. I am talking about the popular Mexico city UFO that was anonymously mailed to Jaime Maussan in Mexico.

Of topic, if anybody happens to know whether an earthly explanation has come forward for that Mexico footage, I'd love to know, I haven't heard of it yet.

www.youtube.com...

-rrr



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
It looks real but it also looks a lot like an uninstalled round ceiling air vent.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by eaglewingz
The best footage would include the entire clip of the object departing.
That would allow for different perspective and measurement for verification.

Much easier to film a close-up object from limited perspective. That alone makes me vote


I Agree I would like to see the departure as in my own ufo experience it was the departure of the objects that made me think "crikey" that cant be from Earth!!!!

Dare i say Balloon...........Fancy balloon......there i said it.

Would love to see whole clip,Any one know the language as from a personal view point im very suspect of any Mexico ufo sightings.

May i also say to the OP good on you for posting and hope for some good insight as there is some very switched folk on this site
that can spot a fake a mile away.

Again would have loved to see the departure!

[edit on 29-8-2008 by MinMin]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Great footage, but i believe this may be military made.

Notice how there is a hollow doughnut shape in the middle, well there is an article i read awhile back in sciencedaily. about how a professor created a design for a flying saucer(small scale) by ionizing the air around the craft to create plasma that forces air down the middle of the craft propelling it upward.

it is an ingenious invention as it has no moving parts and is, supposedly, incredibly reliable.

here is the link to the article in science daily:

www.sciencedaily.com...

But the professor could have just copied the design from ufo's


[edit on 29-8-2008 by oatie]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by rickyrrr
 


I'm very sure that footage was proven fake,some show even recreated it at the same building as i said before most of the Mexico stuff has been very disappointing.

Like most people that come here I want to believe.(i have seen my own) but I'm sure getting picky there is a lot of crap to filter through and the ol adage apply s "if it seems to good to be true" it normally is

[edit on 29-8-2008 by MinMin]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by oatie
Great footage, but i believe this may be military made.

Notice how there is a hollow doughnut shape in the middle, well there is an article i read awhile back in sciencedaily. about how a professor created a design for a flying saucer(small scale) by ionizing the air around the craft to create plasma that forces air down the middle of the craft propelling it upward.

it is an ingenious invention as it has no moving parts and is, supposedly, incredibly reliable.

here is the link to the article in science daily:

www.sciencedaily.com...

But the professor could have just copied the design from ufo's


[edit on 29-8-2008 by oatie]


Yes of course Military craft of some kind some interesting stories as to what the Americans achieved after the war with German scientists etc some of the ufo Nazi connection still has some merit.

But as i said would have loved to have seen the departure!

food for thought maybe
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

www.eyepod.org...

[edit on 29-8-2008 by MinMin]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Although I admire the guys attempt to do some manual camera tracking, this is a big ol fake folks.

Sigh.

It would be nice for once to get something of this quality and it not be a fake. Trust me I can tell it's fake, but the materials are good on the 3d UFO, that's the only thing that I could consider convencing.

-Jimmy



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   
It definitely becomes a defined black oval at the end.

A top is noticeable at first and sort of like Billy Meier's 8mm sightings.

Light is definitely rearranged by high voltage electrostatics if
that is what is suspending it.

Light is electrically vectored, it just so happens that the UFO
must have a lot of negative charge around it.

If at a million volts, the charge creation is factored by a million squared
times a few minor inconsequential factors, like who cares when you
are bucking a million million electrons.

Suicide UFOs in the hands of Osama's pilots would be bad so the
grays are keeping the technology secret.

ED: I caught the end and the circular light patches are static light
on the inflatable landing gear meal covers. Just from voltage,
no current or power loss. Ether rules when you control it like
Tesla. Not to worry, the grays will keep the UFO secrets away
from Osama's suicide pilots.




[edit on 8/29/2008 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Hmmm... weather balloon filled with swamp gas, gliding along the wind. Nothing more to see, move along, move along.

Seriously though, I don't have the time to research it but it could be possible that the original video (from start to finish) was "heisted" by that person(s) who supposedly shot the Starwars toy "ufo", as another poster said previously. In other words, what we are seeing is an edited/cropped version of the original footage released by another person(s), NOT the original photographer. The original video may very well have the UFO's departure. But, like I said I don't have the time to track down the original, IF this is the case and even if it exists on the net. When in doubt find the source, don't take anything at face value... for or against.

Also, about EM interference from close UFOs I can attest from my experience that this doesn't always occur. I'm pretty sure I know why but I have no concrete evidence to share at this time.

Stay sharp!



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by dracodie
reply to post by bloodsearch
 


yeah , but there are so many fakes , many people just think that if one is fake then every other is too , its really hard to separate the wheat from chaff , with so many fakes circulating around , and the real ones just get lost in the middle.


thats why videos are essentially Useless

the only evidence for a reasonable mind, is a personal expierance

dont believe it till you see it, then you will know for sure somethings up



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 11:54 PM
link   
I guess the last couple days Ive been in the mood agin to check out the few videos that have been offered here as WOW! or this is for real!

To me this is a classic hoax! Why do I say that, and what brings me to want to yell, or scream hoax! Clearly Im saying this in a normal voice, and not yelling hoax, or even getting all riled up about it.

But its simple.. ITs a classic hoax UFO video.

First off, there are no points of referance.

2. its a classic Disk! And just is right in your face saying! "Hey look what I can do!

3. The person who made it has talent.. Thats right folks a talented classic hoax.

Now the maker of the hoax is either looking for work, or has a job doing this kind of stuff already.

No offence to those who feel its real.
I know aliens, and UFO really are out there. 100% I belive in them.

But I just get the gut feeling this is a classic hoax.

So dont get mad or down'ed because of what I say..
I just call um as I see them.

Classic hoax



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 01:04 AM
link   
I'd like to think that this is real.. But anyone who doesn't first consider the possibility of a hoax doesn't know ATS well enough..

I can't see anything that "screams" hoax at this point.. But there are a couple things I thought of.. The obvious reaction for me is to look at the shape and compare it to what objects COULD have been used to hoax this.

The object in this frame looked to me alot like a circular air diffuser..


If you aren't familiar with HVAC systems or ventilation in general, this is an example of what I'm talking about..



Then there's this frame of the youtube video



This looked to me alot more like some kind of upside-down large-diameter roof drain.. I'm not saying it is.. But the comparison is pretty interesting at least..

Common roof drains.. (these are not as flat but as some but you get the idea).






-ChriS



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Suicide UFOs in the hands of Osama's pilots would be bad so the
grays are keeping the technology secret.

ED: I caught the end and the circular light patches are static light
on the inflatable landing gear meal covers. Just from voltage,
no current or power loss. Ether rules when you control it like
Tesla. Not to worry, the grays will keep the UFO secrets away
from Osama's suicide pilots.


are you serious? please tell me you're joking. you can't possibly think aliens are keeping their technology from us because some radical, mislead religious activists, who use poor judgement and are duped into thinking that blowing themselves up and murdering innocent bystanders is a good thing, might use it against us?
riiiiiiiight..



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Here are some examples showing how easy it is to fake a ufo video:







This is the simplest way to do a triangle style ufo lol





[edit on 30-8-2008 by dracodie]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 03:18 AM
link   
****PROVEN FAKE**** (by a logical and simple understanding of how cameras actually work)


Trust me I believe more than most people that aliens are real(tho i feel most UFO's seen are actually military vehicles), its simply too big a universe for us to be alone.

BUT! I am also a film maker and a 3d Artist/animator, and I can clearly see all the errors with this video(OH and by the way, those of you who think "good" CG wasn't available when this footage was shot, think again, CG was available but it was not used in mainstream media. **The funny part is that this doesn't even involve ANY CG at all, this is 100% composited footage. Tell me, since "Star Wars" was filmed in 1977, it must have been ALL real because there was no way for them to do CG and fake it right? (insert sarcasm here)

Why this is a Fake:

1. UFO instability(not camera instability): There may not be any reference for scale but there is definitely positional reference that the clouds provide for you to see. The craft does not maintain a stable position in comparison to the clouds and doesn't stay in unison with shaky camera movement. I know the camera man has a shaky hand, but I can EASILY see that the UFO "shakes" around in a very jittery manner based on the clouds BEHIND it (look 17-18 seconds in and there is a large camera jerk movement to the left, the UFO clearly jerks WITH the camera movement which wouldn't happen if it were a real object in the sky). You can clearly see if you pay enough attention that the Compositing Artist did a "decent" job at accounting for the camera stabilization, but its pretty obvious that the craft does indeed "shake and jerk around inconsistently" on its own in the environment. I'm not talking about the guys shaky camera operating job, I'm talking about the craft in comparison to the clouds and sky behind it. There are subtle details in the clouds that are visible which give you a GOOD reference as to whether or not this aircraft is "stable" while flying in the air, if this WAS a real UFO then its a pretty damn unstable one since it clearly moves in a very stuttered and jittery manner based on the CLOUDS BEHIND IT and not based on the fact that the camera operator is zoomed to the max and can't keep the camera steady.

2. Focus: The camera focus is all wrong. I see that the UFO does indeed go "in and out of focus" but tell me, how the hell did this guy manage to PROPERLY focus on this UFO when he can't even keep the camera still? Doing both things at the same time are near impossible with this much camera shake. He would have to manually focus on the exact distance to get any sort of "consistent" focus going like there is in this video. BUT obviously he is not using manual focus because the UFO goes out of focus and back into focus for a few BRIEF moments during the video, which is an obvious indication that the Camera Operator is using Auto Focus. Since he was unquestionably in "AUTO FOCUS" then the UFO should have been slipping in and out of focus constantly. The way auto focus works is it will focus based on the distance an object is from the camera, and how much of that object is filling the screen space. Thus, because the camera is so shaky, the UFO should have been constantly going in and out of focus dramatically as the camera attempts to adjust the focal point from the UFO to the sky and back again, depending upon which takes up the most space. Since the camera is so shaky this would have been happening constantly rather than once or twice.

*****Continued in next post*******

[edit on 30-8-2008 by MaynardisGod]

[edit on 30-8-2008 by MaynardisGod]

[edit on 30-8-2008 by MaynardisGod]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 03:20 AM
link   
3. VRIL Craft? The Video tries to reference/compare this UFO to a few VRIL craft at the end; VRIL were produced by the Germans during WW2 though no history book will tell you this for obvious reasons. This aircraft in no way resembles that of the "hat" shaped Vril craft that was actually designed over 50 years ago...(just because its a saucer style does not mean that its of the same type and origin). Plus, the maker of this video clearly does not know his history, the images of the Vril Craft have the year 2008 on them, which is an obvious mistake because those pictures were taken over 3-4 decades ago. (though I guess it could be a different person that edited in this Vril craft comparison and not the actual camera man but who knows).

4. Perspective/Orientation: The UFO's orientation/perspective NEVER CHANGES! Again, this is an obvious error in compositing when you are trying to composite a vehicle that is traveling from one position to another. We always see the same underside without any change in perspective, when the craft actually "zips" off near the end of this video the UFO should have changed its orientation/perspective. Why did this error happen? Simple, the footage of the UFO was filmed on a stage, the camera man filmed the UFO from one angle and then it was composited onto the Sky footage. If they really wanted to nail perspective down and get it right, they would need to have the camera that filmed the UFO in the studio to actually rotate around the UFO prop and have it match up precisely with the footage and the UFO's movement.

5. UFO goes Black when Zoomed Out: Again, yet another compositing error. When you try to scale video footage it does not like to maintain its colors, contrast, and quality. The smaller you scale an object in order to make it appear like your zooming out from it, the more detail you loose. When you start to loose detail(meaning not enough pixels handled by the compositing station/software) you will get increased contrast, and when you get increased contrast you get color bleed. Considering the UFO is mainly black with only sublte specular highlights seen on its underside, the specular highlights get lost when you scale it down because the editor or software being used does not have enough pixel space to contain all the information. Thus, the majority pixels will dominate, in this case black. When the camera zooms out this is pretty damn obvious, every compositor knows of this annoying and devastating technical issue(if they don't then they are clearly blessed with HD software that can actually handle such scaling. IF this video really is from the 90's and not 2007 like the date says on the video itself, then they didn't have HD software back then and thus were using standard definition. This Black color bleed error is a very common occurence in compositing with the standard definition format.

6. Lighting - The specular highlights on the underside and topside of this craft are incorrect for a few reasons. First, the specular highlights remain perfectly consistent throughtout the video, which is yet another obvious indication that this was filmed on a set. When an object is moving in sunlight, specular highlights are constantly changing based on three things: The position/orientation of the object and the position of the light source(s), both in direct relation to the position of the Camera. Any object, even if it is bearly even moving, has constant changes in specular highlights. The highlights on the underside are also not authentic, you won't get highlights like that unless the sun was below the craft, plus the top of the craft has specular highlights that are just as prominent as the highlights on the bottom, which is impossible unless you have equal light sources illuminating the bottom of the craft and the top of the craft, which isn't possible with natural sunlight. Though its

[edit on 30-8-2008 by MaynardisGod]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 03:26 AM
link   
***Continued Post From Above^^^^^

Though its certainly possible to create that kind of specular lighting in a studio stage with a few lights. Its a pretty obvious decision on why they chose to have strong specular highlights on the underside of this craft, because if they didn't then there would far less detail in the underside of the craft and would have looked pretty crummy, who wants to see a black blob in the sky? When the average person see's these highlights it will certainly appear realistic in their eyes and seem more authentic to them than if it had very little detail(in which case if you take away the specular highlights from this UFO, you get nothing but a black underside). That wouldn't be very convincing
Some may say "well maybe the sun was setting so it cast light on both the top and bottom" but if that were the case then based on the crafts shape there should be prominent/larger specular hightlights illuminating the side of the craft and there wouldn't be specular hightlighting on the bottom most rounded edges(the soft circular highlight under the ufo). Now if this is a real UFO then of course the specular highlights will vary depending upon what material the outer body of the UFO is made of; but I bet anything that an alien species advanced enough to travel here and secretive enough to keep their presence quiet/hidden from us would never consider creating their craft with reflective materials simply because that increases their radar signature and also would make them far more noticable in the atmosphere since they would be shiny/reflecting sunlight, making them easy to spot.

Now, don't take this as an attack on the thread op, I really wish this were real and I 100% believe aliens are out there, but my Bachelors Degree in Feature Film Production with a specialization in Post Production has given me the mind tools to spot indicators of CGI and compositing pretty damn easily. I wouldn't consider this to be a gift for me however, because now when I go to see films in the theaters I find myself picking apart every production detail and it ruins the immersion for me simply because I have a good idea of how all the special effects are actually accomplished....

[edit on 30-8-2008 by MaynardisGod]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by MaynardisGod
 


Good post



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join