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: 7
33
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlasteR
reply to post by zorgon
 


Thanks for the vids. Actually there are some interesting things that I've noticed with the object in the OP's clip.
This is from the UFO clip.. Note the octogonal 8-sided shape.

-ChriS


Octagonal 8-sided Shape !!!!! Are you kidding? I think someone need glasses here.
Either you need glasses OR you are trying to fool someone here man. Watch again
the image but this time my capture bigger size and tell us: Is this a completely
round edge underneath or as you say a square one (?). Can't belive it!!




Just by this initial statement of yours you disqualified yourself in your debunk
attempt therefore the rest of your theories are automatically dismissed as irrelevant.
What we need here is a good debunker, still waiting.




posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by donhuangenaro
if you look carefully at the 39th second UFO shakes and goes left to right more than clouds in the background, which implicate this object is not synchronized with camera movement, hence it is added afterwards...

... and my 4 years working as professional in post-production (image compositing in adobe after effects) tells me this UFO is fake...

peace



Another false statement: “This object is not synchronized with camera movement”.
Really? Can you prove it? You know words mean nothing unless you provide a
graphic demonstration of your claims wich is known as EVIDENCE. It's clear the object
moves escaping the videographer's focal point momentarely, check the sequence in
slow motion and frame by frame, so this is not an argument and on the countrary
a false statement unless you prove with graphics your point wich I don't think you
will do.

Finally four years mean nothing in the film industry and you know it so don't try to
presume you are an expert unless you show your credentials, your expertise, your
works, links, links, evidences. Still waiting.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I always wonder why there is no parting shot.At Least have some proof of out of media or batteries! It looks like one of the old 50's ufo's. It is 2008.I would think that they could afford a new model by now but then again theres nothing like an old classic!



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Areal51
Was this UFO filmed from indoors through a large window? I say this because the people that are talking in the video are clearly indoors. Their voices are reverberating within the small room that they occupy. The UFO is outdoors, of course. This doesn't necessarily mean that the video is fake, just that I have the feeling that the audio and video were not recorded at the same time.


If you have taken the time to go to their website, added just a few posts before you said this, you would have noticed HOW he and his wife record from their skylights. One video clearly shows the guy filming his wife, who is filming through an OPEN skylight, at which point he turns his own camera up, and begins filming through a second CLOSED skylight. In another, it shows his wife climb up slightly through said skylight. This accounts for the 'reverberation of the voices' of those filming the video, AS WELL AS the natural sounds (ie. birds, wind, etc). I'm saying your theory that the audio and video was recorded separately has no ground, and is wrong.

Sorry,

J



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by free_spirit

Originally posted by donhuangenaro
if you look carefully at the 39th second UFO shakes and goes left to right more than clouds in the background, which implicate this object is not synchronized with camera movement, hence it is added afterwards...

... and my 4 years working as professional in post-production (image compositing in adobe after effects) tells me this UFO is fake...

peace



Another false statement: “This object is not synchronized with camera movement”.
Really? Can you prove it? You know words mean nothing unless you provide a
graphic demonstration of your claims wich is known as EVIDENCE. It's clear the object
moves escaping the videographer's focal point momentarely, check the sequence in
slow motion and frame by frame, so this is not an argument and on the countrary
a false statement unless you prove with graphics your point wich I don't think you
will do.

Finally four years mean nothing in the film industry and you know it so don't try to
presume you are an expert unless you show your credentials, your expertise, your
works, links, links, evidences. Still waiting.


I agree with all of your points here entirely. I've worked in Post Production for a few years myself, and I don't consider myself anywhere NEAR being an expert on the subject enough to pass judgement so matter-of-factly. I implore him to please show video proof, as well as credentials needed to justify his judgement.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by LunarLooney1
reply to post by LunarLooney1
 


If you have a UFO in your camera lens, why stop filming after only 30 seconds. I would be tripping over stuff to follow this thing until the tape ran out or the battery dropped dead. This in itself, like most all of the fakes always end after 30 seconds... think about that! Where is the shock and ah while filming this... there is none from the camera fake because it's not shocking to him... he put it there! Wake up all you young believers and try not to be fooled so easily... it makes us serious members at ATS look silly.


Well maybe when you have proof that this guy got caught with a star wars toy we will believe your claims, i don't dought it at all but when you go posting something like that with no evidence it makes you look pretty sketchy. Until I see evidence your posts will not be credible to me what so ever.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
I'd like to believe it is real, I'd like to believe ALL UFO video's are real.. The trouble is.. they are 98% of the time hoaxes or easily explained.

I doubt this is part of that 2%.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by WishForWings
I'd like to believe it is real, I'd like to believe ALL UFO video's are real.. The trouble is.. they are 98% of the time hoaxes or easily explained.

I doubt this is part of that 2%.


Could you please tell me where did you find those statistics? Because according to
my knowledge in Ufology the percentage is quite different, not that 98%. But please
don't quote CSICOP as your source, that would explain the issue. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truther
Is this a real ufo, its very low in the sky. the guy filming seems very genuine and the objects seems to be moving across the sky.

If this is real it has to be the best ufo footage ive ever seen in daylight!





MOD-Note: ALL CAPS title replaced.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by Skyfloating]

Looks like it could be a Gray Top Hat spacecraft.
majestic12lazar.tripod.com...



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 01:12 AM
link   
UGH!
here we go..


Originally posted by free_spirit
Octagonal 8-sided Shape !!!!! Are you kidding? I think someone need glasses here.
Either you need glasses OR you are trying to fool someone here man. Watch again
the image but this time my capture bigger size and tell us: Is this a completely
round edge underneath or as you say a square one (?). Can't belive it!!


If I was kidding I wouldn't have posted it. I need glasses? If you can see ANY other point in the video where the shape of this part of the craft is more visible than in this frame then prove me wrong. Could this be some kind of digital artifact. OF coarse it could. I'm not an idiot. But the frame DOES show straight edges on this part of the craft that are obvious in the still-frames I posted. If you are somehow confused as to what part of the craft I'm talking about you can look at the second image where I specifically outlined it for everyone. Compare that to the original to see why I pointed it out in the first place. Point made.. That was the whole idea of posting both the original AND the outlined still-frames. I'm not saying I'm right. I'm not even saying you're wrong that it is circular instead of an octagon. Trying to discredit other people doesn't make you look very professional, and it is clear that it doesn't contribute to the thread in any way, shape, or form.


Originally posted by free_spirit
Just by this initial statement of yours you disqualified yourself in your debunk
attempt therefore the rest of your theories are automatically dismissed as irrelevant.
What we need here is a good debunker, still waiting.


This is what we call Ad Hominem.. If you aren't sure what this means, click this link.
en.wikipedia.org...

I disqualify myself in my debunk? WOW! I've been a regular on ATS for a while but this is a first. I am not even really sure who you are as I haven't seen you elsewhere on ATS. However, this comment of yours doesn't make sense and is an idiotic and ignorant for a few reasons.

1-I am not a debunker and I never tried to debunk anything. Apparently you think I am a "debunker" all of a sudden. That's hilarious.. Let's review..I'm an ATS member posting in a discussion forum about a possible video clip involving a UFO. Debunking is much more involved than pointing out small details. If you suddenly think what I have posted is debunking then you are clearly mistaken or misinformed on what debunking actually is. I see points of interest, I point them out for further discussion. That's what we do here on ATS. We point out the details, we discuss them, we apply uncommon logic, the thread progresses and we learn more (usually). That's the point of reading and/or participating in a thread.

2-Just because you are unhappy with what I posted doesn't make my arguments any less valid. I did make other arguments as well which you might have failed to notice. THIS IS A DISCUSSION FORUM. This is not an official report that goes into a permanent, official MUFON report.. But, IMO, ATS in general does have a certain professionalism and detail oriented focus to these topics that is a testament to the overall success of the site. If people see a post like yours, would that actually make people want to point out details just as I have done? Probably not so much. Everything relevant to the subject matter in the OP's post is open for discussion. If people notice something, they should point it out like I do because this is an open discussion.

3-If there is some kind of ATS rule that I have broken then point it out. If you insist on continuing your self-discrediting rant then feel free to do so. It was never my intention to frustrate the socks off of people who suddenly think I am trying to twist the facts of what is in the video. I posted the original still frame so that what I was talking about could be clearly seen as I saw it. I'm not saying what IS or ISN'T real about the object. This is what I saw.. This is what I pointed out. I have never twisted or edited evidence to fit whatever world-view I possess. I have known alot of the other posters in this thread for a long time and I always try to post relevant material that contributes to the thread. I am not some idiotic ATS member who spreads disinformation for some kind of hidden agenda. The evidence should be able to speak for itself. LET IT!

What we don't need is to wait for the "experts" to magically come along and sort out everything for us as if we are 8 years old and can't tie our shoes. If everyone did that, this thread wouldn't be 7 pages long by now. This is a discussion where ATS members comment on the topic at hand. If you think someone is wrong on ATS, point out why, include something to back up and/or validate your point and let the thread progress without the attempts at discrediting people you don't even know. How you think this kind of thing is a constructive endeavour I will never understand, but It definately isn't to your credit. That's all I have..

-ChriS



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by NightVision

Um. no. This is Italian footage taken over a decade ago before CGI had the ability to fake good camera stabilization. Check your the arrogance at the door, please.



There were good programs available over a decade ago that could be used to fake a UFO clip like this. I mean, Terminator 2 had some good CGI and camera tracking effects and that was filmed in 1991, 17 years ago. Even in 1988 they had fairly decent CGI with the morphing of characters in the film Willow.
And even if it wasn't made with the expensive programs these people used, it could still have been faked using cheaper software with a little patience and a lot of spare time to adjust the position of the UFO on each frame of video, which could also account for the short clip duration as it would take a long time to do it.

Not that I'm saying this video is fake, just that it could be even if the footage is over 10 years old with a date stamp from the wrong year.

It's cool to watch it though, real or not



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
i produce cgi models animations and also use aftereffects. this looks like video of a real object, and would take quite a bit of effort to produce this artificially.

i dont see any evidence of greenscreening, or polygon scalloping. and the focal planes on the object look quite organic.

it may be a hubcap on a string, or whatever, but is a real object...

what gets me is, this guy is apparently visited by ufos regularly yet he can't be arsed to acquire a tripod?



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   
it's a single image. and it was probably filmed inside of an enclosed area because of the nature of the sound dynamics. i produce music and master my own stuff. just to give you an idea of how well i know sound, i can hear stereo cross-phasing between two channels and in my opinion this was filmed inside a room with a wobbly camera pointing at a still image.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   

x2

++++



=



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by nn53x
it's a single image. and it was probably filmed inside of an enclosed area because of the nature of the sound dynamics. i produce music and master my own stuff. just to give you an idea of how well i know sound, i can hear stereo cross-phasing between two channels and in my opinion this was filmed inside a room with a wobbly camera pointing at a still image.


what about the birds? did they have a few spare mechanical pidgeons lying around too?



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by nn53x
it's a single image. and it was probably filmed inside of an enclosed area because of the nature of the sound dynamics. i produce music and master my own stuff. just to give you an idea of how well i know sound, i can hear stereo cross-phasing between two channels and in my opinion this was filmed inside a room with a wobbly camera pointing at a still image.


I am a Sound Engineer by trade, and produce music, as well. Hearing Stereo Cross-Phasing is no big thing. Many people (Not of the 'MP3 Generation') can point out Cross-Phasing, just because by inverting one channel, and then playing it back, the entire recording will sound out of whack. Test with your friends, I'll assume you have the ability to invert a channel of audio on your mixer... Unless of course you're simply a 'Digital Only' 'Producer', in which case, I'd suggest soundforge to do this. Most people will point out which is 'right', Even Psycho-Acoustically speaking (whether the sound is 'in the right location' ie. closing your eyes, and being able to picture where the band members are from, based on their location in the Psycho-Acoustic Environment)

I Digress.

Based on my experience with sound, and recording sound for film/television (only around 10 years working with audio, the first 6 of which doing my own musical productions, and 4 working with audio for film/television), I believe that you are entirely wrong. Once again, on their website, you can watch their vids, and in the 4th (I believe) video they have streaming, it CLEARLY shows his wife standing just inside an open skylight, while he films her capturing an object. This, in turn, shows you good reason to have a slight reverberation on the audio, displaying that it was, indeed, recorded inside, partially outside an open skylight.

In yet another of the video's he's got posted on their site, it shows him walk up to one skylight, filming the object, and then walks to the other side of the room, looks up, and finds the same object through the other skylight.

I don't mean to make this a debate about who's got more experience with audio. I'm simply saying that I think you are entirely wrong, and therefore have no other reason to call 'hoax' or 'fake' on this one, other than you, yourself being completely convinced against the possibility that we have, or are being visited by these crafts, or phenomenon.


J



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by nn53x
it's a single image. and it was probably filmed inside of an enclosed area because of the nature of the sound dynamics.


Almost right but not quite right and I will show where. Here is the videographer italian
Antonio Urzi showing the location inside of his home where he videotaped the sighting,
a small window located on the bathroom in a very uncomfortable position as you can
see in images 2 and 3. Antonio Urzi shows the actual videocamera and the position
during the interview for a documentary. This may explain in someway the issue of the audio.









posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   
A couple of things are off.

The objects and the backgrounds shaking don't seem to match. This could be because of youtubes quality but I don't think so. More likely that it has been tracked wrong. Especially the moment where we can see clouds and the camera shakes. The tracking is pretty horrible which I'd expect considering there no solid objects to track.

Sometimes when the object blurs, the background doesn't blur. It's hard to spot anyway because the background is all low-quality clouds.

And if this was real, we would see a better quality version of it. This is youtube quality for a reason.

I'd say this is a cgi work. 95% certain.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by maarek99
 


If you check some of the previous posts there is a link to a better video.

Here it is

I think it may have been just the quality of the youtube video, however look at the better quality video and see what you think. Personally I don't see any of the problems with the video that you describe.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   
I think most cgi people only need to look through this low qual vid a couple of times to see its fake. Motion tracking even tough quite allright is plainly wrong here. Never the less I'm sure soner or later we will get some nice footage of a real ufo.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join