UFO Video London

I know no one has had any real training in this. It seems all the conclusions are for some nebulous points system for ego-status.

No one has any real conclusive here. It is easy to say it is fake, but no one has proof of that. Just circumstantial, and very tenuous at that.

So before everyone pats each other on the back like they actually know something about this or the case I will let you know that some real investigators are laughing at any conclusions being made.

I have a better reason for him taking the images off his site. Because people think it is proof in their uneducated minds that he is lying and he is being dishonest. Natural and probable reaction to take the image/s down if you study behavioral in peoples reactions.

Question: If you where falsely accused of abusing children and you had lots of pictures of your friends kids and your own kids on your Facebook, (Because you love children) maybe a baby of a friend who was naked like babies are normally, would you get that gone immediately? Your lawyer or public defender would have you take it down too likely so as not to give fuel to such accusations of pedophile activity.

All you need is a "perception" of an untruth. Remember the tragic story of Fatty Arbuckle in thew 1920's who was falsely accused of such a crime? Even though he was eventually shown to be totally innocent his career as a very popular comedic movie star was ruined forever. So what would that imply in being judged in the very public opinions of people without due process of law?

Have fun with this, but try not to take yourselves any more seriously than you would in a video game. This is not "truth" you are practicing. It is gabby finger pointing and guilt without any real trial or science.

This could be fake, but it is clear no one here has a clue yet. Simply amateur assumptions based on some idea of what real science is.

There is MUCH more work before ANY determination would be made by a real researcher and investigative body.

I have found many such dismissed videos here to be more likely real, and in some cased actually determined to be unknowns and NOT faked by world class investigators. Yep, right here.

One such case came from these very ATS pages several months ago that was very significant. Same type of non-scientific bashing as this, called hoax with all the same freshmen logic, but upon investigation found out to be more true actually.

The young man who reported his experience here made a bad mistake showing it to this crowd. He had actual physical evidence that was promptly gobbled up by dark government lurkers who watch such cases and was threatened by FBI into giving up his evidence before anyone could see it except the scientist who got the parts and reported the anomalous materials and radioactive elements. I know for a fact this went up the chain to the highest public investigative teams. Snatched by the secret keepers however before any tests. Some of us where very spooked by this. I stopped ATS activity out of concern.

I really hate to burst a bubble here, but we are trying to deny ignorance here and not "grow it". Some here are smart educated or real science people and certified investigators. You can learn from them. Just listen, look, try new angles, but if you do not already have a grasp of scientific methodologies or psychological profiling and investigative methodology take your opinions with a large grain of salt.

We have a much better chance of finding the truth or likeliness of a real or faked event if we are intelligently educated.

If you really know CGI from a professional standpoint you can feel confident to talk about it. If however if what you know is from talking on gamers sites and reading game magazines about 3D animation, shaders, textures and such you might adopt some appropriate humility. Educate or vacate. This is not a science you can fake knowing simply with the use of big words/acronyms like CGI.

I hope we can be more careful about such things here because ATS has the potential of a serious contribution to study of UFOs, aliens, ghosts and similar issues if we stick to the science and not just use Facebook quality logic.

Yea, I'm disappointed. I expect better here. So I deny the ignorance, but would rather acknowledge awareness instead.

ZG

Originally posted by rightuos
Here is the guys MySpace page.

www.myspace.com...

check out page 2 of his photography and art pictures

Just Kurious rightuos, how did you link him to the MySpace page?
What lead you there? Was it from his YouTube account?

Regardless, some great sleuthing as we all basically had same info to go on. Once again, kudos for busting the prankster.

What is that faint music I hear?
Stairway to Heaven or Sympathy for the Devil?

Regards...KK

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by ZeroGhost

 

You can't be serious after Rightuos' find!
look at this pic on the guys bed,
(another photo from his collection)

aftershock-the-band.com...

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by ZeroGhost

 

You can't be serious after Rightuos' find!
look at this pic on the guys bed,
(another photo from his collection)

aftershock-the-band.com...

You are going to have to explain your theory of why this is proof of anything. All you have is a picture. Did he do it? If he did, why?

It is circumstantial evidence. Sorry, this is real science. You need proof either way, and this is not.

I simply shows the man is curious about his camera. What's the date? Same cam? Same person? Did he say anything about this? If after maybe he wondered how hard it was to fake being as he anticipated your reactions. Prove that is not the case then.

You know, the music on the site is Midi. Is that proof that all the music they do is really is Midi or that all the photos are faked and the band is not real?

ZG

reply to post by ZeroGhost


Wow.......

You know I did write a nice long response to this, but then i deleted it and decided that I am not even going to dignify it with a response other than stating I have a college education and stfu. Thank you have a nice day.

Originally posted by ZeroGhost

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by ZeroGhost

 

You can't be serious after Rightuos' find!
look at this pic on the guys bed,
(another photo from his collection)

aftershock-the-band.com...

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by ZeroGhost

 

You can't be serious after Rightuos' find!
look at this pic on the guys bed,
(another photo from his collection)

aftershock-the-band.com...

You are going to have to explain your theory of why this is proof of anything. All you have is a picture. Did he do it? If he did, why?

It is circumstantial evidence. Sorry, this is real science. You need proof either way, and this is not.

I simply shows the man is curious about his camera. What's the date? Same cam? Same person? Did he say anything about this? If after maybe he wondered how hard it was to fake being as he anticipated your reactions. Prove that is not the case then.

You know, the music on the site is Midi. Is that proof that all the music they do is really is Midi or that all the photos are faked and the band is not real?

ZG

Circumstantial evidence in some cases is admissible in a court of law. We have literally torn this video apart. Personally I was one of the supporters trying to prove that it is not a fake in a pretty logical manner. When you see he is in possession of the means to create this effect with a possible motive of deception logically you would think he is deceiving you.

The possession of the murder weapon is usually the most incriminating of evidence.

reply to post by ZeroGhost
I was lucky enough to capture that pic
off the video man's site,by following Rightuos's first link
probably moments before the pics were deleted,
(go back and check from Rightuos's initial post)
you will see that Rightuos also saw the same pic..
or are we both telling porkey's?
It would maybe be a good idea if you went
back through the whole thread
and you will see that there are quite a few
commonsense posts from people on
both sides of the debate,(and that's what it was)
Pity you can't see that
while telling everybody that they are basically stupid,
who should not be saying anything about
things they are not qualified for.
BTW,I only saw this pic today,
and I first mentioned Green LEDs way way back.
Time for a chill pill I think,Bye.



[edit on 29-4-2009 by smurfy]

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
What you are seeing is how often the camera samples the CCD data in a single frame of video. So, it is not proof of anything but the cameras particular FPS spec.

So this is the third theory. Talking about conclusions, what makes your conclusions better than anybody elses?

I've been staring at this video for hours back and forth, in slow, fast, and stills. The last frame when the lights leave reminded me of how LED lights react on a digital camera when moved quickly or using long exposure. Then I started seeing at points in the video where the lights moved there are subtle other movements in the video all over moving at the same rate.

As for finding his myspace that was easy and just a shot in the dark I just googled danrabit and there he was. First I checked to see if he had mutual friends, then had a gander at his pictures. He had about 4 pictures of the exact same green LED's in motion at the same angle triangle as in the video. That ends it for me. I know ZeroGhost wants some scientific analogy, but I don't feel one is needed. Maybe I gloated a bit with case closed but to me it is, and I offered my proof why. If you wish to believe this is a UFO and not a reflection on a pane of glass he is holding up in front of his camera by all means continue on.

Just for kicks I dug up some of my own pics from a couple years ago fiddling with lights and camera movement.

Incandescent lights while moving camera.


LED lights while moving camera.

Originally posted by Verklagekasper

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
What you are seeing is how often the camera samples the CCD data in a single frame of video. So, it is not proof of anything but the cameras particular FPS spec.

So this is the third theory. Talking about conclusions, what makes your conclusions better than anybody elses?

You are misunderstanding. I do not see anything worth making any conclusions. Real or faked.

I'm saying that no one here has the right to call anything fake or real yet with anything but an opinion.

ZG

reply to post by rightuos


Good find rightuos.

I'm disapointed that this is a hoax but this is to be expected. A collection of hoax pictures and video should be made for all to see and learn from ... but that probably is already there somewhere.

debunker 1 hoaxers 0



Still waiting to see the video that will ready convince me. Hopefully soon

If the window he was filming from was open, why do we see the outside of the window frame in the video, should'nt we see the inside of the frame? Which means he must have been filming through a fixed glass window to the right of one that opens.....makes sense to me.

Originally posted by Verklagekasper

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
What you are seeing is how often the camera samples the CCD data in a single frame of video. So, it is not proof of anything but the cameras particular FPS spec.

So this is the third theory. Talking about conclusions, what makes your conclusions better than anybody elses?

Again, I don't play ego-based freshmen pissing contests. That's for people with fragile egos who want cred for what they are not aware of.

I said it like it is. That is what you are looking at. Samples in the microsecond from CCD data for one frame.

Same as this:

Image from subject A site, Low light, still image.

In the example from this image on his site you can see the CCD was sampled several times with the last sample showing the subjects face.

Same with the example that is gone now. BTW don't take the images off his site and repost without permission. it is strictly against ATS rules and copyright laws. FYI.

He can sue for that if he feels it slanders him unfairly.

ZG

This is how I would replicate the video

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7220c5bd5854.png[/atsimg]

If the room is dark then all you have to do is have the lights on a frame on the floor.

A string attached pulled at the right moment and in the right direction will make it look like it flies away.

The "bead" pattern is the ligts in each picture frame. Once acceleration exceeds the picture frame rate it seems to vanish.

Takes some tests but this would work.

And the pane of glass need not be very large and it will weigh less than a ton or even less than 50 pounds.

Magicians/illusionists use this technique as do the President of The United States. His teleprompter is a pane of glass/perspex and there is a projector mounted in the foot of the stand.

EDIT:
Skipped the last couple of pages to post this.
Meanwhile someone found his Myspace and his previous work.

GOOD JOB. Wish I had thought of that, but I was testing out ways I would make it.
Occams Razor. Don't introduce complications unless you run out of options.

[edit on 29.4.2009 by HolgerTheDane]

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
I know no one has had any real training in this. It seems all the conclusions are for some nebulous points system for ego-status.

Funny how the smug attitude by someone who seems intent on belittling this thread and the ATS reward-point system would make the effort to craft a mighty impressive Avatar.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3d853af5d753.jpg[/atsimg]

Perhaps ZG will check back in with we weebles when he returns from his Ego Trip.

I don't fabricate the irony, it just seems to find me.

Regards...KK

[edit on 29-4-2009 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
You are misunderstanding. I do not see anything worth making any conclusions. Real or faked.

I'm saying that no one here has the right to call anything fake or real yet with anything but an opinion.

Still, AFAIK the entire CCD is read out only once per frame, not multiple times.

reply to post by kinda kurious


I agree, he presents himself as a scholar and acts like a troglodyte. Its really kind of hilarious. My favorite part of this whole thing is he isn't really presenting anything relevant. I figured Mr. Science savant would have added something of value by now.

I think my other favorite part of all this is the fact that he says he does not want a "freshman pissing contest" yet he seems to be going out of his way to provoke one.



[edit on 29-4-2009 by DaMod]

reply to post by GlenR
Hi Glen,
You have made the same mistake as I did back a bit,
(maybe you have an LCD screen as I have)
the open window does have a handle showing.
This does not really invalidate anything though,
since,and it is only my opinion,
the camera can still be viewing through
a non-opening window further to the right.
In the video between 21 to 23 seconds,
you can see a ghostlight
head towards the frame of the open window
and to me that is reflected light on glass in
front of the camera,
Arbay also noticed another reflection
on the open window itself,
and at the same time.

Doh, cheers Smurfy missed the handle. Do agree with you though.

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by ZeroGhost

 

I was lucky enough to capture that pic
off the video man's site,by following Rightuos's first link
probably moments before the pics were deleted,
(go back and check from Rightuos's initial post)
you will see that Rightuos also saw the same pic..
or are we both telling porkey's?
It would maybe be a good idea if you went
back through the whole thread
and you will see that there are quite a few
commonsense posts from people on
both sides of the debate,(and that's what it was)
Pity you can't see that
while telling everybody that they are basically stupid,
who should not be saying anything about
things they are not qualified for.
BTW,I only saw this pic today,
and I first mentioned Green LEDs way way back.
Time for a chill pill I think,Bye.
[edit on 29-4-2009 by smurfy]

I saw it. Whats your point? I did not see any correlative, motivation or otherwise.

So you are a certified UFO investigator, optics scientist, computer graphics producer professional, experiencer, photographer/videographer, criminal investigator/profiler? Sorry I see no evidence of that training.

I am saying none of the conclusions so far are scientifically sound for a real investigative process.

Reality is a bitch. Ego always thinks it is dissed if it is insecure. I am saying no one is displaying any professional scientific here. That is true.

So how do you plan to learn? Intimidate that you are not wrong?

Wrong tree to bark at. I'm in the meadow about a mile from your position. I don't care about hurting feelings. Not my intent at all. I'm stating a more realistic scientific approach and telling you when you are not helping an investigation. Don't you want to know how to properly investigate and not just trash talk a case?

I did not call anyone "stupid" or otherwise. The term "Freshmen" means beginning study. Stupid means, not willing or able to learn. I used appropriate terms to frame my observations.

Have some some of that chill too.

ZG

reply to post by rightuos


I think that really seals it nicely, green lights and he happens to have green LED's around and a photo showing similar blur and movement as the video. Nice find.

Done and dusted for me, i doubt the hardcore believers will change their minds though.