UFO Video London

The difference between 330hz and 380hz is actually, roughly 3-4 notes, so hardly "close" to each other at all... 330hz is E 380 is the border between F# and G flat

Maybe he just glued three LEDs to a mirror (or even drilled holes in the mirror to attach the LEDs without any cable visible) and turned the mirror so you can see the window in it. Then he filmed the mirror, with the LEDs directly on it, reflecting the window. That would also explain why each light comes in pairs - one is the actual LED, the other is the reflection by the mirror on which the LED is sticking.
It also would explain why the "departure" of the UFOs looks weird - he probably faked it in post production since removing the LEDs from the mirror right in front of the camera would have been difficult.

[edit on 30-4-2009 by Verklagekasper]

reply to post by UKWO1Phot
Hi UK,
there are clues in the video,Armap pointed one out ages ago
at the 21-23 second stages,
you don't even need to stop the video to see it.
He saw a moving reflection across the
open window pane as the camera moves,
but there is also a ghost of light that comes across
what should nothing but air,
it is a splatter of light from the bright spot
on the open window frame,
hitting the window that he is filming through,
which is not completely clean.
If you look again you will see what I mean,
that alone convinced me ages ago.

I think if they ARE reflected light the surface would have to be big, because when the camera moves down to the right, the lights are still visible on the left (which would be 1 - 2ft with his hand movement)
So they don't move with the camera so must be stationary and not shining into lens (as above post)
I don't think there is any editing
1. The music
2. Consistent motion of camera with the houses as a reference

reply to post by UKWO1Phot
Hi UK,
I'm not talking about the LEDs here,
keep your eye just right and above,
on the bright spot on the open window
frame at 22-23 seconds in.

Originally posted by HooHaa


For once, I wish we would get a guy or gal who can hold a camera still while focusing it.

Why is it every, and I mean every UFO video is shaky and out of focus?

I pray to God that I get a chance to witness such an event with a camera.

I can ensure you people, I would do my best to hold the camera still, while trying to get it into focus.

I'm not debunking this. It just seems like every good video is shaky and out of focus.

Holding a camera still isn't the issue really, because if we plan to take a photo of something, we would normally have a camera or cell-phone to hand, and set the scene up and hold still and press the button; and Bob's your Uncle!

Trying to photograph an alleged Chemtrail aircraft spraying in a cloudless sky in daylight with a Pentax Optio M20 7 Megapixel Compact Camera at full zoom was a challenging task. I use this camera all the time with excellent results, and it goes with me everywhere. But I tried sooooooooooo hard to get a good still picture, and was not impressed with the result. At air-shows, the guys who get the best photos use SLR cameras with HUGE Zoom lenses.

Anyone who has just been surprised by an alleged UFO, has to get their camera or cell-phone, switch it on, try and set the picture up, hands will probably be shaking slightly due to the adrenalin flowing; then the lens will have to be zoomed in to get a decent shot, which will accentuate the shake. With video footage, the camera shake becomes evident throughout the take.

I am an experienced amateur photographer and have never seen a UFO in my life, but if I did, I would be very fortunate to have got as good a result as the OP did.

this is a reflection in glass.

Originally posted by ROBL240
Im starting to wonder now wether instead of us looking at the LED lights at a pane of Glass/plastic whatever else is through that apparent "open window" Wther the technique used was to use mirrors to reflect the LED light back onto the Camera Lens.
The LED could be right next to him with a Mirror either just below the camera or strategically positioned so that it gives off the best image of the lights without giving away the game. It also eliminates away the need for Glass and tricks people into thinking theres actually something there (aswell as explaining the beams thats eliminating from the light source from the LED in the still frames.)

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

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane

Originally posted by ROBL240
Im starting to wonder now wether instead of us looking at the LED lights at a pane of Glass/plastic whatever else is through that apparent "open window" Wther the technique used was to use mirrors to reflect the LED light back onto the Camera Lens.
The LED could be right next to him with a Mirror either just below the camera or strategically positioned so that it gives off the best image of the lights without giving away the game. It also eliminates away the need for Glass and tricks people into thinking theres actually something there (aswell as explaining the beams thats eliminating from the light source from the LED in the still frames.)

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

Reading some of the further posts from my original one and thinking about how the LED lights move in opposite directions to how the camera moves reminds me of when you stand inbetween two mirrors facing one another and the infinite reflection moves right if you move left etc.

I think it's trickery with mirrors rather than just a sheet of plastic or glass. The guys Myspace showed him photographing the endless reflection in mirrors, so I'd say all evidence is there, the green LEDs were at one point too

Edit:
Someone delete this, net went down in middle of posting and it double posted

[edit on 30/4/2009 by OvernightGuy]

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane

Originally posted by ROBL240
Im starting to wonder now wether instead of us looking at the LED lights at a pane of Glass/plastic whatever else is through that apparent "open window" Wther the technique used was to use mirrors to reflect the LED light back onto the Camera Lens.
The LED could be right next to him with a Mirror either just below the camera or strategically positioned so that it gives off the best image of the lights without giving away the game. It also eliminates away the need for Glass and tricks people into thinking theres actually something there (aswell as explaining the beams thats eliminating from the light source from the LED in the still frames.)

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

Reading some of the further posts from my original one and thinking about how the LED lights move in opposite directions to how the camera moves reminds me of when you stand inbetween two mirrors facing one another and the infinite reflection moves right if you move left etc.

I think it's trickery with mirrors rather than just a sheet of plastic or glass. The guys Myspace showed him photographing the endless reflection in mirrors, so I'd say all evidence is there, the green LEDs were at one point too

Originally posted by UKWO1Phot
I don't think there is any editing
1. The music
2. Consistent motion of camera with the houses as a reference

I respectfully disagree.

It would be an easy matter to lay in new audio and I most certainly see evidence of editing. As I mentioned earlier, I suspect it IS NOT a single continuous clip. Even at the reduced frame rate, the action lunges in spots. Like when it goes from normal > telephoto and back. No real "zoom" is apparent.

Plus in the "shaky cam" bluriness it is a cinch to conceal edit points.

I feel confident of this without blabbering about my credentials.

How was the pie?

Regards...KK




[edit on 30-4-2009 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by kinda kurious


If you read up you'll find i was against this footage from the start, however i must criticise something you said in this post.

The zoom on some cameras is instant, especially on mobiles. It goes from 1x to 4x instantly. So i don't think we can use that to say it's fake as the person claims to have filmed it on a mobile.

Originally posted by kinda kurious

(snip)
I most certainly see evidence of editing. As I mentioned earlier, I suspect it IS NOT a single continuous clip. Even at the reduced frame rate, the action lunges in spots. Like when it goes from normal > telephoto and back. No real "zoom" is apparent.
Plus in the "shaky cam" bluriness it is a cinch to conceal edit points.

The instant "zoom" is consistent with the normal behavior of the phone's camera. No smoking gun there.

As with any video, its always possible that some editing has been done, but in this case, I don't see any tangible evidence of such. Yes, one could sneak in an edit or two or three, but why bother? One can just do any number of "takes" and select the clip which looks the most convincing.

As for the optical setup, my best guess is something like this:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c3175f0b0041.jpg[/atsimg]


[edit on 30-4-2009 by zerotensor]

Originally posted by Verklagekasper

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
If you go to the Stephvenville Lights case where Sirius was mistaken by an amateur video person for a UFO making symbols in an alien language you will see that the person did not understand the process any more than how to interpret the sky for star positions.

The Stephvenville video shows a continuous line of light each frame, not a strobe effect. Sorry, but your claim that "What you are seeing is how often the camera samples the CCD data in a single frame of video" is nonsense.

As is your claim that "In CGI, motion blur does just that. It 'blurs' the light. Not show successive frames of discreet objects".
CGI, by itself, doesn't blur anything unless you deliberately add some mock-up blur effect, eg. After Effects, or if you emulate motion blur by rendering at a high frame rate and converting the result to a lower frame rate, blending multiple images into one frame.

That is one reason you don't pee in the bathwater by throwing around opinions that challenge the witness character. If they become uncooperative you loose the game before it even starts. Amateurs loose the edge by doing that so they never get any further. Experience teaches that.

Your pompous act fails to impress me.

I gave an example of how different cameras process differently and how that can be misinterpreted. It was not a reference to the camera in question. I suggested you must find the camera specifications to know that. We do not know this mans camera model or specs, but I suspect it is a phone with still and video capabilities.

I do CGI with Maya and 3D Studio Max. I have actually done motion blur in those and other 3D packages. The effect actually blurs the movement of an object frame by frame. If you look at a frame of such an effected animation you will see not a discreet object in a new position, but a blurred object so that when the animation is played it is more blurred overall and realistic to the eye. Check it out

Motion Blur Post MAYA

Motion Blur

As such the reference someone made to "motion blur" in the photos and the video where incorrect technically. The images did not show any characteristics of this type of effect.

What this man did was use his camera/phone/whatever to what we now have some evidence fake this triangle. The proximity of the double lights in the unusual configuration was anomalous and served to be a solid connect to the tuner instruments LEDs configuration.

That gave me a 99% probability of a fake when adding all the other "speculative" on this thread. Everything else before the more science driven work would be considered "inadmissible" in a court of science, and that was my motivation for directing the investigation to a better direction.

All the photos on the mans sites only served to show his particular cameras effects when in low light or otherwise. Some of these cameras have effects too that could account for the image being multi-positional. But, we still don't know. I think I am satisfied now and while I would like to know how he did this for future refrence so I can more easily catch this, it is not worth much more effort.

Due to the good work of Zerotensor and now others who got the message we can lay this to rest and with some certainty label this correctly as fake and go on.

There are real ones out there that need to be confirmed or shown to be hoaxed.

ZG

A few quick notes:

Different colored LEDs do not pulse at specific frequencies. It is up to the designer of the circuit that drives the LEDs to choose a frequency. LEDs are capable of being pulsed from near zero to millions of times a second.

These LEDs are pulsing at an arbitrary frequency so its not like he just hooked some LEDs up to a battery or wall adapter and mounted them to some kind of shape.

Because they are pulsing at an arbitrary frequency they are probably from some type of unique device, possibly a toy or cellular phone etc.

There is one of his photographs posted of some type of device with green LEDs. If someone here has the ability to clear that image up so we can tell what it is then we can confirm whether or not it would be producing pulses at the frequency we see in the video.

It is unlikely (but possible) that the source of the pulsing LEDs is a guitar tuner because the way to sense the frequency of a vibrating object with light generally is to measure the frequency at which a vibrating object modulates a constant light source or at least to use a light source that is pulsing orders of magnitude faster than the object would be expected to vibrate so that the vibration can be measured without beat modulation or interference from other light sources. Therefore the frequency of the pulsing of the LEDs on a tuner will not have a direct relation to musical notes. Also, typically (but not always) they use red or infrared LEDs for sensing applications because most receiving devices (such as photo-diodes, and photo-transistors) are sensitive in that part of the spectrum.

No video cameras that I have seen (and I have designed and built many) use a frame sampling technique that scans the pixel values more than once per frame so the pulses of light per frame should be an actual indication of frequency of the pulsing lights.

Anyways, I think it would be key to figure out what the image of that device with the green LEDs sitting on the cloth is.


edit for clarity

[edit on 30-4-2009 by dainoyfb]

Well yep, yet another George Adamski ! Well done all, had me.

reply to post by dainoyfb
Hi dainoy,
Here's that pic again,

aftershock-the-band.com...
I did send you a post about the LEDs
but you may not have seen it,
here it is again,
Hi dainoy,
I found this in relation to LEDs as used in aircraft,
and why they use 400hz.

"The LEDs will “blink” (turn on and off)
at the PWM modulation frequency.
It is not uncommon for an aircraft to rise
or descend several feet in a few tenths of a second in turbulence.
A four-foot drop in 0.5 seconds is equivalent to 8 feet/second.
For an object traveling at 8 feet per second,
and an LED blinking at 100 Hz, the resulting dots
of light would be separated by approximately 1 inch (0.96) inches, appearing as a line of dots, which would be visually unacceptable.
At 400 Hz, the dots would be separated by
only about a quarter of an inch,
or the diameter of standard LEDs.
Thus, in a situation where the LEDs are moving
in a plane which is generally normal to line of sight,
the PWM modulation frequency is caused to be
at least sufficient to minimize the “line of dots” effect."





[edit on 30-4-2009 by smurfy]

reply to post by smurfy


Yes, that is the one. Thanks.

Any ideas on what this might be anyone?

Can someone who has been in contact with him ask what this is?

reply to post by Tallsorts


I had a stupid little digital camera, a truly awful little thing yet i was able to take still videos. I would simply look for something to rest my arms on, it isn't that hard. You won't get the stability of a tripod of course but it's enough to fully beat many of these videos you see. In fact just squatting on one knee and resting the camera on your knee would be enough to give plenty of stability.

So i'm sorry but when people say they can't get a steady shot i laugh. I wouldn't expect perfect stability but this jerking all over the place like they have Motor Neuron Disease is utterly ridiculous.

reply to post by smurfy

I did send you a post about the LEDs but you may not have seen it, here it is again, Hi dainoy, I found this in relation to LEDs as used in aircraft, and why they use 400hz.

Yes I saw it. I'm am at odds with that information though because the 400hz AC power supply standard in aircraft has been around far before bright LEDs were around and probably even before LEDs were around. It is used just like 50/60hz AC is on the ground. They came up with the 400hz standard for aircraft because for may reasons it is far more practical. The 50/60hz that is used for national power grids is too well established to follow suite unfortunately.

For your interest aircraft generally each have 3 different types of power supplies on board for doing various jobs:

28 Volts DC
26 Volts AC 400hz
115 Volts AC 400hz

I worked on aircraft instrumentation in the late 80s and this standard was around long before then.