UFO Video London

page: 25
72
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
This is nothing more than a bloke having fun with a cool technique he learned from his "clubbin' days" lol. What does worry me is the 24 pages of discussion concerning this on here, it shows that we are in a sad state of basic understanding, and somewhat to eager to believe....which makes many of us overly gullible.


It's unfortunate that it takes us more than two or three pages to recognize that there's very little, if any, valuable information that can be gleaned from the video. There's just not that much data there, no matter what.

Even if it were "real," what can we do with it? Nothing, really, other than maybe add it to a data sheet somewhere. There's certainly nothing that can be proven with it. Even crystal clear videos or photos can't really prove anything. Maybe it's a high-tech aircraft. Maybe it's aliens from Jupiter. Maybe it's witches riding on fancy new broomsticks.

Hey, if the guy saw a real UFO and managed to get a little shaky video of it, good on him. Whatever. It happens once in a great while. But that's about the extent of it. Nothing more to see here, folks. Move along.




posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
That being said, let's try to squeeze the absolute maximum amount of data from these images. I see nobody's tried to make a 3-D stereo pair out of any of the images, so I thought I'd try. So this is a cross-eyed stereo pair. Brightened up a little bit, but don't mind that. This is only to see if there's depth information.

If you cross your eyes and line up the lights, you should be able to see the rest of the scene in 3-D. It's a little tricky, and not everybody can do it. Also, the photographer didn't move much laterally, so the 3-D effect is not very pronounced. But by gosh if it didn't work, anyway.



Link to larger image:
London UFO 3-D Image

So here's what I see. You have your open window on the left, which is a good foreground object. Back a little farther you can see the house across the street.

Now, the tricky thing after that is that the lights line up in such a way that they're obviously farther away than the house. That's the depth information we were looking for. Of course, if the thing moved laterally at all between the first photo (frame) and the second one a few seconds later, that would screw up the depth indication. But if it didn't, what it shows pretty clearly is that the lights are farther away than the house on the street. Maybe another couple hundred yards, but not much farther than that. It's anybody's guess.

Anyway, the thing is, if you're going to hoax something this way, the chances are extremely slim that you're going to think that some guy half way around the world is going to pull frames out of the video and make 3-D images out of them, so you're probably not going to be concerned about placing the object (actually, objects, since they don't appear to be connected by anything) in a "reasonable" position for stereo photography.

Also, if we're looking at a reflection -- unless, as I said, the lights moved a lot in the second or two between frames -- the guy would need to have had a bedroom that extended as far back as the lights are distant, because the 3-D distance in a reflection is the same as the distance in front.

And you'll notice that there actually does seem to be a kind of "searchlight" beam on the top light, extending out into the fog (?). Very difficult to fake with a reflection.

So... make what you will of these images. I also suggest you try to create stereo pairs of your own, to try and minimize the chance that the object moved too much between frames for this technique to be of any use.


Take that, you evil skeptics!

(Edit to add reduced image and link to full-sized image)

[edit on 1-5-2009 by Nohup]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


The idea is good but useless if things are moving.

The relative position of the objects changes with the frames chosen, and as far as I can tell the camera never moves just to one side, it rotates, gets closer, etc.

PS: I cannot see your images as a 3D composite, they are too far apart and force my eyes too much.

 

Edit: after reducing the view size of the page (easy to do in Opera) I could see it in 3D, but to me it looks like the lights are almost at the same distance as the window pane.

[edit on 1/5/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
The idea is good but useless if things are moving.


Of course. But even if they are moving, they would have to coincidentally move just the right amount -- and perfectly laterally -- for the illusion of distance to be accurate and logical. Again, this would be very difficult to fake, or even consider including in your fake to begin with.

One way to try and see if the object is moving is to take sections of frames where the camera isn't moving much and measure to see if the object is changing position much compared to the rest of the objects in the image. I get the impression that it's not moving much, if at all, between frames.

I might try that, if I don't get too bored with it.


The relative position of the objects changes with the frames chosen, and as far as I can tell the camera never moves just to one side, it rotates, gets closer, etc.


Yes, the relative positions change with the change in the camera. That's what allows for the effect. Nearest ones move the most (the window frame), farthest ones (such as the objects) the least. I can assure you that the camera moves much more laterally than in any other way. It's not going to get much closer or farther away -- not enough to matter, anyway -- and I can correct for rotation with Photoshop.

The farther away the objects are from the camera (including the houses) they less they apparently move. No, it's not an entirely accurate move, and there's some giggle.

But the simple fact is that I did get relative depth information from these two frames, which are pretty close together in time (a second or so).

One detail that illustrates this is the light in the window on the other side of the street. In one frame the short vertical line isn't there, the next it is because the angle of the camera shifted just enough to catch a different crack of light inside the _ Typical in a 3-D pair created by lateral movement.


PS: I cannot see your images as a 3D composite, they are too far apart and force my eyes too much.


Not everybody can see the effect. If you can, you could try copying the smaller image above and reducing it. That might allow you to cross your eyes to a point where you can match the dots. Otherwise, you might try reversing the images and do a regular stereo "free view," where you defocus, rather than cross your eyes to see the effect. Like that old school trick of putting your index fingers together and defocusing until you see the little "hot dog" finger suspended between them.

Also, if you have red/blue or red/green 3-D glasses, you can try to overlap the images and give each one a slightly different tint. Like the Mars images. After all, in this case, we're not so much interested in the colors as we are the depth stuff.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by Nohup]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Edit: after reducing the view size of the page (easy to do in Opera) I could see it in 3D, but to me it looks like the lights are almost at the same distance as the window pane.


I've played around with the image a little at home - copying and shifting the lights -- and actually, for the formation to appear the same distance as the window pane, the lower of the three lights in the right image would have to line up slightly to the right of the chimney across the street.

Again, who would even think to do this, much less do it correctly? This would require an awful lot of perfectly lateral movement for it to look reasonable within the stereo frame. That would be a lot of work for a hoaxer, or a noteworthy coincidence for any kind of real objects floating around in the foggy London night air.

Maybe I'll play with the images some more. Maybe there's something else there.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


I tried it with a program I have (StereoVue) to make these images (both the cross-eye and the red-blue glasses methods) and I got more or less the same result that I can see with your image, the "UFO" looks to be at the same distance as the window pane.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 
Hi Noh,
Using your pic,I placed a couple of red lines.
If you go to the video itself,at between 21-23 seconds
you will see a ghost image roll down inside that area as the camera moves,
that is light splatter from the bright reflection on the open window frame,
which is hitting the window the camera is looking through,
which is to the right of the open window
There should be no splatter at all if the camera is looking through an open
window into clear air,the same goes for the "ray"which I ringed
which also moves very slightly at the same time.except that is
more likely caused by a polished inside of the _
see the link.
aftershock-the-band.com...

[edit on 1-5-2009 by smurfy]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
There should be no splatter at all if the camera is looking through an open
window into clear air,the same goes for the "ray"which I ringed
which also moves very slightly at the same time.except that is
more likely caused by a polished inside of the _


Maybe. I'm also seeing it as a lens flare coming off the reflection on window frame as the camera moves. But you could be right. I don't know.

I'm just experimenting so see if a bit more information can be squeezed out of these really bad images. And it can. A little bit. But what it actually means is up for interpretation.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I tried it with a program I have (StereoVue) to make these images (both the cross-eye and the red-blue glasses methods) and I got more or less the same result that I can see with your image, the "UFO" looks to be at the same distance as the window pane.


Hmmm... Well, I cut and dragged the lights horizontally on one side of the image back and forth to get a better idea of where they come into focus on the same plane as the window frame. You have to nudge the lights in the right image pretty far to the right, because the window frame is quite close.

Even looking at the photos side-by-side, you can see that the position of the frame diverges quite a bit from image to image. Just as you see if you hold your finger up and look at it with one eye, then the other. The relative motion is large when the finger is closer to your face than farther away.

The lights, by contrast, are relatively stable in the composition of the images. The only thing more stable is the diffuse background. The high relative contrast of the lights might make them seem closer, though.

Oh, well. I could be wrong. Just an experiment.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 04:20 AM
link   
I decided to load the video into Vegas Pro and have extracted a sequence of frames.

This sequence shows that horizontal movement of the camera does indeed affect the position of the objects.

Make your comparison with the rightmost object and the chimney.
I purposely repeat the same sequence four times.

This is proff that the objects are closer than the houses. Much closer.
EDIT: Note that the relative postion to the window frame doesn't change.

A reflection of some type is the only logical answer.

And before you say it: YES it happens several times in the video and yes it goes both left and right.

I couldn't be bothered to make several comparisons.

If you are not convinced by this combined with missing MySpace pictures and other issues brought forth on these pages by competent people you'll never be.


(click to open player in new window)



[edit on 2.5.2009 by HolgerTheDane]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Dan has commented on his YouTube page an hour ago......interesting.

How about this then. Think you didnt add this to your equation.
If there was a "mirror" or "a pane of glass", and i and the phone went past the window frame, holding the phone out of the window a few times in this clip(especially when it shot off!) then where the hell was this clever and precise "rig" then??? Outside? wtf. Another thing, The movement of the lights. I never said that they were sat still. They were moving slightly allmost like looking for something. i have my own theory on that.


Becouse the second you saw that you all immediately without thinking, lost your stiffie's, and totally jumped to the conclusion that a photograph that contained green leds from a laptop shoot with a different camera back in 2005 was the same as a #ing gert UFO in the sky. And that im some kind of trickster that must of reserched and rehursed and practiced with mirrors and glass to make a 30 second goof clip for you guys! NO. WRONG. i am laughing tho. I wont have **** posted all over MY page

Despite giving up on this one earlier, can't help going back to it as there are still things I can't quite write off. To achieve the impression of relative distance between the objects, which there clearly is, ie. the size and brightness would have taken some skill to get right. Could many of the reflection theories be debunked by the fact that he just had a dirty camera lens.........how many folk have a clean mobile phone camera lens! It still rumbles on and on. I'm giving it another go, if it is a hoax then well done to Dan, he should get a job producing Star Wars movies I think.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by highlander2008]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by highlander2008
Dan has commented on his YouTube page an hour ago......interesting.

How about this then. Think you didnt add this to your equation.
If there was a "mirror" or "a pane of glass", and i and the phone went past the window frame, holding the phone out of the window a few times in this clip(especially when it shot off!) then where the hell was this clever and precise "rig" then??? ***snip***


That is so interesting.

So how did it change from "quick zoom" to "holding it out the window"?

Even so - in frames where it is "held out the window" you still catch a glimpse of the left hand window frame.

I tried to post a link to this ATS thread on his YouTube page.
It was gone before it ever left the building. So to speak.

I'm sure he didn't remove my comment - must have been an error on YouTube.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
I am still waiting for somebody to recreate this vid and show how easy it was done. After days of debating, and a lot of very possible and clever explanations it is interesting that nobody has managed to demonstrate how it was done. The theory is fine but it needs experiments to prove it, until then it's just that a theory no matter how much you debate it. This was a phone cam, in a back bedroom, LEDs are ten a penny to buy and stick together so is glass. It cannot be that difficult................surely???

This guy is a London Musician, his vid is getting as much attention and debate as those produced by top class special effects folk and posted online. Something is just not fitting in to place still with this one. Although there appear to be flaws, there equally appear to be many accuracies to it being real also. If a hoax, it's pretty much near perfect as you will get.

It's an important video to clear up, as for once, if real, whatever is filmed is quite clearly NOT the usual possibilities.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by highlander2008]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Looking at the original file carefully again frame by frame, there is no doubt at all that in the seconds preceeding them "taking off" the brightness intensifies. This is especially clear in the dimmest light. Infact they all seem to flare, so much that it begins to blurr out the the definition of them being two lights.

I have to say that this totally conforms with what Dan described in the original email I got from him. He said he noticed that just before they vanished they got brighter as if "charging up". It's such a minor detail and only visible if you bother to frame by frame it I do have to ask would he have really bothered to go to the trouble of adding this effect in?

But it does back up his description of what he would have probably noticed, the naked eye being very sensitive to light intensity at night. (dim the dash light on your car and you can see even the slightest change very clearly)!

So here we have a minor detail, barely noticible on the video unless you really look hard, but does back up his statement of what he saw.

Also he describes them as "moving about slightly", again this is clear from the video when you examine it carefully using the roof and chimney pot. Another minor detail barely perceptable till you examine the video clearly.



[edit on 2-5-2009 by highlander2008]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane
I decided to load the video into Vegas Pro and have extracted a sequence of frames.

This sequence shows that horizontal movement of the camera does indeed affect the position of the objects.

Make your comparison with the rightmost object and the chimney.
I purposely repeat the same sequence four times.

This is proff that the objects are closer than the houses. Much closer.
EDIT: Note that the relative postion to the window frame doesn't change.

A reflection of some type is the only logical answer.

And before you say it: YES it happens several times in the video and yes it goes both left and right.

I couldn't be bothered to make several comparisons.

If you are not convinced by this combined with missing MySpace pictures and other issues brought forth on these pages by competent people you'll never be.


(click to open player in new window)



[edit on 2.5.2009 by HolgerTheDane]


great job on that


certainly is clear now that the supposed objects move with the camera

i agree with you that with this analysis and the fact the guy took down the pictures from his myspace page(wich he did the same thing last time) this proves this video is fake.

not to mention the fact that the lights don't even look like their in the sky


case closed....i say put a HOAX label on this thread and be done with it




posted on May, 2 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane
I decided to load the video into Vegas Pro and have extracted a sequence of frames.

This sequence shows that horizontal movement of the camera does indeed affect the position of the objects.

Make your comparison with the rightmost object and the chimney.
I purposely repeat the same sequence four times.

This is proff that the objects are closer than the houses. Much closer.
EDIT: Note that the relative postion to the window frame doesn't change.

A reflection of some type is the only logical answer.

And before you say it: YES it happens several times in the video and yes it goes both left and right.

I couldn't be bothered to make several comparisons.

If you are not convinced by this combined with missing MySpace pictures and other issues brought forth on these pages by competent people you'll never be.


(click to open player in new window)



[edit on 2.5.2009 by HolgerTheDane]


great job on that


certainly is clear now that the supposed objects move with the camera

i agree with you that with this analysis and the fact the guy took down the pictures from his myspace page(wich he did the same thing last time) this proves this video is fake.

not to mention the fact that the lights don't even look like their in the sky


case closed....i say put a HOAX label on this thread and be done with it



They were moving about slowly anyway, he said this (see above). They were NOT stationary. Can you eliminate this, I think not. Remove the Hoax label for a while yet.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by highlander2008
 



he said


who cares what he said


his actions and the evidence point towards this being a HOAX !


he did the same exact thing last time in the other thread...somebody else found those pictures on his myspace page and he took them down as soon as he realized we were on to him.

why are you defending this garbage anyways ?



i vote for this to be moved to the Grey area forum



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by highlander2008
 



he said


who cares what he said


his actions and the evidence point towards this being a HOAX !


he did the same exact thing last time in the other thread...somebody else found those pictures on his myspace page and he took them down as soon as he realized we were on to him.

why are you deding this garbage anyways ?



i vote for this to be moved to the Grey area forum


What he says is actually quite important, as I outlined above. I did not publish on here certain elements of his private email to me, when I found the clip. They were quite specific details which were successfully confirmed in the video when analysed carefully. So we actually have two pieces of evidence now. His description and statement he made about what he actually saw. The lights moving about slightly and brightening before moving off are such barely perceptable details that I think a hoaxer would just not have bothered putting them in.

I vote that until someone here successfully recreates this to show how it was done, it remains unproven either way.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by highlander2008]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by highlander2008
 



imo it has been successfully confirmed a HOAX !

you defending this to the bitter end is certainly suspicious ?






[edit on 2-5-2009 by easynow]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by highlander2008
I did not publish on here certain elements of his private email to me, when I found the clip.
Then it is only natural that we cannot reach the same conclusions as you, considering you have more data.


The lights moving about slightly and brightening before moving off are such barely perceptable details that I think a hoaxer would just not have bothered putting them in.
A hoaxer could not have "bothered" to put them there, they could be a side effect of something else.

Also, if this video was faked in any way then the guy who did it know what he did, and has a version of the video better than the one we have, and even with this lower quality video we were able to see those things, so I don't think that makes it look less of a hoax.


I vote that until someone here successfully recreates this to show how it was done, it remains unproven either way.
I don't, because even if someone can reproduce it it does not mean it was real, and if nobody can reproduce it it does not mean it was a fake, a recreation only means that it is possible to make similar looking videos.

PS: see your U2Us, please.





new topics
top topics
 
72
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join