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.

 

Amazingly clear UFO vid from Moscow

page: 6
60
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Goastwriter
 


Oh for gods sake. Really? Come on man, people are gullible but not stupid. You know you can get banned for spreading BS on this board right? That we don't take to kindly to being BS'd by people be it by video or by the letter.

I don't want to be rude to you or anyone else. But this site isn't really for children looking for a laugh, and no one is going to indulge your histrionics.
Your an angry little guy.
Calm down man. Everyone is entitled to their own.

The video looks good to me. It has a fake feel to it but I am no video expert. I suspect if there ever were a real video of a ufo it would be considered questionable. I doubt there will ever be proof enough for everyone. I mean.... Some people dont think the holocaust occurred.




posted on May, 3 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Regardless of the clip itself, it is interesting to note, that as usual the information in the opening-post about the clip allready been investigated, goes ignored.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I thought it was CGI as well!



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nightchild
Regardless of the clip itself, it is interesting to note, that as usual the information in the opening-post about the clip allready been investigated, goes ignored.


I am not saying that this video is real, it might well not be. it isnt CGI either, as the attempt by the guy who spent three hours doing one up and didnt even come close implied. It might be a remote controlled object, and the film sped up at the end. it might be a real ET craft. The less familiar things are to people the more they will look like special effects.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
This looks like a similar video to the one my fiancée just sent to me:




posted on May, 3 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

A UFO was allegedly seen by a number of witnesses hovering above a shopping mall in a satellite town of Moscow in Russia early last month.


The fact that it was seen by other witnesses confirms this event happened but how long does it take to *fake* a ufo video in maya? about a month.

Not saying the event didn't happen just saying that if the video was real then why didn't the video come out a month ago shortly after the event?



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
No UFO photos or footage can ever prove ET.

Even if something like this can be proven to be a "real" UFO - the question will inevitably come up, is it "their stuff" or "our stuff"? (A real ET craft or a reverse-engineered black-ops craft)



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by blackhatchet
 


Another CGI lie. Someone teach these kids about natural reaction time.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by stewartw2
it isnt CGI either, as the attempt by the guy who spent three hours doing one up and didnt even come close implied.


It's always the same mentality for hoaxers.

They are absolutely sure it isn't CGI, and then they make fun of confirmed CGI videos because the people who make them have a life and aren't trying to fool anyone.

Example quote from a CGI hoaxer:

"If it's CGI then lets see someone make one as good as this one!"

...then someone makes one nearly as good in 1/10th the time it took the hoaxer to make theirs, with 1/10th less effort, then they say...

"See! You didn't even come close!".



By The Way... I can debunk the O.P.'s video just by posting a link to something called "motion blur"...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Hello! Professional graphics designer here


Now, let me first point out that I do believe in UFO's.

However, I have to say that this video is a fake. It's not a bad one, sure... in fact, it's very good.

Now my reasons as to why I think it's a fake.

For starters, something about the video just "felt" wrong. I had to watch it many times before I figured it out. Watch another video of someone zooming in on a ufo or a distant object. Practically in every case, the camcorder operator will position the object in the middle of the screen, and then will zoom in on it, trying to keep it always in the centre. In this video, the user first zooms in below the object, then to the side, seemingly making a useless attempt at using the camera. This suggests that the user simply chose an area of sky, with the intention of adding something in later. Suggesting a 3D mockup, or a 2d object placed in. CGI means computer generated, so if that's not it, I'll say computer manipulated.

Another thing that I can't shake. The object shoots off behind the building, but doesn't emerge from the other side. Judging from the object's speed and angle, it should have emerged, even only half a centre metre of it... but nothing. Now this could be argued by some that it may have "cloaked" or whatever. I'm just pointing out what I see.

Also, camcorders will always try to focus on what they imagine the user is aiming at, and therefore will be what is in the middle of the screen (usually). Now on that zoomed in shot, both the building and ufo are in shot, both seeming the same colour, yet the building to the side is completely in focus. This suggests that the camcorder, during filming, only had a grey sky, and a dark building in shot, and therefore put the building in focus. Try it with any camera, and with auto focus (which, unless i'm mistaken, which I don't believe I am, is what this camera was using) it will try to get in focus what the camera is pointing at, and if the colour between the two objects is too similar, the camera will constantly shift in and out of focus. Also note that the building does come out of focus for a second, but the ufo's focus doesn't change at the same time, which is what should technically happen.

Finally, the user, although not very good at operating a video camera... has some of the best reactions in the world. They track after the speeding object, which went from a standstill to an off screen zoom in half a second. Suggesting that they started moving to follow it shortly before that. This is a user that had just used the zoom function to pull back, and take it all in. Who knows, maybe they really are this good... but I doubt it.

As far as I can tell, the ufo was placed in afterwards. The ufo doesn't fit with the background. It isn't correctly in focus, and psychologically speaking... the user's reactions in all manners to this object are unbelievable.

Just my opinion... but my soon to be bro in law can knock something better than this out in a few hours.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
What kind of "analysis" did you run on this video, to ascertain that it isn't a CGI?



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Magzoid
The fact that it was seen by other witnesses confirms this event happened but how long does it take to *fake* a ufo video in maya? about a month.

Not saying the event didn't happen just saying that if the video was real then why didn't the video come out a month ago shortly after the event?


Hang on, are you seriously suggesting that it takes a month to create a simple video like this?!??!? You shouldn't use arguments like that to help your case, as that's completely incorrect. Like I said previously, I know someone who can do something like this in a few hours. A month is a major over estimate.

I do agree that it's fake though.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613
What kind of "analysis" did you run on this video, to ascertain that it isn't a CGI?


You talking to me?

Honestly, I only performed a visual "analysis". I never stated I did anything but.

However, I could probably use After Effects to create the same video but with a flying image of Homer Simpson, and the only way you could tell it's fake is because there's a cartoon character in the sky.

Sorry, but in some videos, there's only so much you can witness by pulling out the video and running a frame by frame analysis. Take "I-Robot" for example. We all know that's fake, but there are certain scenes where it is camera tracked and rendered so realistically, that it may be impossible to "prove" it's fake.

EDIT TO SAY: Ooops, just re-read what you said, then read up a little bit. Sorry for the mistake, but my points are still valid, though not aimed at you


[edit on 3-5-2009 by 4demon]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by 4demon
 


4demon, it might be really hard for people to take you seriously after they read a thread you created on ATS called "Is this real or not?".

Specifically, this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



I wasn't trying to fool anyone, so it's not a ban. I was merely trying to see whether people would believe a CGI image was real.

And oh look, back on page one... we have a believer, so it was well worth the effort.


That is pretty much the same mentality that hoaxers have...

Forgive me for going off topic, but, it seems really odd to me that you would make a thread asking people if an image looks real or not (when it is so obviously fake), and then come in this topic and expect people to trust your opinion.

When you say something like this:


When you insult someone's artwork, you're insulting the person, and you have no right to do that.


That is basically the best way to find hoaxers, you insult their artwork, and the hoaxers come out to defend it.

Anyway... back to the regularly scheduled hoax.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by 0nce 0nce]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by 0nce 0nce
 


You didnt read my post, I probably would lean towards the video being fake-just not CGI. I think it is a remote control object and the film has been sped up at the end.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by 0nce 0nce
 


I understand, but I'll point out that when I was first sent that image, I assumed it was a fake but wanted to see other people's reactions. Surely that doesn't lower my credibility. The thing that annoyed me was that people assumed I was the creator and started insulting me and calling me or the creator an amateur.

The differences are that that was a still image that was entirely 3D and created in what turned out to be around half an hour or so.

No where have I insulted the creator of this video (in fact I said it was pretty good), nor have I assumed that the creator is the one who posted this thread.

Personally, I don't believe any of my previous posts should in any way negate my post. I have explained everything clearly and provided many explanations or reasoning's.

The fact that I previously posted an image which I thought was impressive to see if others would believe it is generally a moot point as to my qualifications or creditability. I honestly didn't believe that people would pop on and start insulting me or my family, which is pretty much what happened. Really, if I could go back, knowing that so few people can take it just for what it is, an interesting image... I would never have bothered posting it.

But thank you for bringing up a completely irrelevant post to try to discredit me. Good job. I'm amazed you actually felt the need to do a background check on me...



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by stewartw2
 


No I read your post.

It's funny you mention that you think the video was sped up at the end, because that was my opinion as well. Right at 0:22 seconds, the camera gets abnormally shaky, almost past the point to where it looks completely unnatural, and then at 0:34 seconds it seems to abruptly go back to normal. I'm pretty sure that is what is happening in the video, which would then mean that the date and time counter was added into the video, so that the second timer would look normal.

This would explain why the sound was taken out of the video, because when you speed up a video it makes the sound all messed up.

Also, I don't think the creator of the video knows much about "shutter speed" and "frame rate" mixed with "motion blur". If they did, they would have made a much more believable video...

The only question I have now, is Why, O.P., did you post a link to a web page, when you could have just posted the video directly from YouTube?

...I hate to assume...



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by 4demon
 



Originally posted by 4demon
The differences are that that was a still image that was entirely 3D and created in what turned out to be around half an hour or so.


...a half hour? But, two months ago you claimed it was only made in 5 minutes.



4demon (2 months ago)
Maybe we should look at it with a different view. Let's pretend it wasn't meant to be real. I still think it's a pretty cool render. Especially for how quickly it was produced, which was apparently 5 minutes in Vue 7.


Now it is really hard to trust anything you say.



Originally posted by 4demon
But thank you for bringing up a completely irrelevant post to try to discredit me. Good job. I'm amazed you actually felt the need to do a background check on me...


Well, sorry. I really would like to know who is making these videos, and I usually check the people who claim to be CGI artists first.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by 0nce 0nce]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0nce 0nce
reply to post by 4demon
 



Originally posted by 4demon
The differences are that that was a still image that was entirely 3D and created in what turned out to be around half an hour or so.


...a half hour? But, two months ago you claimed it was only made in 5 minutes.


You're right. I should have remembered the exact number I stated 2 months ago. My parents clearly did a bad job raising me.

However, your post is completely off topic, and only seems to be trying to knock me down, despite the fact that we both agree it's fake.

Bottom line, Folks. I'm a graphics designer, and have been so for around 8 years (sorry I can't be clearer 'Once Once', but I can't be bothered to count the years, months, days, minutes for you. Who knows, I may get it wrong in a few months).

Anyway, I didn't notice the sudden change in speed towards the end of the video, which is very noticeable once pointed out. I simply assumed it was the operator's desperation to get the UFO back in shot. This shot can be taken entirely without the use of 3D, but I definitely believe it's computer manipulated.

But hey, don't anyone believe me. I'm a compulsive liar... right?



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
i find it rather convenient that the photographer zooms out in time to watch it fly away. FAKE



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join