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.

 

Why is all UFO footage CGI?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Does anyone have any footage that hasn't been debunked, other than old photos? Every single video,it seems, is labeled CGI. What about this footage?
www.youtube.com...
or this...
www.youtube.com...
or this...
www.youtube.com...

I don't understand how the skeptics can say all of these witness are mistaken or lying and all the footage be fake.
I've seen a huge triangle UFO, that was not the stealth or any other military aircraft, but the real thing. The military has plenty of private land to test their secret aircraft, why would they just do it over a neighborhood in a large metroplex. Same goes for the cattle mutilations. They could have plenty of their own cows on their own land and do all the experiments they want without ever even raising one eyebrow. They would not just mutilate some ranchers cow.
But this is just me....whatever!!




posted on May, 12 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by sickofitall2012
 


The top has not been proven to be cgi, but is suspect, the bottom 2 are not even claimed to be CGI.
As a matter of fact the bottom one, was so frustrating people resorted to claiming it was fire on the hill... my argument with that theory is that it would not illuminate just the center area then.. it would illuminate on both sides.. it does not. It is not fire.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by sickofitall2012
 


Star for you.

I have brought this up in many threads always to be ignored. My argument was similar in that there are so many well documented faked videos out there that are really good how could people distinguish between real footage and bogus crap. I was told in a not too polite manner that "We can tell" As if I'm to rely on somebody's opinion if it is real or not.

I don't agree every time somebody here at ATS screams CGI as if it's a fact. When it's just their opinion.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I don't think a single photo/witness statement will ever be enough to make a UFO sighting interesting. Too much chance of fraud or delusion. The interesting ones, are the ones with multiple witnesses, images, radar readings, and so on, a real body of evidence. Some claim the JAL sighting meets this level.


[edit on 12/5/2009 by RubberBaron]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
My sighting was the same night as the Stephensville sightings except directly northeast of there. I guess, by what I'm reading so far, that this sighting had radar to back up the story so it would be considered real? It was real to me baby!!



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
The last one was amazing. I don't see how it could be fire on a hill.
That's just funny.

EDIT: It was hovering in the sky for 6 hours and no one else recorded or saw anything? My skepticism is tingling!


[edit on 5/12/2009 by Cagalli]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
The top one is blantant CGI. If you can't tell then watch sci-fi movies.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
The top one is blantant CGI. If you can't tell then watch sci-fi movies.


See that's a perfect example.

Some will try to make you feel stupid as if you're an idiot for not "Knowing" it was an obvious"FAKE".

Meanwhile they have no real proof if it was fake and instead of discussing the issue rationally they make cheap drive by statements.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by sickofitall2012
 


Well the basic reason behind all of being CGI is that they don't cell tin foil with strings on them anymore
.

~Keeper



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by sickofitall2012
 


Some unusual ones here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
I don't understand how the skeptics can say all of these witness are mistaken or lying and all the footage be fake.


Maybe you can be so kind as to point out specifically where these supposed "skeptics" say exactly that. Or are we hoisting up our favorite straw man here again to take a few shots at him?

You can believe anything you want to. You don't have to have anything to back up the videos or the reports, if you don't care. And if somebody else decides that maybe there's not enough corroborating evidence to back it all up, how does that bother you in any way?

You go right on ahead and believe anything you want, and don't worry about what other people say. Why do you care?



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Here is the problem.

You never hear anyone that is skeptical say, "It could be an alien craft but I think it's (blank)".

The problem is that most people will not allow for the possibility or cannot accept it for one reason or another.

Obviously the above was the more neutral response, and in most cases where a debunk cannot be accurately provided it is the appropriate response (since you really have no idea).

CGI is the easiest fall back, because you can create environments and sprites that look very real so it's easy to peg anything as CGI.

Example: I could see a real alien craft tonight. The craft lands, aliens come out, go back in, and it takes off at blinding speeds. I get the whole thing on tape. It's nice clear perfect footage. You know what people will say? "That's some nice CGI". I could have no background at all in video / image editing and no experience with CGI and it wouldn't matter because people would still say CGI.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
My opinion is this:

The first one looks faked not because it seems too high of detail. But it seems inconsistant with any sightings in terms of those odd shaped protrusions from it. It looks to me more like something imagined than something engineered. I'm not saying it IS fake, but certainly seems more likely to be due to its variance from the rest of the sightings.

The second one I think for the most part is combinations of space debris and perhaps stuff inside/on the lens of the camera. I could be wrong though, that video is very poor quality IMO. Which is odd, in this day and age of HD, why is it the multi-billion dollar organization that is NASA can't put better cameras on their ships/stations.

The third one I like. It is fairly convincing, however, the fire explination is practical, except for the fact that fire flares and flickers more, especially forest fires. (I am a fireman by the way...) The flames would typically rise and fall as it consumed random spots of dry fuel (brush ect ect). It could possibly be a distant fire, but not a forest fire. If the camera operator had posted a daytime shot of that same scene where people could see what was in the distance (maybe there isnt even a hill there) then people could draw a more informed conclusion.

People who video tape this stuff always forget REFERENCE POINTS. It helps to tell size and distance, you have to have them for any sort of credibility.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mnmcandiez
 


I am going to be the voice of reason in this thread it seems.

I will start with you mnmcandiez. You made a major error in your response.



This video could very well be CGI and it probably is. The mistake you made is that you said its obviously CGI because of Sci-Fi movies. BIG MISTAKE.

Have you ever seen an alien craft before? How do you know they don't move like that?

You cannot base anything a real alien craft would do or look like off of any sci fi movie because really we don't know. The craft from independence day may have been built by some plant race 10000 light years away for all you know.

You cannot state an unknown as fact.

2nd if you would have said, "That could be an alien craft, but I am certain it is CGI." People would recoil less at the statement and be more open to your opinion as to why it is CGI. You will gain a lot of ground in these debates that way.

Last, you have to allow for possibilities. You do not have to beleive it is true (you can be 100% certain), but you have to allow for the possibility that it is. That is the only truly level headed stance.

Demonis just made a perfect example of my point, as his statement was level headed, allowed for possibilities, and gave way for people to take his opinions in good way.

[edit on 12-5-2009 by DaMod]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
You never hear anyone that is skeptical say, "It could be an alien craft but I think it's (blank)".


The problem, if there is any, is that many people take the backdoor way into the argument. The whole idea that anything can be considered an "alien craft" to begin with is faulty, because nobody even knows what they're talking about. Which aliens? Are we talking about ET life? Since when was something like that discovered? I must have missed that CNN broadcast.

Okay, it might be an alien craft (whatever that even means). It might also be angels or demons or leprechauns or time travelers.

But whatever it is it's pretty much always worthless, because there's usually very little or nothing else to back it up or prove it to be any one thing or another. So why are we even bothering with it?

Here's the deal. Think something is an "alien craft?" Simply supply the necessary corroborating evidence to prove it. Provide an argument that is so airtight that the "evil skeptics" can't pick it apart.
Get the multiple images from different, non-anonymous sources.
Get the material evidence, verified by independent labs to be truly alien. Get an alien.
Get Seth Shostak and Alan Shermer and the President to announce that it's alien.
Whatever it takes, just get it! Don't just keep pointing at the same questionable images and video and complain that people don't go along with YOUR OPINION that it's "aliens." Don't blame people for not taking the leap of faith you did from blurry video to aliens.


[edit on 12-5-2009 by Nohup]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Hah, time travelers. I always entertain that idea, as if perhaps the future us come back in time to watch history unfold as a form of entertainment. I love the history channel, and what would be better than watching that? Watching history.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by DaMod
You never hear anyone that is skeptical say, "It could be an alien craft but I think it's (blank)".


The problem, if there is any, is that many people take the backdoor way into the argument. The whole idea that anything can be considered an "alien craft" to begin with is faulty, because nobody even knows what they're talking about. Which aliens? Are we talking about ET life? Since when was something like that discovered? I must have missed that CNN broadcast.

Okay, it might be an alien craft (whatever that even means). It might also be angels or demons or leprechauns or time travelers.

But whatever it is it's pretty much always worthless, because there's usually very little or nothing else to back it up or prove it to be any one thing or another. So why are we even bothering with it?

Here's the deal. Think something is an "alien craft?" Simply supply the necessary corroborating evidence to prove it. Provide an argument that is so airtight that the "evil skeptics" can't pick it apart.
Get the multiple images from different, non-anonymous sources.
Get the material evidence, verified by independent labs to be truly alien. Get an alien.
Get Seth Shostak and Alan Shermer and the President to announce that it's alien.
Whatever it takes, just get it! Don't just keep pointing at the same questionable images and video and complain that people don't go along with YOUR OPINION that it's "aliens." Don't blame people for not taking the leap of faith you did from blurry video to aliens.


[edit on 12-5-2009 by Nohup]


Did you have a bad child hood? People stress you out a lot? You have anger issues....

You completely missed my point! I'm not sure how because I thought i was being pretty straight forward with it.

THE ONLY POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE WAS.... ALLOW POSSIBILITIES....

Somehow you took at as OMG! THOSE SKEPTICS ARE BEING SKEPTICAL. Whatever shall I do... because .. they ..are skeptical......

I don't care if your skeptical or not! When someone shows you footage and claims it to be an alien spacecraft, you do not have to think it is real.. but it could be! See proof is a double edged sword. People cannot prove their claims and you cannot prove yours. So if no one can prove anything then it is an unknown. Thereforeas an unknown it cannot be stated as fact. You can say:

OMG THAT GUY IS A HOAXER!

or

OMG THAT CRAFT IS ALIEN!

Either way, you cant prove anything, so you have to allow for the possibility that either side could be right. You have to allow for the possibility that it is what they say it is, as the "beleivers" have to allow the possibility that the "evil skeptics" are right also.

I have seen way too many my horse your horse lets throw tomatoes at each other until we smell like lasagna debates. They should be able to be adults about it and allow the possibility that the party they are fighting with very well could be right.


[edit on 12-5-2009 by DaMod]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
what in the world does CGI stand for?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Text Blackreply to post by sickofitall2012
 
dude check out this video! on youtube today!

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
The top one is blantant CGI. If you can't tell then watch sci-fi movies.


See that's a perfect example.

Some will try to make you feel stupid as if you're an idiot for not "Knowing" it was an obvious"FAKE".

Meanwhile they have no real proof if it was fake and instead of discussing the issue rationally they make cheap drive by statements.


Yep, and notice also the technical explanation corroborating the theory that is CGI, extremely convincing for being some ONE LINE post, isn't it?

mnmcandiez, if YOU claim it to be CGI basing your analysis on some 8th generation footage, then perhaps you're part of the problem and your opinion is as value as the one of those who see crocodiles and monkeys on Mars and alien spacecrafts everywhere: to have a skeptical view does NOT automatically put you on the right side of the discussion, and of course your on-line debunks a heck of a nothing. The location of the sighting has been found by some researchers (DNA Magazine and i've also located it on Google Earth:


i would like to add some important (IMHO) points:

1) The video has been released on 2003: do you know what CGI / 3d modelling software was available at that time?

2) The area near Aviano AFB, is a UFO hotspot: many, many sightings have been reported, include multiple witnessed ones of US jets chasing UFOs

drones, military experiments and so on:


3) Aviano AFB is claimed to be not very different from S4: while this has never been proved in a conclusive way, Aviano is one of the most secret bases in Europe.
All i can say is that UFO sightings in the area are continuously reported and that the people who live there are used to UFOs sightings, and and are convinced that Aviano AFB is strictly involved in the sightings. I've personally been in Pordenone, and the people says that the sightings are experimental crafts, everyone says the same thing, no one of them claims they are extraterrestrial aircrafts.

Everytime you download then upload a video to YT, there's a LOSS of data. The video that you were watching was lossy compressed ten times to say the very least: a serious analysis can be done on the best copy available, while in THAT version ov the video, even some rocket scientist would be unable to distinguish misplaced pixels from actual ones.
Google it, and you will find out that some ACTUAL experts analyzed this video in Hollywood and their conclusion was that it's NOT CGI.
I don't know whether it's CGI or isn't because i do realize that it's IMPOSSIBLE to make any serious assessment.




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join