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.

 

UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!! First ever video footage!

page: 29
656
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
CANT EVEN SEE IT @ WORK ANY LINK OTHER THEN YOU TUBE




posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz

Originally posted by DaMod
My note here is, how many Mexican computer programmers do you know? Would a guy that rides a bus in Mexico be one of those guys? Wouldn't a programmer in Mexico be pretty sought after? Wouldn't he make a better comparable living? If it was me shooting this footage with no skill in CGI at all, wouldn't you still claim it to be cgi?

Major Cop Out...


Major generalistion of Mexicans more like - shame on you for perpetuating such ignorance!


No no no no... and you spelled generalization wrong.


I'm not generalizing mexicans other than they are in mexico. A country that would be classified as 2nd world, and where the education system is generally sub par. I'm not questioning the capabilities of a Mexican brian as to that of a white or black brain etc. etc. However the conditions of available technology, knowledge, education etc. its hard to say that a man like this would have the skill to perpetrate one of these.

As a poster said before in response to me that it is a piece of cake. I say, if I went into one of these programs my dots would look like &*^*. My main point is people are giving too much credit to this guy, and using an explanation that is too easy to get away with. I mean no one here can prove it's cgi. Their cgi claim holds just as much water as this is an alien craft claim because there is an equal amount of evidence for both... none at all. That is why it is a cop out. If this is not CGI then how do you explain it?

Sure the program might be easy to obtain and simple to use, but how simple is getting the graphic to match the zoom / blur of the footage at the exact right time? Then how hard would it be to get the objects being released to flow exactly right to match what the creator is really trying to portray.

I think it would be best if instead of making a claim like this, some ATS cgi artist tried to duplicate the effect. That would be a little more convincing to a lot of people than just pointing fingers and calling out CGI!

When I say duplicate, I mean match it and make it good!

[edit on 6-7-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
No no no no... and you spelled generalization wrong.


It was a typo (I dropped the 'a' - please forgive me!) and it is spelt 'generalisation' - check my avatar - I'm from the UK, we do things different here. Is that ok? I have a feeling that it won't be...


I'm not generalizing mexicans other than...


Keep digging...



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


Or you're just refusing to believe that this can be CGI.

Nowadays we have special programs for adding effects to videos. The user only has to choose what kind of effects he wants. It's even easier than riding a bike.

And no there is no evidence of neither. We can't prove it to be CGI because the only way to do it on this site is to have the origina video which we don't have and will not have.
By the end of the day aliens haven't been proven and all we have is hundreds of videos with unidentified objects in them or obvious/not-so-obvious CGI.

[edit on 6/7/2009 by DGFenrir]

[edit on 6/7/2009 by DGFenrir]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Star and flag; very cool video and the story must be investigated to confirm the video authenticity. I always believed in some logical explanation to the spheres but if this video shows to be no FAKE be real I will need to rethink everything.

It seems he picked up the footage by accident when he was filming a airplane.

Let’s see if more information appears....

Greetings from Brazil

CZBR21



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz

Originally posted by DaMod
No no no no... and you spelled generalization wrong.


It was a typo (I dropped the 'a' - please forgive me!) and it is spelt 'generalisation' - check my avatar - I'm from the UK, we do things different here. Is that ok? I have a feeling that it won't be...


I'm not generalizing mexicans other than...


Keep digging...



Aww way to misquote me! You totally didn't include the whole 2nd world country thing. Total rip off
. I'm not worried about the typo, it happens. Just figured I would be nice and point it out for future reference.

Besides a few slang words I'm pretty sure grammar and spelling of common English words are the same in both nations...

[edit on 6-7-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by DGFenrir
reply to post by DaMod
 


Or you're just refusing to believe that this can be CGI.

Nowadays we have special programs for adding effects to videos. The user only has to choose what kind of effects he wants. It's even easier than riding a bike.

And no there is no evidence of neither. We can't prove it to be CGI because the only way to do it on this site is to have the origina video which we don't have and will not have.
By the end of the day aliens haven't been proven and all we have is hundreds of videos with unidentified objects in them or obvious/not-so-obvious CGI.


I'm not refusing to believe it is CGI. It very well could be. I refuse to let people come to one unprovable conclusion in order to make a debunked claim that isn't even debunked.

Why is it so hard to believe that it may not be cgi?



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


It's not hard. Just have to rule out all other possibilities before deciding whether it is aliens or not.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
This video brings this to mind for me,




" broadsheet that dates from 1561, held in the Wickiana Collection of Switzerland's Zurich Central Library, describes an ancient battle of ufos over the skies of Nuremberg, Germany, on April 14th of that very same year. At sunrise, many people witnessed large numbers of dark red, blue and black 'globes' or 'plates' near the sun, 'some three in a row, now and then four in a square, also some alone. And amongst these globes some blood colored crosses were seen.' The document also refers to two great tubes ' in which three, four and more globes were seen. They then all began to fight each other.' This went on for about an hour, until 'they all fell...... from the sun and sky down to the earth, producing alot of steam'. Beneath the globes a long object that looked like a great black spear was also described as being seen.


A second broadsheet in the same collection describes an eerily similar event at Basel, Switzerland, in 1566. At sunrise on August the 7th, 'many large black globes were seen in the air, moving before the sun with great speed, and turning against one another as though fighting. Some of them turned red and fiery and afterwards faded and disappeared'. What is so important about these two historical incidents is the amount of detail provided, offering modern researchers a glimpse of how truly bizarre these ancient spectacles might have been."

from subversiveelement.com

Just makes you think you know.. seeing as this was from the 1500's - it's not like they had CG or anything back then. That picture is from an old woodcut afterall.




"At dawn of April 4, in the sky of Nuremberg (Germany), a lot of men and women saw a very alarming spectacle where various objects were involved, including balls “approximately 3 in the length, from time to time, four in a square, much remained insulated, and between these balls, one saw a number of crosses with the color of blood. Then one saw two large pipes, in which small and large pipes, were 3 balls, also four or more. All these elements started to fight one against the other.” (Gazette of the town of Nuremberg)."



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
WTF!?!?
Man, I have never witnessed so many CGI experts in one place in my entire life. Some saying it could be CGI, but not this video. Others talking about backgrounds, others mentioning impossibility due to the blue sky etc...
Ridiculous!


Look folks, I sold 3D solid modeling software, rendering software, FEA & CFD software for almost a decade! Autodesk purchased a company called Alias Wavefront. Autodesk manufactures a product that most of you have at least heard of, AutoCAD. They purchased Alias Wavefront to acquire a product called Maya. Maya allows for graphic designers to create other-worldly effects and complex renderings. Learn more about it here and here.

Anyone who knows anything about CGI knows that you need not be an "expert" or a "pro" to pull this off. In fact, this video is so basic in it's approach that a high school student with the tool could do this!
So, please, supposed experts, do not make claims that you know nothing about. If I was still in possession of my SGI workstation and software, I could bust out this video in a half an hour - and I'm no expert - I just sold the stuff!!!

Notice the capabilities, discussed here. Pay special attention to Maya Nucleus, the package that contains the nParticles upgrade. This allows you to generate very complex particle modles based on computational fluid dynamic models; including water, gas, dust and dirt etc... Things like tornados, waves and orbs. Finally, the layering capabilities would allow one to simply take a video recording of the sky and add these effects in. The result would be a real video of clouds, focus/auto-focus anomlies, camera shake etc... to contribute to the authenticity. One would think that the proliferation and ease-of-use of these technologies would make one hesitate and take pause before simply believing their eyes. Apparently just not on ATS.


Finally, my post of page 25 outlines the phenomon called "Ball Lightning". This video exhibits all of the characteristics described by witnesses of ball lightning. See page 25 for the links that I laid out for comparative purposes. ...Flying horizontally, lasting for minutes at a time, yellow in color, shooting out balls or sparks etc...

What startles and alarms me is the number of people posting about how "incredible" this video is when they clearly have not taken the time to review the countless rational and logical explainations offered throughout the thread by VERY credible posters. For the newbies... kids, we've been through this before and would appreciate at least a cursory review of the thread prior to posting "Amazing, proof of UFOs" comments.

This video is neither incredible (unless it actually captures bona-fide ball lightning phenomenon) nor proof of anything. What is required is a skeptical approach where one can definiteively eliminate the other more reasonable possibilities leaving only 1 further explaination - alien craft. So far, no one has done that. I have only seen posts railing against those with more scientific minds who are attempting to do such with derisions like, "Until a skeptic can reproduce this video I have no reason to see it as CGI." Really!?!?
I mean, is that how you approach a scientific analysis - prove a negative. Here, let me help you... have you ever watched a sci-fi movie? There is your proof that this incredibly boring, simplistic video could have been created using CGI - by a bored high school student!!!

Come on folks... deny ignorance. God gave you a brain, use it! Until we can reasonably refute the more worldly possibilities, what we have here is a video that is likely explained by very worldly phenomena. I too, would LOVE to believe that this is conclusive proof that alien civilizations are visiting us. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - alot more proof than some blurry video of lights.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


Hey, I started your quote verbatim followed by the trailing '...' for others to read the rest of your post so as not to misquote you!

But cool, if you didn't mean it the way it sounded then I will take your word for it


The fact is that computers exist in all corners of the world and computer experts too! It does not matter how rich/poor the country is perceived to be.

For all you know Pedro could own his own telecommunications business, be an expert CGI programmer or be a homeless guy with a camcorder!

[edit on 6/7/2009 by skibtz]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
As a poster said before in response to me that it is a piece of cake. I say, if I went into one of these programs my dots would look like &*^*. My main point is people are giving too much credit to this guy, and using an explanation that is too easy to get away with. I mean no one here can prove it's cgi. Their cgi claim holds just as much water as this is an alien craft claim because there is an equal amount of evidence for both... none at all. That is why it is a cop out. If this is not CGI then how do you explain it?

Sure the program might be easy to obtain and simple to use, but how simple is getting the graphic to match the zoom / blur of the footage at the exact right time? Then how hard would it be to get the objects being released to flow exactly right to match what the creator is really trying to portray.

I think it would be best if instead of making a claim like this, some ATS cgi artist tried to duplicate the effect. That would be a little more convincing to a lot of people than just pointing fingers and calling out CGI!

When I say duplicate, I mean match it and make it good!

[edit on 6-7-2009 by DaMod]


Damod... read my post above...

Allow me to point out the fatal flaws of your logic... what is more reasonable to you - CGI or an alien space ship? Considering the THOUSANDS of CGI hoaxes purporting to show alien craft versus the very few unexplained videos that MIGHT show one, I'm going with CGI being the more plausible approach. Until someone with the proper tehcnology and experience can conclusively determine that there are NO CGI ARTIFACTS present in this video, it is most likely CGI.

You are making an extraordinary claim here and must back that up with extraordinary evidence. It is not the onus of the party approaching this with logic, rational and statistics on their side to prove that this ISN'T something, rather, it is up to you believers that it, in fact, IS something.

Simply Google CGI UFO Hoaxes and view the hundreds upon hundreds of videos of known CGI UFO hoaxes for reference.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
but where's Phage, ATS's most overrated debunker, to tell us that this is nothing more than a plastic bag blowing in the wind?


Well we are on page 7 and the usual list of debunkers have not yet swooped in on this. Normally you will see the regulars on page one but at least by page two..

The fact that NONE of them have offered an opinion is extremely telling.

Debunkers rarely tackle something they cannot explain... at least not until they work out a game plan



Wow, there. YOU are knocking Phage and the rest of the posters who don't believe everything they read on ATS?

If guys like Phage weren't around you guys would believe any old crap (and still do, even with tons of evidence). You guys believed the octopus UFO that was actually a novelty balloon. Phage researches his stuff before posting.

I've already considered it could be CGI, but am not 100% correct on that. The debunkers have debunked far more convincing footage before, and I'm certain with research they'll find what's behind this one. Until then, can you kindly be of use and explain to us WHAT is in these videos? Instead of slinging mud around before they even have chance to see it?

[edit on 6-7-2009 by KIRKSTERUK]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DGFenrir
reply to post by DaMod
 


There is no need for any skill or knowledge to do a video like this. You only have to take the video clip, get it on your pc, open the program, add a few dots, assign them movement trajectories, add blur/grain and you're done.

Edit:
It's not rocket science.


[edit on 6/7/2009 by DGFenrir]


Off you go then, find some random scenery footage and do this. Add a few dots, apply a trajectory to it and ... wow us all.

And unless it perfectly matches how this footage is, then you fail.

Now, I also believe it is quite possible that it is CGI. BUT I would not be so cocky in stating how 'easy' it is, and you're really making yourself out to be an arrogant member of the forums by your continual snide contributions.

I know I could pull something similar to this off in After Effects, using the provided plugins that come with it, having done similar when attempting to learn the application via tutorials. I also know that anything I did produce would certainly not stand up to scrutiny at the hands of people directly opposed to your view, and as such will refrain from doing so.

BUT for someone to sit there, not offer anything by way of example and claim that no skill would be involved whatsoever, is absolutely ignorant in the basics of how these things work.

So, you claim the ease of which this can be done, show us. Or your claims are moot.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Dammit.

When I first posted (page 17) I had Googled the guys name and didn't see anything obvious/suspicious, it being a common name.

If this really is the same guy and he has witnessed and/or captured three separate instances then this gives pause for thought.

Obviously there are those who say that certain people are targeted by UFOs etc but I want to keep my posts as logical and accurate as possible.

Unfortunately - for me - if this really is the same person who captured this video - then it makes me skeptical (again).



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by badw0lf

Originally posted by DGFenrir
reply to post by DaMod
 


There is no need for any skill or knowledge to do a video like this. You only have to take the video clip, get it on your pc, open the program, add a few dots, assign them movement trajectories, add blur/grain and you're done.

Edit:
It's not rocket science.


[edit on 6/7/2009 by DGFenrir]


Off you go then, find some random scenery footage and do this. Add a few dots, apply a trajectory to it and ... wow us all.

And unless it perfectly matches how this footage is, then you fail.

Now, I also believe it is quite possible that it is CGI. BUT I would not be so cocky in stating how 'easy' it is, and you're really making yourself out to be an arrogant member of the forums by your continual snide contributions.

I know I could pull something similar to this off in After Effects, using the provided plugins that come with it, having done similar when attempting to learn the application via tutorials. I also know that anything I did produce would certainly not stand up to scrutiny at the hands of people directly opposed to your view, and as such will refrain from doing so.

BUT for someone to sit there, not offer anything by way of example and claim that no skill would be involved whatsoever, is absolutely ignorant in the basics of how these things work.

So, you claim the ease of which this can be done, show us. Or your claims are moot.


We know there are many CGI UFO hoaxes on the web. Now you find me examples of the contrary. You find me evidence that someone didn't CGI them. If UFO activity is as common as posters like you make out, that shouldn't take you long now should it?

And before you call me some "swamp gas paper bag lamo-debunker", I S+F'd this thread because I want people to make their own minds up on this video and post what they see in this video without acting like a school child about how "the debunkers can't prove jack, so it must be real!!"

[edit on 6-7-2009 by KIRKSTERUK]

[edit on 6-7-2009 by KIRKSTERUK]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by badw0lf
 


Blabla

I was just pointing out the lack of knowledge about computer graphics of the person I quoted. He thought it would take weeks to add a few moving dots to the video.
THere is no need for me to reproduce any footage. Won't bother myself with downloading the software needed for this.
And why do I have to prove it? I'm not the truth seeker here. Why not you prove that it is not CGI?



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by badw0lf

Originally posted by DGFenrir
reply to post by DaMod
 


There is no need for any skill or knowledge to do a video like this. You only have to take the video clip, get it on your pc, open the program, add a few dots, assign them movement trajectories, add blur/grain and you're done.

Edit:
It's not rocket science.


[edit on 6/7/2009 by DGFenrir]


Off you go then, find some random scenery footage and do this. Add a few dots, apply a trajectory to it and ... wow us all.

And unless it perfectly matches how this footage is, then you fail.

Now, I also believe it is quite possible that it is CGI. BUT I would not be so cocky in stating how 'easy' it is, and you're really making yourself out to be an arrogant member of the forums by your continual snide contributions.

I know I could pull something similar to this off in After Effects, using the provided plugins that come with it, having done similar when attempting to learn the application via tutorials. I also know that anything I did produce would certainly not stand up to scrutiny at the hands of people directly opposed to your view, and as such will refrain from doing so.

BUT for someone to sit there, not offer anything by way of example and claim that no skill would be involved whatsoever, is absolutely ignorant in the basics of how these things work.

So, you claim the ease of which this can be done, show us. Or your claims are moot.


Simply stunning!
Another whose Scientific Method is to prove a negative. I have a much simpler idea... why not familiarize yourself with the software packages in question. Read the literature, the reviews and the blogs - you will quickly discover that what is being said is true - these are incredibly simple CGI techniques. Heck an ounce of research on your part would reveal dozens of videos created by CGI that blow the crap out of this video.

We have no need (Nor desire) to prove a negative. Our libraries and belief systems are built upon a foundation of rational, cogent and logical explainations that do not require proof - like the sun rising in the East, we know these facts as mostly self-evident. And if I did recreate this video in exacting detail... then what? We STILL know that it COULD HAVE been created on a computer, not that it, in fact, was.

Why don't you take the time to support your claim that it COULD NOT have been created on a computer. THEN we might be more willing to consider that this is NOT a CGI creation.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
ok tbh i aint read all the pages here but a few of them lol, iv watched the video 3-4 times now to get the *gist* of it. id like to clarify i am a believer in aliens/UFO's, BUT i have tried to take an objective view point of this.

i actually thought this was a bird when i saw it, just watching the way it moved, it seems like wings flapping to me. then i thought well what about the smaller *orbs* tbh those could just be reflection from the sun on the camera.

what confused me a little was around the 4 min 35 mark when you see the main *orb* in the center and like a trail of either smaller orbs or vapor cloud perhaps?? at either side. 2nd thought was perhaps a blimp of some sort that was trailing something behind it, but then this wouldn't atone for the movements of it we have saw before this section.

around the 5 min mark it does get interesting, were you see the smaller ones a little closer and each moving around independently and going towards the main *orb*

looking more closely it is possible that this could be a mother bird and her offspring but then this wouldn't account for the trail effect that appears behind the main orb around the 5min 51 mark again.

as you can tell i was watching this and commenting at the same time lol, i am undecided tbh, at times it looks birdlike but that doesn't account for some of the movements and the apparent way it seems to *eject* the smaller orbs.

I would say this is a UFO, alien? i dont know but it is a great find and deserves a flag none the less.

be interesting to get a closer look at this is some video editing softwere



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Hrmmm...

If it wasn't for Jaime Masson being involved with this I'd really be interested.


That aside, does anyone know how to get through to the guy who filmed this in the hope of getting the RAW footage straight off the camera's drive or whatever media he recorded it on?

That's the ONLY WAY to potentially rule out a CGI hoax. All the camera motion certainly adds to the apparent movement but the scene when the little orbs are shooting out of the larger blob is fascinating if it's not CGI.

Even if it's an effect produced by a crappy camera it's cool looking.


If someone knows how to reach this guy please u2u me. I'd like to try to set up a review of the actual video file (not a CRAPPY, COMPRESSED YouTube copy) with some of the top gents in the video/CGI world.

Springer...

[edit on 7-6-2009 by Springer]




top topics



 
656
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join