Looks good to me.
I don't see any indication of CGI and say that knowing almost anything can be done. I do CGI and are somewhat familiar with methods, filters, plugins
but have been fooled before. But I am also considering much more than the video.
Other things to consider when evaluating such information.
1. Visual observation of people involved and their facial, physical delivery.
This is profiling. There are hundreds of muscles in the face and the body movements (head, neck, arms) also. It's been shown that "reading" a face
is not accurate until you are a bit older in general. Some skills can emerge early however. This is "qualitative data" and as such a skill without
an exact science. Research shows that in several studies of teenage subjects find that they cannot in general read a face for emotion. So, this skill
can vary by age and experience.
2. Context of presentation, background of people and media involved:
Look at the production from the quality or reputation of the program. Look at the historic media records if possible. The presenter or presenting
researcher if coming with media pedigree will offer some probability or reliability factoring.
Jaime Maussan is credible and I trust his judgment taking into consideration he can be fooled too. 95% credibility.
CGI and fakery probability:
First, it is almost impossible to determine good CGI in reduced or pixel-rarified video. So indicators are left to animation problems, bad faked
camera jitter and mo-cap files, compositional framing (too good -too bad) and many other factors. Sound quality-particularities, visual ground in
shot, light source and visual continuity, and camera type/model as well as all the other visual and contextual observations.
I give this a 97% reliability in low resolution video real evaluation. Maussan's production crew usually knows fakes and the common techniques and
filters for credible material fairly well.
This is not easy to do in CGI with 3D or 2D applications like After Effects or with 3rd party plugins for video production and non-linear editing. A
regular guy with a desktop system can do a lot, but fooling industry professionals is not easy. I've seen kids do great effects, but usually their
lack of wisdom and experience reveals problems, but not just in their visual effects. More in the focus and presentation.
Most cannot afford to spend the many hours to do this type of CGI and cannot back up such with video files in the exact codec for the camera, and
embedded timecode, SIMTE data and meta data. So such fakes are usually found out from the second phase of an investigation with a video original file
and camera to evaluate. Again, Maussan's crew knows this.
Then.... there are the skills with non-local perception, but I will not belabor that. Suffice it to say, with experience you can get a "gut" feeling
in the first 60 seconds of a media file. Non-local data is available all the time you understand.
Overall I give this a 99%, reserving 1% for probability reality. Only for this one video however. Other edits might ask for less or more
This looks like the culprit in many of the sky-filled sphere videos from Mexico. I have never seen pre-development for events of such videos, and this
might in fact be one such video event.
Assuming we are being visited by uncountable different beings from neighboring dimensions, distant stars and galaxies or otherwise, it would be almost
impossible to do anything but classify and prove actually observed media is reliable.
My fun assumption is that it is like a tour bus that pulls up and lets out 75 or more passengers visiting and taking pictures, DNA and multi-frequency
3-4D photos or video to take back to the little organisms and relatives for hours of vacation travel videos to Earth just before disclosure and
Hey! It's fun to watch the post-simian, pre-intelligent humans muck around stupidly as they destroy each other and the planet.
3D Holographic Postcard from 21st Century Earth In The Mail!
Good find. It's going in my reference library. Star/Flag