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: 66
656
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by waveguide3

I'm referring to what I see in this single YouTube video, not over a selection of different
versions. I'm ambivalent as to whether this particular video is hires or not, that's not
relevant. What I'm talking about is sections of this one video. There are at least two
sections in this video showing the same sequence at different resolutions. Can you explain
it?

WG3


Yes I can explain this, I did before in this thread but so much pages to read again I will
instead tell you. What you are watching is a video report produced, edited and
enhanced by the tv network for the show. In this video report the original footage is
shown but not entirely because it is a long video, if you know the television bussines
you understand that minutes are the escence.

What we have here is an interview with the witness who is telling his story and some
shots are inserted along with his narration, some of these shots are even repeated,
all this made in post-production. Then we have an enhancement segment made by
the production to show a more enhanced images for the purposes of a tv network
standards and to add a more descriptive images for the audience. This process was
made with a proffesional high tech equipment like an AVID PRO as well as advanced
peripheral. A professional footage analysis will use a similar equipment and peripheral
as required by standards.

The result is a several minute segment of a UFO report including introduction,
interviews, original footage and enhanced footage, different shots and a dynamic
edition just like major tv networks do all the time. That's the reason why you saw
different resolutions in those images.

There was a second report as an update also posted here showing a second part of the
case incuding a recreation with the actual witness on location and again images in the
same process. Very soon a third update will be shown with a new witness presenting
his experience and the tv network will produce the report the same way so don't get
disconcerted by the edits, that will be done by the tv network.




posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by free_spirit
By the way about your second option CGI you are not updated my friend, there is an actual second withness to this phenomena who also took a very good and descriptive video showing the phenomena from another position adding more elements to the research, his appeareance on national television is coming up with interviews so you will have to reconsider your second option, why don't you check my update on this
thread and check the images I showed. CGI no way.


Yes - you are right. I saw that second report that you posted a few days ago.

I did not think about that second report when I commented again upon the CGI option.

I will have another look at that report.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by free_spirit
By the way about your second option CGI you are not updated my friend, there is an actual second withness to this phenomena who also took a very good and descriptive video showing the phenomena from another position adding more elements to the research, his appeareance on national television is coming up with interviews so you will have to reconsider your second option, why don't you check my update on this thread and check the images I showed. CGI no way.

Not exactly.

It could be CGI made in a 3D environment (the best way of reproducing a 3D object), and in that case they could do as many "takes" from as many points of view as they wanted, with different camera characteristics, it would be just another rendering job for each "take".



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


480 flags and 66 pages, thousands of viewers, all over some garbage bag with styrofoam in it. When I saw how the white "spheres" slowed down their "dance" that did it for me. They were following the momentum of the vortex left in the wake of the airliner. It is also what caused the bag to spin.

And don't yell at me for your spaceship, save it for the PTBs. If push comes to shove we could always use the Tomahawk. Maybe.

And I am still waiting on some VIP responses for Theory C.

Man-o-man, bring on the straight jackets, 'cause I'm fit to be tied!



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Seems no one is buying your garbage bag theory



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by free_spirit
By the way about your second option CGI you are not updated my friend, there is an actual second withness to this phenomena who also took a very good and descriptive video showing the phenomena from another position adding more elements to the research, his appeareance on national television is coming up with interviews so you will have to reconsider your second option, why don't you check my update on this
thread and check the images I showed. CGI no way.


I looked at those images from the 2nd witness again. The quality is very poor & it is very difficult to draw any conclusions from them.

Armap states the obvious. Those images could also be CGI & poor CGI at that.

This is all going to get extremely repetitive & frustrating unless we can be shown better quality video or images.

Are you certain you cannot show us better quality video or images?



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Exactly! If you can supposedly videotape a UFO from multiple angles, the hoaxers would do this knowing this event would get more attention and credibility. It would be the perfect hoax. Especially, like you say, it wouldn't be too difficult to pull off.

But couldn't you also use the sky as basically a blue-screen kind of animation pallette? I have done 3d animations before for my business (involving commercial and residential structures) but the software I use is a little different, therefore it has its own capability limitations. I'm just not too familiar with other software people might use to pull off a hoax like this. But couldn't you technically tape the videos first (making the hoax harder to debunk) and then add-in the UFO and orbs later in digital format?

If this is some kind of animation, I'd think that someone would eventually figure out how to prove it. Alot of CG UFO hoaxes over the years have been debunked rather easily. The stupid Haiti UFO video, for example(remember that one?).

-ChriS

[edit on 23-7-2009 by BlasteR]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 03:06 AM
link   
i dont know, i have no exsperience in video or that. it would look more real to me if i could see it better. the plastic bag theory is out of it. the spheres dance all over and go in angles away from the plane. if you look at the footage again i saw for a brief moment what the shape of the thing was , it looked like a triangle shape object for a brief second when he tried to focus it. can some one slow motion this here to this point where the thing was in focus. watch closely, you will see it will get focused for a second or two. is there any other way this could have been done, maybe with lights or something. or maybe the plane dropped off some sort of mist you could not see. the mist for a backdrop and then someone on the ground useing a laser of some sort manipulating motion. maybe the laser had a lens on it for the effects of the other objects. i dont know , someone prove me wrong. can that be done?



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by free_spirit
Then we have an enhancement segment made by
the production to show a more enhanced images for the purposes of a tv networkstandards and to add a more descriptive images for the audience. This process was made with a proffesional high tech equipment like an AVID PRO as well as advanced peripheral.


I'm sorry to persist with this, but I don't think you understand the point I'm making about the repeated sequencies. The use of video enhancement technology cannot increase the amount of detail over what's present in the original. By 'increased resolution' I do not mean making a hundred pixel image into a five hundred pixel one. That doesn't increase the optical resolution at all. It simply makes one original pixel into several pixels, but all they show is the original pixel in a larger format. Magnifying a blur just makes a larger blur. You cannot get more detail (resolution). However, you can use software based on NASA's 'Drizzle' techniques to improve optical precision, but you cannot get detail out of an image that isn't present in the first place.

Having clarified that fact, I'd still like to know how the second ('enhanced') sequencies show detail in the blob which isn't present in the original. This can only be achieved by two separate video captures made at different optical resolutions.

WG3



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sam60

Originally posted by free_spirit
By the way about your second option CGI you are not updated my friend, there is an
actual second withness to this phenomena who also took a very good and descriptive
video showing the phenomena from another position adding more elements to the
research, his appeareance on national television is coming up with interviews so you
will have to reconsider your second option, why don't you check my update on this
thread and check the images I showed. CGI no way.


I looked at those images from the 2nd witness again. The quality is very poor & it is
very difficult to draw any conclusions from them.

Armap states the obvious. Those images could also be CGI & poor CGI at that.

This is all going to get extremely repetitive & frustrating unless we can be shown better
quality video or images.

Are you certain you cannot show us better quality video or images?


Oh I certainly have copies of both raw footages. But for you as well as Armap it's no
use buddy. It doesn't matter if there are two separate witnesses of the same event,
it won't matter if a third or more witnesses come forward, it won't matter if the whole
neighborhood comes forward tomorrow as a witness to this event, for you and Armap
all of them will be suspicious, cheaters, liars and part of a massive scam by a massive
CGI creation incuding the tv network people.

It's clear as water that you both are suffering the CGI syndrome in wich no evidence,
no testimony, no investigation will be enough for you because it has to be CGI one
way or another. You know pal CGI infatuation may become an addiction in wich your
mind play tricks and you may end thinking that your own shadow is just a CGI
hologram, your own reflection in a mirror is a CGI projection. It would be healthy if
you both just move on instead of staying in your CGI world. This is the obvious.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by waveguide3

Originally posted by free_spirit
Then we have an enhancement segment made by
the production to show a more enhanced images for the purposes of a tv
networkstandards and to add a more descriptive images for the audience. This process
was made with a proffesional high tech equipment like an AVID PRO as well as
advanced peripheral.


I'm sorry to persist with this, but I don't think you understand the point I'm making
about the repeated sequencies. The use of video enhancement technology cannot
increase the amount of detail over what's present in the original. By 'increased
resolution' I do not mean making a hundred pixel image into a five hundred pixel one.
That doesn't increase the optical resolution at all. It simply makes one original pixel into
several pixels, but all they show is the original pixel in a larger format. Magnifying a
blur just makes a larger blur. You cannot get more detail (resolution). However, you
can use software based on NASA's 'Drizzle' techniques to improve optical precision, but
you cannot get detail out of an image that isn't present in the first place.
Having clarified that fact, I'd still like to know how the second ('enhanced') sequencies
show detail in the blob which isn't present in the original. This can only be achieved by
two separate video captures made at different optical resolutions.

WG3


I think I've missed something here, what exactly is your point?



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by free_spirit[/i
I think I've missed something here


That was pretty clear from the start of this discussion. What I'm trying to explain as simply as I can, is it isn't possible for the two sequences to have one and the same source.

Wikipedia has a good explanation of optical resolution and pixel resolution, maybe that will help?

WG3



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by free_spirit
 


OK, where did I said that they were "suspicious, cheaters, liars and part of a massive scam"?

I am not suffering from any "CGI syndrome", I was only saying that those that say that two people with two videos is proof that this is not CGI are not automatically right, two witnesses and two videos give more credit to the images, but there is nothing in itself that makes it impossible for the images to be CGI.

And yes, all images that we see on a computer can be CGI, but that does not mean that I ignore witnesses' reports, I never do that, when I started following this subject I had never even seen a UFO video, only some photos.

I know this is a conspiracy site, and that just because someone is paranoid it does not mean that there isn't anyone out to get him/her, but you should look at what people write before starting to accuse them of things that they never did or said, even if you are a "professional researcher", whatever that may be.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by free_spirit
 

Free Spirit....

You are totally misinterpreting my position. I hope I am not expressing myself poorly & contributing to that.

I am genuinely interested in viewing these videos & discussing what they might be, hence my requests for better videos & images.

I would be one very happy guy if a clearer video or picture proved to me that ET visitation is really occuring.

I actually have a high level of interest in & respect for your posts & your info. So you might consider turing down your "attack mode" a notch or two.




posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Sam60
 
These things are real. I seen 'em four foot away!



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by waveguide3 What I'm trying to explain as simply as I can, is it isn't possible for the two sequences to have one and the same source.


So exactly what part of free_spirit saying he has the raw footage do you not understand?

It was pretty clear that the clips were from that raw footage... well it was clear to me



[edit on 23-7-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


I think I understand what waveguide3 means.

If the original, "raw", footage was the one presented at the beginning, how could the TV crew make the second video from the first? The video cannot be turned into a higher resolution video to show more detail than what could be seen on the first, original video.

But I don't think it's a higher resolution video, just some adjustments made by people that know their job.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by free_spirit
Oh I certainly have copies of both raw footages...


Jeepers. I have been out this thread a while and it appears the dogs are still in the manger!

Is this about egos, money or actually getting to the truth?!


How many more national tv and radio shows does this event have to squeeze in before the unworthy public get to download & view the RAW footage?

[edit on 23/7/2009 by skibtz]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


I starred your post up there, because it is true.

People don't want to be made fools of, or admit they have been duped, so rather than face reality they change the subject or some other equally diversional process. Its just human nature, whether I like it or not.

As for me, I choose to not be toyed with, and if admitting I was wrong is what it takes, that clears the slate for my future. When I tread into the unknown I don't want to be hauling garbage with me.

As for everyone else their future is in the dumps. Soon we will be mining not just information from garbage, but raw resources. This is the reality.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
As for everyone else their future is in the dumps. Soon we will be mining not just information from garbage, but raw resources. This is the reality.


"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one" Albert Einstein



new topics

top topics



 
656
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join