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: 84
656
<< 81  82  83    85  86  87 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by necati
Am I wrong or is this again one of those postings trying to arouse the impression that I don’t know what I’m talking of.



Originally posted by necati
All the parameters for animating the spheres (particles) like gravity, air resistance, turbulence field, birth rate, lifespan etc can be found within the above mentioned program. The odds that this is a mere coincidence are astronomical.


As stated before, that second quote from you shows you don't know anything about particle systems. As stated before, any good particle system is going to have those features, and there's no 'coincidence', astronomical or not.

There was no need to get snippy, I just pointed out your errors, because they were clouding your judgement. If you're not going to listen to anybody who has many years (some of us over a decade) of experience actually creating such systems, then there is little point in any of us trying to answer you further.


[edit on 5-9-2009 by Clickfoot]




posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Just my 2 cents as far as flagging this post. I am new to the boards and the reason I flagged this post is because I thought it was interesting. Not because I believe it is a true sighting.

I really don't know what to think. I am not a computer expert, but my many years in law enforcement makes me suspicious when all the raw footage is not released for analysis.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by free_spirit
Just remember CGI? No way. But if you insist then PROVE IT !!


Until the RAW footage is made available you need to stop asking people to 'prove it' - the ball is firmly in the court of Maussan and Co. to prove this case!

Regardless of your findings from the RAW footage, someone else maybe better placed to spot something that you did not.

Do you see now how not releasing the footage does nothing for getting to the truth and yet the Maussan shows keep coming!

Maussan, by not releasing the RAW footage for general consumption, is doing more to discredit this case than any Ufology-bashing sceptic could ever do.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Clickfoot
 


Dear Clickfoot,

If you wouldn’t have omitted the link which follows the above quote you perhaps would have understood that I didn’t mean the odds for certain parameters/ functions to be available in a plug-in but the fact that they exactly provide everything to have exactly the sphere-ejecting behaviour. I would kindly ask to read it and perhaps a little more about it in the other thread. The ‘thread button’ is a very helpful tool. Your quote should include the last sentence as well:

(You can find an example for analogy here.)
_________________________________________________________

You have also omitted to answer two important crucial questions which would have lent more credence to your judgement:

How then, do you think Josué Hernandez (the CGI artist/architect) has made his version, other than by using a particle plug-in?




There are much easier ways to fake something like this than any after effects plug-in. So I very much doubt it.


Could you please let me know what those easier ways are?

Pardon me, but if you can’t answer these two questions I can’t take your judgement seriously and consider it to be baseless.

____________________________________________________



If you're not going to listen to anybody who has many years (some of us over a decade) of experience actually creating such systems, then there is little point in any of us trying to answer you further.


Sorry, I hope it doesn’t sound too harsh but this is a rather slim excuse for being unable to answer the above mentioned two crucial questions which might convince me.
It is quite easy to claim having more than a decade of experience but being unable to prove it with good answers.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 05:32 AM
link   
free_spirit

Two questions, if you don't mind.

First, something I only noticed yesterday, the images you posted from the second video, on this post, are 1024x683 pixels, but you said that the video you got was a 640x480 Quicktime video. My question is why the difference in size?

Second, what is the name of the second witness, Alfredo Carrillo or Alfred Carrillo, as you have written in these last posts?

Thanks in advance.

Edited to correct the link.


[edit on 6/9/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by free_spirit
 





Maybe Josué has ignored your messages because you don't have credentials, simple. But just be patient, I've been informed that Josué Hernandez is gonna be invited to the tv show to talk about his recreation and the Pedro Hernandez UFO footage, in fact the intention is to present the two of them talking about this sighting and wait, it will surprise you. Stay tuned.


Well, what can I say; it’s a pity that such a simple question requires credentials. I just wanted to know which software he used to create his video. I can’t imagine how an answer might harm anybody.

As for the announced show I can only say that I am indeed surprised to hear that. I hope this will be an informative show which gives us more facts about the incident especially from his point of view. The downside is that it will be in Spanish which I unfortunately can’t understand. Hope that someone will provide a translated version, though.




By the way I see you quoted me with I think my first post in this historic thread. Learning something from me perhaps?



Uhmm, not really……..you might remember that I’ve a rather good memory


I can’t find any sense in such a strange approach to the UFO phenomenon. "Let it remain unsolved because it would be a splendid mystery."

You know what?! I would love to learn some real facts about an experience which keeps my mind busy for over thirty years now. It would be splendid to find out what hovered above the waters of Lake Iznik and darted away in the night sky.

I feel offended when someone hoaxes this phenomenon and adds to the ridicule of the UFO subject and its believers.




A word of advice for free; Beware with the CGI syndrome, you may end believing your own shadow is a CGI illusion, or your own reflection in a mirror. Just remember CGI? No way. But if you insist then PROVE IT !!


I have neither taken the red nor the blue pill, sorry! Sounds like absolute nonsense. You will soon find out that CGI will be the key in future UFO cases. If you have nothing more than footage which isn’t corroborated with exact data, witness testimonies etc none of those cases will become any kind of proof.
It might entertain some people but that’s it. The real problem will be the trustworthiness of media in general.
Do you happen to know comrade Ogilvy?



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by necati
If you wouldn’t have omitted the link which follows the above quote you perhaps would have understood that I didn’t mean the odds for certain parameters/ functions to be available in a plug-in but the fact that they exactly provide everything to have exactly the sphere-ejecting behaviour. I would kindly ask to read it and perhaps a little more about it in the other thread. The ‘thread button’ is a very helpful tool. Your quote should include the last sentence as well

Again, why the attitude? What I've told you three times now is that any good particle system WILL include "everything to have exactly the sphere-ejecting behaviour", and much more. I missed nothing, and it still proves nothing. You seemed to be using this to convince yourself that this was definitely how it was done. Do not fall into that trap.


Originally posted by necati
You have also omitted to answer two important crucial questions which would have lent more credence to your judgement:

...because it didn't seem like you wanted to listen, and I'm not interested in getting into an argument. As other people have already said in this very thread, the video you are talking about is quite obviously CGI. It doesn't matter how it was done because it doesn't look particularly convincing. I'm sure you'll agree.


Originally posted by necati
Could you please let me know what those easier ways are?

Well unless you know this stuff you aren't going to see how it's easier. But I'll use that thread button and give it a shot anyway...


Originally posted by necati
Would you create each single sphere separately

No, nobody would do that. You'd only need to create one. Every 3D application that I know of will do this for you in two or three clicks. And hey, it'll look like a real sphere, and not a particle.


Originally posted by necati
and animate it with (again animated) paths?

Again, you'd only need one path, they all follow the same path, do they not? Again, this is extremely quick and easy. But even so, in most packages you wouldn't even need that. You just change the time (a slider), and move the objects where you want them to be at that time, and the package takes care of the rest automatically.


Originally posted by necati
What a tedious way if you have a particle plug-in at hand

Actually, you can get all of the above done in less time than it takes you to enter the basic settings you'd need to do it with particles, and then mess with them till it looks good enough. Somebody who is competent with the tool could do this in around 30 seconds. It will look much better (and not like an obvious particle), gives you complete control (which you don't get from a particle system), and also allows you, very easily, to do all the other things we see in the video, which can't easily be done with a particle system.

You probably won't accept that, and I'm not here to prove it to you - anyone who knows this stuff will agree, though.

As I said, the video could be CGI, and could even be a particle system. But you can't prove it is by proving it could be - it should be obvious that it could be. The only way is to examine the video, not by trying to recreate it.

Particles are usually pretty obvious to someone who's seen a lot of them, and these are not. So I don't think that's what we're looking at.


[edit on 6-9-2009 by Clickfoot]



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

Your link doesn't seem to go anywhere useful. I would assume he took a screenshot right from his movie player, which will have stretched the image, and was going to look for signs of that, but...



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Clickfoot
 

Sorry, I forgot that when seeing all the posts from one user we cannot use the "this post" link, because it uses the page number for that user's posts instead of the page number for the whole thread.

It's this post.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Ah, okay
Those pictures do look like they've been scaled up, so I assume they've just been screen-grabbed from a media player. I'm sure free_spirit can confirm (unless he got them from someone else?)



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz

Maussan, by not releasing the RAW footage for general consumption, is doing more to
discredit this case than any Ufology-bashing sceptic could ever do.


You mean Pedro Hernandez the witness vieographer and Alfred Carrillo witness
videographer. They are the ones who have the original raw footages and the ones who
may do what they decide with their materials. Maussan is just a television host of a tv
show who presented this story just that, don't give him too much credit. Tne real credit
in any case belong to both videographers. If you really want a copy of the raw footages
don't just write here skibitz complaining about I don't know what is your point or
whatever. Do something about it like any researcher or journalist do all the time.

Make a request to both videographers, contact them or call them by phone. Do a
search on the Internet, the mexican yellow pages or make some inquiries like most
professional researchers and journalists do all the time. Don't expect them to share
with you their information sources for nothing, you know you have to do your
homework. Don't just stay here sitting for somebody to deliver in your hands what you
want to see, you have to work the way to get it. Therefore make your request directly
to the witnesses, prepare your arguments and keep ready your credentials, you may
get what you want. That is if you are really interested in a research of your own
because if you don't or simply not interestedt to invest time and efforts then just relax
and continue watching the developments in these discussions. That's my opinion.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by free_spirit
 


The guys with the evidence are asking the people without (not allowed) the evidence to prove it's a fake.

Twisted!

And then - if you are not known, do not have the credentials, do not have good reason, are not worthy and/or not in the club - then you get to see nothing.

Twisted!

Some elements of the community are giving Ufology a bad name - in particular those who refuse to share evidence that could help answer some of mankind's (arguably) most important questions...

Edit for correction (assuming Maussan has no control over the copyrights):

Pedro Hernandez and Alfred Carrillo, by not releasing the RAW footage for general consumption, are doing more to discredit this case than any Ufology-bashing sceptic could ever do.

[edit on 6/9/2009 by skibtz]



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz
reply to post by free_spirit
 


The guys with the evidence are asking the people without the evidence to prove it's a
fake.

Twisted!

And then - if you are not known, do not have the credentials, do not have good reason,
are not worthy and/or not in the club - then you get to see nothing.

Twisted!

Some elements of the community are giving Ufology a bad name - in particular those
who refuse to share evidence that could help answer some of mankind's (arguably)
most important questions...


Wrong sentence. This is what you should say, The guys with the evidence are asking
the people without evidence claiming this is a CGI hoax to prove it. Get it? Don't twist
the real sense of the sentence.

You say “And then you get to see nothing”. Are you sure? So far everything about this
case has been released to the public, the story, the witnesses, the videos, the facts,
the locations etc. And you still have not seen anything yet? Boy I don't know what to
say, if you are so interested for something additional why don't you try to get it for
yourself, you are like demanding something sitting here in this forum like in a movie
theater asking for your ticket refund.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by free_spirit
 


Not really a reply to that post, but maybe this way you will answer me.


Can you answer my questions on this post, please? Or at least say you will not answer? As things are I don't know if you didn't saw them or if you saw them but decided to not answer.

Thanks.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by necati

Uhmm, not really……..you might remember that I’ve a rather good memory


I can’t find any sense in such a strange approach to the UFO phenomenon. "Let it
remain unsolved because it would be a splendid mystery."




I'm afraid your memory is failing. I didn't say “Let it remain unsolved because it would
be a splendid mystery” It is you necasti who invented this sentence by twisting my own
wich is very different as I'm going to prove here, I quote.

free_spirit in reply to easynow posted on 7-7-2009

We? Can I ask you who are specifically we? If this footage remains a UFO video that
will be splendid don't you agree?

Reference Page 42



And just in case there is some doubt. I said what most members say all the time
including you with different words but the same intention and meaning, just make
a search in this UFO forum and you will find many comments saying:

I just hope this video doesn't turn out to be a hoax. I wish this is authentic and not one
of those viral campaigns. Let's hope this is not another CGI posted in YouTube. Can't
wait to see those debunkers try with this one, what are they gonna say at the end.

It's the same thing. After many discussions if a sighting remains unexplained because
it couldn't be properly debunked then it's labeled a UFO sighting until further results.
You see how easy it is, doesn't everybody wants a UFO sighting not to result a hoax?
Check the threads if you want corroboration.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by free_spirit
 


If there is a chance that the videos are CGI then having the raw data could help resolve that issue.

It would also help to determine how the events unfolded without prejudice.

Personally, I am with the balloon/kite concept and the raw video could help resolve that line of enquiry.

By not releasing the raw data, the owners are ensuring that only carefully selected investigators/researchers (cohorts?) get to examine the raw data and provide a (biased?) opinion.


The longer they refuse access to the raw data the longer the case may go on.

Not a problem though as Maussan and Co. are getting some great publicity in the process


Don't get me wrong, I am happy to sit by and wait for this to unfold in it's own time - it is not my integrity on the line at the end of the day...

And for all I know, you may well be Jaime Maussan!!


[edit on 6/9/2009 by skibtz]



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by free_spirit
 


Not really a reply to that post, but maybe this way you will answer me.


Can you answer my questions on
this
post
, please? Or at least say you will not answer? As things are I don't know if you
didn't saw them or if you saw them but decided to not answer.

Thanks.


Wow, take it easy my friend, I was busy posting other replies as you can see here .
I'm with you now. The first link you posted took me to the very first page of this thread
not to the captions you mentioned but anyway I get the message.

Yes I posted two frames of the Alfred Carrillo footage on page 60 if anybody wants to
check them. They were 1024 X 683 pixel images I captured and resized from the 648
X 480 videoclip I received originally by email, not the raw footage I received later that
weekend. I could have posted the images in the original size 640 X 480 wich by the
way is close to the NTSC size but since I received a U2U asking if I could post a bigger
image from the source to have a better view of the frame this time I thought Yeah why
not. Even the captions came from a 640 X 480 videoclip they had more quality than the
YouTube videos. I made the same thing with the first video wich of course I had already
the raw footage. That's it.

Reagrding Alfred Carrillo you are right, it's Alfredo Carrillo I misspelled his name.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by free_spirit
 

Sorry about that, I think my brain is not working as it should today.


I posted a corrected link some posts after, after Clickfoot pointed my error, and then I forgot to edit the original post.

Having said that, I remember now that I forgot to see a video someone sent me, I must be getting old.


Thanks for you answers.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz
reply to post by free_spirit
 


If there is a chance that the videos are CGI then having the raw data could help resolve that issue.

It would also help to determine how the events unfolded without prejudice.

Personally, I am with the balloon/kite concept and the raw video could help resolve that line of enquiry.

By not releasing the raw data, the owners are ensuring that only carefully selected
investigators/researchers (cohorts?) get to examine the raw data and provide a
(biased?) opinion.


The longer they refuse access to the raw data the longer the case may go on.

Not a problem though as Maussan and Co. are getting some great publicity in the
process


Don't get me wrong, I am happy to sit by and wait for this to unfold in it's own time - it
is not my integrity on the line at the end of the day...

And for all I know, you may well be Jaime Maussan!!


[edit on 6/9/2009 by skibtz]


There is always a chance that a new UFO video turns out to be a CGI creation, let't
remember the YouTube experience. But when you have the original raw footage and
you test it's authenticity the very first thing in general a good researcher is trying to
determine is that the footage was not tampered by digital manipulation. But that is not
the only purpose of the analysis, once established the footage was not doctored then
researchers should study every frame trying to learn what was caught on tape, trying
to understand if posible the nature of that specific phenomena recorded by that witness.
This study may help to find some clues if this was a mundane sighting like a
meteorological phenomena, an optical illusion, a distorted image due to a bad digital
zooming etc. There are many purposes involved in a professional analysis to a video
evidence, not only to be sure it was or not a CGI.

The task is more complicated because a real ufologist follows the leads a UFO sighting
left behind like footprints on a piece of video and also interpretations arise when the
video is discarding those mundane posibilites.

You mention the kite/balloon posibility, that is a good approach also trying to find
natural explanation to this sighting, if it resulted not a digital animation then we have to
see for the immediate second option in this case the posibility of a balloon display of
some kind, an exhibition with or without a remote control. But examining the
movements and behavior of those spheres along with the whole context of the images
displayed the balloon theory seems almost impossible, at the end the dispaly would
have to be recreated in the same conditions. Do you think it would be performed one
day?

There is something you should know because it seems you are blaming the witnesses
for something wich is unfair. I'm not the only researcher who received a copy of the
raw footage, there are some other researchers who like me also received a copy for
the same purposes, to make an impartial evaluation and veredict as part of an
investigation, I said this before and Im telling you now. The witnesses live in Mexico
and they provided their footages to the television people just like in the US UFO
witnesses with important evidences try CNN, NBC, CBS but these networks are not
interested so they go to MUFON or the Internet. Are you going to blame all of them
for taking the wrong decision and not deliver their videos to the one of your choice?
Think about it.

I received a copy of two raw footages, I made my own analysis and I spent some
money in a videolab with the right equipment and the right people, it's my job. If
I would have found a single trace of tampering by digital manipulation I would be the
first to denounce it debunking this case right here since this thread started. I have
debunked many cases in this forum but by presenting evidences. In these footages
I couldn't find any sign of external digital manipulation, what the frames are showing
were there of origin and this was confirmed by other colleagues of mine when we
emailed each other at that time. We concluded this was not a CGI animation but we
didn't know what this was, a real phenomena or maybe a natural or man made idisplay
of some kind, More investigation had to be done.

I will be very satisfied to find an answer to this case, to solve the mystery. I'm not
saying and will never say this was a spacecraft from other world with aliens or little
green man inside, these are old cliches invented by those debunkers to ridiculize the
UFO Phenomenon. I said and Im still sustaining this is a rare phenomena caught on
tape by two different witnesses that remains unidentified to me. If there are efforts
to debunk this case they would have to be executed by presenting solid evidences to
support the allegations, at this level words mean nothing, evidences mean everything.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by free_spirit]



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Ok so I've spent another fruitless half hour (at work thankfully) reading the Aliens/UFO section and I'm amazed you guys are still discussing this 'case'. Critics, can't you see this is going nowhere. No raw video footage will ever be released because that would expose the hoax. But who can blame these guys, hopefully they've made some money out of it.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by cripmeister]



new topics

top topics



 
656
<< 81  82  83    85  86  87 >>

log in

join