Debunked???: 'UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!!'

Came across the solution for the 'UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!!' clip while browsing some plugins which might have been used to make the particles in above mentioned YouTube video.

UFO releases inteligent moving spheres thread

It wasn’t even necessary to have the raw footage. I think it is quite obvious how the effect had been done.
Please watch the following tutorial introducing the functions of Trapcode's Particular plugin for After Effects. At about 9:40 you will find some interesting features concerning the 'UFO releases intelligent moving spheres' clip.

Link to tutorial video

Or download the file (tutorial video3) here

might be faster and easier to view.

After having installed After Effects two days ago I was already able to make an example file. Of course I would have to find and match approximately the same parameters as in the original footage, yet; but it is only a question of time to have a much better composition of the whole scene including a mirrored emitter which produces the spheres in the opposite direction placed in front of a sky background. The center object is rather simple to make, I think.
No experience with blurring and camera movements/ tracking, yet. However, I am rather optimistic that I will find out.




edit: I have uploaded a new version of the example file with some cheap camera shakiness and a sky background.
[edit on 13-7-2009 by necati]

[edit on 13-7-2009 by necati]

[edit on 13-7-2009 by necati]

Is it some joke?
NOT one line, just succint.

Great job!!! I didn't understand how such a small object could eject so many spheres. I wish these *@#^$* would stop with the hoaxes. Thank goodness we have people like you to discredit these jerks!!!!!!!
S & F!!!

Originally posted by internos
Is it some joke?
NOT one line, just succint.

May I ask why you consider this to be a joke? Isn't it pretty obvious that the same kind of particle emitter was used in the YouTube video??

reply to post by necati


To replicate some effect does NOT imply that you have debunked anything: while i do admit that the resembleance is embarassing to say the least, i can't accept it as a full debunking. Let's say that you raised some serious problem of credibility about the footage, and that NOW the absence of the original footage would mean that someone has something to hide. Very impressive, but not a conclusive proof.

reply to post by internos
I think it is, actually.

Oh well practice makes perfect.

Originally posted by internos
reply to post by necati

 

To replicate some effect does NOT imply that you have debunked anything: while i do admit that the resembleance is embarassing to say the least, i can't accept it as a full debunking. Let's say that you raised some serious problem of credibility about the footage, and that NOW the absence of the original footage would mean that someone has something to hide. Very impressive, but not a conclusive proof.

I understand your point. Should add a question mark to the title. You're right, although I think that I have no doubt anymore.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by necati]

reply to post by necati


As someone posted on another thread. "I could film my remote control model plane, and then prove that all planes are fake."

Something like that anyhow.

It does look simular, but your proof could also be a way of proving something that is real, isn't.

Yes, I agree, we need the orginal footage.



[edit on 13-7-2009 by dsm1664]

please all you skeptics who waste your life trying to disprove anything that your"e little mind can"t understand.the arrogance of anyone who seriousely does not want to see their little world as anything but a miracle that only happened here on earth.I am not going to waste anymore of my precious time we have left arguing with people who wouldnt know the truth if it hit them on their head.We are just now barerly getting a grasp on the universe and it"s mysteries.I mean you can not believe everything about aliens,ufo"s,etc..but come on any "reasonable person can look at the evidence and say with out a doubt yea we are and always have been nothing but a lab experiment to them.So is it real?yes,of course.Does it matter if you can see them,?No,so lets stop arguing with the "little minds" and just work on finding real substance we can share with investigators and stop worrying about the skeptics,little minds,etc..

please all you skeptics who waste your life trying to disprove anything that your"e little mind can"t understand.the arrogance of anyone who seriousely does not want to see their little world as anything but a miracle that only happened here on earth.I am not going to waste anymore of my precious time we have left arguing with people who wouldnt know the truth if it hit them on their head.We are just now barerly getting a grasp on the universe and it"s mysteries.I mean you can not believe everything about aliens,ufo"s,etc..but come on any "reasonable person can look at the evidence and say with out a doubt yea we are and always have been nothing but a lab experiment to them.So is it real?yes,of course.Does it matter if you can see them,?No,so lets stop arguing with the "little minds" and just work on finding real substance we can share with investigators and stop worrying about the skeptics,little minds,etc..

good work, necati. this plus the extraordinarily questionable events in the video pretty much seal it for me. The events I am speaking of are: he doesn't point it out to strangers while obviously near a busy street (nor does anyone check what the weird dude filming the sky is looking at), he does this for a living (sky watching), no other reports of a daylight sighting over MEXICO CITY, he has made dozens of other UFO videos before (the odds of seeing two UFOs in a lifetime, let alone dozens, are astronomically small), and going to jaime maussan (of all people) first.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by JScytale]

reply to post by necati

I don't know were your getting at by saying they use the particle engine cause I don't see the similarites, I would say it's obvious the video you created is cgi. You can usually tell it's cgi by looking at how clean the video is and by looking for repeating textures and similar movements in that video. I also think it would be very hard to superimpose this animation into a shaky video like Pedros. There's just to many problems with this theory, unless we the get the raw footage to show otherwise. And lol the title of the thread is very Fox Newsish.

Edit:
What you did to the background isn't realtime, What i understand from watching pedros video is that there's transitions from the ground to the sky which show that if the cgi theory were to work then the animation would have to be superimposed into the video (which is very shaky) unless there's signs of editing which is why we need the raw footage. Can't say I would jump the gun with the CGI theory without a Higher def vid.


[edit on 13-7-2009 by avat178]

reply to post by necati


next step make a good and realistic incrustation with a good flow and for sure it must look like the same video and real when you'll did that ,post us the video and after that u can say i debunked!!! actualy congratulation you know how using particles on after effect

reply to post by avat178


Agreed!
You can recreate virtually ANYTHING you want using different software, it does NOT mean something isnt real.

Have you seen a house burn on live tv? Now have you seen one burn on a movie? Similar, huh.

Have you seen a tornado destroy a house on the news? Have you seen Twister?
Similar.

Just because you can create an amazing likeness, doesnt discount something that is real.

Its people like you that have killed the unicorns..lol

Well it wont prove it 100% either way, but wheres the harm in seeing if it can be reproduced?

You make cynaide and lemonade look similar, but that doesn't make them the same thing! I personally don't think this is conclusive and whatever that was remains a mystery.

gollums not real..but looks it.

this proves nothing other than the fact that it could be faked..which we all knew anyway..that doesnt mean it is a fake however..

reply to post by necati


Good job, this does raise some serious issues and looks like a strong possibility. The resemblance is strong and has me thinking it is VERY possible this is what was responsible for the 'orbs'. But sadly unless the guy who filmed the original video comes forth and says it was hoax (unlikely) or some serious investigations come up and prove it real or hoax one way or the other (still unlikely ) all we will have is a probability of authenticity.

reply to post by sickofitall2012

I didn't understand how such a small object could eject so many spheres.

Just because you or I do not understand how something does something does not make it a hoax. With the technology these beings could possess, or even our own governments ultra black programs the explanations could be as 'far fetched' as dimensional manipulation or 'mass manipulation'. Both of which are theoretically possible and have been rumored to be a real part of both ET tech and some secret government tech.

reply to post by necati

I think you've done some good work there, and I'm a fan of your posts in the other thread, you have made some excellent points.

I think the credibility of the photographer and the newscaster are both somewhat questionable at best.

However I must respectfully say, the effect I see in your video is not close enough to the effect I see in the other video, and even if more work could be done to make it look closer, I think I will still be uncertain whether it is a real object, or a hoax using CGI until I see the raw video. I have some theories on how I could duplicate that video using real objects and I'm not seeing any obvious signs of CGI in the youtube footage, which of course doesn't mean it's not CGI, but I think it's still an unknown, inconclusive determination at this time.

Good effort though!



[edit on 13-7-2009 by Arbitrageur]