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

Originally posted by waveguide3
Could this be circumstantial evidence, coincidence or nothing at all?

Pedro Hernandez

On the right the UFO watcher who made the video. On the left, his namesake who uploads Adobe After Effects tutorials. Family resemblence? Maybe, maybe not.

I asked the same question in the first thread, but few were interested.

WG3

Now that you mention it again, I have to admit that it was your posting on another thread why I especially looked for After Effects plug-ins. Thank you for having shown me the way!

Could somebody find out if this is indeed Pedro Hernandez junior, the son of the videographer?

reply to post by sickofitall2012


When did I jump one someone else for being snippy? I did not yell at you for your opinion either, I simply made a comment about your opinion. If you took that as 'jumping' on you I am sorry but you massively misunderstood what I meant. Back on topic now please....

I'm pretty familiar with 3D rendering in LightWave, which has lots of plug-ins for generating partical motions like the ones in the video. I'm sure with some practic using After Effects, you will be able to reproduce the Hernadez video exactly. That includes the rotating blob, the dancing spheres, everything.

What's intriguing about that is if you'd done it instead of Mr Hernandez and posted it to YouTube pretending to be a UFOlogist/videographer, the whole of ATS would have been equally agog. You'd have a sixty-odd page thread running on how this phenomenon 'must be real', 'can't possibly be CGI', etc., etc. What a silly world this is.

WG3

The problem with CGI today is that you can do anything with it. I'm a 3D artist and I can tell you that photorealism has been achieveable for a while. The footage could be real just as much as it could be cgi but just because it could be faked doesn't mean it isn't real. We need to find a professional video analyser to be able to tell whether it's real or not.

Originally posted by SpaceMonkeys
The problem with CGI today is that you can do anything with it. I'm a 3D artist and I can tell you that photorealism has been achieveable for a while. The footage could be real just as much as it could be cgi but just because it could be faked doesn't mean it isn't real. We need to find a professional video analyser to be able to tell whether it's real or not.

And preferably with the raw footage.

Thank you,

someone with common sense.


s & f

I don't usually agree with debunkers and skeptics on this site - but just my opinion here - the original footage is suspect, with the Mexican guy that PRs this stuff that I could never understand why people don't think he is always looking guilty about something. Mexican version of Micheal Horn comes to mind...

Sorry if I'm wrong on the personal attack - but it's just my personal vibe on him and his many videos shown, which to me always look like balloons, kites, cgi, or a mix... so nice spot OP thank you

Lets hope one day you debunkers/skeptics can agree with something you don't automatically attest to being your own personal beliefs, that would be great

470 flags for that thread - is really disappointing in my view (no offense yummyfreelunch)

Great job necati!
I mentioned Trapcode Particular in the other thread,
but was to lazy to put an example together,
so thank you for your time and efforts.

So where are you believers now then? You are still whining it's 100% REAL?! lol.

Show me proof of ANY UFO which wasn't CGI'd and you may have a point. Anything else don't bother.

I don't see this as proof of anything, especially not in a debunking sense. The lights you produced went in two straight directions. The lights in the original video were all over the place. Nice try though.

Seriously, is there no one on ATS who can speak Spanish and figure out some contact info for this Pedro guy who filmed the original footage?

Is there no one who can get him to release the original unedited footage?

Did anyone try?

To the OP: Great job doing what the believers demanded: try to recreate it.
Sure it may not be of the highest quality, but recreating something is much harder to do than actually creating it. I have a ton of old EDM songs created in Cubase (Digital Audio Software), and now when I try to recreate them in ProTools (other Digital Audio Software) it's hard to get it right, if not impossible.

As long as we don't get the original footage, I'm jumping off the fence and consider it debunked.

You did what the believers wanted, now it's their turn: get the footage!

reply to post by necati


Oh boy...seriously did you even bother to look at the video?

The spheres not only come out of the big one, but some of them move around it, and it is clear that your video is not showing any solid objects, but the video from Mexico does show solid objects.

The sightings in Mexico are very frequent. I also want to know how is it that witnesses can see the spheres if you claim your obvious translucent spheres are the awnser to this video.



[edit on 13-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

As one that works with computer graphics for a living, I believe that an world class expert can tell when there has been any manipulation of pixels from an original recording. It is possible that some awesome expert and graphic craftsman put this together and the tell tell signs of manipulation not show but why would someone of great talent and expertise with great earning power want to waste their time creating hoaxes for you boys?

This does not debunk the video and if real video experts have studied the original and could not detect manipulation, then you're going to have to consider this is a real event or stew in your stubbornness and find a fool proof way to debunk it.

The only thing i can say is after watching a great deal of fake youtube vids you kind of get a sense as to what is cgi and what is not and I can't tell if this one (the original one) is cgi. Maybe it's because of the low resolution which is why we need the original footage before jumping the gun and calling it fake.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by avat178]

UPDATE !




This update posted by free_spirit TOTALLY destroys the CGI explanation...


www.abovetopsecret.com...








[edit on 13-7-2009 by easynow]

reply to post by necati


Something some people such as you don't seem to understand is that there are skeptics that don't want to accept any sort of evidence, and try to make claims they have debunked something, when they haven't.

Well a second video from another witness via another location changes everything. Unless this is some coordinated hoax.

As far as your effect goes in this thread, is it not the same. The released "spheres" do not change distance. In the original, they are much closer together when ejected, and then spread out the further they go. So maybe a like-minded piece of software could add this additional effect, but I don't think you proved this was *the* effect at all.

But again.. a second video and another witness changes the entire complexion of the case.

Jaime Maussan is a hack.

Originally posted by Pappie54
As one that works with computer graphics for a living, I believe that an world class expert can tell when there has been any manipulation of pixels from an original recording. It is possible that some awesome expert and graphic craftsman put this together and the tell tell signs of manipulation not show but why would someone of great talent and expertise with great earning power want to waste their time creating hoaxes for you boys?

This does not debunk the video and if real video experts have studied the original and could not detect manipulation, then you're going to have to consider this is a real event or stew in your stubbornness and find a fool proof way to debunk it.

That's because they are not wasting their time. In Mexico the media pays money to get this kind of footage on the news make fuss about it. jaime maussan is all about this. He's just a liar.

Just practice your technique a bit more so as to develop a better quality video to prove that the original was in fact a hoax. Good try.