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

Originally posted by TravisT

Originally posted by audas

The fact that I can prove something is not an artificial animation - does not mean I can prove it is an alien craft - pffft.

Further my point is that this person has used After Effects for two days and has posted with authority that this was artificially created - an application which takes YEARS to master. So the original poster has no right, and is profoundly disingenous in her claims.

I'm not asking you to prove it to be of extraterrestrial origin. I'm asking you to show all of us, how this is legit. I'm not concerned who is piloting the crafts, but if the crafts are indeed real. I'm not concerned about the OP claims, I'm interested in yours. If it's real, show us, and tell us why. It's just that easy.....

What ? You don't even know what your asking mate. Provide some parameters for your ridiculous request. You are asking me to prove that we are all really here and not some Descarte deception - profoundly illogical request - the only possible solution is for me to obtain the original DAT/ SD / DVD/ Video footage and analyse the byte code or negative.

Stupid, stupid, stupid post.

reply to post by audas


I agree to render something to look natural is very hard. Especially an animation, and if the visual part is done very good if you mess the movement it will look CGI.
And to add we have two witnesses that confirm the same.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by defiler]

Originally posted by audas

Originally posted by TravisT

Originally posted by audas

The fact that I can prove something is not an artificial animation - does not mean I can prove it is an alien craft - pffft.

Further my point is that this person has used After Effects for two days and has posted with authority that this was artificially created - an application which takes YEARS to master. So the original poster has no right, and is profoundly disingenous in her claims.

I'm not asking you to prove it to be of extraterrestrial origin. I'm asking you to show all of us, how this is legit. I'm not concerned who is piloting the crafts, but if the crafts are indeed real. I'm not concerned about the OP claims, I'm interested in yours. If it's real, show us, and tell us why. It's just that easy.....

What ? You don't even know what your asking mate. Provide some parameters for your ridiculous request. You are asking me to prove that we are all really here and not some Descarte deception - profoundly illogical request - the only possible solution is for me to obtain the original DAT/ SD / DVD/ Video footage and analyse the byte code or negative.

Stupid, stupid, stupid post.

Oh, then how do you know it's 100% real then? How is it stupid, when you yourself can't prove anything. It was just a question that you seemed so sure of, but now are hesitant. Strange.....

[edit on 13-7-2009 by TravisT]

TravisT-

This footage is NOT, and i mean NOT done with after effects - one more time - I WRITE THE CODE BEHIND THE ENGINES WHICH ARE USED TO CREATE THIS SORT OF THING (among many other things) - including physics, filters etc.

Dude, where in this post does he propose to prove the footage is real, or even the object being of ET origin? Being able to disprove one theory is not the same as proving another. If you continue to ride this train, you were derailed from the beginning...

And seriously, why the hostility over this footage? I applaud those who use logical and compelling evidence to expose hoaxters, even though I am a serious believer wannabe...Not that I WANT to have all evidence debunked, in the long run, I appreciate being pointed (if not to the right) at least away from the wrong direction... the OP has an interesting point, and with the right expertise in using the software, I would think one could create this effect...BUT...if an EXPERT in designing said software says it cannot be done, then who am I to dispute him?

Originally posted by audas
I have spent well over ten years a as a graphic specialist - I BUILD PARTICLE ENGINES - I find it offensive that someone thinks that having installed after effects after a couple of days they can come on here and claim with such authority that this is a fake - seriously get a life.

This footage is NOT, and i mean NOT done with after effects - one more time - I WRITE THE CODE BEHIND THE ENGINES WHICH ARE USED TO CREATE THIS SORT OF THING (among many other things) - including physics, filters etc.

Really find this type assumed arrogance offensive.

audus can you explain to us noobs who only occasionally use After Effects why you feel the video couldn't have been made with it? What parts of the video do you feel couldn't be done with a particle plugin like Trapcode Particular?

reply to post by freelance_zenarchist


[sarcasm] I'm a developer for Nvidia's Physx department. I also write these kinda of codes for programs such as After Effects. I have a PhD in Physics as well.

All I can say is that there is no way that can be made by a program because the physics involved are too realistic. [/sarcasm]



What can't you make on a computer? With ray-tracing technology you can render a car and 99% of non-geeks would think that it's a picture of a real Ferrari.








[edit on 7/13/2009 by die_another_day]

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist

How so?
Pedro jr. couldn't have made 2 videos?

And who is Pedro jr.? Please advice.

reply to post by free_spirit


Well he is supposedly Pedros son but this has not been confirmed, I did a short search and did not find anything, do you have a link to Pedros site?

[edit on 7/13/2009 by jkrog08]

To make a picture is much easier but an animation is a lot harder, there
is much more stuff going on. Mental ray, Maxwell ,Vray there are many
rendering engines but my point is we don't have the original video as the
previous poster said so there is no point arguing if this is real or fake
based on the evidence we have now. I recommend we try and find more
information about this sighting or a similar one.
To simulate reflective surfaces is easier than translucent and glowing ones.
And I watched the movie "The day when the earth stood still", they have
a lot of very high budget particle effects and you can still tell that they are
CGI.

If someone's gonna CGI something, I would think they would have a close-up of their creation - not just little dots dancing around one another.
I mean, I wouldn't waste my time. My UFO's would have detail. It wouldn't be done from such a far perspective.
So what I am saying is yeah, of course it's possible to do this in After Effects or Maya using a particle emitter with the physics engine, but would someone?

Edit for spelling.

[edit on 7/13/2009 by impaired]

reply to post by defiler


Yea but some movies use better CGI software and it is near impossible to tell they are fake, if it wasn't for the fact you knew you were watching a movie you likely would think they were real. But the question becomes "why would someone spend that kind of money to do a hoax like this????" Were they given access to this technology for some reason? I mean I do not know but I can not imagine this film making a lot of money anywhere.

Originally posted by audas
I have spent well over ten years a as a graphic specialist - I BUILD PARTICLE ENGINES - I find it offensive that someone thinks that having installed after effects after a couple of days they can come on here and claim with such authority that this is a fake - seriously get a life.

This footage is NOT, and i mean NOT done with after effects - one more time - I WRITE THE CODE BEHIND THE ENGINES WHICH ARE USED TO CREATE THIS SORT OF THING (among many other things) - including physics, filters etc.

Really find this type assumed arrogance offensive.

Thank you for that But looking how fast the skeptics are calling this attempt good enough to call bunk just shows your words will fall on mostly deaf ears...

mostly... not all

Originally posted by jkrog08

Yea but some movies use better CGI software and it is near impossible to tell they are fake, if it wasn't for the fact you knew you were watching a movie you likely would think they were real.

You mean like Emily?



Or this one?





[edit on 13-7-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by impairedMy UFO's would have detail.

Which would prove them fake... real UFO's are fuzzy because of distortion from electrogravitic fields while 'critters', energy life forms, would also be fuzzy because they are merely energy. Show me a clear photo of a UFO in the air and I will call CGI

reply to post by freelance_zenarchist



Where is the evidence that that other Pedro Hernandez is his son?...

Pedro Hernandez is a very common name..... just because two people have the same name doesn't make them relatives...

I know there are at least a dozen people in my area with my last name, yet they are not my family, and a couple of them even have my first name too...yet i know we are not relatives...

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by free_spirit

 

Well he is supposedly Pedros son but this has not been confirmed, I did a short search
and did not find anything, do you have a link to Pedros site?

[edit on 7/13/2009 by jkrog08]

I don't know who came with that idea of a Pedro's son, if this is a new debunking
attempt it's ridiculous. A short search in Google will give you hundreds of results
because Pedro Hernandez is a very common name in Mexico, just try it in Google
and you will see what I mean.

Pedro is just a simple middle class family man who works hard and spends most of his
free time skywatching like many others in Mexico. He doesn't have any website and
is not interested in computers, his passion are UFOS and is well known by the
skywatchers in that country. Simple as that.

reply to post by zorgon



That Emily looks more CGI than the spheres....

But really Zorgon, because pictures are clear it makes them CGI?.....

Crystal clear images of UFOs with level of detail like the CGIs I've seen, sure I'd at least be VERY suspicious; ie: the Brazilian UFOs from a few years ago, the Lake in Italy UFO...the photos of the thing that looks like Lady Liberty's crown with a handle...

After examining hundreds of vids on youtube over the years, the CGI vids, even the really good ones, just scream fake. In this one, though, the lack of detail, the difficulty with the apparent auto-focus of the camera, and the fuzzy borders of the objects lead to a very, very complex and well designed CGI that I'm not sure ole Pedro could have pulled off...Unless he was duped into taking credit for someone else's work to bolster the potential credibility of the clip itself....hmmmm....

1: it's disgraceful that someone hops on here and uses one filter for debunking one PART of a video and uses a title such as this. It's a mockery on many viewpoints .

2: On top of that, it's caused nothing but a ruckus and incited meaningless quarrels.

3: As a design professional, I would like for you to take note of Saladfingers and his approach to the drone saga. He made a video using CGI and put it out for all to see in a responsible matter.

It's been said OVER and OVER again in COUNTLESS threads.. and even in this one.
but I'll say it again..


Anything can be recreated, especially an orb video like this.
Until the ACTUAL TAPE IS PROVIDED, anything you want to argue about is 100% useless fodder.

What's amazing is that someone brings forth the video with their own face in it so there's no place to hide if CGI is proven. Give that a little weight and hold on until a proven analysis is done on the tape.

I came into the thread with a sinking feeling in my stomach.. "crap, another video dis-proven".. instead I have to read about the disgraceful use of a digital filter.

Please, don't do this, you make the skeptics look bad.

b

Thank you, ATS I'm one of those that totally believe. If it wasn't from you guys I probably wouldText still believe.
TextText

Text

Text

Text PurpleText