It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by IMSAM
how can this post tell about the video being debunked??did someone obtain the raw footage??if so can i get the link please?
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?
Originally posted by contemplator
The OP has obviously been dispatched by the CIA as a disinfo agent. They may even be working for section h
Originally posted by Akezzon
You could have made a simple GIF animation with a black background and a few white dots going over the screen.
Camerashakes on a still picture!?!?
I never will understand why people put down time to make a simple animation just to show it can be a cgi...
With todays tech you can more or less do any replica of a video.
But this only showed the sphere jetison.
Where is the zooming? Where is the out of focus? Where is the clouds/Fog in the forground? Where is that plane? Where's the city?
All these elements need to be included if you sceptics gonna call this a bunk, and not even then will it be 100% debunked.
It is still only the RAW footage who can show us the real deal.
Originally posted by Akezzon
reply to post by necati
I have read all the 62 pages, yes it is the other Mexico Spheres thread I am talking about.
Ofcourse you can do better. Anyone of us can, it is a matter of time.
I just don't understand why you want to prove a point that everyone already know??
No one here denies that this can be made with CGI.
And it doesn't matter really if you do it better or not.
Still only the RAW footage that can solve the cgi matter.
And as a final note.... this vid could have been posted in the other thread instead of bringing up a new thread.
[edit on 14-7-2009 by Akezzon]
Stop posting about CGI being a possibility. It is no longer a possibility as posted here:
Originally posted by DGFenrir
reply to post by halfmanhalfamazing
The effects CAN be made look blurrier and more pixelated.
Good job necati. We need more skeptics like you on this site.
Could you try to make it look more realistic*?
*Realistic - Blurred, pixelated, crap quality.
I never said it was of ET origin, and you can go back and read my points, which apparently you didn't.
Originally posted by Cole DeSteele
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...
Hostility? Could you be so kind to show me my hostility? I think the person you quoted, and are saying is an "expert" came off a tad bit more hostile then anything I've said in this entire thread.
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?