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.

 

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

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Stop posting about CGI being a possibility. It is no longer a possibility as posted here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Hmm.
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.

AND... it is really neeeded that many of you read the whole Mexico spheres thread. I see so much questions here that has already been answered in the other thread.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 04:04 AM
link   
how can this post tell about the video being debunked??did someone obtain the raw footage??if so can i get the link please?



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 04:06 AM
link   
The OP has obviously been dispatched by the CIA as a disinfo agent. They may even be working for section h




posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 04:10 AM
link   

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?


How does it tell about the video being debunked in what fashion? If you're talking about the link in my post it shows how the "CGI" hoax portion of the video was debunked as there is another video being shed to light on the subject, indicating there is more than 1 video of this event.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 04:16 AM
link   
@ freelance_zenarchist
Sorry, the other thread was flooded with chat room content; I must have missed your posting. Would have saved me some time.

@Kozmo
Thank you for the link, much appreciated


@internos
At least this thread has nudged the Just-In-Time-UFO-Film-Productions-Inc and the skywatcher union to release more footage. More footage? Well, at least some screenshots.
I hope that those who reviewed my attempt of making a similar effect will take an equally keen look at those images. If you ask me, at the first glance they even look less like the Hernandez footage than my attempts.
Finally this case could have a thorough analysis by matching the timeline of both films and see how consistent the details (movement, lighting, background etc) are.
Nonetheless, I find it interesting that some already claim that the CGI theory is debunked, even before having had the chance to take a look at the second video.

@audas
As for my alleged claims of expertise and authority I can only remind you that I tried to emphasise the contrary. This is not about duplicating exactly the same one-on-one film.
I have mentioned in the other thread that I have had some experience using 3ds Max (and Lightwave) which of course makes it much easier to become familiar with other graphic applications quickly.
However I pointed out that two days of ‘experience’ alone were enough to reproduce something that shows the effect seen on the Mexico City footage.
You claim to build particle engines. You at least should know that you first have a natural phenomenon (like snow, dust, sandstorms etc) and then try to mimic this with you particle engine, not the other way round. Wouldn’t it surprise you to find one of your emitters appear in the skies over Mexico?
You don’t need an equation like the Green Bank Formula to figure out how unlikely it is to have an unknown, genuine phenomenon which occurred in the skies over Mexico City that is almost 100% accurately included in a software package?
For example I initially thought that I would have to copy and rotate the emitter to make it eject particles in the other direction but behold there was an option included in the plug-in which simply let me choose bi-directional emission instead of directional. Only a coincidence?
I hope you see what my point is, the effect is an included ‘preset’, you don’t even need any tedious work like modelling, texturing, rigging etc.
You can simulate whole galaxies with particles but not a few spheres ejected by another sphere?
www.youtube.com...
I am most certainly sure that those who have worked with CGI applications won’t share your point of view. I will contact some of those major companies and see if I can have some opinions regarding your claim.




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?

This would be stupid to do. The closer you are the more telltale detail would show. Why do you think the Tahiti UFO or the so called drones were so easy to debunk?
www.youtube.com...
It’s more likely that you would choose something which has been never seen before. Something we aren’t used to see, thus our brain wouldn’t have enough data to compare it with. Additionally lack of detail and a fair amount of compression artifacts provide a better illusion.
In my opinion this is the main reason for the incredible variety of shapes of UFO’s. Most of them are hoaxed and each hoaxer pictures a different type of a craft.
Well, might be the right time just to sit and wait sipping a cup of tea. Hope we won’t be waiting for too long for another YouTube release.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 04:21 AM
link   

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



Believe it or not but there are different time zones. I from time to time tend to sleep.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akezzon
Hmm.
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.


As I already said there are many things missing (,yet).
If you suggests others to read the whole thread then you should do that to.

I have only used After Effects for 2 days but I am quite sure I could do much better than that.
The main argument is the particle part of the story not the background which is used to apply the said plug-in to. In this case it is absolutely correct the background is a still image which I considered sufficient to underline my point.

I have also said that the camera movement etc is cheap but serves the purpose.

edit: Please read at least the reply to audas above, thank you.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by necati]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 04:46 AM
link   
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]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 04:51 AM
link   
That does not look like the original video at all!

The original video zooms and pulls focus, there is no ways you can do that in

After Effects without it looking fake, plus the quality of the original video is

constant, typical handycam quality, whereas when you add effects, the effects

tend to be higher quality. And changing the focus doesn't change the quality. It

just looks crap!


[edit on 14-7-2009 by halfmanhalfamazing]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:23 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   
How gullible to people have to be to believe this is real? It smacks of CGI particle effects computer generated footage. Not only that, it totally defies the laws of physics. No way all those spheres could ever fit in that main tiny sphere.
The whole thing defy's logic if you ask me, and if you use some logical thinking you would see it reeks of hoax.

Sorry, but as well done as the footage is, its a fake, and nothing more.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   

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]


I greatly appreciate your opinion Akezzon. Indeed it doesn’t matter if I invest more time to improve it or not. The crappy footage I made serves its purpose. It shows that it could be made with CGI using a plug-in which already provides everything to yield the effect.

However, I must say that I am absolutely surprised that someone says that everyone already knows. Some postings prior to yours you will find someone saying:



Stop posting about CGI being a possibility. It is no longer a possibility as posted here:


And as far as I can remember the consensus, at least among the so-called believers, was that there is no way this could be made with CGI, although I always tried to emphasize that I only meant the probability not a proof.

Besides I was asked more than once to reproduce something similar.
Most of the forum members don’t seem to read thorough enough before jumping on someone. I consider this footage to be faked and debunked, apart from other inconsistencies, simply because imho I can’t believe in any kind of probability which reproduces a plug-in preset most accurately in the sky over Mexico City.

It’s like finding a crop circle depicting the Volkswagen logo and still claiming that it is genuinely made by extraterrestrials.

Yes of course there still is the probability of a mere coincidence that this has some meaning for extraterrestrials, too, but the probability is say something like 0,00000005 %



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   

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.


Thank you DGFenrir, but no, there is no need to make further improvements on my attempt. It's a waste of time, since most of the members aren't even trying to understand my point. For those it will make no difference to have a better approximation of the original footage.

Still claims that this couldn't be made with the focusing effects, real camera shakiness etc
My main argument is the use of a 'simple' plug-in preset and I think that I've made my point clear, at least for those who try to understand.

If they want to misread they will go on misreading.




[edit on 14-7-2009 by necati]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   
so for all those flags you gave the other thread..come on ....just admit it its fake fake fake

[edit on 14-7-2009 by heineken]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   
These UFO videos are all so obviously fake.

Seriously, people, get a life.

The OP has shown you how it was made, and you still want to believe? Get a clue.









posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
necati,

don't give in to your desire to stop. of course your work is much appreciated. yes, you will have your detractors, but if you give in, they win. personally, i believe you have proved the point. the video *could* have been faked. you also demonstrated a technical means to do so. internos has a valid point but so do you!

you have a precious gift. don't be intimidated out of it. i always appreciate hard work and dedication. you did the work and showed the results. what have the naysayers done besides talk? that would be nothing. so keep on keeping on. your *work* is its own reward.

put it another way, i'll take someone's work over someone else's claims, self-aggrandized "expert" or no, any day of the week. make sense?

reply to post by necati
 



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by necati
 


Ok, bad choice of words.

I ment "most of us knows...".

And THX-1138, just because he manage to make a pretty bad copy of the event still doesn't mean it IS CGI. As he said himself. His videos purpose serves the issue that it CAN BE MADE with CGI.
And that I think most of us know.
But if the original footage is CGI or not can only the RAW footage prove.

Free_Sprit claims he have the original tape, and I for one believe he has.
He made a few screenshoots on his version, which had alot higher resolution, that doesn't prove it to be the original though but I have taken a stand of choice to believe that he got the tape neverthanless. And on the screenshot he posted the spheres are still there.

Another point is logic. Someone here said it can't be true since it defies logic when it comes to the size of the bigger sphere and the amount of "baby" sphere that comes out.

I know I have said this in other threads many times, but.
Don't be to fast stating that our logic is a pattern that complies with the whole universe.
Our logic may be "THE LOGIC", but it is only "THE LOGIC" here in our three dimensional world and Earth.
That we know for sure. But we have no way of saying that out logic is the same everywhere.
What is logic to some is a fairytale for others.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by Akezzon]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cole DeSteele
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...
I never said it was of ET origin, and you can go back and read my points, which apparently you didn't.

With all due respect, what the OP has shown us, is not what I think the is in the video. And to be honest, the OP has also stated that the program used isn't what he thinks is in the video, hence, the question marks in the title of this thread. It's just an example showing us that you can use programs to make something similar. Does it mean its the exact same program? No, as the OP stated, he was just fooling around with a simple program, and made that video on his first few days with it. Just think about someone who has years of experience with better programs.


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?
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 as for this "expert", sure, he may very well be an "expert", but just because some random guy pops in a forum claiming to be anything, doesn't mean he is what he says. He hasn't explained anything, other then a rant about how stupid the entire theory of the OP is, yet, me asking for some validity is coming off as "hostile". If he is such an expert, then he could look at this video, and show us why he thinks it's real, other then yelling outlandish claims, and calling everything he sees "ignorant" or "stupid".

He says he writes codes around the engines. Ok, but what engines does he write codes for? There are a ton of different graphic engines, and he supposedly writes them all, along with all the filters and physics. Again, he may very well be some kind of coder, who does write some engines, but he hasn't explained anything other then "this is impossible". I just find that hard to swallow.




[edit on 14-7-2009 by TravisT]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
While I appreciate you trying to open up people's eyes to effects that could create this, I still don't think it was that perticular effect that you posted. Can you recreate it where the spheres spread out the further they move away from the object? Just curious.


Regardless, of course this could have been CGI. I'd guess just about anything COULD be CGI. Just look at movies today. They can make almost anything look real. Of course, the questions you have to ask yourself is... with anything like this, how difficult / how much experience would you need / how long would it take to create this. It LOOKS real to me, so if it's CGI, it's expertly done.

If you or anyone could create a video of relatively the same length, that has the same properties (fog, clouds, other objects, camera shake, etc), I'd love to see it. Or if it is out of the realm of experience of most folks, how much experience and how much time do you honestly feel it would take?

It's easy to say "Oh man that's easy, I could do that in an hour, geeze.." and then it never gets done. Why not prove it someone?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join