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.
This is true, but when looking at all angles, its easier to assume that this doesn't seem right. We are here to look over the video logically, and when you start saying things like, "well, ETs are way beyond our physics, so it has to be true", is more off base, then actually looking at things relative to what we know of the universe. Sure, the mothership could be some kind of portal used to extract these pods, but that's based off of more assumption/faith. When looked at logically, this should be a red flag towards a hoax. Could this video be true? Sure, it really could, but it's still a red-flag, and something to consider. How are we supposed to get down to the truth, when we just write things off so easily, just because you want to believe this is true. I want to believe badly, and is why I look over these forums, but I rather get the right answer, then think I have the right answer and be wrong. And that is the reason to look over ALL angles.
Originally posted by Akezzon
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.
Originally posted by necati
Originally posted by Akezzon
reply to post by necati
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.
I'm sorry you feel so misunderstood here but the thread you wrote is called "Debunked???: 'UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!!' " followed with the same CGI argument you've posted in the other thread. The thread title doesnt say "it's possible moving spheres could be CGI, heres why!" afterall.
Actually I should know that people who aren’t familiar with CG and haven’t tried themselves should have a rather hard time to understand my point.
I shouldn’t feel misunderstood but perhaps try to explain in another way. Don’t know if my English is good enough to do so. I’ll try.
First things first. As far as the other thread is concerned I only knew that particle engines could produce similar results. Again, I always merely pointed out that you can’t rule out CGI which was constantly denied. Denied by members who obviously haven’t had the slightest notion of what CG applications are capable of. Those familiar with CGI supported my point of view.
Now, that I have found a particle plug-in called Trapcode Particular I am sure it is CGI. For me the footage is 100% debunked. In case that the second video should prove me wrong, I will have to admit that there are coincidences which I would never have believed in.
I will try to find an analogy for my reasoning which makes it easier to understand for those who haven’t used any graphics application and plug-ins.
Let me try to put it that way.
Say you find a very complicated pattern among the drawings of one of your friends and ask him how he did it and he claims to have made it by hand using only a pair of compasses.
(That’s why I can reproduce similar but not exactly the same results as the hoaxer. He btw would have a hard time to reproduce any setting of the plug-in I would make, too.)
Trying to convince your other friends you show them the ‘evidence’ you found. Some say:”Yes, you’re right man it’s obvious” others claim:”No, it isn’t exactly the same you have to match it exactly, else it’s no proof!”
I know that this analogy has its shortcomings as almost all analogies have criteria which don’t exactly match. However, I hope this has made my point a little bit clearer.
Now it’s time for me to jump in the refreshing waters of the Aegean Sea and contemplate about the sense of participating in a forum like ATS and wasting that much time. Bye!
Are you sure? I've read both sides of the fence from those "familiar" with CGI. Perhaps you didn't read the whole thread.
Rule #1. Don't attempt to patronize. Most of us aren't kids here, please don't do that. Acting like you "know" so much on the internet by posting primative examples has been proven to be a method that makes people not listen.
Not really. :/ As I do appreciate your efforts (not many have even tried!) your "proof" doesn't really resemble the video in question. There are too many factors invloved such as how poor the original quality is, also the movements are not fluid.
Don't ask me for proof of my opinion as you obviously hate when people ask for that. Just ask for a general opinion of how close they seem. Opinions are not proof, just a general idea of what the majority *thinks*
Well then this whole discussion is moot since this is an obvious "waste" of your time. Stop making threads about your claims if it's such a waste of time.
PS: We have no idea what the other video will contain, but lets not jump the gun. Lets not also assume that we won't see it.
When did this ever turn into a popularity contest? I feel like I'm in highschool all over again. The hot girl will always get picked prom queen for looking better, even though she is totally obnoxious and fake in real life.
Originally posted by zorgon
Debunked???: 'UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!!'
UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!! First ever video footage!
I would say its not unanimous that it's "Debunked???"
[edit on 15-7-2009 by zorgon]
And again, I understand, and agree with what you're saying. But at the same time, this is more of a red-flag then proof, yet, most of you guys are quick to dismiss the red-flag. Why? Just because there is a red-flag, doesn't mean this is a fake/hoax or even impossible by our standards, but then again, you're putting more hockas pocas into this then actual facts, and that steers it closer to being a hoax in my book.
Originally posted by Akezzon
reply to post by TravisT
It is all about consideration.
You can't consider everything if you keep your mind within our own laws of physics.
What I mean is, that we shall not automatically dismiss some things just because they don't seem logical to us.
If we, in our consious, at least keep in mind that these things might not go by our laws of physics at all.
If you do that you can also consider them to be of alien origin.
But many here just don't wanna do that.
As soon as they find a form of logical explanaitons, even thought they many times are pretty lame, they go with that instantly.
Like this video. Just because someone manage to make a rather lame replica of the animation of small spheres shooting out, doesn't mean it IS CGI. Cause we also have to consider other possiilities to, that might now fit into our reality as well.
Bah, kinda hard to print what I mean down in words.
Now, we can look at this totally blind and think:
See, I'm in the opposite side as you. Of course I'm intrigued in the video, but when alarms go off in my head, I'm intrigued in seeing if it's a fake. And you're right, we need the RAW footage to really get into it, but that's another red-flag, IMO. Why can't we view this "totally real video" of a UFO?
Originally posted by Akezzon
I choose to believe this to be something else because I find it more intruiging that way and it will keep me searching for the truth.
But until I've seen the RAW footage I will stick to my beliefs, but if it turns out to be cgi I will totally accept it.
Hehe, yes, and I see what you're saying here. I'm just talking about people who are coming in here and saying, "this has to be real, cause there is no way it could be fake. End of story, I believe, so it has to be real".
I don't agree that you need to be "blind" to consider it to be a genuine footage. If so, it is just as blindly to assume everything is cgi just because we can make the same phenomenon on a computer.
And that's my point: Consider EVERYTHING!
So I do agree with you on the most part. But instead of choosing one of the "points" you pointed out I try to concider them all.
Hehe, yeah, I added that while you were responding. I think we're in the same boat, but I think we are intrigued in different aspect, which isn't wrong, just part of the fun.
Edit: Ahh I see you added som more.
Well, yes ofc I consider it to be a fake. But as I said, I choose to believe otherwise because it is more fun and it keeps me searching.
We seem to think alike, we just chose different things to believe in while waiting for the "real" answer.
edit:There’s one thing I would like to add about „jumping the gun“. Mine is a theory based on evidence which I found sufficient to make my claim.
Like any other theory it can be debunked and disproven but how did you come to your conclusion:
Quote: “Stop posting about CGI being a possibility. It is no longer a possibility as posted here:”???
PS: We could have a jam session together instead of arguing. I play the guitar and know a rather good bass player who could join in.
Originally posted by DGFenrir
reply to post by Wookiep
If it is CGI then the effect could have very easily been rotated for the second footage to make it look like it was shot from a different angle.
The second footage doesn't rule out the CGI possibility.