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

It's one thing to create a particle effect with After Effects using an excellent plugin (an adjective that would apply to any of the Trapcode plugs - Shine and Lux are key to my own setup), it's quite another to comp it in and combine it with live footage in a convincing way. In my professional opinion, the footage that we're seeing on Youtube doesn't look faked.

Let's qualify this - Jaime Muassan has indeed supported some BS cases, he's all about getting the big audience on television, but at the same time, he's the guy that anyone in Mexico is going to turn to with any kind of anomalous footage, due to said television exposure in that country, and especially Mexico City, a place where there's been significant activity since the early nineties.

Having looked at the same footage that you've all looked at - the small, compressed Youtube offering - I think that we're seeing something which:

• Is not CG rendered. The compositing would have been a daunting task, to look as entropic and nonlinear as that footage, the focus, zoom and motion all jumping around, as you would expect from a non-pro cameraman. Getting a totally convincing, perfect match between all these elements is a lot harder than it sounds, from what I see, it's not the case here. The OP, necati, may have had some success learning some basics of using Particular, but the movie sample that made is a pretty far way from looking like what's on the footage in question. Your particles are bathed in a soft glow, they lack the kind of edge definition and solidity of the OF spheres, and your footage lacks the tough stuff - focus and zoom matching. Your tracking is OK, but really 101 level. Don't take it as a criticism, just a reality check with regards to your proclamation that your attempt to create something vaguely similar to the OF is somehow proof that the OF has been faked.

Oh, and the spinning object that is gradually slowing down, definitely not CG.

• Is not a structured craft - the way the spheres are ejected from the central object, and distribute themselves along a slightly curved line, to then break up into, in some cases, flock-like pairs, is not something that suggests conventional, technological vehicles of any sort. It really looks like it's alive, for lack of a better term, and it's predictable that folks would automatically plop it right into the "ET CRAFT" box - we really need to expand how we think of these phenomena before we make sweeping proclamations about the specific nature of UFOs - Unidentified Flying Objects. That first word is the key. Did anyone notice that John Keel died recently? Look into his works, and while he had his own flaws and foibles, I think he was right on about getting folks to understand that it's not all black and white and aliens and spacecraft.

So yeah, getting in touch with the original cameraman, and getting ahold of the original tapes (or files), would be the way to go with looking deeper into the case. Corroborating evidence - did anyone else report seeing similar things at the same time and same general location? Are there any other reports of similar spherical things zipping around like that? Yeah, I'm pretty sure I've read about these types of sightings, you probably have as well. Look at this footage of light orbs from the Black Forest (at the 4:00 mark):

www.youtube.com...

I'm not saying that this is the exact same thing as the OF spheres, but I think it's a clue.

Involvement of Muassan, lack of proper determination of provenance and motivation on part of the Pedro Hernandez notwithstanding, I find this footage to be really interesting, and it should still be considered genuinely anomalous until proven otherwise, which I don't it has been at this point.

Just my opinion.

dB





[edit on 16-7-2009 by davidbiedny]

With all the computer generated imagery used in creating videos purporting to be recorded real events, it would be great if there existed special software for the layman to help detect the use of CGI in the video clips we see which are presented as 'real'.

This unique type of software would likely have a video player built-in with a variety of specialized algorithms and analysis tools to detect tell-tale signs of the use of computer generated imagery software. Then it would generate a report of display in real-time the likelihood of possible CGI use throughout the video.

While such software (if it exists) would not solely or conclusively prove that a video clip is fake, it would go a long way in helping a non-CGI expert in determining its authenticity one way or another, just like a polygraph for humans.

Perhaps software like this already exists. Does anyone know if they do? (other than the 'wet-ware' found in a human's brain who is highly trained in the use of computer generated imagery, of course!)

reply to post by synchro


There is no such software and probably never will be. No software could tell if a bunch of pixels is real or CGI. The only way is to get the "raw" data. In case of a dvd or tape we need the original disc or tape. Otherwise it can be copied from the original, edited and then written onto another dvd or tape..
Software that can recognize known CG effects could be made but that will also probably never happen..

would this debunk humans for you?

@reject
Well, at least your contribution debunks you!
_____________________________________

@zorgon

Debunked???: 'UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!!' 20 Flags UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!! First ever video footage! 478 Flags Kewl I would say its not unanimous that it's "Debunked???"

First of all, thanks for your highly qualified, well thought and sound argument.
TravisT already gave you a very good answer to that.
Isn’t it enough that most of us are governed by idiots because the majority has chosen so? We also might conduct polls for scientific publications in future and decide their validity by vote.
_____________________________________

@waveguide3

So does nobody think it strange that the second witness to the 'event' is a 'friend' of Haimie Maussan? Not strange that his video is being kept under wraps?

As I already stated I also think that it is very strange that the Just-In-Time-UFO-Film-Productions-Inc and the skywatcher union have managed to produce some new footage when required. I’ve underlined my doubts in the Mexican UFO-Connection with its protagonist Jaime Maussan.
Don’t expect any raw footage to be released.
_____________________________________

@davidbiedny

• Is not CG rendered. The compositing would have been a daunting task, to look as entropic and nonlinear as that footage, the focus, zoom and motion all jumping around, as you would expect from a non-pro cameraman. Getting a totally convincing, perfect match between all these elements is a lot harder than it sounds, from what I see, it's not the case here. The OP, necati, may have had some success learning some basics of using Particular, but the movie sample that made is a pretty far way from looking like what's on the footage in question. Your particles are bathed in a soft glow, they lack the kind of edge definition and solidity of the OF spheres, and your footage lacks the tough stuff - focus and zoom matching. Your tracking is OK, but really 101 level. Don't take it as a criticism, just a reality check with regards to your proclamation that your attempt to create something vaguely similar to the OF is somehow proof that the OF has been faked. Oh, and the spinning object that is gradually slowing down, definitely not CG.

As for the 101 level of the provided example I’ve already explained more than once that I’ve never claimed to have matched the original footage. It was always supposed to be an approximation which would underline my point. I myself have called it crappy in terms of making the footage more realistic etc. My reasoning is based on the use of the Particular plug-in. Please read the answers to others, especially the explanation with the analogy to Spirograph.

I myself can’t share and understand your opinion that neither the ejected spheres nor the centre object can be CGI. You should know that especially in conjunction with 3D applications almost everything is possible.
As a professional you should also know that a plug-in like Particular has many different options/ parameters which offer myriads of combinations that you can’t expects anyone to reproduce an animation which might also consist of many layers.
Okay, let’s assume I am wrong. The said effect wasn’t created using Particular but at least I have shown that CGI is a probability which many doubted before.
Is your only argument that it would be a daunting task? I’ve seen some works of 3D artists on CGI forums which took them several months to make. Some people put unbelievable dedication to their creations.
What makes you think that the centre object can’t be animated with CG especially if you consider that there might be lots of postproduction involved?
And finally could you please show me some examples of “edge definition and solidity of the OF spheres”?

edit: spelling

edit: @Wookiep
Ready for a jam but unfortunatelly too far away I suppose. Have to stick with EZdrummer instead


[edit on 17-7-2009 by necati]

reply to post by necati



Are you from Turkey?

Good similarity, But no cigar! if you really look close at the video and look at the way the baby orbs acted after being expelled or born is probably the "real" event that happened! I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TELL THIS TO JAMIE MASON! About this phenomena,that's what really happened,and it will eventually be accepted once people start to listen to me. Ive been telling people in UFOlogy about this incredible phenomenon that is beginning to be more understood! I know this isn't the proper posting for this other subject.Either way I give credit where credit is due, to the gentle man that found this similar focal irregularity, and credence for his find!
P.S. Their called Critter's! Biological Etheric Entities that live in the upper atmosphere of our beautiful Planet! I had an Physical encounter with two of them! Which is a First in UFOlogy! Jamie Mausson or Santiago Garza please email me! Chau!
[email protected]

The clearer the footage the more apparent are the similarities to the PARTICULAR particles, I think. Using the most recent versions from YouTube (thanks easynow!) I tried to improve a few things:

1. I noticed that the bi-directional mode of the emitter couldn’t be used. I had to use two layers with two different emitters, instead, and change the settings accordingly.

2. The desired emission rate and thus the distance of the ejected spheres in respect to each other can only be achieved by animating the particle/sec count. With this method you can have any amount of spheres in an ejected group/ interval.

3. The undulation of the spheres in a row can be had by applying a small value to the ‘direction spread’ option.

4. The ‘slack’ of the line of spheres can be added by increasing the gravity value (physics option).

5. The relative rate of speed in different layers can be controlled with the time stretch option. Provides different animation speeds for each layer. The centre object could be made like that, I think. It is rotating very fast. It looks to me as if some ‘cloudlet’ particles were used for that one. Will give it a try next.





And here's a screenshot of Trapcode's Particular plug-in and some settings:

Fullscreen
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a2747f116087.jpg[/atsimg]

_______________________________________________
PS: @hermantinkly
Yes, I am.

edit: grammar

[edit on 22-7-2009 by necati]

reply to post by necati

In order to make sure I'm understanding your video:

I'm viewing the lower line as an image from the original video.

I'm viewing the upper line as your new CGI work.

Is that correct?

Originally posted by Sam60
reply to post by necati

 

In order to make sure I'm understanding your video:

I'm viewing the lower line as an image from the original video.

I'm viewing the upper line as your new CGI work.

Is that correct?

Yes, I used the screenshoot as a visual reference. Working with video background (especially with all the shakiness) is difficult.
The centre object is a 'masked' copy of the original sphere, though.


edit: Should watch it in full screen mode; else it is a little bit to small. Will register for a YouTube account for further updates, I think.

edit2: Unfortunately I can't edit the OP. Is this option only available for a limited period of time?
Would like to update the info there as well, thanks in advance........

[edit on 23-7-2009 by necati]

Ofcourse it's possible to recreate this in after effects. This plugin (particular) is also often used to create rain, snow or seeds blowing in the wind. It just uses algorhythms to make particles move in a natural way. You could also use it to , for example, make a tennisball gun spitting out balls. Or bouncing pingpongballs. If the orb in the video would be spitting out smaller orbs in earth's gravity, Particular can recreate this too.

I am not saying the video is real, i'm only saying recreating it in AE doesnt prove it's a hoax.

reply to post by necati

OK.......

Thanks Necati

The ones you made look pretty similar to the ones from the screenshot of the second footage.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 23/7/2009 by DGFenrir]

While taking a closer look at the centre object I came across something really strange about the centre object.
I stabilised a fragment of the OF (the second one: Esferas Impactantes Ovni.mp4) and slowed it down to 15% of the original speed, in order to have a better look at it.
Well, I honestly haven’t expected to find this:



I don’t even dare to say it but come on guys and gals if you can’t see what this flapping something is, I don’t know.......?!

@Sam60
You’re welcome!

@DGFenrir

The ones you made look pretty similar to the ones from the screenshot of the second footage.

Yes indeed, I used the second footage. Has a much better contrast than the 3rd one. When I first saw the ‘undulation’ effect I thought that offset could only be made either by tedious frame by frame editing or the use of PARTICULAR as an explanation for the ejected spheres was wrong and another method was used to create the effect.
Then I found out that by slightly increasing the spread value for the emitter yielded almost exactly the offset needed.
After having taken a closer look at the centre object, it seems as if the centre object footage has been used to apply the plug-in in After Effects later on.
What looks like a spinning something at a higher rate of speed turns out to be something flapping when slowed down to 15%.


edit: Please make sure to watch the whole clip at full screen!

[edit on 24-7-2009 by necati]

reply to post by necati

You know.....

About 1/2 an hour ago (before I saw this) I showed someone the original footage (the clearer one posted later in the original thread). I made no comment.

He immediately said "It's a budgie". I said "BS". He said "It's a big, yellow budgie! You can see it flapping!" & he walked off!

Why don't you post this on the original thread & liven things up?



[edit on 24-7-2009 by Sam60]

Originally posted by Sam60
reply to post by necati

 

You know.....

About 1/2 an hour ago (before I saw this) I showed someone the original footage (the clearer one posted later in the original thread). I made no comment.

He immediately said "It's a budgie". I said "BS". He said "It's a big, yellow budgie! You can see it flapping!" & he walked off!

Why don't you post this on the original thread & liven things up?

[edit on 24-7-2009 by Sam60]

Hi Sam,

I'd rather not. I think they'll come across it anyway. It's only a question of 'slowing things down' if you know what I mean.

I'm just looking for good examples of birds in flight but haven't found any, yet. You might help if you like. Side view preferred

Originally posted by necati We also might conduct polls for scientific publications in future and decide their validity by vote.

What an absolutely marvelous idea I will pass that along. Much better that the peer review they use now

reply to post by Sam60


It could very well be a budgie, but that does not readily explain the amount of ejecta. I would not think a bird has that many feathers, or # (poopie for the autocensors), or whatever a bird has to give up when caught in the wake of an airliner. Also the size would be dimunituively small, not so easy to pick up would you think, unless the airliner is closer than we realize. I also wouldn't suspect budgies fly that high either unless we assume the origin is the cargo hold, and as such it could be a bird and/or other stuff, like a bag filled with packing material.

No one is picking up on my garbage theory. It wouldn't take much to cause a plastic bag to flap like a bird in a turbulant air mass after it emptied out, not to mention the slowing of the "spheres" which starkly reflect the slowing and widening of the momentum of the air vortex over time.

Well, unless you can show me how that much ejecta can come from a bird I am still inclined to stick with a plastic bag and styrofoam.

I liked your Big Bird theory better.

I mean trash bags floating around Mexican skies is so 'cliche'

So how about a Pinata? Those Mexicans stuff a lot of things into those. Add a little bottle rocket to yank the string out on each side and voila Then let wind run its course

[edit on 24-7-2009 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon


Just let it be Zorgon. None of us will never be able to make them atleast concider it to be something else than cgi, or birds.

Cgi or birds, sure I can accept that there is an possibility.

But when they come to trash bags....
I begin to think that some just don't want this to be something else.

So, let them believe what they want, let them call it debunked...

But to me and many more it will still remain unknown and unexplained.
The raw footage is the key here. So no matter how good you are handling legal or pirated softwares it will never explain anything.

At some point we will have an answer.
Something IS going on. To much is happening around the world.