California UFO footage,2009., page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

Topic started on 26-9-2009 @ 04:18 PM by karl 12

Had a look around for this one but couldn't see it -apologies if its a repost.

Captured with a digital camera along highway 41 near Lemoore, CA. September 11th, 2009.

Footage:
www.youtube.com...

Any CGI experts out there -looks like a pretty strange one to me.

Cheers.

reply posted on 26-9-2009 @ 04:21 PM by redwoodjedi

Lemme give you a hand posting that vid, Karl! Here you go.

YouTube Link

Looks almost like something similar to that Drone fiasco about 3 years back.

Hmmm.

Cheers,

Erik

reply posted on 26-9-2009 @ 04:29 PM by mars1

Have not seen that before thanks for that i'm sure i have seen that object in a vid or pic before can not remember but i have not seen this clip before.
I have no idea if its CGI or not hope someone on here can help with that again thanks for this S+F.

THANKYOU

reply posted on 26-9-2009 @ 04:32 PM by Resinveins

Hmm one question I would have for whoever filmed it is... why .. when the object disappears up... the camera pans down to the ground and filming stops... Why no attempt to follow the object up?

That seemed strange to me.

Other than that it looked like a flying squid to me.

reply posted on 26-9-2009 @ 04:47 PM by Eurisko2012

reply to post by karl 12

It looks a small floating city/space station.
Putting on an air show.
Cool.

reply posted on 26-9-2009 @ 04:52 PM by Arbitrageur

Redwoodjedi, I agree it reminds me of the drone fiasco.

Resinveins I also wonder why they didn't try to pan the camera to follow the object.

I suppose my take on videos like this is, if they are just found on youtube with no detail, corroborating witnesses, etc, then it could be CGI and it's almost impossible to prove it's not.

When we have multiple witnesses then it gets interesting, but I don't see any indication of that in the youtube description.

I'll say this, it's a lot more interesting than the "fuzzy dots" videos I usually see on youtube, even though it's still fuzzy, it's definitely not just a "dot".

reply posted on 26-9-2009 @ 05:20 PM by jkrog08

LOL...It looks like the probe droid from Star Wars...

Courtesy: www.technovelgy.com...

In all seriousness it seems it could be one of the following (in descending order of probability):

A CARET HOAX or related hoax.

A testing of an unmanned UAV surveillance drone, with the spheres and "take off"added on afterwards with CGI.

Something else...

I would probably go with a CARET-type hoax on this one, I will see what I can find.

[edit on 9/26/2009 by jkrog08]

reply posted on 26-9-2009 @ 05:31 PM by jkrog08

Alright guys, look at this recently published HOAX that was recently discussed on ATS. The video is from a different account on youtube but do you notice anything familiar about the end of the video? I think that is this guys tell-tale sign....Look at the end where the "UFO" shoots upwards at an incredible speed. Now we know the following video was a hoax, so I am just pointing this out...

YouTube Link

Related thread were video is debunked: www.abovetopsecret.com...

*There is a good post by AllisOne in there showing more videos with the same "speeding away effect".

[edit on 9/26/2009 by jkrog08]

reply posted on 26-9-2009 @ 05:39 PM by 0neKnows

It's CGI.

They kept the telephone pole in the shot so they can use it as an anchor for their camera motion tracker. That way they can link the telephone pole to the "UFO" so that they move exactly the same and give the illusion of actually being filmed by the camera.

Because of the lack of knowledge of the people who created this HOAX, they totally forgot about any type of Parallax effect.

en.wikipedia.org...

Since the "UFO" and the telephone pole are moving and shaking exactly the same rate (because of motion tracking) that makes the "UFO" look like it is at the same exact distance as the telephone pole. In reality, if the "UFO" was actually further away from the telephone pole it would be shaking slightly less than the telephone pole.

Like the wobble stereoscopy effect.

en.wikipedia.org...

They also forgot to add any type of motion blur caused by "shutter speed" on the "UFO" exit. Motion blur is hard to reproduce on CGI, especially when they are knowledge-less amateurs.

The speed of which the "UFO" left would no doubt cause the "UFO" to exist in multiple places on a single frame. However, in this video the "UFO" only exists once on each frame. This is 100% proof that it is CGI.

In reality, something moving that fast would be moving faster than the camera could capture (camera limitations). So the object would show up in multiple places at the same time (same frame) causing a motion blur effect. In the HOAX video though, the "UFO" is using traditional animation techniques. The traditional way to make an animation is to move an object to a different location on every frame to simulate movement. That technique ignores camera limitations, and does not reproduce motion blur correctly. The only type of "blur" that you see with traditional animation is caused by "persistence of vision" caused by your mind.

en.wikipedia.org...

The other dead give away is the lack of sound. Almost all CGI videos have their sound cut out. The ones that don't usually have very bad voice actors, and also ignore adding any type of sonic boom sound when the object travels faster than sound.

Also, another user already pointed out that the camera stays in one spot after the "UFO" left. Natural curiosity should have made the camera move upwards to see where the object moved to. However, the camera operator was not curious, almost like they knew it was gone before even checking. This is a case of BAD ACTING. HOAXers forget that even camera operators need to do some "acting".

This video is 100% fake.

reply posted on 26-9-2009 @ 07:16 PM by D.Gribble

It's a good bet the empire knows we're here

reply posted on 26-9-2009 @ 09:49 PM by Skeptical Ed

Originally posted by Resinveins
Hmm one question I would have for whoever filmed it is... why .. when the object disappears up... the camera pans down to the ground and filming stops... Why no attempt to follow the object up?

That seemed strange to me.

Other than that it looked like a flying squid to me.

Your simple assumption has problems. First: the videographer did not know that the object was going to disappear up so he wasn't prepared to follow it; it could have disappeared down. Second: no human can react that fast. Even if he knew that the object was going to accelerate he would not have been able to follow it whether up or down. I'm glad he was able to record it, period, and pretty steady too. If it turns out to be CGI, well done.

reply posted on 27-9-2009 @ 12:54 AM by WitnessFromAfar

I must admit that I also see a strong resemblance to the Caret Drone Hoax, but I don't have any direct connection...

I thought a frame by frame might help:

He certainly does get it back in view awfully quickly. And zoomed further in at 00:16 than it was when he lost it at 00:13.

Now I'm not a professional photographer, but I do use my telescope a lot. It occurs to me that one first must find an object, before zooming in on it.

I can understand putting the camera down for a moment to find the target with your eyes, so 00:15 makes sense to me, but to jump from that to a nice zoomed in close up at 00:16?

That's a bit fishy to me...

-WFA

Edited to Add - Nice post One knows! I wonder what J.Ritzmann thinks about this one...

[edit on 27-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]

reply posted on 27-9-2009 @ 02:09 AM by rjarvijr

They Look like Model Airplanes or Helicopters remote control type.

reply posted on 27-9-2009 @ 02:27 AM by Resinveins

reply to post by Skeptical Ed

I wasn't aware I'd made any assumptions.. I thought I asked a question?

I do however see the assumption you made about no human being able to react that fast... and find it kind of amusing. What do you base that statement on? Just curious.

reply posted on 27-9-2009 @ 03:32 AM by shade454

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar

I'm sure that was just the "instant replay" portion of the video where he copies the last few seconds and pastes them at the end in slow motion for the viewer to better see what happened.

This does seem to look more like a hoax, though. As other have pointed out the lack of motion blur and the cameraman not even attempting to follow his target after it dissapears.

reply posted on 27-9-2009 @ 04:49 AM by nablator

Originally posted by 0neKnows
Since the "UFO" and the telephone pole are moving and shaking exactly the same rate (because of motion tracking) that makes the "UFO" look like it is at the same exact distance as the telephone pole. In reality, if the "UFO" was actually further away from the telephone pole it would be shaking slightly less than the telephone pole.

Yes but would the difference be noticeable?
Micro-shaking of a handheld camera is not enough to notice parallax between the pole (maybe) 100 m away and a much more distant object. For example in the NASA STS-75 video (other thread) parallax is clearly visible when the camera is slightly moved, which proves the floaters are actually very close to the camera. No one seems to notice or care.

The speed of which the "UFO" left would no doubt cause the "UFO" to exist in multiple places on a single frame. However, in this video the "UFO" only exists once on each frame. This is 100% proof that it is CGI.

There is a large motion blur when the UFO shoots upward. A long trail is visible at 00:26.

This video is 100% fake.

Probably. A painted UFO a few pixels across and a few moving dots.

[edit on 2009-9-27 by nablator]

reply posted on 27-9-2009 @ 06:08 AM by stevo351

it definitely came from hoth.

reply posted on 27-9-2009 @ 04:36 PM by 0neKnows

Originally posted by nablator
Yes but would the difference be noticeable?
Micro-shaking of a handheld camera is not enough to notice parallax between the pole (maybe) 100 m away and a much more distant object.

Noticeable to me, yes... It's noticeable only to the trained eye.

Originally posted by nablator
There is a large motion blur when the UFO shoots upward. A long trail is visible at 00:26.

That is not true motion blur... that looks like some noob CGI artist used a smudge tool to FAKE a motion blur streak. They didn't even do it correctly because it's not transparent like a real motion blur would be.

I meant to say it lacks REAL motion blur.

Originally posted by nablator
Probably. A painted UFO a few pixels across and a few moving dots.

To me it looks like someone used 3D Studio Max to create a 3D model, and animate it, and render it with lighting. Then they super imposed it onto a real video clip using motion tracking. Then on the exit frames they used a smudge tool and blur tool to create the fake motion streak. Utterly failing to make it look real in any way to people who are experienced.

I wish these HOAXers would stop trying to lie to people. They get kicks out of seeing people believe their work is real, and watching it spread through the internet like fire.

reply posted on 2-11-2009 @ 03:54 PM by TeslaandLyne

reply to post by karl 12

Here is a good one:
www.youtube.com...

Was that 10 pound weight.
Any weight can be made to speed off at thousands of miles a second, well
perhaps not cause Tesla only said 300 miles a second for his aircraft.
haha beats that by miles.

That might apply to this fake.
Only one man said it could be done.
And the government finally read all his published words and came
looking in 1943.

Now we have fake Tesla's.

[edit on 11/2/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

[edit on 11/2/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

reply posted on 2-11-2009 @ 07:21 PM by easynow

reply to post by Karl 12

cool video karl 12

here is a enhanced version..