It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


California “Drone” with Three Moving Spheres

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:48 PM
Yeah it is CGI.. and yes this video has been posted and debunked already.

The reason he left the telephone pole in the shot is so he could use it as an anchor for his motion tracking software. He anchored the CGI object to the telephone pole so that the object looks like it is in one place while the camera shakes. He totally ignored any real life effects such as distance parallax.

There are many other things he did horribly that point to CGI, such as the fake motion blur.

Anyway, I find it really frustrating when people say things like "I'm going to ignore people who claim it is CGI because....blah...blah blah...". You people need to wake up... in this age of technology there are many graphic artists that exist. They usually create seemingly meaningless works of "art" so they can include it in their portfolio to help them get a job in their field.

Also, there are 1000's of people who want to make fools out of "believers". So they make videos just to get you to believe they are real, and they get a kick out of it knowing how blind you are.

There are also people that do it just to do it. They don't need profit or money....

If you are going to be a UFO investigator it is very important that you learn the ins and outs of computer graphics. You need to learn their capabilities and their flaws, and you need to learn what CGI artists thrive for.... They thrive to create realism, and the best way to test the realism is to pass something off as real and show people.

Also note, when you go to one of thousands of graphics schools, you learn how to make UFOs first because of how simple they are to make. I can make one in less than an hour.

posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 03:22 PM
With your intelligent response to this thread IsOne, you earned my
"Keeping it Sane award" for this hour. Star for you as well. That and about a $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee.

Good reply.

posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 03:47 PM
reply to post by ALLis0NE

well said. I do not think people get quite how easy it is to make a UFO in simple programs like Maya or 3dmax. When the spanish UFO hoax was going on i got flammed for sayin it was CGI and that the "UFO" was just a few black pixels whick was identical to the jets. I think people need to really look at what they are looking at and keep their mind off what the title says it is and what they want it to be. Another thing people should do when doing an analysis of any UFO video watch it on mute a few times. Many times the hoaxers like to breathe heavy, say oh my god and do other things to create a feeling in the viewer (you) that you are watching something exciting.

posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 05:37 PM
All this talk about this has been debunked ladedah, all that has been shown is speculation, for instance why would he ask for stars on a certain website? thats not debunking that is just speculation, perhaps it is CGI, I don't know, but taking your word for it? naaa, same old record again.

Now if you look at the picture posted in the thread by LeoVirgo Here

I think the image shows something with a very similar shape, and not for a second do I suspect LeoVirgo of faking his picture, never given any reason to believe that.

So can you post positive recorded links to where it has been debunked 100% without speculation please? and not just a what people think.

posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 06:44 PM
reply to post by azzllin

Since you lack computer graphics knowledge, even if we did show you the proof that the video is fake you wouldn't be able to see it. The video itself is proof, however, it is hidden to you because of your lack of knowledge of certain aspects of reality.

Seriously, do you know what parallax is? If you did, then this video would look super fake to you. Do this.... stick your hand out in front of you, close one eye, and move your head around to simulate the shake of a video camera. You will see that your hand moves around faster than everything behind your hand. This is because everything behind your hand is further than your hand.

In the OP's video of the UFO, the camera is moving so much that they felt the need to make a stabilized version. If the UFO is high in the sky and far away from the telephone pole, every time the camera moved (the shake) the telephone pole (like your hand) should move faster than the UFO, but that doesn't happen. The UFO and the telephone pole are perfectly moving together, locked...

This is a sign of motion tracking, also known as "match moving". This software that does this requires you to pick an object or spot on the original video to "anchor" or "lock-on" to so that the object will appear to be in one place while the camera moves around. The person who made the video "locked-on" to the telephone pole.

However, since you know nothing about parallax, or motion tracking, you just don't see the evidence that is right in front of your face. Hence the reason why I told everyone to learn the ins and outs of computer graphics (and other reality based knowledge) so you understand what processes are needed to be done in order to achieve a realistic CG image.

It is like the difference between a layman and a mechanic. The mechanic has built many vehicle engines, and the layman has built none. The mechanic can just examine the engine and find any problems, but the problem is hidden to the layman. This is because the mechanic knows the ins and outs of engines, how they are made, how they should run, and how they should look. The layman doesn't know half that.

If some guy made a fake engine, the mechanic would be able to spot the fake, and the layman wouldn't know until someone proved it to him. The mechanic can see obvious missing required pieces, but the layman is complete oblivious and thinks he is looking at a real engine.

...become the mechanic of all things and you wont be deceived.

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 10:20 AM
Video enhanced and stabilized:

It looks real to me, but may very well be a hoax

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in