agree with most of whats been said up to this point...


...one other thing to mention. If in fact someone does get a good, clear, concise video of a true alien craft, it will be regarded as too good to be true. It must be CGI, even if it isn't apparent how it was done. It will just be written off as a great hoax....This may even be an underlying strategy by tptb, flood the internet with crap so as to hide the real stuff...........

It's very easy to fake UFO footage, but it's equally easy to tell the fakes, so it's really not a problem.

Yeah, the first video is really silly and an obvious fake.

Second video of the trade centers is fake too of course, because it is overtly obvious that the whole thing was scripted. The camera man mysteriously knows to zoom out at the perfect moment. The saucer disrupts the air around it as well, which they do not do.

Third video with no audio is obviously fake because no camera man would stop rolling in a situation like that.

Footage is cool, and it's fun to see the real thing when they are occasionally uploaded on the web, but 99% of the stuff out there is fake and the ones that are real aren't exactly great footage.

Your best chance of seeing a real saucer is to go outside and keep your eyes to the skies.


[edit on 2/8/2010 by JPhish]

Smart Lady.

I, these recent days, mark anything in the sky's as real. Accept the unexpected photographers filming something they dont know what their filming? Their not going to try to totally explain it. Their just going to say here it is -- you explain it.

We don't have the good old boys (photo-examiners) on staff as we once did. But we have good people such as yourself questioning the fake and the unbelievable.

That's a good thing>

Decoy

It's more than easy.... (Provided you put in the effort.)

The computer hardware exists to do it, readily available and affordable. And if you have the extra money to spend and know a thing or two about networking, getting a render-farm up to boost your production capabilty isn't that big a step either.

Readily available 3D software:
Blender, Carrara, Vue, Cinema 4D, Lightwave, 3DS Max, Maya, etc...

Readily available post production & editing software:
Premiere, After Effects, Sony Vegas, Wax, Virtualdub, etc...

Yet now that tools for fakery are within the common domain, people still try to make claims about this or that. You really can't easily prove it's authentic by saying "Hey look! There's a shadow!"

Guess what, unlike some years back the software these days has the tools to make compositing look good. (Even cheap or free like Carrara and Blender.) So you can make an approximate rough model of the scene, make it a shadow-material that doesn't render as visible except for shadows, set up the scene lighting to be close to the conditions in the composited video, and boom! You've got a shadow from the faked object(s) that closely matches what would occur in the lighting of the real video as it projects onto the shadow catcher so that it appears to be falling onto terrain and buildings. Other things like appropriate reflections can also be composited in too, if you're picky or clever enough about doing the effects work.

And with post-filters in the video editors, you can't honestly separate objects from the scene by contrasting noise artifacts. If you intentionally add some video noise filters or enough compression - the artifacts are going to be consistent through the whole video. So that supposed tool for proving realness becomes useless as well.

And then with things like LEDs and LED related novelties like party-blinkers, various laser show kits, micro R/C, cheap mylar balloons, gliders and kites, chinese sky lanterns, etc. it's also quite possible to do some fakery the ol' fashioned way. Put some magnetic multicolor LED blinkies on a balloon or kite, set it aloft, and it's not that hard to let the fun begin. If there's a haze in the sky at night, lasers become an interesting option too. And if you have enough big money to spend, there's also optics that can rapidly adjust the focal plane of how lasers project. Thus the distance of the brightest point can be controlled, and with a thin cloud to project into - it can produce a 3D holographic effect. (3D laser projection is still a fairly new tech, but if you look hard enough you can find examples.)

As neat as it would be to see something real, it's becoming harder than ever if not impossible to prove it.

So why do I still bother to follow what goes on with UFOs? The topic is still interesting because the phenomenon dates back to before fakery was as easy, the stories are interesting, and the ideas of beings from elsewhere actually wanting to visit this planet while bringing along novel technologies are fascinating. Some aspects seem strangely plausible enough that there might be a grain of truth in some stories or sightings.

I ran up a quick, dirty version of what I was talking about:



it's not my best work- in fact, it took me about 5-6 minutes, not including file transfer problems.

Hoaxing has gone on for a long time and shows no signs of slowing down or stopping, just the opposite in fact.

Hoaxing is not limited to the UFO phenomena alone. People have been coping museum artwork and trying to pass it off as the real thing for centuries. People have created fake archeological artifacts and tried to pass them off to museums as actual artifacts.

Some believe that the numerous hoaxes out there turn believers into skeptics, but what it really does is get people using more critical thinking in finding the truth. A site like ATS allows all material to be brought to one place where critical thinking can look at what is provided and help determine whether it is a hoax or a possible lead to finding the truth.

So bring on the hoaxes, the ATS community will show them for what they are, and if we do get an actual proof video some day, I am certain the ATS community will make sure it doesn’t just get buried in with the hoard of hoaxes out there.

Looking above, I see we still have some good--very good photo/pixel experts. ATS had a master and I was lucky to ask what do you think of this or that shot? Got a sincere reply, sometimes after time.

Guess what I'm suggesting is that now it's gosh-darn hard to dicern the difference between anything other than old Photo Stills?

Decoy

Oh it's so totally easy. Check this out: One time I was playing frisbee with my friend while hanging up high in the trees and I was video taping it at the same time. After we both fell out of the trees and broke our necks I went to go watch the video on my computer, and while stuffing my face with massive amounts of popcorn I watch the video and we were both shocked at what we saw: A GLOWING GREEN DISC FLYING BACK AND FORTH SEEMINGLY TRYING TO COMMUNICATE WITH US OR FREAK US OUT OR SOMETHING LIKE IT WAS FILLED WITH GREYS PLAYING JOKES!!! But then we looked at the desk where we were watching the video, and noticed the UFO in the video looked just like our frisbee! We are still studying this matter.

Now, on another method of fakery, we once went to a Lousiana swamp, and were waiting to here farting sounds being aware that this was a sign of gas coming up through great stench holes in the bog of stench. We realized we could possibly get rich if we faked some UFO video, and knowing that swamp farts could be used to fake glowing metallic discs in the air moving at light speeds, we turned on our windproof lighters and chased any farting sound we heard, eventually we struck gold and lit a big one and a massive fireball erupted throwing us both back into the bog. But though we were soaking wet and afraid of being bit to death by water moccasins we looked up in wonder and beheld the fireball glowing red and green and setting fire to the trees above and causing a massive forest fire (which fortunately we were never caught for causing). But besides that, the fireball continued up into the air and suddenly became metallic and spun wildly. We then suddenly realized we should get this on cam, but the camera had sunk into the bog and we didn't want to find go diving into a bog that potentially had deadly snakes in it and swamp monsters of some kind, who knows. So the point is, we didn't get rich, but if we had gotten this on video, we could have been rich. I have to sleep now.

Originally posted by InertiaZero
Well, it really depends on your set of skills....

As technology continues to advance, faked footage continues to flood the internet.
Not to mention the many computer design students, that use UFOs for school projects. It's actually perfect for them, because it gives you a change to blend real footage, with CGI.

Im sure almost everyone on this site saw the recent "District 9" and also "Avatar". While your home PC may not have that kind of capabilities yet, many high powered PC's can run something almost comparable.

Its actually alot harder than you think! Well a convincing one is anyway....

Avatar and district 9 wasnt just a hour job on a high spec PC, it was labourious years of CGI editing done by top of the line professionals.
Do you know why avatar was such an expensive film????? That expense is due to CGI because there job is so hard and long that they get paid BIG BUCKS for it.
And no matter how high spec your pc is, your not gonna get good results without major skill. This leads on to one of two conclusions:

1 - Professionals are creating the better UFO videos
2 - The better videos are real, at least to the knowledge of their OP.

Now as iv said before on ATS, im almost certain there arnt professionals creating silly 30 second UFO vids, because of the implication it would have on their name (fake videos are not good in any industry even CGI) and the time it would take away from there profession (if there CGI-ing they might aswell be getting paid for it).

Im a multimedia (film, animation and web) student and i wouldnt be able to create a UFO video very easily.... And my result wouldnt be really believable, id need at least a year and a team to create something which might be able to fool people.

And sorry to be harsh people, but all the videos people have posted up with just a few hours editing work are extremely average and easily identifyable.
The best iv seen from this topic is the metalic like blobby thing... for a day or two work, you have got skills! However its still recognisable as a fake, especially as the pan up happens before the actual object starts to pan upwards.

Now obviously the videos you posted are fakes, but there are many convincing ones! Dont give up on UFO videos because the public has this horrible trend of screaming CGI whenever a video comes online. Its actually quite easy to spot a average CGI job, just compare the object to the backdrop in terms of resolution (its a myth that low res is easier to fake, its actually harder, or at least takes more time), perspective and appropriate distortion. And as any ATSer will tell you, there are many considerations (such as acting, camera behaviour, crowd, actual video editing such as adding music ect ect) that can be thought about.





[edit on 10-2-2010 by Encoded05]

Good topic.

And, sorry, but... what "Haiti Hoax"?