Fighter Jets Chase UFO Over M5 Motorway in UK

reply to post by judge360


LOL, you are right. Most papers won't touch this stuff and bang on endlessly about MP expenses etc which are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to financial problems in this country.

However, I strongly feel that when tabloids show Bullsh like this it is just so it can later be declared Bullsh and then the uninformed average Joe on the street will say something like "see?! Told you UFO's are just crazy peoples delusions".

I reckon tabloid coverage is just to downplay the true unexplained events.

reply to post by BrianInRI


Sorry if I sounded hostile mate, I look forward to any contributions you can make to this lovely forum

Originally posted by Blaine91555
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1f6f12e406ce.jpg[/atsimg]

Look at the detail that is lacking here. This should be in the hoax forum.

Another vote for the Hoax forum, thank you.

Might I remind everyone that it does not even take this much scrutiny to determine whether a woman's boobs are fake??

As UFO videos go, this is Dolly Parton.

Cripes!!!!

[edit on 10-4-2010 by AwakeinNM]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

hmm.
Just exactly what is that windshield wiper shadow being cast upon?
Or is it a reflection? No. That can't be right either. The reflection would be touching the wiper unless the wiper isn't touching the glass.


[edit on 4/10/2010 by Phage]

Not to mention the angle of rest,(I'm presuming the wipers are at rest) that would irritate the life out of me if I was the driver, Postman Pat wouldn't mind though...he's a cartoon!
BTW to the OP, please don't be offended by the banter, you were good enough to start a well intentioned thread. Quite honestly, I don't know how expert at anything, you have to be to seriously debunk this video, but it does have practical shortcomings in what you are looking at, and most people are taking up on that, Smurfy.

Problemo 1:

The shaders are default ones that ship with both 3d max and maya (I know the guy who wrote both shaders for mental images who produce the mental ray render engine very well). They've taken a short cut to cut down render times and not used a more complex shader setup as they probably figured no one was going to look at the trucks.


Problemo 2:

The bevels are way too large for the size of object...a truck doesnt have bevels of that size (newbies aften forget that in 3d everything is aimed at rea life scale and often think its the same if they use a model 20cm or 20 feet in length...it is not.)

Problemo 3:

Trucks..look at the very simple shapes that have been used to construct the truck..then go and look at a real truck or three.

Problemo 4:

Highlights are wrong and way too plasticy for car / truck paint.

Problemo 5:

yeah static shot...baked in lighting by any chance ??? lol (Thats a big render time saver right there.) it'll look good as long as nothing other than the camera moves.


Problemo 6 -?

The bad texturing has already been covered but consider my voice added to the list. Glass == wrong. Also glas is catching a shadow from the wrong side of the 'box' used for the window glass on each window. It is catching the shadow from the interior surface not the exterior (or a combination of both) . While the textures and lack of dirt may be bad..the glass is a whole shed load worse.

The darkest colors and ligthest colors have been used to match objects within the scene..it screams it in fact.

I could go on but I think people have already made their mind up anyway by now. If my expertise in this area is in doubt just send Springer a message.... But as I regularly act as a consultant to autodesk who make the 3 biggest 3d apps (on top of my other production background) safe to say I know my stuff.


Wayne...

[edit on 10/4/2010 by the secret web]

Originally posted by the secret web

Problemo 1:

The shaders are default ones that ship with both 3d max and maya (I know the guy who wrote both shaders for mental images who produce the mental ray render engine very well). They've taken a short cut to cut down render times and not used a more complex shader setup as they probably figured no one was going to look at the trucks.


Problemo 2:

The bevels are way too large for the size of object...a truck doesnt have bevels of that size (newbies aften forget that in 3d everything is aimed at rea life scale and often think its the same if they use a model 20cm or 20 feet in length...it is not.)

Problemo 3:

Trucks..look at the very simple shapes that have been used to construct the truck..then go and look at a real truck or three.

Problemo 4:

Highlights are wrong and way too plasticy for car / truck paint.

Problemo 5:

yeah static shot...baked in lighting by any chance ??? lol (Thats a big render time saver right there.) it'll look good as long as nothing other than the camera moves.


Problemo 6 -?

The bad texturing has already been covered but consider my voice added to the list. Glass == wrong. Also glas is catching a shadow from the wrong side of the 'box' used for the window glass on each window. It is catching the shadow from the interior surface not the exterior (or a combination of both) . While the textures and lack of dirt may be bad..the glass is a whole shed load worse.

The darkest colors and ligthest colors have been used to match objects within the scene..it screams it in fact.

I could go on but I think people have already made their mind up anyway by now. If my expertise in this area is in doubt just send Springer a message.... But as I regularly act as a consultant to autodesk who make the 3 biggest 3d apps (on top of my other production background) safe to say I know my stuff.


Wayne...

[edit on 10/4/2010 by the secret web]

Thanks Wayne,
I hope your post satisfies those that scream for an expert.

reply to post by Venetian


I was excited til I read:

Source: The Sun

Sorry, but that newspaper is rubbish and known for creating various hoaxes

[edit on 10/4/2010 by OzWeatherman]

reply to post by cripmeister


This video is all CGI even the trucks in the foreground are fake. Come on people open your eyes and see it is a cartoon.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

hmm.
Just exactly what is that windshield wiper shadow being cast upon?
Or is it a reflection? No. That can't be right either. The reflection would be touching the wiper unless the wiper isn't touching the glass.


[edit on 4/10/2010 by Phage]

That reflection is due to the angle of incidence. On glass surfaces you increase the reflections as the angle is increased.

This is one of those cases where I have no doubt this is CG.

There are some CG experts floating around ATS. I'm a hobbyist with about 7 years under my belt using Lightwave9.6, Vue Infinite 8, ZBrush and a half dozen others.

There is no doubt with this vid. Perfection is always an in your face proof of CGI. Artists go to great lengths to add dirt, scratches, stains and other imperfections to simulate reality. The paint on all these vehicles is flawless, not to mention there is no depth or Fresnel effect which explains the paint looking like simple enamel rather than showing depth as modern car finishes do.

[edit on 4/10/2010 by Blaine91555]

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
reply to post by Venetian

 

I was excited til I read:

Source: The Sun


[edit on 10/4/2010 by OzWeatherman]

I was exited till I saw the video, then my heart sank as i realized many an untrained eye will be taken in by it

reply to post by the secret web


It is obvious Those are clearly models not intended for close ups. Kids playing around.

The Sun present this as fact lol. Any publicity is good publicity hopefully, maybe tabloid coverage will inadvertently encourage people to research the subject.

Hey Peoples

I cannot believe that the video was proven a hoax on page 1

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yet there is another 6 pages of debate on if it is CGI.

Of course it is CGI

Ocker

Originally posted by Alaskan Man
isn't "the sun" basically a tabloid magazine?

wouldn't really be considered a creditable source, well that is unless I'm mistaken

If the guy who took the video went to somebody ore normal like Sky News, The Telegraph or the BBC, they wouldn't have shown it or taken any notice.

The Sun is probably one of the only newspapers in the UK that isn't controlled by the Home Office and told what to say and when like the rest of them!

And we all know what that's like in the US, don't we guys and gals??

reply to post by ocker


ocker i salute you on the research there. no way would you miss the jets catching up with said "UFO" yep cgi. have a star on me.

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Sorry, but that newspaper is rubbish and known for creating various hoaxes

You can get it in Oz ?

The newspaper might be rubbish but it does not create hoaxes it just lacks in research and will put to print anything that might sell more copies without first checking its sources and doing research for things like this.

Originally posted by minkey53

Originally posted by Alaskan Man
isn't "the sun" basically a tabloid magazine?

wouldn't really be considered a creditable source, well that is unless I'm mistaken

If the guy who took the video went to somebody ore normal like Sky News, The Telegraph or the BBC, they wouldn't have shown it or taken any notice.

The Sun is probably one of the only newspapers in the UK that isn't controlled by the Home Office and told what to say and when like the rest of them!

And we all know what that's like in the US, don't we guys and gals??

Rupert Murdoch owns the Sun and the Daily Mirror,(which used to be a good newspaper, with a strong editorial) in fact News International now owns most UK papers, and Rupert Murdoch is editor in chief of all his crap, here, and in media in the US. He is a Conservative based person,so none of his newspapers have much to do with the current UK Government. He has the Times and Sunday Times as well, although I don't think he is allowed to dictate on their Editorials.

I would like to apologize to those regarding my previous behavior and demeanor in defense of the truck issue. Sometimes I get over zealous when trying to refute ufo skeptics and refuse to consider other possibilities while using selective reasoning with a one-sided point of view.

After going about my day and returning with different mind set and perspective, I can clearly see that those trucks look fake.

Sorry

I hold no candle for the Sun newspaper. Politically, it couldn't be further from my own values.

That said, in this case I have come to some sort of defense of them. Yes, it's mainly a sensationalist rag, but hen again virtually all newspapers are today. Even the so called heavy weights have made some completely bs stories up and all of the so called intellectual papers, pretty much world wide, fell for the biggest scam of the last century. Namely, the "Red Mercury" debacle.

In the Sun and its' sister Sunday paper The News of the World defense, i have to say, for some unknown reason, they have both printed UFO stories for over 50 years, on a pretty consistent basis, when other new papers have just refused to.

That is, in the days when both newspapers were far less "prurient" in their content, and the standard of English, far higher, in their journalistic writing.. They were still printing stories about UFOs.

One reason, that comes to mind, for this being so could be simply that. it was a , rag to a bull, vis a vie the British government when, those newspapers felt they were being left "out of the loop" over some current issue. That is; "You won't tell us what's happening with xyz, we are going to print a few more UFO stories that will see people contacting you and generally being a pain".

Childish yes, but that's the way of the world, i can easily see that sort of thinking behind some of their reporting.

On the other hand and from my own experience. I suspect there is a sizable cadre of high ranking military and a few politicians, Brinsley Le Poer trench 8th Earl of Clancarty and member of the House of Lords, being a classic example. Who, had enough credibility and friends at the Sun and News of the World, to keep the subject in the public eye, when the establishment, as a whole, wanted it buried.

The likes of the late Lord Hill Norton, certainly believed that they were being stonewalled by the MOD over the subject of UFOs. Now, let's put this into context. We are talking about people, who were the folk with their fingers on the nuclear button claiming they were met with a wall of silence, by the very institutions they were meant to *press the button for*, over the subject.

If they were kept out of the loop and told, "it was of no consequence". Just who the chuff was suitable in the "need to know category?".

Remember, we are talking about people who ,at times went behind the government's back, in order to contact their Russian equivalents, in order to prevent a nuclear war breaking out because of UFOs or false radar contacts.


Now, as much of a "rag" the Sun/News of the World might be. If guys like Hill Norton tell them; "Actually, the subject of UFOs is far from simple hysteria, I don't know what they are, but there are sufficient qualified and high ranking members of the military who would like to know, themselves, but are just rebuffed by the Ministry of defense time after time." The editors of those newspapers are going to listen to them and take note.?

Lord Charwell, wrote to Winston Churchill ,dismissing the whole subject, when Churchill, as PM, sent a memo wishing to know; "What was going on with these UFOs, is there anything real in the subject".

You can imagine how , someone like Hill Norton found that eternally frustrating and might well have had a quiet word with newspaper editors, "off the record", in order to see if they could force more information into the public domain, or at least get he subject , discussed openly in high ranking military circles, on more than a ; "It's all just hoo hah basis".

Let's make it plain here. When you hear all this cant about how; "Oh well, leading edge technology etc etc mis-identified sightings". The truth is, we are talking about people, with a far far higher security ratings than those who claim it was all just * secret technology*, saying, they were kept out of the loop over UFOs. People who, if the mistook some secret project for a Russian attack, could have ended the world with a press of a button.

It isn't hard to see why, a newspaper like the Sun would be wiling, to take on the mantel, of the "truth seekers" For their own political ends, as often as not? oh yes, I have little doubt that would be a factor.

However, as much as that might be the case. I suspect they, at editorial level, have been primed by enough people with sufficient gravitas, to want to know what is being hidden by the our and other governments about the whole subject. No newspaper, no matter how crap it might be, likes the idea that. There is a whole area they are simply not allowed to talk about or make inquiries about.

Ergo, sensationalist?; oh yes, in spades. However, no matter how much i find the paper an anathema, on a personal level on so many subjects. on this one, I am of a mind to give then a little slack. For over 50 years, they have printed stories, neither the MOD or other newspapers wanted to touch.


[edit on 10-4-2010 by FireMoon]

Originally posted by Venetian


Source: The Sun Newspaper

The scummiest most unreliable source possible.

I wouldn't believe it was Sunday if they claimed it was.