It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by esteay812
Can someone please post a link to the UTAH UFO sighting that has been referred to in this thread a few times. I know the link is in the thread somewhere, but am leaving to work and really wanted to show a worker the UTAH video
Originally posted by Quartza
Interlace vs Progressive - The motion blur of the object in question does not have the "comb" effect due to the vertical movement. The comb effect only effects horizontal movement.edit on 3-2-2011 by Quartza because: gramer
Originally posted by SomeCheesyUsername
Get a grip on reality
Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by Paradigm2012
You are stating the obvious.
The wall, the man, the tree, and the light, and person filming are all one shot. But is the horizon and city lights really there? Are they really standing on a hill?edit on 3-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by laymanskeptic
Hi there, since the previous thread was closed (I was second to the last to post there LOLz, it was a debunking post), I shall migrate my debunking post here (debunking video#4)
But before that, please bear with me as I introduce a quick background on digital cameras and the video they come up with:
(Some quick credentials first: I'm not just an armchair philosopher lolz. I used to be a cameraman, a video editor, and other stuff related to postprod, and I'm currently a producer, with some CGI background as I have worked on several CGI projects in both producing and hands-on capacities, solving and troubleshooting problems on a variety of levels):
Technical background (important):
There are 2 ways a camera can capture moving images (a sequence of still frames):
"Interlaced" capture - each captured frame is a actually made up of 2 separate alternating fields each captured at a slightly different slice of time. In postprod, this creates "combing" effect (where the 2 interlaced fields reveal themselves especially for objects or scenes captured while in motion).
"Progressive" capture - each captured frame is a whole frame. But there are 2 types of shutter variants:
"Rolling Shutter" - each frame is captured one line at a time.
Observable artifact #1: creates wobbly deformation of objects or scenes with respect to the orientation of the image sensor (either horizontal or vertical). Common weakness of cameraphones and DSLRs.
Observable artifact #2: external light flashes captured by the camera appear cut off within a single frame (when the duration of the flash is shorter than the time it takes to expose each frame)
"Universal Shutter" - all pixels (and therefore all lines) of each frame are captured all at the same time.
Observable artifact: no wobble, but creates simple motion blur for moving objects or scenes, regardless of image sensor orientation.
VIDEO#4 Debunk Explanation
1. A digital camera can only take a shot either in progressive or interlaced mode, but not both at the same time.
2. This sequence of frames from Video#4 show both interlacing artifacts and motion blur artifacts (supposedly due to quick motion), IN THE SAME FOOTAGE! This can't happen in reality, because the camera is either shooting in interlaced, or shooting in progressive, but NOT BOTH. Either everything that's revealing in the clip reveals interlacing, or progressive - not both.
3. So Video#4 is tampered with in the following sense:
a. The background footage was shot in interlaced mode as most consumer camcorders do
b. The CGI orb was composited into the interlaced background as a progressive image (in fact, the project settings is done in progressive mode - it can't be done any other way unless you know the "nuts and bolts" of your comp system (many thanks to Pinke's U2U for explaining to me how to do that)
c. The resulting final video is exported in progressive frames
d. Video comes out with a mixture of progressive and interlacing artifacts, which no camera can do, and it wouldn't make sense for a camera to do so.
e. Ergo, HOAX
I shall also debunk Video#2 :-) on a later post.
Originally posted by liveandletlive
Originally posted by liveandletlive
Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
Not sure if anyone's mentioned this but I thought I'd throw it out there.
Time will tell, but I'm relatively convinced that this was a genuine occurrence. I look forward to seeing any CCTV footage that may come to light. As others have said, the Old City is likely to have at least as many cameras as the Pentagon, so surely we'll see some footage at some point, right?
There is footage but no one wants to talk about it.
What do you mean no one wants to talk about it liveandletlive?
Well everyone seems to be ignoring my question. They just keep insulting each other.
Oh, well maybe they dont want to talk about it because they cant explain it.
Deny Ignorance my *ss!!!!!!!!!