UFO Mother Ship over Peru..[HOAX]

reply to post by StargateSG7

Oh, I could Hug you. Will you put this Video through the works for us. The person that did the Original, was Mr. Orlando de la Cruz, he is a reporter for the PeruEnglishNews. They are having Protests all over Peru, and He was just on my Twitter 27 minutes ago, and still at work.

Can you please give this a spin. I though you meant when you said "what we need is someone with experience"
I didn't understand you did. Not much sleep at all since I started this thread, Have got a Mirgraine from staring at the monitor for so long.

We had 4 Members with CGI background, but they said they thought it was real and didn't put it through the mill.
And 1 Televison Producer and he thought it was real also. So no one has done this to make it positive or negative. How long does this take?

Long long thread on something that looks Fake.

You need to ask why such a clear video of a large ufo only lasts a few seconds.
Secondly. although i don't understand the language of the narrator, there is something wrong with
tone of his voice. he does not even sound excited , let alone scared.

For me it is not a genuine clip.

reply to post by rigel4

You didn't here him at all, only the News reporters, reporting it.
That was only posted on News Broadcasts, never by the Cruz who captured or made the video. They edited it for the TV News shows. Mr Cruz is a News Reporter himself, and was going to email me when he got off work tonight but he is working overtime because there are Mass Protests in Peru right now.

The gentelman one page back is going to put it through the CGI test, I hope. The 4 with CGI background on the earlier part of the Thread said they thought it was "real" and told why, so they didn;t Test it.
Hope we get some answers soon, I need some sleep.

reply to post by coolottie


You do need some sleep , and you have been saying that for a while now.
Off to bed , the rest will do you good.
Not sure if I want this one to be real as it look decidedly threatening.

reply to post by StargateSG7


I hope you got the U2U about doing a CGI test on this video. It will be great if you would do it
for us. Looking foward to hearing from you. I am burning out on this but would sure like to know
if it is Real or Fake. Thank You

Just to let everyone know, I still have not recieved any word or the CGI Test, that I hope Stargate75 is doing.
And have yet to hear from Mr. de la Cruz, there are riots all over Peru, and he is working way overtime.

As soon as I hear something I will post it. Going back to bed. This is getting to be like work.

reply to post by coolottie


While a detailed pixel-level video analysis of the
Flash Video/Youtube-style File is somewhat inconclusive
because too much video compression has been applied,
I CAN DO physics-based analysis which includes
lighting, motion and object & surrounding surface
examinations.

The things I detail here will have the unfortunate effect
of giving the "nasty" people tips on how to make better fakes
BUT this post will EXPOSE the things one should look for.

Pixel level analysis requires access to the original DV/HDCam,
Flash Memory Card or Broadcaster footage so I can find the
common mathematics of an improper colourspace conversion
...i.e. overly saturated RGB to YCbCr or YCC conversions
which would indicate 3D Animation rendering. Much modern
video footage is shot using technology called CMOS camera
chips (Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor) or CCD
(Charge Coupled Device) which have a very distinct
mosaic-based colour filtering pattern called a Bayer Filter:

See CMOS Sensor:
en.wikipedia.org...

See Charge-Coupled Device:
en.wikipedia.org...

See Bayer Filter:
en.wikipedia.org...

The WAY an image is captured via the hardware
can tell me if an image has been modified.
BY doing a inverse de-mosaic on original video
so I can check whether the Bayer mosaic pattern
I will see regarding the positioning, brightness
and hue of each pixel is CONSISTENT with
a Bayer (or other) image sensor type video
capture sequence.

If I KNOW the original camera that was used,
I can then find out the TYPE of CMOS or CCD sensor
that was used and then COMPARE whether the
Bayer-to-RGB or Bayer-to-YCbCr colourspace
conversion specs of that camera MATCH what
I SHOULD see in the video file that
was supposedly shot with that camera.

If portions of an image DO NOT have the typical
Bayer-pattern consistent with that camera model
...that TELLS me the image is modified.

There are other image sensor patterns used
in addition to Bayer, but those I can also
account for because of me knowing the
original Camera type for comparison.

----

Various types of cameras also use specific file formats
and video compression formats that SHOULD contain
consistent video compression artifacts and video noise
patterns IF the original video is unretouched.

I can do a byte-by-byte analysis of the video compression stream
AND the audio stream to see if I see consistent macroblocking
and video/audio noise reduction patterns that are part-and-parcel
of the compression type. MPEG2, Wavelet and Motion JPEG/DV
file formats of modern video cameras have VERY SPECIFIC
tell-tale signs of compression which means if a 3D object was
RENDERED ON TOP of that footage I could see the tell-tale
edge fuzziness and macro-blocking patterns of an alpha-channel
overlay technique that comes from a typical type of
3D animation or Video FX software.

---

Video FX software and 3D animation programs also have
DIGITAL SIGNATURES that signal HOW they overlaid
an object on top of moving video and HOW they rendered
that object to make it look real.

If I see the colour banding on a flat or curved surface that
is consistent with using single-precision floating point numbers
within the RGB-to-YCC/YCbCr colour space conversions,
I can TELL it was done with older versions of BLENDER.

If I see the levels of brightness or hue in blocks of pixel
that are consistent with working in Adobe Photoshop's
sRGB colour space I can then tell that After Effects,
Premiere or Photoshop were involved SOMEHOW!

If I see 3D animation techniques such as an INVERSE SQUARED
decrease in brightness on the edges of say a StarShip...that would
be consistent with a rendered 3D animation and Alpha Channel-based
image compositing.

See more 3D graphics background info:

See Alpha Channel Compositing:
en.wikipedia.org...

See Chroma Key Compositing:
en.wikipedia.org...

See YCrCb Colour Space Definitions:
en.wikipedia.org...

See RGBA Colour Space Definitions:
en.wikipedia.org...

See 3D Computer Graphics Ray Tracing Techniques:
en.wikipedia.org...

See Real-World Optical Ray Tracing Technqiues
en.wikipedia.org...

See tell tale signs of Gourad Shading:
en.wikipedia.org...

See tell tale signs of Phong Shading:
en.wikipedia.org...

See tell tale signs of Specular Highlighting:
en.wikipedia.org...

See optics based REFRACTION effects:
en.wikipedia.org...

See 2D and 3D Animation based TWEENING techniques:
en.wikipedia.org...

See Available Free and Commercial 3D Animation Software:
en.wikipedia.org...

See 3D rendering techniques:
en.wikipedia.org...

See Renderman SHADING Language:
en.wikipedia.org...


The above links should give you a background on things
to look for that are SIGNS of typcial 3D animation and rendering.

The WAY an object is overlaid on top of a video
is a tell-tale giveaway that it is FAKE if it appears
within video that has lots of noise, or random artifacts
when the surface of the ships seems too smooth, too perfect
and too computer-graphicky. The types of Specular Highlights,
Phong or Gourad shading used on smooth or curved surfaces
or the tell-tale signs of shiny Ray-Tracing techniques within
certain 3D animation programs (i.e. Don't Make it Good!
Make it Shiny!) special effects filters, tell me WHAT TYPE
of rendering algorithm was used and THEN i can match that
like a fingerprint to a specific 3D rendering program.

---

Other things I look for are the breaking of certain laws
of physics such as NOT seeing the movement of clouds
consistent with a large object moving through it.

I should see heat shimmer, refraction, difraction, water vapour
refraction, outline fuzziness, lens flares, and other video artifacts
which NORMALLY show up in REAL VIDEO FOOTAGE!

In this video, the tell-tale signs of inconsistently applied
CAMERA LENS and OBJECT MOTION PHYSICS
tells me that the footage see is a 3D spaceship
rendered using alpha channel compositing.

Rotating objects wobble slightly, sunlight shines and
highlights metallic objects and light shimmers through
atmosphere and reflects off edges in VERY SPECIFIC
WAYS in a REAL IMAGE...which I DO NOT SEE
in this video!

---

There isn't any need to do a pixel level analysis,
its the motion and lighting aspects that give away
the FAKE nature of this video and the fact that
I especially DO NOT SEE cloud displacement
and tell-tale signs of atmospheric WAKE that
would have a REAL OBJECT float through
our skies...Hey! Even Field Effects powered
starships leave tell-tale signs of light-bending
around a gravity well...which I also don't see here!

SO IN MY HUMBLE OPINION....IT'S FAKE!


P.S. Aliens Don`t FAST Rotate Their Larger Ships --- SO THE VIDEO FOOTAGE IS FAKE!

Thank you very much for your analysis. It's great to have experts on hand
for this type of stuff.
We are a powerful community here on ATS.

Edit: I meant to give you a Star .

reply to post by StargateSG7

I am going to sit down and go through all the links you posted
But I found a few things that had been mentioned before and someone else was discussing.


Now on this video a kid named Hendrik shows how this could be made CGI. The person that did the Original was Mr. Orlando de la Cruz. It looks like to me this kid [we have photos of both of them] just stuck his video to connect with the News to make it look like this was part of a News Cast.

reply to post by rigel4


Here is another one that the kid Hendrick did, and that is a picture of him at the end.
The camera that Mr. Cruz used is showen in the top video above this post.

Please do what ever you can with this and see if any solid answers come out of it.
I am like you all of the Hoaxer on Youtube make it impossible to get anyone to
believe the Real ones are Real.

Thank you alot , I will read all of this and be about to tell them apart myself.

reply to post by StargateSG7


I posted to the wrong person,
The Post right above this one is FOR You too

reply to post by coolottie

Originally oosted by StarGateSG7

In this video, the tell-tale signs of inconsistently applied
CAMERA LENS and OBJECT MOTION PHYSICS
tells me that the footage see is a 3D spaceship
rendered using alpha channel compositing.

MY emphasis, in case it was overlooked...by anyone.
Hate to say....."I told you....".....but, WE --- many --- did.

It took 36 pages for you guys to figure out this was fake? WOW....

reply to post by TheLogicalist


To be fair, it took 36 pages to prove it was fake, there is a difference.

reply to post by weedwhacker

You should have read his last post instead you just assumed he had completed the CGI Test when he has NOT even started it yet.
You keep jumping the gun, Stargate has not even done the research yet. There were more on here that thought it was real, 4 with CGI background, a Television producer, and one Professional FX member. We all said our good nights and you thought we all went to bed, then suddenlly there you were and about 5-7 debunker yelling "Proof it's a Fake". You don't even care if it is real or not, you just get your kicks derailing threads. You are not sorry for anything, You did everything you could to get it in the Hoax Bin when we all that were working on this said we were going to be. What you do is nothing to be proud of. You don't post threads, you don't go to threads you are really interested in, you just derail every ufo thread you can.

It is nice of him to take the time to do this

reply to post by rigel4


It has not been Proven to Be a Fake Yet, Stargate has not even started Testing it yet,
Please read it. Nothing has been proven because he has not even tried yet, He said
There is only a little he can do without the Camera Memory Card. Peace Out. I did get a nap too

reply to post by coolottie

....thought it was real, 4 with CGI background, a Television producer, and one Professional FX member.

SIX members who, by now, are likely feeling a bit foolish. And, numerous more people who all agreed, and posted...."Fake!

BTW....scroll through the thread, and find any instance of where I said to send it to the "HOAX!" forum....(or, 'bin').

Not once. My ONE idea, was that SkepticOverlord had shown skills, before, in other confirmed hoax research cases. Of course, it is obvious (to those paying attention elsewhere) that he was somewhat busy, with important matters elsewhere this week.....

No....what happened was, this fake video (obvious to the majority) turned into yet another epic waste of everyone's time, and has done more damage, as a result to real UFO research, than good. To boot, it is now going to be coming up on Internet searches, when using all the various popular Search Engines....

I am certain the original maker is extremely pleased to have gotten this undue, and undeserved attention.....

With the movies and television humans have been fed for the last 30+ years; if that were a real video, you would have heard and seen the mass pandemonium. I mean who sees something that clearly and that large and says "hey let me film this, its awesome"

I dont care if anyone is able to disect or analyse this with some fancy software.. it screams fake just from the intrinsic values.. sheez

reply to post by SANman


Has not been determined, Weedy, is jumping the gun counting his chickens
Stargate just start to examine it about 15 minutes ago, See who U2U to jump on here,
like I had to guess