It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

A good example of the quality of "hoaxed" videos

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
A youtube poster with nick Thirdphaseofmoon has a big collection of UFO videos that he and (apparently) his brother made. They seem to be amateurs but have won a couple of small awards. (Facts not checked). Also, you can see how bad amateur actors really are, some basics needed to more precisely determine what feelings are real and not on other videos.

Their youtube page:
Thirdphaseofmoon`s Youtube page

This is a one that we all can learn from, notice his microexpressions during the set up interview with an actor:


Notice how he is shaking his head while telling the "tale".

More about microexpressions in the link below, a method used in interrogation:
en.wikipedia.org...

A test you can take to determine your microexpression detection capabilities here (FYI - a couple of popups on the link):
Test
Not a good test in my opinion, probably better out there. But it`s made by a professor in psychology.

My first post BTW, couldn`t find anything on this in the search so I apologize if there is one - search turned up to many hits on hoaxed videos.
edit on 9-8-2011 by br0ker because: Tried embedding youtube #1




posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by br0ker
 


Hmm.. dunno what`s wrong with my embedding. Somebody that can tell me what`s wrong?

*Embedding fixed. Also notice her microexpression frown at the 4.08 minute marking, as well as shaking her head when saying they had no idea of what they saw that evening 4.24.
edit on 9-8-2011 by br0ker because: Embedding fixed.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Which basically means that anything, whether real or fake, can simply be discarded as fake. Rather convenient, is it not?



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Here is a quick example of just how good CGI has gotten these days




posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 


It simply means that more good old fashion detective work and background/case research has to be done with every case. It is also more demanding to contributors if they want to help get an explanation for their vids.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
That "UFO" at the beginning looks almost just like the Jerusalem "UFO" hoax, as if it were a pre-set CGI "UFO" that can be modified. It was easily visible as CGI. You can also tell the first person interviewed isn't even sincere and is talking like he's reading from a script.

I hope to one day be able to prosecute hoaxers. If you deliberately and knowingly create a hoax, you pay a heavy fine. Do it again and go to jail for a certain amount of time. It should be classified as a type of fraud. That'll stop alot of the BS hoaxing.





edit on 9-8-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Ha! You're right. The guy being interviewed is a really bad actor. The rhythm of his speech is edited in such a way that his account of what happened reminds me of this, alleged UFO/ET encounter...
youtu.be...


But these CGIs are out of this world!



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
My problem with your OP is not concerning whether that particular video is CGI. Rather it is


Notice how he is shaking his head while telling the "tale"


Your conclusion is that the shaking of his head is an indication, if I am understanding you correctly, that he is lying. Very possible that you are correct, but is it not also possible that he is shaking his head in disbelief as to what he witnessed? Before retirement I worked as a Paramedic, and part of those duties was to record eyewitness statements of some pretty horrendous automobile accidents. I often watched witnesses shake their heads in disbelief as they relayed to me the nature of the accident.
edit on 8/9/2011 by VeniVidi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
cgi can only do so much. so far it still fails to fool image analyzing software.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by VeniVidi
 


It's not the "shaking of the head" that betrays him. It is the quality of his ability to be believable. The interview, certainly, did not occur immediatly after the sighting, while he was still in shock, yet that's what he appeared to selling us. Bad actor! That's all, IMHO



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by br0ker
 


I took a number of classes that focused on interrogation when I was going to school (Crim J degree) and always found METT interesting. I scored 100 on that test, we used the same thing in the classes I took and something fairly similar at one job I worked. I'm AMAZED I still have that locked in my brain. I was about 70% accurate when I first started, and got so I was pretty much perfect after about 1/2 hour with that training tool. 5 years later, and it is still in my head.

One thing I will caution on though is the head shaking thing. There are A TON of people who do the opposite head shake, no when yes, yes when no. Always good to get that base when watching and it's hard to do it in a short video. Emblem leakage is fascinating too though.

Do another thread on this stuff, without a HOAX video. It would benefit the community here.

Also wanted to add something about where someone looks (left, right, up or down) as there are MANY misconceptions about this and it will probably come up. While it can be an indicator of dishonesty, again many people do switch this up either when trying to do mental recall or make up a story. When you use all these tools together, you can really narrow in on the right questions to ask to throw someone and get them to confess.

edit on 9-8-2011 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


That is some facinating stuff you're talking about there. I didn't know what "emblem leakage" was so I did a quick search. I too, would love to see a thread on this subject.

The problem with this argument here is, in my opinion of course, is that the subject was acting, not lying. He was bad acting albiet, which makes one suspect a lie. But, maybe this was done as a "project" not to lie, but to punk, if you will. Do you see where I'm coming from? Are "good" actors dishonest, or are they conveying a personal truth?. The interviewee didn't project a personal truth, to me.

I posted the "Da Doo" scene, because the actor is believable but you're not suppose to really believe him. His acting is "melodramatic" and forced, but we want to hear his story.

The interviewee was trying to be dramatic and came accross melodramatic and amaturishly unbelievable. Good thing, 'cuz the vids were believable. I don't think they are behaving responsibly, but sometimes a hoax is a joke or an experiment, not a scam or a "lie".




edit on 9-8-2011 by windword because: spelling



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
Which basically means that anything, whether real or fake, can simply be discarded as fake. Rather convenient, is it not?

This is true, and it's one of the biggest problems with the UFO phenomenon. The long and the short of it is that to this day there is not enough evidence that someone can't demand even more. No amount of evidence--no matter how overwhelming--will ever constitute "proof."

As for myself, I'm sure enough in my own mind that I no longer care. The proof will be when ET decides to land in sufficient numbers and start shaking hands with the general populace.

I find it saddening and sickening that so many people don't see the problem with exhibiting their fakery in this fashion. I'm put in mind of the crop-circle people who endeavor to sow so much confusion that it's now virtually impossible to distinguish which circles are "genuine" and which are not....



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


There is going to be a big difference with someone acting in a comfortable environment and someone lying in an interrogation. Acting, everyone knows you're lying... there is no real pressure. You could call lying a form of acting but the two are not exactly the same...



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by VeniVidi
 


Well, these videos are "hoaxes", it isn`t a question if he`s lying or not, because he is. The bodily motion/features makes for good study. If you read their page then you`ll see that they are made for entertainment value.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 


Look for bending or breaking of the stems in the case study, also if the crop still lives after bending/breaking. If you have the time to bend all the stems in the cropcircle with some kind of substance/heating then you deserve a medal.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


Correct, but still relevant material to some degree.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by br0ker
 


One thing I will caution on though is the head shaking thing. There are A TON of people who do the opposite head shake, no when yes, yes when no. Always good to get that base when watching and it's hard to do it in a short video. Emblem leakage is fascinating too though.

Do another thread on this stuff, without a HOAX video. It would benefit the community here.

Also wanted to add something about where someone looks (left, right, up or down) as there are MANY misconceptions about this and it will probably come up. While it can be an indicator of dishonesty, again many people do switch this up either when trying to do mental recall or make up a story. When you use all these tools together, you can really narrow in on the right questions to ask to throw someone and get them to confess.

edit on 9-8-2011 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)


Opposite head shake on verbal usually means a lie. But none of this stuff is 100% accurate, but like you say, with enough material on the subject it gets more accurate.

Where the person is looking has also been proven by how they store memories and relate to them. Digital, auditory, feelings. Running through the memory archives (read: brain) shows up differently on on eye movement if you are "heavy weighted" on one of the three. Relating to people is easier when you figure out how they remember and express them selves. Can be easily determined by a couple of good questions.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by br0ker
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 


Look for bending or breaking of the stems in the case study, also if the crop still lives after bending/breaking. If you have the time to bend all the stems in the cropcircle with some kind of substance/heating then you deserve a medal.

Not to come off as arrogant, but, yes, I know all of that. I first started looking into them more than 40 years ago. But there was recently a thread right here on ATS pointing out a CropCircleMaker.com guide to making crop circles. Oh, here it is:

Exposed: A guide to making crop circles

They've so thoroughly confused all the issues; taken credit for genuine circles; even publicly tricked some of (what should be) the most expert circle investigators; and in general turned the entire undertaking into such a horrible mire of s***, that it's hard to even care any more. It takes so much more time and effort now to evaluate the circles, and even then it's often unclear whether the serious investigators can truly tell the difference.

And, by the way, the guide covers how to replicate the stem "trick" well enough to make it doubtful or uncertain in a lot of cases. It's just not worth bothering with any more--at least to me. I'm satisfied in my own mind, and that's sufficient....



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 


Its hard to believe i know but there really are no 'expert crop circle investigators' there people who call themselfs crop circle experts are just people making money selling books and giving talks. They are just lying to everyone to make cash. Its very sad but its true.

I find it strange that even when someone owns up to something they have faked you still dont believe them.

For 1000's of years people thought dragons were real and many people claimed to have seen them. It turns out that every one was wrong. It just might be true that the same thing has happened with UFO's.
edit on 10-8-2011 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join