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.

 

the ease of HQ video fakery

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
hi - just two examples of HQ video fakes to mull over :

baseball - a faked stunt alledging hitting a baseball to bounce off off multiple trampoloines - and back to the hitter - repeat



a waterslide - that if genuine would re-define ` epic `



both ` viral ` promotions

i could post a huge list - but you should get the picture

people need to understand the actuall capabilities of CGI and vid editing availiable in 2011 - and not keep using the movie ` tron ` [1982] as thier refference point .

this is posted here - because , of all ATS fora - aliens / UFO has the higest noise / signal ratio of any ATS fora [ with regard to vid / photo fakery ]

i anticipate the flurry of indignant responses claiming ` they are not the same `

but just troll Y-tube for other non UFO fakes / hoaxes - and compare the quality

these [ my examples ] deal with issues of known physics - when making claims that require a paradigm shift - the bar must be lifted higer - not nessecarily in vid quality [ a real UFO encounter - happens in real itme - with little / zero control of ability to alter ligting / composition etc ] - but at least in back story and provenance

bottom line - the M.M.O - [ mens / motive / oporunity ] to produce HQ fake vid of events [ of any nature ] exists - and must be dealt with

the claim ` its too hard / costly / time-consuming ` to fake vid / photos does not fly [ pun ]

and UFOogy needs to deal with it
edit on 10-8-2011 by ignorant_ape because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Those are amazing looking fakes.


I found this today that made me laugh.



CGI has got so good these days it impossible to tell anymore.


edit on 10-8-2011 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
bahahah "people need to stop using 1982 Tron as their reference point"



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
This has caused a very big problem for all pictures of every thing. Pictures mean nothing any more. They are worthless. I wonder how long until the police start using fake pictures to put people in jail.
Any real photos are fake by default. A real live alien from another planet could take pictures of it's space ship and of its self and post them on line and they would be called fake. And now days a 10 year old with a Walmart desk top can make Hollywood grade CGI pictures and videos. It is sad if you think about it. No one can now prove anything with photos or videos. I wonder where it will end. If you see a real alien or space ship or some other out of this world event even if you have a dozen cameras why even waste your time taking any pictures. In the past few years I have seen some really crazy things that I did not take pictures of because I thought 'what was the point?'



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeVIAS
bahahah "people need to stop using 1982 Tron as their reference point"



Yes

funny thing to ask though...

are you a retarded believer?



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by fixer1967
 


Why? Because the more people with evidence should they notice something in the sky, that can put everything together is a lot better than just a bunch of eye witnesses and 1 blurry photo.

Always want more than one source of evidence if you can get it!


edit on 10-8-2011 by klenker because: typo



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
couldve added to this existing thread which is still up on first page...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Interesting how they did the megawoosh waterslide jump.





posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


Those were great, thanks for sharing. It's hard to tell what's real anymore. That's why we have to give more credence to photos that were shot before the use of CG.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by klenker
 

And that has worked so good has it not? A thousand people could all take pictures of the same thing and you would still hear the words FAKE and CGI. Do not think so? Well how many photos were taken of 9/11? And how many of them have been called fake? It is just too easy to make good fakes now.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by fixer1967
 


I dunno then, give up? Call it quits?

The more evidence towards something the more I know I'll be interested..



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 




Photoshop/C.G.I.? Naw! Never! Impossible!
What happened to the top of (non existent) Breivik's head?
A Lobotomy for the top of me!

It's bloody everywhere and we suckers are always stupidly sucked in.
Nearly ALL 9/11 footage available was C.G.I. but back then the relevant
technology was less developed so the tell-tale signs and flaws are very obvious.
(Having said that, there are some pretty obvious indicators in footage and
photographs released from the event in Oslo and Utoya).

Utoya+Oslo Fakery
9/11 Video Fakery



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by klenker
 

I do not have an answer. We need to find one somewhere somehow. I do not even know where to start looking.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
This is why you document where you were, what time, how long it took you to post the picture,etc. Also,you want to get rid of as much pixelation as possible? Don't use a digital camera. Mail a copy of the pics to yourself ASAP, and do not open them unless you're in court. Get creatively paranoid.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
most of them are probably fake im sure



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


The shadow from the car's window frame and changes in perspective can totally explain the things you have pointed out in your image.

In terms of the OP, and the question of CGI fakery. It's a good question, and it needs to be discussed, but personally I think we've reached a point where there is actually no point even considering whether something might be CGI. I'm not advocating blanket acceptance of everything but consider this: if we're not there yet, we're fast approaching a time when absolutely any video of anything could potentially be faked, and there would not necessarily be any evidence of this.

Sure, the hardcore debunkers will do their best to 'invent' evidence as to why a video is a CGI hoax, but many of the evidence they use for this can be explained in other ways.

The other issue is that you can't reverse engineer CGI footage. You can look at the footage and identify elements which may be signs of digital treatment, but this will never be proof. The only way that a CGI hoax can truly be proven is if the hoaxer reveals the elements he used to create the hoax. Even if the hoaxer were to admit a hoax, how would this be any different to an eye-witness claiming they say a UFO? Ultimately it becomes a question of taking someone at their word.

I cannot stress this enough: no matter how many hints and signs you might find on a video that would lead us to believe it has been digitally manipulated, none of this will ever amount to proof. Only a 'before and after' demonstration will ever prove this.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by fixer1967
. And now days a 10 year old with a Walmart desk top can make Hollywood grade CGI pictures and videos.
'


This is typical of people on here exaggerating NO THEY COULDN'T a hollywood blockbuster would use a render farm which can be hundreds of pc's with thousands of processors working on a few seconds of CGI that can take them hours to generate!

Yes we can now make good quality video at home but your claim is a bit OTT.
edit on 11-8-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


Your as bad as yankee451 so whats your best example of CGI at 9/11 or any other disaster.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by pshea38
 


Your as bad as yankee451 so whats your best example of CGI at 9/11 or any other disaster.




This cannot happen in the real world. Full stop.
So it must represent something other than the real world.

And Yankee451 is one of the most clear thinking, intelligent
and insightful members of this forum, as can be clearly witnesses from his
latest ongoing thread 9/11 For Phychos-A Rant, one of the most important
threads written anywhere on ATS, and indeed anywhere else.

You and your like deny example after example of obvious fakery, acting as if its
incorporation into (false flag) events was beyond the realms of technological or
logistical possibility.
How obtuce and clueless of you.

Edit to add:

It is claimed that these three photographs represent the same individual.


[look at the weird eyes. Look at how ridiculously badly his neck meets his head!]




A dog with a mallet up his arse can see that this is BS.
But you can't...or won't.

C.G.I./Photoshop is screaming again.
Where are your ears man?

I await some undoubtedly unconvincing explanations from you.
edit on 11-8-2011 by pshea38 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 




"a bit OTT" you say. Well if it is it is not by much. And with more powerful computers coming out every week it seems just how long until my statement is 100% fact? In 5 or 10 years even the experts will not long be able to tell the difference. I really hate this. I like to be able to look at a picture and be able to trust what I see. Where will this lead?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join