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.

 

Very Good UFO Sighting From a Plane in Daylight - Oklahoma City, USA - 05/03/2012

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ahmose

Originally posted by mainidh
100% REAL.

Won't be long now, they cannot keep lying to us about it with these things happening every day. Disclosuer is coming peoples!!!!!!!!!!




Wow! lol!

Video that's clearly "100% FAKE".. and you call 100% REAL?

Noobs, got to love'em.


It was rather obvious to me that the poster you quoted was being sarcastic.

vvv




posted on May, 16 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant

I did not want to know how to make a fake looking video myself. I wanted some proof that this is CGI and I am talking interference in the pix-elation which is the only way to accurately determine this is a forged or created image combined with aerial footage.

Your opinion...expert that it is, doesn't exactly do it for me 100%. Sorry.


No, you're talking out of your behind.

I'm not an expert, just not a fool.

What's the point in having an interest in this subject and backing a CGI clip. I've had a couple of unexplainable encounters over the years, but no way you'll find me backing this clip as the real deal....because it was created on a computer. Too many red flags.

I'd love this to be real, really I would!


edit on 16-5-2012 by dsm1664 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
rex heflin ufo

If the video recreation for the Heflin UFO is faithful to the actual event the so called wobble is
never that extreme yet is an on edge attitude possible.
Since Rex seems to have the only close up and clear photos and all the other close up
sightings just have witnesses of slowly moving craft that have been documented the video
field is free to make their own models. Whatever the reasons this video has the old car
wheel hub cap model to avoid repeating fully witnessed UFOs.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Druscilla
 


You can't just say it is CGI.

If you are a computer expert you should be able to show the break in the pix elation and some insertion technique of the object into the original footage. If you can't analyze the original film and do that - the most you can say is YOU THINK, YOU BELIEVE AND IT IS YOUR OPINION...this is CGI.

You don't know anything for sure.
Back to square one.


Please then, could you apply the same technique you describe to movies like Transformers, Cloverfield, Sin City, The Avengers, or any movie, especially any movie coming out recently or soon to prove the same?

Point is, CGI is so good now, that you really can't tell, and any CGI artist worth their salt is going to ensure there are none of the regular tell tales according their ability, since, painting a picture, creating digital art, is like telling a story, and you want that story to be believable, to have verisimilitude.

From Druscilla's Laws - If there's a chance it's CGI or other technical media-craft or stage-craft like forced perspective, the chances of it being so are far higher than it being a 'real' alien/secret government craft, ghost, lake monster, or any other such.

Essentially, until there's absolute proof, until you're basically shaking hands with aliens, you'll always be back at square zero with highest probability sitting at something man-made, or created specifically for the effect it's causing among the more gullible.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by dsm1664

Originally posted by newcovenant

I did not want to know how to make a fake looking video myself. I wanted some proof that this is CGI and I am talking interference in the pix-elation which is the only way to accurately determine this is a forged or created image combined with aerial footage.

Your opinion...expert that it is, doesn't exactly do it for me 100%. Sorry.


No, you're talking out of your behind.

I'm not an expert, just not a fool.

What's the point in having an interest in this subject and backing a CGI clip. I've had a couple of unexplainable encounters over the years, but no way you'll find me backing this clip as the real deal....because it was created on a computer. Too many red flags.

I'd love this to be real, really I would!


edit on 16-5-2012 by dsm1664 because: (no reason given)



I'm not the one pretending to offer an expert opinion on something you really are no expert on.
THAT I would say, is talking out ones butt. I merely said "PROVE what you say or admit it is only your limited opinion." Why is that so difficult to do?



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Druscilla
 


You can't just say it is CGI.

If you are a computer expert you should be able to show the break in the pix elation and some insertion technique of the object into the original footage. If you can't analyze the original film and do that - the most you can say is YOU THINK, YOU BELIEVE AND IT IS YOUR OPINION...this is CGI.

You don't know anything for sure.
Back to square one.


Please then, could you apply the same technique you describe to movies like Transformers, Cloverfield, Sin City, The Avengers, or any movie, especially any movie coming out recently or soon to prove the same?

Point is, CGI is so good now, that you really can't tell, and any CGI artist worth their salt is going to ensure there are none of the regular tell tales according their ability, since, painting a picture, creating digital art, is like telling a story, and you want that story to be believable, to have verisimilitude.

From Druscilla's Laws - If there's a chance it's CGI or other technical media-craft or stage-craft like forced perspective, the chances of it being so are far higher than it being a 'real' alien/secret government craft, ghost, lake monster, or any other such.

Essentially, until there's absolute proof, until you're basically shaking hands with aliens, you'll always be back at square zero with highest probability sitting at something man-made, or created specifically for the effect it's causing among the more gullible.




Did someone claim the Transformers was real? Aren't there people still alive who worked on it and KNOW it's CGI? This is not like that. No one is saying I made this film. Someone is saying they caught it out an airplane window. Now it is up to analysts to examine the film and say whether it was altered or not. You can opine but you cannot prove though you may have as many "red flags" as the Russian Olympics.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


You're either ignoring the point on purpose, or ignoring the point out of ignorance.

If you took the new movie Battleship, cut out all the credits, and waved it around on youtube saying it was a real event that actually happened, where per your own stance we're suppose to use all the video analysis tools available on offer to be found on the internet to prove or disprove it CGI, we get to the same point.

In the case of the movie Battleship, Battlefield LA, or any other such, we know without doubt that the movies are indeed fiction relying on CGI for many effects.
If, however, you were locked in a room, with no contact with anyone else, with all the analysis tools you could ever ask for and only the films to examine (without credits), how are you going to prove any of these films as real, or not real?

The OP video is CGI, just from look and feel regarding size perspective and clarity when the 'object' zooms away.
My point, however, is that if the video were better, similar to the earlier post exampling Deathstar over San Francisco, or as good as Transformers, Battlefield LA, or any other movie with heavy CGI, there would be no real way for you or anyone to tell that video was real, or not, from analysis, because, CGI has gotten to the point of being that good.

If, however, it's easier for you to believe in aliens as opposed to far more practical and probable explanations like CGI, then, you're entirely within your rights to do so, even if it involves rubbing colored crystals all over your body and trying to activate your pine gland by snorting Pinesol.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by newcovenant
 


You're either ignoring the point on purpose, or ignoring the point out of ignorance.

If you took the new movie Battleship, cut out all the credits, and waved it around on youtube saying it was a real event that actually happened, where per your own stance we're suppose to use all the video analysis tools available on offer to be found on the internet to prove or disprove it CGI, we get to the same point.

In the case of the movie Battleship, Battlefield LA, or any other such, we know without doubt that the movies are indeed fiction relying on CGI for many effects.
If, however, you were locked in a room, with no contact with anyone else, with all the analysis tools you could ever ask for and only the films to examine (without credits), how are you going to prove any of these films as real, or not real?

The OP video is CGI, just from look and feel regarding size perspective and clarity when the 'object' zooms away.
My point, however, is that if the video were better, similar to the earlier post exampling Deathstar over San Francisco, or as good as Transformers, Battlefield LA, or any other movie with heavy CGI, there would be no real way for you or anyone to tell that video was real, or not, from analysis, because, CGI has gotten to the point of being that good.

If, however, it's easier for you to believe in aliens as opposed to far more practical and probable explanations like CGI, then, you're entirely within your rights to do so, even if it involves rubbing colored crystals all over your body and trying to activate your pine gland by snorting Pinesol.



I think you are just lonesome listening to the sound of your own voice and now are making up fiction as entertainment for anyone who still hangs on to this thread. I didn't confirm or deny this was anything real or imagined but did ask anyone saying it is CGI out of hand to prove it.

You are saying they can't. Thanks.
Big words. Little point.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by newcovenant
 


You're either ignoring the point on purpose, or ignoring the point out of ignorance.

If you took the new movie Battleship, cut out all the credits, and waved it around on youtube saying it was a real event that actually happened, where per your own stance we're suppose to use all the video analysis tools available on offer to be found on the internet to prove or disprove it CGI, we get to the same point.

In the case of the movie Battleship, Battlefield LA, or any other such, we know without doubt that the movies are indeed fiction relying on CGI for many effects.
If, however, you were locked in a room, with no contact with anyone else, with all the analysis tools you could ever ask for and only the films to examine (without credits), how are you going to prove any of these films as real, or not real?

The OP video is CGI, just from look and feel regarding size perspective and clarity when the 'object' zooms away.
My point, however, is that if the video were better, similar to the earlier post exampling Deathstar over San Francisco, or as good as Transformers, Battlefield LA, or any other movie with heavy CGI, there would be no real way for you or anyone to tell that video was real, or not, from analysis, because, CGI has gotten to the point of being that good.

If, however, it's easier for you to believe in aliens as opposed to far more practical and probable explanations like CGI, then, you're entirely within your rights to do so, even if it involves rubbing colored crystals all over your body and trying to activate your pine gland by snorting Pinesol.



Exactly. Another narrativised cgi "U.F.O" sequence.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Faker than a r7 cart from Hong Kong.

The mountain one on the first page is good though, even if fake.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


You don't believe in aliens?

I did not intend to take the discussion into the specifics of CGI except to say that when the real thing comes along it is going to look a lot like CGI as well and if this is CGI - PROVE IT.

Alien craft do visit earth and this might be evidence of one (I don't think the OP is responsible for a deliberate hoax) unless like I say you can prove it is CGI which even you admit you can't. End of story my dear....unless you would like to prove how smart you are and drag it out some more but I have to ask - if you do not believe in aliens, why are you here? The politics? lol



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by igor_ats
Faker than a r7 cart from Hong Kong.

The mountain one on the first page is good though, even if fake.



There are people who come along and say everything is fake. I am sort of open minded. I don't believe those people any more than I believe the ones who say look - this is definitely a spaceship. Without any commentary other than than "faker than your tan" or "faker than her boobs" you are really not offering anything new.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Even though i'd love to believe it is a real ufo i dont think it is it looks to much like CGI.




top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join