The Hunt For Skinwalker - Twin Towers Footage Analysis.

This is a really interesting post. S&F. This is the kind of stuff I originally started coming to ATS for. That said, I have a few observations and questions:

originally posted by: ctj83
In terms of provenance, Jeremy has made it clear that the footage is genuine, shot at the time, on security cameras on the property.

Ok, this is an awfully big thing to just take at face value. This is probably the most important piece of information in the entire analysis, and it's just "he said it's real, trust me". Most of the rest of this post is pretty analytical and logical, which surprised me given you started out with this.

The towers footage displays this effect as it reaches a ‘materialised’ state. This is something almost anyone hoaxing digital footage would forget.

What are you basing that off of? As another poster said, it seems like a rather obvious thing for anyone with even basic knowledge to add. This effect isn't some little-known thing that only a highly trained and experienced person would know.

Therefore if the haloing is the result of TV sharpness settings, the footage would be an elaborate hoax.

At this point, I’d prefer to assume it a results of the CCD sensor / analogue recording combo.

Which means the twin towers are occurring within the footage and on camera, not a special effect.

Again, what are you basing that off of? Almost all of your other assumptions and conclusions you back up with reasoning. This seems more like "this is what I want to think, just because". Kind of threw me off when up until now you're analysis had been pretty logical, aside from the unsupported "trust me it's real" claim in the beginning.

Please excuse the low quality of the above. The footage I have is much clearer and the warping effect is unmistakable. Beyond Jeremy, I won’t be sharing this footage.

Does anyone else find this weird?

Overall, still very interesting post and topic.

a reply to: face23785

Thanks for the thoughtful points.

I'm not taking at face value I promise. i simply need somewhere to start. I can't determine the provenance, I'm stating what Jeremy said. There's not much more I can do than that.

The effect I'm talking about isn't easy to fake at all but it's quite technical. The best I can say is that the response over time isn't a linear one. I also have a breakdown of the towers appearing, which isn't the linear transparency effect people think it is. Like I say, there are other options, but a digital one isn't likely. I'm not wedded to any of the analogue explanations, but if I had to choose, I gave you my opinion.

"Please excuse the low quality of the above. The footage I have is much clearer and the warping effect is unmistakable. Beyond Jeremy, I won’t be sharing this footage."

I'm not sure what you mean is weird here, but if you mean me not sharing HD footage here, it's because I believe it to be in bad faith to share a near 1-1 copy of Jeremy's work, and can't be classed as fair use. So, it's about respect.

Best i can say is get a copy of the doc and zoom in. That's all I'd be giving you here, isn't it?

See why Uk TV channels often use VHS copies of other channels when referencing them.

a reply to: wylekat

It's certainly possible, but that method largely creates analogue effects spatially, rather than temporarily, if that makes sense. Today, anything can be faked, and we can't prove a negative. It does become increasingly hard I guess.

There are going to be some dead ends in any investigation, but I'd tend towards the simpler. It's an in camera effect.

Why don't the clouds move? How long is the clip really? Is it really night, shot iR?

That's where I cannot take things further, sadly.

a reply to: Baablacksheep

Enjoy!

a reply to: ctj83

If he was okay with you doing the thread and pointing everyone to the documentary, would he have a problem with you sharing the high quality video? As long as you ask his permission and give him credit, that would still be fair use, and respectful.

On all your other answers, point taken. Thanks for the discussion. I'll have to check out the documentary sometime.

It's a desert , the ground is hotter them the air Above (Inferior Mirage)when water is involved the body of water is coller than the air above hence Superior Mirage, but generally desert mirages the Inferior ones are ground oriented giving a impression of "water effect".

Really don't know what we are looking at.

This thread glued me on Ats again! Thanks!

a reply to: ctj83

Jeremy and I have discussed this, your analysis is as good as it can get with what we have to work with, which is the shot recorded off a monitor. The original footage isn't being released anytime soon and, frankly may never be released.

We will continue to push for the original media but we all know who owns it, he's not very keen on releasing it and I certainly don't have enough resources to bribe him to release it.

Time will tell if we get the goods or not.

In any case, GREAT WORK ctj83! Much appreciated.

a reply to: face23785

Yeah, the flimsy dismissal of the possibility of a manipulation is curious, given that there isn't even any evidence that the whole clip as such is real.

People will believe what they want to believe.

a reply to: Springer

this is the crux of the problem with this farce :

The original footage isn't being released anytime soon and, frankly may never be released.

during the NIDS era - all we got was annecdotes and " feelings " - with the claim that emperical evidence was " almost imposible " to capture

but hey - now we have a tape or disc of alleged events

now this is where the farce simply jumps the shark :

mr corbell is allowed to view it being played on a monitor - and even allowed to film the monitor

but - the raw data will not be released - err yeah right

there is only one conclusioon to be drawn from this :

what ever happens // was done to create the illision in mr corbells eyes that he was witnessing a clip of " towers materialising " - is revealed in the origional footage to be hoaxed or a utterly mundane phenonemon

appologies to all concerned - but this is a farce - send in the clowns

He's given a great analysis of what he's got. You can only go with that.

a reply to: Springer

The original footage isn't being released anytime soon and, frankly may never be released

That smells to high heaven. If I were to film a UFO on my phone, which I have set up for video stabilization and the highest frame rate to resolution I can achieve (which I use for some days as a dash cam- people are lunatics on the road around here), I'd be squealing from the rooftops. I'd figure out how to upload it to at LEAST Youtube, and invite people to pick it over like a buffet table!

What's the reasoning here?

a reply to: wylekat

It wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.

originally posted by: ctj83
Best i can say is get a copy of the doc and zoom in.

Sorry if this has been said before (I haven't read the whole thread, I jumped a few posts), at what time can we see this footage in the doc?

a reply to: ignorant_ape

You're making assertions based on assumptions that are totally wrong.

Jeremy didn't film it, he was never even allowed to see it on a monitor much less film it.

I take Jeremy's testimony as reliable.

That being said, with my own personal editing skill, I can make the anomaly as shown, from one frame of the original footage and usage of Microsoft Paint and Imagemagick. With just those two pieces of software and about 30 minutes-1 hour, I can make a visual reproduction of this footage.

I'm not even a pro film editor.

I want to believe. I am fully capable of generating this same footage though, so I'm not sure how to feel about it. :/

a reply to: Springer

err - ok

so the true situation = an even greater cluster#

come one - where diod the 3rd hand footage come from ????????????

if mt corbell did not even get to see the monitor playback or film it

who did ????????????????

the farce deepens

attacking me may be fashionable - but it just reaveals hat a fooking clusterfook this tail really is

a reply to: Springer

simple question - what is the provenence of the " 2 towers footage " ??????????????

a reply to: ctj83

Great work CTJ83. It seems your work made it to Jeremy and Co. and the summary is

- Bigelow has the original footage and has not allowed external analysis

- any analysis should be taken with a grain of salt because you can only glean so much from a digital recording of a security monitor that is playing the original footage.

George Knapp insists there is no smoking gun footage stuffed away by NIDS.

But the BAASS period on the ranch from 2007 is a different story. The most intriguing answer I got from Knapp's AMA yesterday is that BAASS finally found the smoking gun Bigelow had been looking for to confirm an ET presence on Earth.

The fact that a DIA rep experienced an orb directly in front of him within 15 minutes of visiting the ranch in 2007 is a clear sign the Phenomenon had re-awoken from its early-to-mid-2000s slumber.

NIDS seems a distraction by comparison to the hardcore evidence caught by BAASS. If we're lucky, Bigelow will allow a documentary about that era in a few decades. Or rather his estate will. If we're not all dead from old-age by then.

In the meantime, Bob "I know a secret, nahnanananarrrr" Bigelow will continue to gloat while we press our noses up against the windows of secrecy.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

Can you link to that reply, I’d love to see it! I must have missed it yesterday.