Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

[Correa Neto]

Please correct me if i'm wrong- digital camcorders and cameras do store such data in the files they create; the user actually just chooses if the camera is going to display it or not on screen. EXIF files anyone?

Yeah, yeah, EXIF files can be tampered.

 

[Stray Cat]

Please correct me if i'm wrong- digital camcorders and cameras do store such data in the files they create; the user actually just chooses if the camera is going to display it or not on screen. EXIF files anyone?

Yeah, yeah, EXIF files can be tampered.

Indeed EXIF data is invaluable, but only available if you are looking at an original. It is more likely with WooTube videos and web site photos that the data does not still exist on the copies you get to look at and download. Though some UFO sites sometimes link to 'original' high res versions of photos, even then EXIF data has been stripped out (not difficult to do).

If the video comes with no detail about location and date of sighting (and name or some contact for the person who shot it), it's going to be a hoax.

 

[King of the Americas]

No, the camera inexplicably just points up for less than a quarter of a second, not enough time to move a significant distance.

...

...points up, you say, like if someone where to hold the camera differently, while moving quickly to another position...? And are you sure there wasn't a cut there?

I checked out the site you offered, and if I could afford it, I'd have it. Talk about expanding one's media production capabilities...

Right now, I just want to be able to capture and podcast a smooth 720-1080, and capture sound with my "Yeti". The idea is to allow bands to play out of their house, via a mobile in-house podcasting system.

The camera I currently have won't record into iMovie, which I think a "Hotwire/Firewire"(?) will remedy.

What camera would you purchase for $500 used?

 

[Stray Cat]

...points up, you say, like if someone where to hold the camera differently, while moving quickly to another position...? And are you sure there wasn't a cut there?

Without drawing a diagram to show the relative parallax motion between the elements within the scene, all I can say is that the person would have had to move a considerable distance to his/her left to completely get the tree out of the field of view. This in turn would have altered the relationship between the trees in the mid distance (the clump that I outlined with white) with the horizon in the far distance. Something which hasn't happened.

I checked out the site you offered, and if I could afford it, I'd have it. Talk about expanding one's media production capabilities...

Well I'm not here to promote any software (I don't get commission ), but the Vue software is available in what they call modules. The cheapest of these include the sci-fi set and fantasy set (amongst others) and although they have slightly less functionality than the full pro versions, they do everything a beginner would need to do and I'm thinking it's a good way to learn a bit at a time instead of being overwhelmed with a big complex (probably over complex for most people's needs) bit if kit. And the individual modules are less than $50 each.

Right now, I just want to be able to capture and podcast a smooth 720-1080, and capture sound with my "Yeti". The idea is to allow bands to play out of their house, via a mobile in-house podcasting system.

Get one of these babies to make the band thing work really well.
Behringer USB Mixing Desk
You could record the sound into Garageband using the mixer to get the optimum balance, because you could put several microphones and Direct line outs into individual mixer channels.

The camera I currently have won't record into iMovie, which I think a "Hotwire/Firewire"(?) will remedy.
What camera would you purchase for $500 used?

You can get a fair amount of HD 1080p camcorders nowadays brand new for less than that. They all have internal hard drives to record onto and come with either USB or Firewire connection to download the footage to computer. Of course for what you need, it doesn't need to be 1080p Hi Def but it's better to have better quality footage that you then sample down, than have poor quality footage that you can't do anything with.
So armed with a your new DV camcorder, you don't need to record directly into iMovie. You take the camera and record onto that, then import it into iMovie later and sync up the sound you recorded in Garageband.

 

[King of the Americas]

Without drawing a diagram to show the relative parallax motion between the elements within the scene, all I can say is that the person would have had to move a considerable distance to his/her left to completely get the tree out of the field of view. This in turn would have altered the relationship between the trees in the mid distance (the clump that I outlined with white) with the horizon in the far distance. Something which hasn't happened.

...

Do you, or does anyone else have a way of detecting a cut in recording?

Because that would give you all the time you'd need to reposition for the shot.

The second shot looks different to me, and it doesn't look like it pans anywhere near right enough to capture the tree line in the first shot.

Are there any high wires in the last shot?

 

[Stray Cat]

Do you, or does anyone else have a way of detecting a cut in recording?

When the distinctive looking tress (that I outlined in white) go out of view for a split second as the camera points to blank sky, they come back into view at the same place I would expect to see them relative to the expected camera movement. And the relationship between these trees in the mid distance and the features of the horizon in the far distance hasn't altered in the way it would of the camera had moved.
There are ways of detecting 'cut' edits, but there are also ways of covering them up under certain circumstances. If a 'cut' edit was made and covered up, I would be asking why.

The second shot looks different to me, and it doesn't look like it pans anywhere near right enough to capture the tree line in the first shot.

Again, without doing more (unnecessary) work in overlaying all the screen grabs to show a panorama, or a diagram to show how the parallax relationships between the elements we can identify would change (but haven't) all I can do is to say that as the camera zooms out it pans a considerable distance to the right (where the tree should be) in this screen grab:

If you look at it in relation to the first screen grab:

Bearing in mind that in this shot, the camera is zoomed in, what I have marked as 'TREE' is not really as close to the camera as you think.

Are there any high wires in the last shot?

No, but I don't think they would be seen anyway, although I haven't worked it out exactly, I think they would still be out of shot even when the camera zoomed out because of the angle to camera movement as it tilts from looking up at the big bright UFO pooing light turds out to the lower angle of the smoke rings.

 

[King of the Americas]

When the distinctive looking tress (that I outlined in white) go out of view for a split second as the camera points to blank sky, they come back into view at the same place I would expect to see them relative to the expected camera movement. And the relationship between these trees in the mid distance and the features of the horizon in the far distance hasn't altered in the way it would of the camera had moved.
There are ways of detecting 'cut' edits, but there are also ways of covering them up under certain circumstances. If a 'cut' edit was made and covered up, I would be asking why.

...

So there is no detectable cut?

Meaning either there was no cut, or there was, and it was then masked?

If there are no wires in the last shot, then the camera's position moved dramatically.

 

[Correa Neto]

Indeed EXIF data is invaluable, but only available if you are looking at an original. It is more likely with WooTube videos and web site photos that the data does not still exist on the copies you get to look at and download. Though some UFO sites sometimes link to 'original' high res versions of photos, even then EXIF data has been stripped out (not difficult to do).

If the video comes with no detail about location and date of sighting (and name or some contact for the person who shot it), it's going to be a hoax.

Ah, yes. My comment was actually aimed at KotA's comment that since he does not keep the data on screen, it would most likely be unvailable at other videos. This, IMHO, is rubbish. It is the same will to believe, the same effort to find credibility in UFO and ancient lost golden age civilizations he is demonstrating at this and at the other thread. His extrapolation of his experience, besides showing ignorance of basic facts, also shows a great ammount of arrogance - "If that's how I do it, then that's how it is and as everyone else does". Like the carving stone stuff, its not argument of ignorance, its argument of arrogance.

 

[Stray Cat]

So there is no detectable cut?

Correct

Meaning either there was no cut, or there was, and it was then masked?

Correct

If there are no wires in the last shot, then the camera's position moved dramatically.

Incorrect

If the camera had moved dramatically, the somehow secretly masked 'cut edit' would not allow the two camera positions and different required zoom levels and parallax relationships of elements at different distances to marry up exactly as if the camera had not moved.

This is pure CGI created using the Vue software I linked you to the other day.

 

[GeeMack]

I 'd like this thread to consist of "who's winning" the debate...

The skeptics/debunkers or those who believe/know they saw 'something' that wasn't a man-made and a human piloted craft.

Just to keep everyone up to speed on the score...

Skeptics: 1011 - Knowers/Believers: 0​

 

[King of the Americas]

Correct

...

If the camera had moved dramatically, the somehow secretly masked 'cut edit' would not allow the two camera positions and different required zoom levels and parallax relationships of elements at different distances to marry up exactly as if the camera had not moved.

This is pure CGI created using the Vue software I linked you to the other day.

I've only seen the video 4 times now. Only once, AFTER you gave me your feedback. The first 3 times, I thought, someone shot U.F.O.'s doing very strange stuff, and at the end, they ran forward and to the left "to clear the wires", and then made the last shot. I detected a cut or reposition.

I think we are gonna require one of those parallax relationship lessons...

Is there any way of determining the origin of a digital video image? I mean, when I watch a movie, I am looking for 'seems', and or stuff I KNOW to not be real. They are getting much much better these days... Isn't there a program available somewhere, for looking with a digital eye, and not my human one, at an image, and determining it is was a real shot, or not?

 

[Stray Cat]

I've only seen the video 4 times now. Only once, AFTER you gave me your feedback. The first 3 times, I thought, someone shot U.F.O.'s doing very strange stuff, and at the end, they ran forward and to the left "to clear the wires", and then made the last shot. I detected a cut or reposition.

Maybe that's where you're going wrong.
You need to download it and load it into a more accurate player so you can watch it one frame at a time.

I think we are gonna require one of those parallax relationship lessons...

I'll try it in words because drawing a diagram would take time I haven't got at the moment.
Say you are on a moving train and you look out of the side window, the objects closer to you appear to moving past your field of vision much quicker than the one's further away. The horizon hardly moves at all.
Using this constant change of relationships between different element at different distances, we can work out (roughly in this case) the amount of lateral movement made. In the case of this video, you suggest that the cameraman has moved laterally enough to get the tree completely out of field of vision. We can see that the tall palm trees are in the mid distance and we can see the horizon. It looks to me like the horizon is at least four times further away from the camera position than the palm trees giving us a good potential to spot any parallax motion. If you look at the distinct dips in the horizon next to the palm trees, in the first segment of the footage, the relationship between the palm threes and the horizon doesn't alter. So no lateral movement has occurred.

Is there any way of determining the origin of a digital video image?

Not a WooTube video no.

I mean, when I watch a movie, I am looking for 'seems', and or stuff I KNOW to not be real. They are getting much much better these days...

If the whole thing is completely CGI, there won't be any 'seems'.
I've read a lot of comments from people claiming to be video experts who claim because there are no seems various bits of footage must be genuine. It's nonsense to presume this as mattes and green screens are no longer required to do this type of work.

Isn't there a program available somewhere, for looking with a digital eye, and not my human one, at an image, and determining it is was a real shot, or not?

As each bit of footage is different and differently formatted and presented, they have to be looked differently. There are tell tale signs depending what techniques have been employed (de-interlaced frames on an object added to a video originally recorded on an interlaced device such as a VHS camcorder), but on the whole we can only say if something is wrong. We can't prove a piece of footage 'genuine' in this way, if we couldn't find anything wrong, the most we could say is that we could not detect any faults.

I've alluded to this earlier but the fact that no information is available with this video is a really big red flag. We don't know the cameraman, date or location of the sighting. Despite extensive searching, I have found not one piece of information relating to this video as to it's origin, who received it, who first published it, how it got into the public domain in the first place. Does this not strike you as odd?
There are UFO websites who have this video claiming it is shot in Santa Fe, New Mexico... But that's not right. There are no palm trees in Santa Fe. Those websites don't provide any information about why they think the video is shot in Santa Fe. There are also UFO websites that claim it was shot in Santa Monica (these sites seem to have published the video later) and again, with no information about why they think the video was shot in Santa Monica.
I'm guessing that when this video was originally released, it was claimed to be in Santa Fe and when people started to comment that Santa Fe has no palm trees, the story was changed to Santa Monica. I also think Santa Monica was chosen because there were a series of supposed UFO reports at that time concerning white streaks falling from the sky (these turned out to be the Red Bull sky diving team).

 

[The Man]

I've left the YouTube time code on so you can match them up to the footage.

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Pic-1.jpg[/qimg]
Smoke ring goes behind the big tree

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Pic-2.jpg[/qimg]
Here it is getting lost in the foliage


[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Pic-3.jpg[/qimg]
As the lower light blinks out (the light was emitting the smoke rings), the camera zooms out.

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Pic-4.jpg[/qimg]
Revealing a rather treeless foreground.

Oh, no!!! Clearly these UFOs are not interested in mutilating cattle or probing people, but are just absconding with trees. The only logical conclusion is that their craft are steam powered and they needed more fuel. Steam powered aircraft are certianly beyond our current capabilities so they must be aliens, QED.

 

[Stray Cat]

Then those white sparks that the UFO was dropping were just the Ayleeuns cleaning out the fire grate.

 

[The Man]

Indubitably.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

As each bit of footage is different and differently formatted and presented, they have to be looked differently. There are tell tale signs depending what techniques have been employed (de-interlaced frames on an object added to a video originally recorded on an interlaced device such as a VHS camcorder), but on the whole we can only say if something is wrong. We can't prove a piece of footage 'genuine' in this way, if we couldn't find anything wrong, the most we could say is that we could not detect any faults.

I've alluded to this earlier but the fact that no information is available with this video is a really big red flag. We don't know the cameraman, date or location of the sighting. Despite extensive searching, I have found not one piece of information relating to this video as to it's origin, who received it, who first published it, how it got into the public domain in the first place. Does this not strike you as odd?
There are UFO websites who have this video claiming it is shot in Santa Fe, New Mexico... But that's not right. There are no palm trees in Santa Fe. Those websites don't provide any information about why they think the video is shot in Santa Fe. There are also UFO websites that claim it was shot in Santa Monica (these sites seem to have published the video later) and again, with no information about why they think the video was shot in Santa Monica.
I'm guessing that when this video was originally released, it was claimed to be in Santa Fe and when people started to comment that Santa Fe has no palm trees, the story was changed to Santa Monica. I also think Santa Monica was chosen because there were a series of supposed UFO reports at that time concerning white streaks falling from the sky (these turned out to be the Red Bull sky diving team).

I am utterly shocked, that someone can't detect the difference between CGI and an actual shot, digitally speaking.

It does NOT strike me as odd, that someone wouldn't want to make a federal case out of a sighting. I don't wear my sighting on my sleeve, and if I filmed a U.F.O., I MIGHT put it on youtube, but it would seem unwise to say when and where I saw it, and ow you could get in contact with me, if you have any questions. Who wants to be a story in a grocery store tabloid?

In regards to this video, I don't think the camera just move left, but forward as well. And that I 'think' there was a cut at the end, which would allow for time to reposition. If these editing tools are as efficient as you argue, 'tossing in a seem cover' wouldn't require much time, energy, or effort AND it would add more flow to the shot...it may have been done without malice or conceit intended.

Is it possible that a reposition occurred, or are you stating that the camera did NOT move at all, and that some elements are indeed missing from one or more frames?

Wait, so this video could be confirmation of those sightings???

All, that we 'need' to know here, is "Was the camera repositioned?"

*From what I see, it looked like there was a 'repositioning', AND that there was a cut during the reposition.

I don't think masking a cut is a reason to toss out the video, but if you can prove there was NO reposition, AND that the camera panned to the same degree to the right, as it did in the other shot, indicating truly missing elements, the I'd say you've got something...

What I find exceedingly interesting is how you interpret what I would do without thinking, as a film maker/poster.

Masking a cut, and leaving out when and where I did the capture would be something I'd do without considering that a 'skeptic' would take this as evidence that the video is fake.

 

[Marduk]

I am utterly shock, that someone can't detect the difference between CGI and an actual shot, digitally speaking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

[King of the Americas]

So where's the diagram that proves there was no camera reposition in this video?

 

[Stray Cat]

So where's the diagram that proves there was no camera reposition in this video?

There's only so much time in a day and today I've been doing the new Jerusalem one... Sorry, but it's nearly 11pm here now and I've got to do some paid work... I'll return to this tomorrow or Wednesday (I may be out at a clients tomorrow).

But I still don't think a diagram is needed. Anyone with an understanding of parallax should be able to see.
I'm thinking what I'll try is to take all the extremes of the camera fields of view (extreme left pan, extreme right pan, extreme upward tilt and extreme downward tilt) and try to compose a single picture showing the extent of the whole field of vision.

 

[King of the Americas]

There's only so much time in a day and today I've been doing the new Jerusalem one... Sorry, but it's nearly 11pm here now and I've got to do some paid work... I'll return to this tomorrow or Wednesday (I may be out at a clients tomorrow).

But I still don't think a diagram is needed. Anyone with an understanding of parallax should be able to see.
I'm thinking what I'll try is to take all the extremes of the camera fields of view (extreme left pan, extreme right pan, extreme upward tilt and extreme downward tilt) and try to compose a single picture showing the extent of the whole field of vision.

Awesome...

Take your time, I'm patient.