Very nice ufo video

[postalrat]

Just to explain better what I meant would be hard to fake as far as compression is concerned (and to maybe help you better spot a fake).

Here is the original image. So I guess this would represent the sky that evening.

This is the image after I compressed it as a jpeg. If you look carefully you can see some compression artifacts around the edges. This would represent what the camera actually recorded that evening.

To add stuff to this image you would first have to take the second image (because you do not have access to all the information from the first photo), add your change, and then recompress using the same algorithm as the original was compressed by.

But every time you compress the image you loss a little information. The artifacts around the borders are even worse this time. There is no way to avoid this. You could choose to use compression with less loss but if you do that the skeptic will notice its not the same algorithm the camera uses.

There would be ways to avoid this. If the camera and capture and save without compression that could be used. Also if you have some mad skillz you might be able to insert the images into the compressed data with decompression. I dont know what is involved doing that but I am certain it would take some really specialized tools

 

[davidhorman]

To take a digital video that has been compressed in the camera, decompress it, deinterlace it, change it, compress it AGAIN, then have the result exhibit the same qualilty and compression artifacts as the original sounds damn near impossible to me.

I've never claimed it's the same quality, or has the same compression artifacts as the proposed original (certainly the only clip I've looked at wouldn't because it was an MPEG, not the original DV).

If you decompress something, add effects and recompress, you can just pass the resultant file off as the original. If all I was given was your final image, I don't know how I could prove that it had been compressed twice, instead of once.

Incidentally it is possible to recompress just those parts of a JPEG that have changed, and I believe that with some algorithms you can recompress a decompressed image and end up with exactly the same file. This doesn't really apply to video, though.

I still don't believe that an unfocused video camera (or even a focused one, for that matter) would ever capture a single bright pixel like that.

David

 

[wahrheit]

What single pixel is everybody talking about? Sorry, read through the entire thread, but I simply didn't get it, but I'm curious to know.

 

[Puggy]

What single pixel is everybody talking about? Sorry, read through the entire thread, but I simply didn't get it, but I'm curious to know.

I believe they're refering to the sequence of frames starting in the 8th second of the ufotheater.com video.

 

[wahrheit]

I believe they're refering to the sequence of frames starting in the 8th second of the ufotheater.com video.

Thanks for the info, now I understand. It's about that last orb joining the others, growing from tiny to the size of the other lights. However, I can't spot a single pixel there, went through it frame by frame at 1600%, lossless, and it just looks like normal video to me of a tiny light source. Couldn't find a frame of an isolated, single bright pixel surrounded by dark.

Well, anyway, who actually cares? The UFO believers, I read in their forum, are dismissing my fakes because every idiot can spot them as 3D-rendered fake as they say (haha, really very smart, because there's absolutely no "3D" here). They say they only want "real" UFO footage, like the Phoenix stuff they uploaded. Go figure.... We are fighting windwills, again.

 

[Puggy]

Hey wahrheit,

could you tell me at what forums you've posted your videos?

I'd love reading their comments LOL.

 

[wahrheit]

Hey wahrheit,

could you tell me at what forums you've posted your videos?

I'd love reading their comments LOL.

I didn't post anything except here, I only read their messages. Here's the original quote from http://ufotheatre.conforums2.com/index.cgi referring to my fakes someone else posted a link to in their message board:

by the admin of that board

Hey daz, its a silly fake and its nothing.
The phoenix ufos taped by brian bessent are real ufos.

We are asking for nobody to post any silly 3d rendered sillyness here in this topic... we are here to discuss real ufo sightings not silly computer graphics.

If anyone else post links to fake videos in this thread they will be warned.. and then if they continue they will be ip banned.

Well, not only this guy knows what's real and what is fake *sigh*, the next person to post a "fake" video -- not the real (!!) stuff -- will get banned.

I assume that's how these "open-minded" folks deal with those mean, "closed-minded" skeptic folks...

 

[Astrophotographer]

I assume that's how these "open-minded" folks deal with those mean, "closed-minded" skeptic folks...

Of course, they consider anyone trying to expose a hoax a "debunker", which is accurate (after all you are exposing a false claim). However, in UFOlogy being called a debunker is sort of like a slur on ones character. UFOlogy is not interested in answers to questions. They just want the question to remain. If one video is exposed as a hoax, they show another. If this one is shown to be a video of oil well fires , they shrug, call people names like "debunker" and come up with another video. Some UFOlogists have to be the most gullible individuals on earth. This is why people hoax these videos and then SELL them to the gullible!

Of course, I am curious as to what a "real" UFO is? You should have sent your video to their website and state you saw the same UFO and managed to capture it on video. I think the response to said video would have been much different. They probably say it was truly impressive rather than a simple fake.

 

[Caiogrp]

I posted those vids on that forum (sorry if it took your bandwidth) and got banned already .. that guy actually broke the criteria for banning.. the paranoid person in me tells me that this whole ufo video is his idea and creation.. but who the hell cares.. it was a pretty vid even if a hoax hehe

Ufo's are a funny thing.. my father could swear that he saw one doing crazy linear moves with instant acceleration and stuff.. sort of like on the video.. to see the real one i guess i have to saw it with my own eyes

 

[DavoMan]

This is the end result. After compression. The 1 dot can exist because it does exist after compression.

Besides its pretty crappy compression for a 12mb video. I am more interested in the way it was faked in these skeptic-made clips.

If the compression is data-per-time based (ie designed for streaming), you can tell the new elements from the origional elements in a double-compressed video because the new elements oberve a less distorted version of artifacts.

Because:
*In each time frame(Second,minute,whatever), there is a maximum data cap for the compression.
*And the second time, the new data adds to the total data needed to fit inside the maximum data cap.

To match up the data compression level to match the origional film and film with new elements would require knowing the exact difference in sizes of the films, and trying to increase the level of data allowed in the second film to match the artifacts. Assuming that is possible with whatever codec you're using.

I just kinda figured this in my head. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. I also doubt this clip was compressed for streaming.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Well, not only this guy knows what's real and what is fake *sigh*, the next person to post a "fake" video -- not the real (!!) stuff -- will get banned.

I assume that's how these "open-minded" folks deal with those mean, "closed-minded" skeptic folks...

Incredible. Amazing. Astonishing. They should be ashamed.

 

[edjunior]

If I missed someone else posting this link, I apologize.

http://www.geocities.com/bessent_willes_fake_ufos/

Thanks,
Ed

 

[davidhorman]

If the compression is data-per-time based (ie designed for streaming), you can tell the new elements from the origional elements in a double-compressed video because the new elements oberve a less distorted version of artifacts.

That does make some sense, but I think it would only be noticeable if there's a large difference in bitrates, so that the effect becomes obvious, and only if the second bitrate is higher than the first.

Look at frames 254-268 to see the single pixel.

David

 

[wahrheit]

Oh, an "expert" analyzed the original ufotheatre footage -- and came to the conclusion that it must be REAL.

http://home.manyrivers.aunz.com/sting1946/arizona.htm

He does his pseudo-scientific research in the same way our homeopathic friends do it:

- Leave out the most obvious explanations and questions
- Ignore everything which is against your wanted result
- Use lots of meaningless techy expressions (my grandma would have been impressed!)
- Try to impress laymen by giving the impression of knowing what you are doing
- Use BIG BOLD fonts to summarize your (expected positive) findings

It's an absolutely content-free, meaningless "analysis". I like the part about the wires, he investigated with his NASA super video stabilize computers that these orbs are not lights hanging from a fishing rod - wow. Conclusion: Real UFOs! The poeple at ufotheatre are, of course, glad that finally a REAL expert proved all us idiots wrong.

These people should urgently go see a doctor, but a real one, not a homeopath.

 

[davidhorman]

This guy doesn't know what he's talking about:

The original video file ufotheatre.mpg was downloaded

Except that's not the original video file. It's had text stamped all over it and it's been compressed, a lot.

The painting or pasting of objects into a video or any digital image, results is "Pixel Scatter".

I think he's talking about compression artefacts.

The normal background pixels are large and smooth in texture.

This range of image comparisons showed that the illuminations "were not painted or pasted into the footage". The illuminations were actually there to be video taped.

The compression artefacts tell you nothing about when the blobs were added - see above. That they show the same kind of "pixel scatter" is because there were inserted at some point before the last compression (either digitally or as originally filmed).

This GREEN colouring is typical of results from the video camera set to 'Infrared' (actually "near infrared") This proves beyond doubt, that the objects were video taped in a real situation and not an animated fake event.

It's highly suggestive, but it's also consistent with a good hoaxer making sure his CGI matches the original, and would happen anyway if the small blobs are copies of a real blob - i.e., the moon.

I am unsure what causes this effect, but could be an "in camera" sensitivity from the varying adjustment of the aperture setting due to the high contrast, low light level of the scene being video taped. ie. camera automatically trying to find the best settings in auto exposure mode. I find this a more feasible explanation then the objects demonstrating intelligence.

That's the most sensible thing he says.

Based on these subtle yet positive moves and emergence into the scene in the observed manner, it is my opinion that this event should be classified as a genuine UFO event.

It never occurs to him that whoever supplied the footage might have just had a lot of practice at faking UFOs. His earlier videos certainly look less natural.

David

 

[davidhorman]

I went back to the mpeg again. Frames 1110 and 1111 are a bit suspicious:

Notice how both show exactly the same motion blur, with one slightly larger than the other. The noise in the background is interesting too - when viewed like this, you can make out an almost retangular section of noise that looks like it's been copied, scaled, and pasted from the first frame into the second. That could be down to the MPEG compression of course, but I can't find any other frames where there is such a huge block of moved noise.

Of course I realise it's all a bit preaching-to-the-converted round here - reading that guy's "analysis" had me thinking about sending email, but then I saw that he's also an orb/spirit proponent so I don't think logic would work

David

 

[DavoMan]

Wow thats one hell of a find. You must have the eye of a hawk, or a world champion needle-in-haystack finding guy.

Just so people can see the block you're talking about, here it is with a line around it:

 

[davidhorman]

It wasn't too hard to spot, as I was slowly stepping through the zoom-in to see what they might have done, and it does leap out at you if you go frame-by-frame. I've also had practice from spotting and cleaning up glitches from Laserdisc video captures.

My guess is that did their best to track the zooming and copied the original object at larger and larger distances in each successive frame (there's very little in the background for comparison so they could get away with it quite easily). At this point, however, one of the original frames was dropped (probably corrupted) and the same source frame got repeated.

David

 

[delphi_ote]

I think that's probably an MPEG artifact added in this step of compression: "The moving picture coding systems such as MPEG-1, MPEG-2, and MPEG-4 add an extra step, where the picture content is predicted from past reconstructed images before coding, and only the differences from the reconstructed pictures, and any extra information needed to perform the prediction, are coded."

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

 

[davidhorman]

In that case the encoding, which is very good at making distinct frames all the way throughout the video, somehow contrives to create two near-identical frames at this point.

You don't get two non-identical frames coming out looking near-identical, unless the bitrate is extremely low, and it's not. The only explanation I can think of is that the two frames (before the final mpeg encode) were near-identical to begin with. And how that could have happened if it was a video of a live event is beyond me.

David