Very nice ufo video

These are the blowups from Raw DV format (from ufotheatre forum).. the interlacing looks really very natural... hmmm
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be hard to deinterlace the original footage, make the effects, and reinterlace it. If the blobs are just copies of a real world object, they'd inherit its natural looking interlacing.

The term "Raw DV" suggests that there's no extra information that could reveal the true source of the images (camera or computer), but I don't know for sure... it would be interesting to find out.

I'd also be interested to know if that vantage point faces West.

I think the "perfect pixel" more or less clinches it for me though. I don't think you'd get that from any real event, be it UFO, natural light show, or projection on glass.

I just hope Carlos doesn't see that daylight shot - have you spotted the paranormal hat object? ;)

David
 
Explorer said:
UfO reports prior to computer generation techniques have been describing movements that appeared to contradict the laws of physics, since 1947.

Click to expand...

Sure. But is there any hard evidence (film/video -- NO anecdotes!) prior to computer generation techniques that LOOKS like computer generation techniques?

The films I have seen that supposedly show UFO's violating the laws of physics are easily explained by a jiggling camera. In fact, that's exactly what it tends to look like to the untrained eye.
 
Explorer said:
UfO reports prior to computer generation techniques have been describing movements that appeared to contradict the laws of physics, since 1947.
Click to expand...

They key word is "reports". I don't think there are any certified videos/films of UFOs defying the laws of physics. There are interesting films/videos but nothing that can be certified as authentic images of actual craft in the sky. Most UFO "reports" are made by witnesses who may or may not have been accurate in portraying what they saw. I suggest you read Allan Hendry's book "The UFO Handbook". In it he explains how people describe ordinary stars showing movements that appear to defy the laws of physics, such as:

"darted up and down"
"wiggle from side to side"
"execute loops and figure eights"

The Condon study, Robertson panel, Obrien commission, and even the much publicized (pro-ETH sponsored) Sturrock panel all agreed that there were no good reports showing that objects defied the laws of physics:

Robertson Panel:
"...there is no evidence that the phenomena indicates a need for the revision of current scientific concepts"

O'Brien commission:
"... there appears to be no verified and fully satisfactory evidence of any case that is clearly outside the framework of presently known science and technology"

Sturrock:
"the review panel was not convinced that any of the evidence involved currently unknown physical processes or pointed to the involvement of an extraterrestrial intelligence"
 
I think Explorer is missing the point here.

Computer animation (especially that done by an amateur with access to such programmes) has a distinctive look and movement.

This video displays such effects. As a result of which it is entirely sensible to be suspicious because of such motion.

I work on a basic level with such programmes, and adjusting focus and tracking the animated effect around the picture would be much easier for me to do than to control the motion, which would all be generated by the chosen programme. Basically if I made a fake today it would probably look very much like this.

More complex movement requires a much greater knowledge of the animation packages.

Good science and objectivity will look at different ways a claim such as this one may have been achieved. Computer anuimation is by far the most likely, and that is also what it looks like.
The criticism of such an analysis doesn't really make much sense.

Sure it could be a real alien spaceship that moves like objects animated in Bryce-3d, but I think there is a point where 'open minded skepticism' becomes a little silly.
 
I work on a basic level with such programmes, and adjusting focus and tracking the animated effect around the picture would be much easier for me to do than to control the motion, which would all be generated by the chosen programme. Basically if I made a fake today it would probably look very much like this.
Click to expand...

Could you do a fake like the movie we are talking about?

If yes, is there a lot of people with that level of skill?
 
JMA said:
Could you do a fake like the movie we are talking about?

If yes, is there a lot of people with that level of skill?
Click to expand...
It would take me a couple of days I reckon.
There is another guy I work with who could do it quicker.

Yes there are quite a few people with that level of skill - have you ever seen the Star Wars Kid fiasco?
It was surprisingly hard to edit that as the original video was quite complex and removing him from those background curtains was not easy - relatively, creating this UFO footage is easier as the people are providing their own source video to work with.
And they are only using points of light as opposed to complex shapes or figures.

I would create an example, but firstly, I don't really have the incentive to waste a couple of days doing it, secondly I don't have anywhere to host it.

What can be done with just After Effects, Premiere and simple packages such as Bryce and Particle Illusion is remarkably impressive.
 
Could you do a fake like the movie we are talking about?

If yes, is there a lot of people with that level of skill?
Click to expand...

I'm confident that I could produce something similar with nothing more than a source video and C (the programming language). And while I'm an IT professional, I'm only a video hobbyist.

If anyone's really interested, I will give it a go, though I might have to wait until the next full Moon.

David
 
I would like to add that nowdays one can get illegal copies of 3d modelling and animation softwares such as Lightwave -as well as tutorials- with relatively ease at warez sites. Making a mesh of a flying saucer, for example, is not exactly the hardest thing in the world. One just has to look at what game modders do. A variety of free 3d meshes are also avaliable in the net.

So, what really amazes me is that fake CGI UFOs (as well as ghosts, bigfoot, etc.) are not popping out all around.

If you are interested, in a couple of weeks, when I return home (right now I am using a very s-l-o-w connection), I will try to upload my "UFO video" (Parts of it are in IR, and with refference points included!), so we all can have some fun at a thread finding out what the objects are. No CGI, you can trust me. No, no alien craft involved. And yes, I know what the filmed "UFOs" really are.
 
Gee! I just happened to shot a very similar UFO video, right here in Munich this evening:

fakeufo.jpg


Here is the Video, Quicktime Motion JPEG B, 13 MB

I even got them twice, within 20 minutes. Unfortunately, I forgot to turn them on one by one, though I am glad I could fake that funny interlace/scanline thing and catch one of them joining the others ;)
 
That's fantastic! Any chance you can share your secrets with us? I doubt I could do such a good job.

David
 
Teylah said:
That is a very mysterious piece of footage indeed! I really have no clue as to what it is and how it is caused, but I doubt if it's computer animation or a simple hoax. Thanks for posting it; it's the most interesting ufo I've seen so far.
Click to expand...

Well, Teylah, having seen warheit's film, what's your opinion, now?

Teylah?

Hello?

Anyone there?
 
My opinion is that it won't play. Edit: Renaming to .mov makes it play.

Okay yeah I'm stumped. Whats the secret? Reflections? TeeEllLLLllllllll:j1:
 
Edit: Renaming to .mov makes it play.
Click to expand...

Don't work for me. I must do something wrong. Could you post the good link please? Thanks.
 
Don't work for me. I must do something wrong. Could you post the good link please? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Got Quicktime? If you don't have it, Windows Media Player will probably try (and fail) to play it.

I'm tempted to say reflection, not because there's any direct evidence, but because the picture looks too dark to accurately track, and there are no obvious reference points.

David
 
davidhorman said:
Got Quicktime? If you don't have it, Windows Media Player will probably try (and fail) to play it.
Click to expand...

OK, thanks. It works with Quicktime.

Great movie ;)
 
Thanks for the comments on the video, I guess it's too early to spoil the fun telling you how it was done. Actually, I happened to see these UFO guys again today, and now I have a theory how the "original" ufotheatre.com video was made, or at least how it could have been done. No proof or anything, only a theory.

Anyway, great you liked my first sighting of the alien folks. Here's another video, this time something similar to the "Pheonix Formation" we could see in the OP ufotheatre clip, there's orbs popping in one after the other before the last one appears:

fakufopart2.jpg


Video: They Did It Again - The Phoenix Formation (UFO sighting video #2, Quicktime MPEG 4 Codec, 27 Megs)

(The above is a Quicktime video, again. I added an internet header to the file, so I guess it should play correctly if you click the link, as long as you have the Quicktime plug-in. No idea how it works on a Windows machine, though.)

I think in this video, it shows how it was done. Or maybe, that's how I came up with the idea how the original ufotheatre thing could have been produced, because I noticed a similar "mishap" while taping the above linked, second fake UFO video.

Would be great to know from you guys if you think the ufotheatre video and my two fakes look similar, meaning they could have been faked the same way. Come on, I even have power lines in the video, just like the original ;) The aliens seem to like them.
 
Similar? Yeah. But yours is better, and I've got no idea how you did it. There's no direct evidence that it's CG, like there was in the ufotheatre clip, and if it's a reflection it would have to be a bright one to reflect so clearly on the window that you were probably shooting through (I think I can see your reflection right at the start).

Can you give us a hint? :D

I wonder how long until your video finds its way onto a UFO forum as evidence?

David
 
The fake videos are impressive. Like crop circles, the fakes obscure the real phenomena, if we think the real ever existed in the first place.

It is little wonder that scientists shy away from paranormal investigations. The advent of computer simulation now virtually renders any photographic evidence inadmissable, which is a tragedy for the prospect of genuine scientific research of transient remote phenomena, natural or supernatural.
 
Explorer said:
The fake videos are impressive. Like crop circles, the fakes obscure the real phenomena, if we think the real ever existed in the first place.

It is little wonder that scientists shy away from paranormal investigations. The advent of computer simulation now virtually renders any photographic evidence inadmissable, which is a tragedy for the prospect of genuine scientific research of transient remote phenomena, natural or supernatural.
Click to expand...
that's certainly one way round of looking at it.

There is of course another, more logcal explanation...

Nah, too boring isn't it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom