Very nice ufo video

[Caiogrp]

http://www.rense.com/ufo6/ufotheatre.mpg
( full article http://www.rense.com/general65/aamz.htm )

i really wonder what kind of military planes/weapons are those :P or aliens?? :)

[Teylah]

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.

[Ed]

Dunno. It seems sort of odd to me that the UFO's are pretty solidly stable in the middle of the frame while the landscape shakes like hell.

[davidhorman]

I call fake.

Examination of this image:

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/ppp2.jpg

shows that three or four of the "orbs", when overlayed on top of each other, align almost exactly. That's incredibly unlikely.

David

[davidhorman]

Here's a close up. Any differences between these two pairs can be chalked up to compression. Check out the two darker pixels at the top right of each of the red/green pair.

It's quite well done though, particularly the zooming. Probably video of a full moon, using that as the reference point to align the "orbs".

David

[davidhorman]

Here's a stack of the first few seconds. It doesn't tell you anything new about the UFO but it does show what are probably power lines, which might help someone identify the location. How many Walmarts are there in Phoenix? ;)

David

[Ashles]

Well one question is what the cameraman happened to be doing out at night with a videocamera which is clearly mounted on a tripod.

Also the lights moving in look far too smooth to be real world - it looks animated in some way.

I'm not sure why Teylah doubts that it is computer animation - that's what it looks like to me.

I think davidhorman is right - the moon would be an excellent anchor point.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Nice video.

What about a computer animation proyected to a glass in front of the camera? Nicely done, if it is a fake, and intriguing if it is real. Oh, I also wonder, why cant we hear some sort of exclamations?? that would be a nice reality touch.

[davidhorman]

What about a computer animation proyected to a glass in front of the camera?

You'd have to be careful not to move the camera too much, or parallax will give away that the lights are closer than they appear, but otherwise that's a pretty good idea.

David

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Originally posted by davidhorman
You'd have to be careful not to move the camera too much, or parallax will give away that the lights are closer than they appear, but otherwise that's a pretty good idea.

The movement of the camera seems to correspond very well with the blurring of the object. One thing that jumped out at me while watching the video is the movement of the 'orbs' when they joined with the big one in the middle. The movement seems way too smooth, much like computer animation.

It's such an interesting time, because with the processing power and high resolution of household computers, videos and photos can be faked much more convincingly than ever before. I think (hope) it will cause society to be much more skeptical, as they realize that they can not always count on what they see on screen.

Really interesting video though. If it's a fake, it's very very well done.

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
... I also wonder, why cant we hear some sort of exclamations?? that would be a nice reality touch. They are there. Maybe you need to turn the volume up?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
They are there. Maybe you need to turn the volume up?

hehe, no they are not. I put myself in the scene, I would be partially delighted, amazed and scared! They act as if they were seeing an helicopter or a less interesting phenomena. The "oh, yeah, so what" kind of attitude, which seems unreal.

[Timothy]

Well, it's clear to ANYONE that it's a fake. Here we have a video, shot of the night sky, and yet NO STARS ARE VISIBLE! Clearly done by the same group at NASA who made the same mistake with the starless photos of the "moon landing".

[/sarcasm&scorn&contempt]

- Timothy

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
hehe, no they are not. I put myself in the scene, I would be partially delighted, amazed and scared! They act as if they were seeing an helicopter or a less interesting phenomena. The "oh, yeah, so what" kind of attitude, which seems unreal. Well somebody says "****! Check that **** out!" which I took to be an exclamation. I take your point about the tone though, very hammy.

[mummymonkey]

A couple of points on the video.

1. The blobs appear to be fixed with respect to the hillside.
2. The centre blob is much larger compared to the surrounding blobs in the first section than the last.

[Azrael 5]

Its all too neat and sychronised for me.The movement too smooth as well!!;)

[Caiogrp]

Originally posted by Ripley Twenty-Nine
The movement of the camera seems to correspond very well with the blurring of the object. One thing that jumped out at me while watching the video is the movement of the 'orbs' when they joined with the big one in the middle. The movement seems way too smooth, much like computer animation.

It's such an interesting time, because with the processing power and high resolution of household computers, videos and photos can be faked much more convincingly than ever before. I think (hope) it will cause society to be much more skeptical, as they realize that they can not always count on what they see on screen.

Really interesting video though. If it's a fake, it's very very well done.

Yeah these are interesting time but the video processing still uses alot of techniques used ages ago. It's not like all the software will make everything by itself. Hollywood even with the most expensive computers and software can't make such nice images that you can't call them unreal.
And this video is nice .. i too have many doubts about it if it'sreal or not.. but it doesn't matter if it's real because even if it is, nothing much changes in my life.. but still it's nice :D I give it 5 stars out of 5 for a neat ufo video :D

[davidhorman]

Hollywood even with the most expensive computers and software can't make such nice images that you can't call them unreal.

That's because a lot of what they do involves modelling highly complex, and often biological, objects. You can see, on some of the dinosaurs, in the first Jurassic Park that some of the muscles don't move in a realistic way, even if you're not a paleobiologist.

But then look at something like the radio telescope behind Jodie Foster near the beginning of Contact. It's computer generated, but you'd probably never know unless you were told.

This is blobs of light, and probably copies of a natural blob of light at that. I might give it a go myself at the next full moon, although I only have a digital camera that records AVIs, not a camcorder.

David

[Hitch]

Originally posted by davidhorman
But then look at something like the radio telescope behind Jodie Foster near the beginning of Contact. It's computer generated, but you'd probably never know unless you were told.


I don't know for sure, but I've read the opposite:

One more note on this one: when we see Ellie listening on her headphones, in the background is the Very Large Array (VLA), a collection of 27 large radio telescopes near Socorro, New Mexico. You can see a few of them in the image above. This is a real site, and they simply filmed the scene there. However, when the scene first appeared, the guy in the seat in front of me at the theater leaned over to a friend and said ``What a great effect!''. He thought it was a computer image! How cool is it that we astronomers have instruments so impressive that people think they aren't real? ;-)

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/contact.html

[Timothy]

Anyone interested wasting their time in searching out further confirming or refuting evidence should call (602) 262-7626, Phoenix Police Department General Information, and get in contact with the night shift desk, and ask very politely (cause they're unlikely to be very keen about this if something else *real* is going on) and ask if the police blotter for 10 p.m. 6/5/05 indicates any reports of strange lights in the sky.

Something visible from the lit parking lot of an open Walmart at 10 p.m. on a warm, clear June night? A "huge formation" of lights in the sky? Presumably visible over many dozens of square miles? Would have been seen by how many thousands of people? And how many calls to the police and local TV stations were there?

(Whenever a bigger than average meteor streaks over Colorado, my local police department gets at least a dozen calls.)

When somone else who isn't selling a book corroborates the story, then I'll at least think about taking the time to disprove it.

- Timothy

[Timothy]

Originally posted by davidhorman
It doesn't tell you anything new about the UFO but it does show what are probably power lines, which might help someone identify the location. How many Walmarts are there in Phoenix?
10 in the city proper, 20 if you include the immediate suburbs.

- Timothy

[aggle-rithm]

The running commentary didn't seem to quite synch up with the images. Someone said, "They're coming down!" at a point when a single dot of light had just begun to descend from above. Later he said, "They're disappearing!" a full second before they actually started to disappear.

The guy has a firm, and apparantly clairvoyant, grasp of the obvious. I think I was stuck sitting behind him at the movies one time.

[davidhorman]

Originally posted by Hitch
I don't know for sure, but I've read the opposite:


I should have been more specific. There are one or two particular shots that have computer generated radio telescopes. One is when Ellie is out by the dish, sitting on her car. She taps commands into her laptop and the dish starts moving, but in reality the dishes are a lot slower, so they made one up in the computer. Another is when you see a dish reflected in a paddling pool, then the dish itself. They also digitally patched up the Arecibo telescope because it's in a bit of a sorry state.

Almost all (possibly completely all) of the TV images seen in Contact were inserted in post production too.

David

[chillzero]

Originally posted by davidhorman
I should have been more specific. There are one or two particular shots that have computer generated radio telescopes. One is when Ellie is out by the dish, sitting on her car. She taps commands into her laptop and the dish starts moving, but in reality the dishes are a lot slower, so they made one up in the computer. Another is when you see a dish reflected in a paddling pool, then the dish itself. They also digitally patched up the Arecibo telescope because it's in a bit of a sorry state.

Almost all (possibly completely all) of the TV images seen in Contact were inserted in post production too.

David

Sorry - off topic for a moment longer - but on this track....
My daughter and I watched 'A series of unfortunate events' recently, and then dipped into the special features. We were amazed to find out how many of the scenes of the baby hadbeen cgi, and animatronic - it had been impossible to notice this during the movie. We were incredibly impressed by how stunning these effects are, and gave a little thought to how more amazing they are when the viewers are completely unaware of them. We thought that was a little ironic, and a true credit to the movie business.

So, it is more than possible to reproduce many things that seem realistic, these days. :D

[davidhorman]

I read an article on that baby. It's amazing what you have to do to realistically model human skin. They have to build layer after layer, putting blood vessels at the right depth and using something called subsurface scattering to make the light do what it should. I was also amazed to find out how much was CGI. I guess it means they don't need to worry about the kid growing up for the sequels.

Oh, I also had another thought on how to fake this video. Using the full moon and, say, Jupiter as reference points you could track position, rotation and zooming, then wipe Jupiter out later.

Mind you, there didn't seem to be any rotation from what I could see, even though the camera was supposed to be handheld for a while.

I'll try and make my own version this weekend.

David

[Explorer]

"The movement seems way too smooth, much like computer animation."

This kind of statement ill serves the skeptic.

OK, the video may be fake, but if it is a real flying object of unknown origin, then its movement characteristics cannot be assumed or prejudged.

Good science and objectivity should not make assumptions.

However, perhaps I can understand that those kind of assumptions can be made by a skeptic appealing to an audience of skeptics, on a skeptics message board.

[davidhorman]

"The movement seems way too smooth, much like computer animation."

This kind of statement ill serves the skeptic.

What's wrong with it? It seems perfectly reasonable to me - but then, I would say that, wouldn't I?

David

[wipeout]

I notice that all the lights flicker in the same way at the same time. I don't know if that's evidence of faking or not.

It's strange that the footage jumps at 31 seconds.

I've certainly seen the pattern the UFOs form before, in places like this (http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/front/usb_snowman.gif). ;)

[davidhorman]

I notice that all the lights flicker in the same way at the same time. I don't know if that's evidence of faking or not.

I think that's down to the camera trying to automatically adjust it's exposure or focus.

I noticed that the blob that moves in from the upper left first appears as a single white pixel - couldn't this only happen if the camera was perfectly focused on the objects? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a pixel-perfect delineation between black and white on even the best digital camera.

David

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by Explorer
"The movement seems way too smooth, much like computer animation."

This kind of statement ill serves the skeptic.

OK, the video may be fake, but if it is a real flying object of unknown origin, then its movement characteristics cannot be assumed or prejudged.

Good science and objectivity should not make assumptions.

However, perhaps I can understand that those kind of assumptions can be made by a skeptic appealing to an audience of skeptics, on a skeptics message board.

Darn skeptics. Always trying to explain things in terms of what we already know.

Maybe it's Tinkerbell and her offspring. Yeah, they could move like that! Who knows about all the mysterious things in the universe?

Actually, the assumption that what we observe is following the laws of physics is a pretty safe one to make. These flying objects appear not to be doing that, unless they are just computer-generated images. Most notably, they can go from full speed to dead stop instantaneously. Maybe an alien technology could do this, but -- why would they? They may as well put on the brakes by impacting a solid object. Wouldn't it make more sense to slow down gradually?

[Astrophotographer]

I find it interesting that the UFOs decided to make their configuration such that the videographer would see it correctly. It was as if the UFOs decided to put on a show for someone from that vantage point. Curious little UFOs....


BTW, it seems that not all is correct as far as the specifics on this video. For once this Santiago Ytturia seems to have done some criticial investigations that suggests this was probably a hoax because it was on the web before June 5th! (http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2005/jun/m11-011.shtml)
It seems to me if the specifics are lied about, then the rest of the video is "probably" a hoax.

[DavoMan]

That post before this one was a post worth reading. Also of note was the post about the pefect pixel.

What was that little new-comer dot doing? Was it already there and just going from dim to bright? If so, why is it in focus (it is in focus) and then go out of focus?

*The viewing angle question is kinda irrelevant though - if it is high in the sky then it is going to be a pefect viewing angle for alot of people in different places on the ground.

But ultimately we cannot escape the date-screwup on the part of the hoaxer. But that alone is not enough to discredit this specific video. It can only discredit the person publishing it.

[DavoMan]

I noticed an anomaly. This object in the sky is supposed to be a large distance away.


Take note of it's position relative to the tips of the trees.

When the camera moves much closer to the trees, and points the camera to a steeper angle upwards, the object remains centre screen again.

I could be mistaken, and I would like someone else to observe & maybe measure the viewing angle between the two 'scenes'.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally posted by DavoMan
[B]*The viewing angle question is kinda irrelevant though - if it is high in the sky then it is going to be a pefect viewing angle for alot of people in different places on the ground.
/B]

The object was low near the horizon, which implies that many would see the object from various angles. I just find it interesting that the event was viewed from this angle where it was "face-on" to the camera and not at some angle other than that. Was the cameara operator just lucky? Additionally, I think something this large and bright in the Phoenix area would have been seen by a lot more people than just one cameraman.

[DavoMan]

Agreed. Sorry I posted before knowing that it was near the horizon.

[treble_head]

my only observation is that the first light seen was much brighter at the beginning and as soon as the camera "jumps" it is the same size and brightness (no halo blur) as the rest of the lights. I definately have my friend Wally check this out. He's a film computer animator (low-medium budget Sci-Fi Channel kind of stuff) He'd definately have a clue as to how this could be done.

[Explorer]

Originally posted by aggle-rithm
Darn skeptics. Always trying to explain things in terms of what we already know.

Maybe it's Tinkerbell and her offspring. Yeah, they could move like that! Who knows about all the mysterious things in the universe?

Actually, the assumption that what we observe is following the laws of physics is a pretty safe one to make. These flying objects appear not to be doing that, unless they are just computer-generated images. Most notably, they can go from full speed to dead stop instantaneously. Maybe an alien technology could do this, but -- why would they? They may as well put on the brakes by impacting a solid object. Wouldn't it make more sense to slow down gradually?

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

The object may not be solid, it may be an image caused by some natural phenomena. It could be a computer generated image! However, my point was that the statement was made as skeptic speak, not science speak, and although I understand and endorse healthy skepticism, it should be used cautiously and carefully, in the interests of objectivity.

[DavoMan]

Another thing:

The center object has a halo - if its so bright, why doesnt it dim out the other stuff? Why don't the other lights have a halo? Are we even looking at a halo? Could it be a dim light around a bright object?

[Beady]

Originally posted by Timothy
Anyone interested wasting their time in searching out further confirming or refuting evidence should call (602) 262-7626, Phoenix Police Department General Information, and get in contact with the night shift desk, and ask very politely (cause they're unlikely to be very keen about this if something else *real* is going on) and ask if the police blotter for 10 p.m. 6/5/05 indicates any reports of strange lights in the sky.

I think you'd have better luck calling the newspaper. If nothing else, the Phoenix news media might want to get a copy of this movie, just 'cause.

Of course, if they then showed the movie on a newscast...

[Caiogrp]

These are the blowups from Raw DV format (from ufotheatre forum).. the interlacing looks really very natural... hmmm
http://www.ufotheatre.com/blowup-1.jpg

+ some daylight shots
http://www.ufotheatre.com/ss1sm.jpg

[davidhorman]

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

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

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by Explorer
UfO reports prior to computer generation techniques have been describing movements that appeared to contradict the laws of physics, since 1947.



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.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally posted by Explorer
UfO reports prior to computer generation techniques have been describing movements that appeared to contradict the laws of physics, since 1947.

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"

[Ashles]

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.

[JMA]

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.

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?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by JMA
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?
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.

[davidhorman]

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?

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

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Im interested david, lets see what you can do!

[Correa Neto]

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.

[wahrheit]

Gee! I just happened to shot a very similar UFO video, right here in Munich this evening:

http://netzgame.com/upload/members/wahrheit/fakeufo.jpg

Here is the Video, Quicktime Motion JPEG B, 13 MB (http://netzgame.com/upload/members/wahrheit/wahrufo.mpg)

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 ;)

[davidhorman]

That's fantastic! Any chance you can share your secrets with us? I doubt I could do such a good job.

David

[Beady]

Originally posted by Teylah
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.

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

Teylah?

Hello?

Anyone there?

[DavoMan]

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:

[JMA]

Edit: Renaming to .mov makes it play.

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

[davidhorman]

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

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

[JMA]

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

OK, thanks. It works with Quicktime.

Great movie ;)

[wahrheit]

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:

http://netzgame.com/upload/members/wahrheit/fakufopart2.jpg

Video: They Did It Again - The Phoenix Formation (UFO sighting video #2, Quicktime MPEG 4 Codec, 27 Megs) (http://netzgame.com/upload/members/wahrheit/wahrufopart2MP4.mov)

(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.

[davidhorman]

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

[Explorer]

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.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Explorer
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.
that's certainly one way round of looking at it.

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

Nah, too boring isn't it.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

wahrheit

Congrats again for your work. Impressive. Thankfully you are not a lonely dude that is craving for attention! :p

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Originally posted by Ashles
that's certainly one way round of looking at it.

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

Nah, too boring isn't it.
I'm sure that the advances in computer graphics and low cost home video effects software, and the proliferation of these impressive UFO videos are nothing more than coincidence.

The aliens must have been waiting for our technology to become advanced enough so that charlatans like wahrheit would assist in obfuscating their arrival.

;)

[wahrheit]

Warning ;) Full spoiler ahead

Actually, when I first saw the ufotheatre video, I didn't think of any fancy computer graphics or animations. Though I worked (and partly still do work) in the TV business for more than 10 years and would have access to high-end stuff, I figured it would take ages, even for very skilled people, to produce such a video by means of a computer, 3D software or anything like that. The camera movement is just too jerky, and almost every single frame would have to be fixed manually, let alone the rather complicated matter of motion blur etc.

I had the impression it was done, or could have been done, by means as old as cinematography itself: A simple glass plane at something around 45 degrees in front of the camera. This has been done 100 years ago, and obviously, it still works pretty well. And it saves a ton of time, the videos took me less than an hour, no post production was needed (except for the idiot titles). These videos are right from my amateur digital camera, no image editing done. The orbs are nothing but a primitve Flash animation running full screen on an old 19 inch screen, I think you can even hear me hitting the space button to start the playback.

This, and an amateur-like setting of the camera's white-balance, focus, stupid use of the zoom, lowering the camera before actually turning it off etc. produce a way more "real" feeling than most sophisticated computer animations could do. I couldn't even find a simple glass plate, so I used an opened plastic CD case as a transparent medium to film through.

The only real problem is focus, since the mirrored image of the orbs is very close compared to trees and the sky. This can be solved, in part, by using a bigger glass plane of good quality at larger distance to the lens, which also does not produce two mirror images of the orbs running on a screen left or right of the camera.

And that's when I spotted something quite remarkably in the original ufotheatre video: The zoom and focus issue. Look again at the ufotheatre clip. First, the "mother" orb, is pretty much in focus, because the field of view is very wide, thus eliminating the focus problem. That's normal photographic physics, in a wide shot close and distant objects are more likely to be in focus than in a tele shot. But when they zoom closer, the "mom" orb gets blurry, exactly what I experienced while trying to produce the fakes.

http://netzgame.com/upload/members/wahrheit/ufo_zoom.jpg

All this is no proof that the ufotheatre thingy was faked, or was faked in the same why I did it, but the zoom issue makes me think that it could have been done exactly that way. There's other possible explanations, but Occam's razor would go for this one, I guess.

[Ashles]

:clap:

Lovely piece of analysis and recreation.

[treble_head]

I can't tell you how much I love being around such great problem solvers. My friend did write back, by the way. He said it would not be likely to be CGI, or if it had been, the source video would have been more simple. He's going to check with a few co-workers and get back to me on how else it might have been done. may come up with the same idea as wahrheit. I'll keep you posted.

[davidhorman]

Fantastic. I really had no expectation that a reflection of a monitor could work that well.

I still think the ufotheatre one is some form of CG, because of the single pixel orb. But if that's true, they're probably kicking themselves to see how much easier it could have been ;)

David

[Astrophotographer]

Originally posted by wahrheit
Warning ;) Full spoiler ahead All this is no proof that the ufotheatre thingy was faked, or was faked in the same why I did it, but the zoom issue makes me think that it could have been done exactly that way. There's other possible explanations, but Occam's razor would go for this one, I guess.

I think this technique might explain how the video was created. I like the KISS (Keep it simple stupid)methodology you used. You might get a different response from UFO proponents. You might even be called a (gasp) "debunker"!

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by Explorer

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.

Those paranormal investigators should have gotten off their lazy butts and demonstrated the truth of supernatural phenomena when they had the chance. Too late now. :(

[Explorer]

Originally posted by aggle-rithm
Those paranormal investigators should have gotten off their lazy butts and demonstrated the truth of supernatural phenomena when they had the chance. Too late now. :(

The problem has always basically rested with those sad people who feel they have to fake these issues for some kind of ego trip. Even before computer simulation there have been fake photos, so I realise the problem isn't new, but it is not getting any easier, is it?

Who knows, the eventual outcome may be that this board eventually becomes purely dedicated to praising the merits or otherwise of competitive photo/video images.

How dull is that? Oh well, a few geeks may get some pleasure out of it!

[DavoMan]

MMmmmm geek pleasure :arrow:

[edthedoc]

Given the amazing technology that these aliens obviously have, you'd have thought they would have a light switch to turn the lights off so they wouldn't be seen. Or did they just forget ;)

[Hitch]

They intentionally leave the lights on so they can be seen. Haven't you read Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy? They're alien"teasers" "buzzing" the Earth as a lark.

[treble_head]

Well, I recieved a second e-mail from my friend (the middle budget CG guy) regarding the "1 pixel orb" that's been discussed previously. I admit I know very little about such things, and his answer was a cryptic 2 words. "Video Compression". Does that make sense to anyone else?

[DavoMan]

I'd appreciate more than 2 words but I'll try & extrapolate. I think your buddy is saying that if the image compression was low enough to show such a sharp dot then the rest should be sharp aswell.

But thats me saying that, not ya CG working friend.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by treble_head
Well, I recieved a second e-mail from my friend (the middle budget CG guy) regarding the "1 pixel orb" that's been discussed previously. I admit I know very little about such things, and his answer was a cryptic 2 words. "Video Compression". Does that make sense to anyone else?

Yea. Normally, to save the video data in a file, you would need to store the color information for every single pixel in every single frame. That's REALLY big. (I have avi video uncompressed for 10 minutes that's about 1.5 gig or so on my hard drive at home.)

When you compress the data, you find some way to simplify it and store it according to patterns. You necessarily lose information when you do this (hey, for once the "information theory" creationists bandy about actually applies to something we're talking about!) When you uncompress the data, it sometimes leaves artifacts behind.

Let me give a vastly oversimplified example that might help. Say we had a screen where the pixels were on or off that was 4x4. Instead of storing each frame, maybe I could store the mode bit value of every third frame. So...
frame# 1 2 3
00 10 00 00
00 ... 10 ... 10 would become... 10

and then I could play that back for 3 frames to "decompress" it. The resulting playback would look terrible and stilted. That would be an artifact of video compression. Better algorithms trick us into missing the artifacts better than my quickly made up example, but they're still there. Look at a detailed JPEG image (JPEG is a compressed graphics format) really close sometime and you'll see weird coloring artifacts of the compression.

That our "space ship" appears to be a giant square is probably an artifact of the compression algorithm. The algorithm somehow averaged intensities that normally look like a circle to us into a square.

"circle" "square"
111 333
151 --> 333
111 333

The fact that white on black are very contrasting intensity values probably comes into play here.

EDIT: Quote my post if my "graphics" aren't lined up right. Anyone know how I can preserve whitespace in my post?

[DavoMan]

When posting, click the # button. It opens up a monospace (fixed-width) font thing for typing out code

[davidhorman]

That our "space ship" appears to be a giant square is probably an artifact of the compression algorithm.

It's not that it's a giant square, but that it's a tiny square, a single pixel.

The algorithm somehow averaged intensities that normally look like a circle to us into a square.

I suspect the "original" footage would also show a single pixel. I don't think the compression could take a fuzzy blob and turn it into a sharp pixel.

Is there a link to the full DV footage somewhere?

and then I could play that back for 3 frames to "decompress" it. The resulting playback would look terrible and stilted.

It would only do something similar to that "mode" thing where it wouldn't have a great impact on the playback. In this case, where we have a single bright pixel, it's likely that the algorithm has allocated more bits to the area to maintain that detail.

David

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by davidhorman
I suspect the "original" footage would also show a single pixel. I don't think the compression could take a fuzzy blob and turn it into a sharp pixel.

Compression -> decompression causes you to lose information in some way. A blurred and moving object only a few pixels on the screen could be averaged to a single more intsense pixel by a compression algorithm.

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question289.htm

See how the last image at 95% compression starts to have boxes show up? Look at the tree branches in the right side of the screen. Notice that some of the blurs become single pixels squares in the last image.

[davidhorman]

Notice that some of the blurs become single pixels squares in the last image.

Are you using a different definition of pixel to me? The solid blocks are not single pixels.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/puppies95.jpg

David

[postalrat]

And for a moment I though it was only going to take a single pixel to totally dismiss this video. In my opinion dismissing anything that easily is about as fanatical as faking a video and later actually believing it was an actual an ufo.

I am glad to see some of you are talking about compression now. 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. The method being proposed would have taken extreme effert to complete yet was treated as trival. And it took only a single pixel to 'prove' this is what they had to have done.

And then wahrheit came by to finally show a method the video could have been created. Finally the single pixel didnt need to prove anything. Draw your own conclusions if the original is a fake or not. You dont need to prove it me it is.

[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.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y159/postalrat/original.png

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.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y159/postalrat/camera.jpg

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.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y159/postalrat/fake.jpg

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]

Originally posted by 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.


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

[wahrheit]

Originally posted by Puggy
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]

Originally posted by Puggy
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]

Originally posted by wahrheit
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 (http://www.jman5.com/mexufo.htm) is exposed as a hoax, they show another (http://ufocasebook.com/mexicanmilitary.html). If this one is shown to be a video of oil well fires (http://www.alcione.org/FAM/FLIR_CONCLUSION.html) , 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! (http://www.ufotheatre.com/signs.htm)

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 :P 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 :P

[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]

Originally posted by wahrheit
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.

:confused:

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:

http://img14.imgspot.com/u/05/170/11/frames.gif

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:
http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~davoman6/noiseblock.jpg

[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

[Astrophotographer]

I see that UFO Watchdog, Royce Meyers, has presented a pretty interesting webpage concerning this UFO video.

http://www.ufowatchdog.com/arizonaufo.html

I guess the most interesting link come from the videographer himself. Apparently, he is not to thrilled with wahrheit's recreation.

http://www.ufotheatre.com/debunking/nobunk2.htm

Reading his description of the recreation video gives the impression he has not viewed the video recreation.

I think the biggest blow to the creator of this video has to be that he did not show up to have his video analyzed when he agreed to do so.

http://www.ufowatchdog.com/arizonaufofake.html

Personally, I felt the video was a fake the instant I saw it. It just looked too much like a staged event.

[DavoMan]

Like a Microsoft Windows testimonial?

[davidhorman]

So it seems there were screenshots from this video on his page before June 5th, although he claims it's all down to the way Google caches.

I decided to have a look on the Wayback Machine, and found something funny. At http://web.archive.org/web/20030804094423/http://www.ufotheatre.com/signs.htm it shows the advert for his UFO DVD, including this line:

All scenes are professionally 3d animated with lush digital soundtracks

:D

David

[DavoMan]

Seems to be a nasty message on that site...

[TheBoyPaj]

That's the sign of someone who is BUSTED!

[wahrheit]

Originally posted by Astrophotographer
I see that UFO Watchdog, Royce Meyers, has presented a pretty interesting webpage concerning this UFO video.

http://www.ufowatchdog.com/arizonaufo.html

I guess the most interesting link come from the videographer himself. Apparently, he is not to thrilled with wahrheit's recreation.

http://www.ufotheatre.com/debunking/nobunk2.htm

Reading his description of the recreation video gives the impression he has not viewed the video recreation.

I think the biggest blow to the creator of this video has to be that he did not show up to have his video analyzed when he agreed to do so.

http://www.ufowatchdog.com/arizonaufofake.html

Personally, I felt the video was a fake the instant I saw it. It just looked too much like a staged event.
Thanks, interesting links. The "debunking of the debunkers" page of the ufotheatre people seems to be written by an angry 12-year old who is upset that mom made ugly remarks regarding his newest toy and that daddy threatens to take it away from him.

I already posted days ago that no 3D rendering was used, neither in my videos nor theirs, yet he still calls my tape "some cheap lights rendered in 3d". No comment left to make about his reputation. Though he picked up me mentioning that my orbs were filmed off a monitor, wow. Saying that my lights don't flicker is not only a lie (they do, I even programmed them to flicker randomly), it also explains why his orbs flicker, as well: The monitor does it, since the camera (amateur) and the screen won't synchronize. My claim: this UFO kid knows jack about what he is talking. Sorry, but sometimes frank words are appropriate, I think.

[davidhorman]

I still feel that the filming of a reflected monitor can't explain some things in the ufotheatre video - the fact that there are pairs of identical, pixel-aligned, orbs, or the single pixel orbs as they "fly in". It would also explain why all the orbs flicker in time with each other, and why one orb has a brighter glow - in order to seemlessly paste copies of that original orb, you would have to adjust the levels until the background noise disappeared, and that would take down the brightness of the glow.

And here's another interesting fact that's just come to my attention - the mountain in the background is South Mountain, which as it's name suggests is south of Phoenix. And south is where you'd see the Moon, or Jupiter, in the sky. And, because we've just passed the summer solstice, the Moon and planets appear low in the sky, just like this object.

Mind you, if it was done "in post" he's probably bitter that he didn't think of doing it the wahrheit way :D

I've borrowed a video camera and still intend to duplicate the video with the copy/paste method, but with houses to the South of me the Moon isn't appearing very high at all (apparently tonight it will be lower in the sky than it has been for 20 years).

David

[Anders]

Originally posted by 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:

I think the rectangle is a bit more to the left, a bit less wide and a bit taller, and it is enclosing the white spots, the aliens....wooooo

[DavoMan]

Yeah my line isn't very specific. Must be that damned idiomotor response again.:D

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by wahrheit
Though he picked up me mentioning that my orbs were filmed off a monitor, wow.

No, I think what he's saying there is that your footage was shown on Channel 3, and that THEY simply filmed it playing on a monitor for their broadcast. They didn't broadcast it "clean", so that people could analyse it close up.

[wahrheit]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
No, I think what he's saying there is that your footage was shown on Channel 3, and that THEY simply filmed it playing on a monitor for their broadcast. They didn't broadcast it "clean", so that people could analyse it close up.
Oh, maybe I misunderstood that UFO guy, then. Anyway, everybody can download my fake video from the web (http://netzgame.com/upload/members/wahrheit/wahrufopart2MP4.mov) and watch it as close as they want, his argument is as vacuous as the rest of his rant.

"BIG" news: ufotheatre.com has uploaded new, even more ridiculous UFO footage.

Go to http://www.ufotheatre.com/ and scroll down to
"* LATEST UFO NEWS *
06/21/2005 4:13 PM - Arizona Time
Check out this awesome large triangle floating next to a star high in the sky!"

There's a screenshot (http://www.ufotheatre.com/marfa-triangle-1.jpg) and a download link (http://www.ufotheatre.com/members/videos/bigtriangle2005.mpeg) on their site.

It's nothing but three blinking lights against a pitch dark sky, and a "star".

I call it "The NTSC UFO" because these aliens have a soft spot for the U.S. TV broadcast format, NTSC. They turn their lights on and of in in total sync with NTSC. Light on in one frame, and the next frame they are completely dark.

I went through the video frame by frame, there is not one single frame where the lights of the three UFOs are about to brighten, there's not a single frame after a light occured where you can see the slightest trace or remainder of the light source. Thus: "They" signal us in US TV technology, wow! I thought it was the movies making us think "they" would, of course, first contact the White House or at least show themselves to an American astronomer. No -- they even use the same technology and use 30 (29,97) frames per second for their light show. (The UFO guys will say it is "flashes" of light, that's why they don't turn on and off softly. Strange though, the other Phoenix aliens did have a dimmer switch aboard.)

The lightshow itself looks like a toy with LEDs, and the pattern of on/off reminds me of those small electronic kits where you can solder your first own electronic LED dice ;)

I guess on of the ufotheatre kids (I assume it is a "kid", I don't know) was all excited about the Phoenix hype, read about that mirror thing and how easy it is to fake such a video and thought -- why not give it a try?

[davidhorman]

Isn't it weird how you can only see a single star?

There's not even enough to analyse in this new one.

David

[TheBoyPaj]

And why wave the camera around so much? I mean, I can understand a bit of a wiggle if you're on a long zoom, but it's shooting around all over the place. It's almost as if they're deliberately doing it because they know that it makes the UFO look more real.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
And why wave the camera around so much? I mean, I can understand a bit of a wiggle if you're on a long zoom, but it's shooting around all over the place. It's almost as if they're deliberately doing it because they know that it makes the UFO look more real.
Excellent point.

And also the motion does not seem to me like that of someone holding the camera and moving it around - it looks more like it is on a tripod and being panned all over the place.

Why? Why would you wave the camera around if it is on a tripod, yet the object is in one place?

And, at the risk of over analysing the film, it seems like the wobble gets worse towards the end, almost as if the cameraman thought "Have I wobbled it around enough? Better give it a last good jiggle to be sure."

[wahrheit]

TheBoyPaj, Ashles: Exactly my thought. Why that overdone wiggling? I did it myself, admitted, to give the video that certain touch of amateurism, but this new UFO video allegedly "is over 30 minutes long and the object never moves" as they say on their site.

You wonder why there's not a few seconds of tape without the tripod vellicating like a frog leg at 10,000 volts.

[Caiogrp]

Another funny looking videos :
http://www.rense.com/general66/amazfl.htm
http://www.rense.com/general66/massive.htm
http://www.rense.com/general66/san.htm ( the video also has the suspicious shaking )

[DavoMan]

That bigtriangle2005.mpg file there looks like he's plugged his NTSC video player into a PAL tv and the timing is screwed up.

Ya can kinda do the same thing if you have TV-output on your computer and plug it into a PAL TV & set your tv-output to NTSC.

[davidhorman]

They're baaaaack!

I've come into possession of an explosive piece of footage. Without a doubt this establishes the existence of reptoids from Zeta Reticuli, who travelled here on the back of a comet:

http://monkey.dynip.org.uk/lights.avi

:eek:

I recommend turning up your brightness to bring out the background artefacts, or viewing it in VirtualDub (Media Player etc play it back very dark).

Also, VirtualDub will allow to examine the interlacing - the Divx codec seems to fudge the interlacing on playback through a media player.

David

[Z]

Well, I can't get it to even find the link to the original video any more. I think maybe, in embarrassment, they've taken it down.

Back in middle school, I used a Commodore 64 and a bright monitor to project 'flying saucer' lights onto a pane of glass to film for a school project - it worked like you wouldn't believe. Unfortunately, I have no clue what happened to that old film.

It was easy to do 20 or so years ago - imagine what we can accomplish today!

[davidhorman]

Here's a link to the video from the OP:

http://monkey.dynip.org.uk/ufotheatre.mpg

David

[Z]

Originally posted by davidhorman
Here's a link to the video from the OP:

http://monkey.dynip.org.uk/ufotheatre.mpg

David

Thanks, David.

Hmmm... Not too badly done - but clearly staged for the cameraman's benefit.

[DavoMan]

Originally posted by davidhorman
They're baaaaack!

I've come into possession of an explosive piece of footage. Without a doubt this establishes the existence of reptoids from Zeta Reticuli, who travelled here on the back of a comet:

http://monkey.dynip.org.uk/lights.avi

:eek:

I recommend turning up your brightness to bring out the background artefacts, or viewing it in VirtualDub (Media Player etc play it back very dark).

Also, VirtualDub will allow to examine the interlacing - the Divx codec seems to fudge the interlacing on playback through a media player.

David In this video, the stars stay stationary while the 'objects' bounce about with the camera. Busted! :P Well done though.

[davidhorman]

Busted! :P

'fraid not - those aren't stars, they're hot pixels. The camera's (probably) quite old and whoever took this paradigm shifting footage probably turned the gain up to, I dunno, around +18db :D

David

[DavoMan]

Originally posted by davidhorman
'fraid not - those aren't stars, they're hot pixels. The camera's (probably) quite old and whoever took this paradigm shifting footage probably turned the gain up to, I dunno, around +18db :D

David Yeah? Could someone please post a picture of this video with the brightness way up, so we can see these hot pixels? My system is down & I'm unable to. Cheers!

[davidhorman]

I assumed you meant the two "stars" I've circled in blue:

http://img14.imgspot.com/u/05/204/05/hotpixels.jpg

Hmm, that pattern of lights looks strangely familiar...

David

[DavoMan]

Cheers for pointing them out but its harder to see them with bright blue around them :p thank you though.

They really look like stars. Maybe its some kinda compression artifact? I've seen in mpeg videos when a keyframe is missed, and the following fragments of new images come through - it looks like a right mess. But there are pixels that stay dead still for quite sime time untill there is new data to replace it (weather that be a keyframe or a fragment of a image).

Forgive my crazy terminology. I am a kiwi after all.

[davidhorman]

They really look like stars. Maybe its some kinda compression artifact?

No, they're definitely hot pixels - they were present in the analogue video signal from the back of the camera. At high gain a sensitive pixel is more likely to become "hot" - registering a charge even when there's little to no light falling on that part of the sensor. Because of the way the sensor works, a single hot pixel bleeds over into a few surrounding pixels, which might make it look more star-like.

I had to remove the worst hot pixel "in post" because it revealed the trick.

David

[DavoMan]

Ah I gotchya. Kinda sounds like how the light on the moon photo films bled over the black crosshairs.