Very nice ufo video

davidhorman said:
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?
Click to expand...
10 in the city proper, 20 if you include the immediate suburbs.

- Timothy
 
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.
 
Hitch said:
I don't know for sure, but I've read the opposite:
Click to expand...

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
 
davidhorman said:
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
Click to expand...

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

This kind of statement ill serves the skeptic.
Click to expand...

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

David
 
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. ;)
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Explorer said:
"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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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!
It seems to me if the specifics are lied about, then the rest of the video is "probably" a hoax.
 
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.
 
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'.
 
DavoMan said:
*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]
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
aggle-rithm said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
Timothy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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


+ some daylight shots
ss1sm.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom