Recent UFO pictures

Jsf said:
Looks like this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDd2I8fr06Y&NR=1
Click to expand...
Jsf, what is your take on this video? To me, it looks like a complete fake - in the beginning you see a person walking on the sidewalk who doesn't even look up, although this noisy thing is only a few feet away, above his head. So, why did you post it? I've noticed that you tend to post things that just 'catch your eye' without researching them to see if they merit posting or not. Why is this?

As far as this 'ufo' - it looks wholly 3D manufactured - but that's just my take on it.
 
anart said:
Jsf said:
Looks like this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDd2I8fr06Y&NR=1
Click to expand...
Jsf, what is your take on this video? To me, it looks like a complete fake - in the beginning you see a person walking on the sidewalk who doesn't even look up, although this noisy thing is only a few feet away, above his head. So, why did you post it? I've noticed that you tend to post things that just 'catch your eye' without researching them to see if they merit posting or not. Why is this?

As far as this 'ufo' - it looks wholly 3D manufactured - but that's just my take on it.
Click to expand...
Well a lot of the noise in the video is just traffic, and the UFO itself sounds a bit like a plane to me. If it you were just walking along looking at the shop windows or the street, you might not notice it. People usually have a lot on their minds nowdays and don't assume that there is a huge craft flying above them.

Another thing is, even though the video is short, and I haven't really looked thoroughly at the shadows and light source, it would still be *really* hard to fake that, especially with parts of it going behind a building. It is quite easy to do a lot of whats in that video (like the actual model wouldn't be too hard to make at all) but then there are a lot of very difficult things to do aswell, like the shadows and the whole general perpective of it, the relationship of the 3D model to the buildings, the way the camera moves and the perspective changes and it stays in place, then theres the motion blur on the actual film from the camera moving, etc etc.

Then again I can see inspiration to fake it, some 3D artists would probably love to convince people something like that is real. You know, just to show off, feel superior etc.

Bottom line for me is: Need a higher quality video, to rule out posting on you tube just to take advantage of the low quality video. You can do a lot of quick rough work on the harder things which wouldn't show up in that quality. But still it is very good (low video quality can't compensate for the camera movement), so I can see a good reason for jsf posting it. Its not "obviously" fake, it could be real. Although I would be more inclined to say its fake, but wouldn't say it with any certainty.

By the way this guy has more videos: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=grosdada6
Gotta admit, something about them smells iffy :)
 
With today's 3D state of the art rendering software (student versions, illegal copies or cracks) this is not at all hard to fabricate. A composite of real-world video and computer models is nothing new. That is mainly what is needed in professional movie productions. Of course, the videos do not have professional quality - but my take is that they are deliberately resampled to low bitrate and low refresh rate to make them look "amateur", and to camouflage the little errors that would expose them.

The camera wobble can be reconstructed by software. Light sources: no problem, just the sun. Shadows on the ufo: no problem, just a few boxes in the 3D scene. The "passing behind" of objects behind real buildings is also not difficult I guess: just a motion tracked 2D mask that has to be defined. Focal length, aperture, exposure time, etc. of the camera are also known and can be entered into software.

Zoom is the most over-used feature of cameras in amateur filming, especially with small objects. Just watch other amateur ufo videos around! But this youtube user does not zoom once in his overall 6 videos, and there is a good reason for it. It would make things more difficult, because reconstructing scaling/zooming on computer is more difficult than panning and it would arise additional problems: camera caused motion blur, focal blur, need for more detailed models, etc.

The scene of the youtube user filming his friend mounting the satellite dish on the roof (!) and the somewhat constrained conversation look just waaay too contrived to me. :lol:

Is the video maker the same person as the drone-maker? Steel ufos?

No doubt that there are similar looking ufo events out there. But the videos just smell of excellent computer graphics and a talented person.
 
Having done some composited animations myself, I can understand how such a "UFO" scene could be constructed. It would be VERY time-consuming, but extremely possible.
 
Third_Density_Resident said:
Having done some composited animations myself, I can understand how such a "UFO" scene could be constructed. It would be VERY time-consuming, but extremely possible.
Click to expand...
Makes me wonder why somebody would go through all this trouble to make those UFO videos? If somebody is an expert in creating "special effects" and inserting objects into real videos, then most likely their time is worth a lot of money, and if they do something that is so difficult and lengthy, it makes sense that they'd be getting something out of it. So why would an expert in visual effects put all this effort and time into faking UFO videos, even getting their friends to play along and creating entire scenarios etc?

Most especially, why are the videos riddled with clues that they are fake (lack of zooming, unrealistic context, other people not seeing anything, unrealistic conversations, etc)? Is it just stuff "overlooked" by accident and/or due to technical constraints or is it left there on purpose to expose it as fake later and try to make people throw out the baby with the bathwater by thinking that other UFO videos, most of which are much worse quality, must be fake too (and ignore the fact that many videos that also have plenty of context and other people in them actually are believable and the reactions are realistic etc...)?

It seems like this is really a lot of expertise and time to just make a "fake" to get attention as some people might do with simple fakes. I would venture a guess that there's money involved, that somebody perhaps paid the person to make these videos, somebody who benefits from this.
 
One could also ask why some people are trying to be desperately creative just to put their private homevideo on youtube and get it watched by as much people as possible. Fame, glory, or just a harmless hobby? Who's best at ... ?

It seems to me that (privately created) computer viruses or hacks are a similar phenomenon. Maybe people can have fun at destroying or spreading noise, chaos? To think "I tricked them again"? To have a name in the scene? Edit: Why do graffiti sprayers go through so much cost and trouble?

I would say, some clues are left in the videos because the expertise of the filmmakers definitely lies in computer graphics and not in acting. Nobody's perfect.
 
Other than showing off, it could be a university student's project work, which would explain "cut corners" but it has parts which are impressive. Then at least there is a good reason for doing it, getting a distinction or something :> I can see why it would be UFOs too, I mean the models are fairly simple to do and so you can focus on the effects like, in one of the videos the clouds light up, and on another you can see the reflection of the UFOs in a window. Probably they could have made the acting better but wasn't really part of the "criteria" and the actual effects were of prime importance.
 
No fake can be perfect. There will always be people who see through. It seems to me that the ultimate purpose of the fakes is, that discussions such as this arise. People will get the impression and spread the word that UFOs are always fakes and hence will be ridiculed. Maybe THAT is the gain for the manipulators, hyperdimensional or not.
 
This is a man made UFO see the following you tube video


hxxp://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page2053.html
 
Data said:
No fake can be perfect. There will always be people who see through. It seems to me that the ultimate purpose of the fakes is, that discussions such as this arise. People will get the impression and spread the word that UFOs are always fakes and hence will be ridiculed. Maybe THAT is the gain for the manipulators, hyperdimensional or not.
Click to expand...
Yeah, maybe the only way they can be undetectable is through what people believe? So if UFOs start to become a believable thing, they have to do damage control and start to make it unbelievable again.
 
Russ said:
So if UFOs start to become a believable thing, they have to do damage control and start to make it unbelievable again.
Click to expand...
Actually, if UFOs are more believable, then it is a lie believed. Remember, COINTERPRO movements will make lies (fake UFOs) more believable. I can't believe people still fall for it, even after years of disproving the lies.

However, if the UFOs are real and are seen "sky-driving," then the disinformation will come to you and confuse your humble minds. Just my thoughts (at the moment).
 
Zadius Sky said:
Russ said:
So if UFOs start to become a believable thing, they have to do damage control and start to make it unbelievable again.
Click to expand...
Actually, if UFOs are more believable, then it is a lie believed. Remember, COINTERPRO movements will make lies (fake UFOs) more believable. I can't believe people still fall for it, even after years of disproving the lies.
Click to expand...
But what about the known cases of real UFO's? My thought here is, those fake videos end up serving the purpose of making people generally aware of the phenomenon, and get "acclimatized" to the idea of UFO's itself, even if through fake videos. Though I guess the big danger here is movies like independence day or star wars and star trek etc, where UFO's are seen as physical 3rd density objects and not hyperdimensional. So while being acclimatized, people at the same time would get the wrong idea, and draw false conclusions and take false action if any (ignorance endangers). For example if the government decided to say they're gonna put weapons in space and the purpose is to protect us from the UFO's and aliens, that's an example of a silly absurdity that nobody who has any clue could possibly buy. Like an ant colony putting their fighter ants around the colony in case a human tries to mess with them...

Zadius Sky said:
However, if the UFOs are real and are seen "sky-driving," then the disinformation will come to you and confuse your humble minds. Just my thoughts (at the moment).
Click to expand...
What do you mean? Do real UFO's sky dive? My impression of their "flight dynamics" is that there are none, being hyperdimensional it is probably more like "reality hopping" than gliding through atmosphere as planes do. So "dive bombing" would be rather funny.
 
Actually, "sky-driving" is like driving through the sky. Basically, they are seen driving (flying) around in the sky. I was using creative words for it. Sorry for the confusion.

ScioAgapeOmnis said:
Like an ant colony putting their fighter ants around the colony in case a human tries to mess with them...
Click to expand...
Good analogy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom