Canadian Spiral

Originally posted by monkeykillingmonkey
I realize this is already in the HOAX forum but I just thought I would add a few more points seeing as for some reason there is still at least one ats member claiming we didn't "investigate" and handing out tips to do so.

I would guarantee (and Im being completely unbiased) that the members of ATS are the BEST investigators and researchers to be found on the internet in regards to these things.

If something is a HOAX more than likely it will be found to be a HOAX here before anywhere else because of the time, energy, knowledge and passion that ATSers have. And that goes for just about any subject here.

ATS members

Originally posted by sandwiches
Prepare for more of these.

Remember Obama's pledge to spread disinformation?

We must proceed full steam ahead.

[edit on 2010-5-22 by sandwiches]

I don't care who ya are, that's funny right there!

Glad to see this got a Hoax tag. It's embarrassing anyone did not know that after their first look at it.

reply to post by MR BOB



That didn't just surface it has already been posted in this thread.

Originally posted by Paradigm2012

Originally posted by StevesResearch
reply to post by Paradigm2012

 

Are you referring to me?

If so, how do you know I didn't lift a finger?
Don't make narrow - minded assumptions.

Having worked on numerous 2D and 3D animation software and studying the field as a digital/conceptual artist I do know a thing or two about cgi. Besides, if you choose to see the truth and not what you want to see, then in this case you don't even need to be experienced in this field to see that this is fake.

But hey, you can believe what you want to believe, if you choose to kid yourself I won't be losing any sleep over it.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by StevesResearch]

[edit on 23-5-2010 by StevesResearch]

Everyone on the planet owns a computer and everyone can call themselves a CGI expert. What does being a CGI expert give you in terms of knowledge, well it means your not extra special.

It's my profession genius.

Saying everyone has a computer is a weak argument. Everyone has a TV but it wouldn't be accurate to say everyone can call themselves an expert in filmmaking now would it?

Think before you post.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by StevesResearch]

[edit on 23-5-2010 by StevesResearch]

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
There were people like you who stayed with the idea that the world is flat.

When people said it was round people like you said no it was flat.

See how silly your acting.

Who's the one acting silly? I'm not the one who's failed to actually study the footage before reaching a conclusion.

Watch the video again, it should be pretty obvious that this is cgi.

reply to post by Paradigm2012


The internet and amazing computer programs have made "experts" out of idiots.

They think everything can be explained away as a hoax because it can be reproduced with a computer program.

No true investigator or real expert would ever make such quick assertions.

So much for the ATS "experts'

ATS gives these people their own little world to be "somebody".

I'll wait until bona fide experts and educators give their opinions before I call this a hoax.

Originally posted by Oneolddude
I'll wait until bona fide experts and educators give their opinions before I call this a hoax.

Sorry for the off-topic, but why educators?

Originally posted by Oneolddude

They think everything can be explained away as a hoax because it can be reproduced with a computer program.

No true investigator or real expert would ever make such quick assertions.

So much for the ATS "experts'

There's a bit more to it than that.
Don't you find it even a little bit difficult to believe that something like this: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/87a67d6eba36.jpg[/atsimg]
Would not find a bit more coverage than a single website?

[edit on 5/23/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Oneolddude
reply to post by Paradigm2012

 

The internet and amazing computer programs have made "experts" out of idiots.

They think everything can be explained away as a hoax because it can be reproduced with a computer program.

No true investigator or real expert would ever make such quick assertions.

So much for the ATS "experts'

ATS gives these people their own little world to be "somebody".

I'll wait until bona fide experts and educators give their opinions before I call this a hoax.

Have you even read the entire thread. A number of people have made very good logical explanations why this is a HOAX.

Look at this post here - and please tell us why this should still be considered real and legit and not a hoax?

I find it amazing that armchair quarterbacks come in and blast members for not doing enough research or not being expert enough or whatever....yet provide absolutely nothing to show that something is not a hoax. At least there are people on this thread who are spending time trying to get to the bottom of it.


[edit on May 23rd 2010 by greeneyedleo]

I often times go up to mountain tops miles away from civilization and have my HD camera pointed at nothing, stationary, recording. I do this for hours every evening in hopes that a few other people are doing the exact same thing with their same HD cameras; pointing them at the same nothing, so, if something happens, we can share our incredible finding ON THE SAME WEBSITE!! What are the odds that we people that don't know each other see a UFO that looks exactly like something that could be easily done in After Effects? Inconceivable!!

Well, thank goodness that that guy's camera was pointed exactly right in order to capture this surprise event in the center of his frame.

This is not in itself "proof" of a hoax, but it is one "straw on the camel's back", and it was this first thing I noticed while watching the video.

I see some people did a more in-depth analysis confirming that it is a hoax (such as the star not moving in relation to the ground), but my first impression was "hoax" mainly because of the conveniently serendipitous camera angle.


[edit on 5/23/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by jonhplayer
Didnt most people say the norway spiral was fake at first?

Good observation. Yes, there was a flood of posters screaming CGI hoax on that one. Then it turned out the damn thing was real. A real missile test gone wrong, that is. Sure they ate much crow for that one but they can't control that jerky knee.

reply to post by Unknown Origin


But were those saying that the Norwegian spiral was CGI the same that now say this is CGI?

Some people always use the CGI explanation, but other people really give their answers after looking at the video and interpreting what they saw.

JUst for laughs and giggles, what do you guys think?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This video is sooooo fake. Its very cool, but fake. This guy filming just happened to know this "UFO" was coming before hand, set up a tripod before it got there, and had it perfectly in frame to where he didnt even have to pan the camera to get it all in the shot. Most real ufo videos are TERRIBLE quality from rushed amatures. In my humble opinion, fake.

samiam1337

Just for fun, let's do a little analysis. I'm referencing the "cricket" video

The video was purportedly taken on Friday last in western Canada. For the sake of argument, I'm assuming that the background depicts the sunset (as opposed to sunrise). According to this site, sunset on May 21, 2010 in Vancouver, BC occurred at 8:56 PM PDT (Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 03:56:00 UTC). The star-like object in the upper left would be Venus.

During the video, two "boom" (explosions) can be heard. The first (a soft "little boom") can be heard at mark 0:00: 29:00. The second ("big boom") can be heard at 0:00: 37:00.

The object displays two events to consider. Event 1 occurs at 0:00:18:00 when the object starts to emit a spiral tail. Event 2 occurs at 0:00:19:00 when the object appears to explode. Notice these two events happen within one second of each other.

Let's assume the two events are the cause of the two "booms". The time between the first event and the "soft boom" is 11 seconds. The speed of sound is 1,125 ft/s. This would put the object at a distance of 12,375 feet (11s x 1125 ft/s) or approximately 2.34 miles from the observer (camera). Similarly, the "big boom" is heard 19 seconds after event 2 and thus calculates to a distance of 21,375 ft (4.05 miles).

Since the elapsed time between event 1 and event 2 is one second, the calculated speed of the object during that second would be (21,375 ft - 12,375 ft) / 1 sec = 9,000 ft/sec (1.7 miles/sec = mach 8). Pretty darn fast!

What about the size of the object?

Well, the apparent size of the object at event 1 is very nearly that of Venus. We know Venus has a diameter of 7,520 miles and has a mean distance from earth of 67,230,000 miles*. For objects of the same apparent size, the ratio of diameter to distance is the same. So, (7520/67230000) = (x/12375), or x=1.38 ft or about 16.5 inches in diameter.
In the end, we have an object about twice the size of a bowling ball that can travel at eight times the speed of sound. Very interesting … and more than a little improbable (for any manmade object, that is).

•This is the mean distance. The actual distance varies from 23.7 million to 162 million miles. I wasn't able to find the exact distance of Venus from Earth at the time of the video. Subsequently, the object size is most probably different than what I calculated.

reply to post by Shadoefax

While your analysis is interesting (and fun), I have to point out a problem with it.

Venus, for all intents and purposes, presents a point source of light (something like 58 arcseconds, I think) rather than a disk (unless magnification is used and that's a pretty wide angle view). If that were actually Venus any apparent size would be due to saturation of the CCD. A comparison of apparent sizes is probably not very useful in this case.

BTW, Venus was 1.348 AU from Earth on Friday.

[edit on 5/23/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by jolois


Youtube comments disabled nothing on the news re this CGI anyone

reply to post by ArMaP


Excellent work ArMap!

I was going to post this yesterday but I forgot about it,



the artist forgot to adjust for the difference in viewing angle. One image is from the ground and the other is from 25,000 feet above, yet they look like they were shot from the same angle.