UFO Mother Ship over Peru..[HOAX]

Listen, I know you want to believe that that UFO mother ship is real with all your heart and soul but it isn't.
Its CGI, everything about it screams CGI.
Bruce Maccabee, if he were here, would give you the longest lecture you will ever hear about the finer points of UFO photographic and digital investigation and for all the reasons why this is a fake. it doesn't matter who posted it and what excuses they have for the reasons why it looks one way or the other, because its fake.

throughout my life Ive had the pleasure of witnessing many UFO events in many different forms and not one of them were even reminiscent of anything that resembled or even moved like that video hoax. the first and most important thing is UFOs don't drag clouds and they don't fly like conventional aircraft, they don't sail along, they have very strange and erratic behavior or they just hover motionless and blink out. the other thing is they are mostly balls of light.

I don't want to hurt your feelings or disrespect any of you that want to believe, but you need to look at the facts that real UFOs don't look like whats in this video, they never have and they never will.... I'm sorry

its time to move along and search for what is real, undeniably real

that is all, kirk out

reply to post by anumohi


I know it is hard for you to even accept the fact that the Jury is still out on this. It has been proven that Hendrick that made the video showing how it could have been faked is not the real Mr. Orlando de la Cruz, that actually made the Original video. We are waiting for his email. We have been in contact with each other he is following my twitter and we are Friends on FaceBook, Plus we both belong to groups on the same Career site.

We have a big time difference, The mods are waiting too, if he says he faked it it will say in the Hoax Bin
If he says he didn't fake it. They will Move it back to UFO.

Don't feel bad for me, if it turns out Fake, I haven't had this much fun researching in a long time Real or Hoax.
But you Debunkers need to also be patient and give us time to findout the truth, rather than Keep Jumping the Gun on this. Thanks.

ya know, the funny thing to me is I show an blueprint to a space ship and no one see it. But you get 36 pages off the mother ship But like you said the verdict is still out. I actually have a blueprint to a suppose mother ship too but didn't know if I should post it just because of what i posted the first time. anywho lets see where this gets us

Two days of watching this thread and it's become tough to watch...I sincerely hope this is moved out of the hoax bin for a couple of reasons:

1) I rarely see anyone put this much dedication and effort into their cause and it's admirable.

2) It is either time for some serious discloser and factual evidence of UFO's from somewhere, or it is time for some explanation why I would rather believe this is real and not a hoax.

Somewhere in the place that I call my gut, I know there is more than enough reason for the posibility of life and science far beyond what is known, and it's going to be discovered. Sooner would be better than later, and today would be as good a day as any for this video to be real, and the world to find a new direction and purpose.

Whatever the outcome...and I know some believe it has already been found...I say great effort to the OP and great job thus far. I will stay tuned until there is nothing to stay tuned to.

reply to post by coolottie


its not hard to believe its fake, well not for me anyway.
I am a verifiable believer of the phenomena and spent countless hours/years in the real world watching for them...and seeing them, and there have been a few times when some of this CGI has stumped me and there will be even more times to come that they will fool me, but this is one time that its not happening because its just not real.
here's a prime example of what I'm talking about and its still never been proven a hoax, but it most likely is...but i want to believe, cuz its cool

reply to post by jerryznv


Thanks to both of you, the one above you,.

I have been checking the emails and FaceBook and something that is really Strange.

All of the Posts that were on my FaceBook page have been Deleted since I posted a message,

To Mister de la Cruz, the maker of the Original Video. Do they do that on FaceBook, Take down
all of your posts for whatever reason or is this just me tired and getting paranoid.
I hope we hear something before I go to sleep, I am doing good to even see this monitor.

The only gripe I seem to have with this video (other than it being too good to be true) is the clouds. I assume someone pointed that out by now in the 30-some pages of this thread, but the clouds don't look like they move. Unless the 'mothership' is further behind the clouds than what it appears, it seems as though the clouds would "swoosh" with the ship a bit. I really hope this is real, but it really is already way past the line of "too good to be true."


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by anumohi


I replayed that 4 times I loved the music Dream Weaver.

If that video hasn't been proven Real or Fake, I sure pray this one does get solved.
I have a lot of friends that are contactees here on ATS hoping we findout something
I am exhausted.

Wish I could Loop that music, I am going to play it again and lay down and enjoy it.

reply to post by coolottie


As a person with some considerable experience in CGI (Dip 1993, SAIT CTSR - TV/Graphics-B)
using both real-time rendering software AND ray-traced non-real-time render software,
this is DEFINITELY CGI...I can even tell the specific technique called
Alpha Channel compositing used to composite the sky and the separately rendered ship.

Three reasons WHY I can tell:

1) Zoom into the clouds and the ship edges!

The type of edge feathering used is called inverse squared
which is easily detectable by examining the differences in
luminance values for each pixel going OUTWARDS
from the ship outline. If each pixel is mathematically
half the luminance and/or half the chroma value of the
previous pixel....that yells to me Alpha Channel compositing!

I also noticed some LINEAR luminance edging values
which means SMART RENDERING that only antialiases
and raytraces specific areas in a 3D image, was turned ON in
the 3D program, which in my opinion, seems to indicate use
of BLENDER 3D or Lightwave 3D because of the slight banding
on the ships hull caused by using 32 bit single precision floating
point numbers to smooth edges rather than using the MUCH MORE
pleasing-to-the-eye double precision (64-bit) or even quad (128-bit)
precision floating point numbers supported by SoftImage XSI or
Maya's Grid-processing enabled Renderman Imaging Engine
during the 3D object edge anti-aliasing and texture rendering process.
Even with the macro-blocking caused by video compression algorithms,
I STILL NOTICE the texture banding and improper anti-aliasing on the ship.

2) Since MOST videos use DCT (Discrete Cosine Transform) or
Wavelet-based Frequency Separation type data compression,
there is a noticeable artifacting within the COMPUTER-based
rendering versus "real life" imagery. I notice more macroblocking
on the rendered ship than the REAL foreground because the video
compression algorithms found more similarity within the
Chroma (Hue) and Luminance (Brightness) portion of
a given 8x8 or 16x16 block of video pixels within the smooth ship hull
rather than the more RANDOMIZED PIXELATION in the foreground imagery.
Ergo, such macroblocking on the ship hull SCREAMS 3D render!

3) Motion of the ship hull is consistent with 29.97/30 fps (frames per second)
rendering of smoothed-out motion as the ships hull rotates in a
MATHEMATICALLY LINEAR derived series of in-between frames
called "tweens" in 3D Animation industry parlance.

Real starships stutter and wobble slightly during "flight"
because of the non-linearity of the field effects-induced
propulsion bubble. Their subtle motions are usually quite
randomized in the real world while here I see rotation
and movement that is FAR too smooth. aka 3D motion rendering.

4) Some laws of physics are being BROKEN here....and to give some
the SOME OF YOU HERE some thought as to WHY and HOW I know
the following....I'll let you figure that out........

a) Aliens doesn't like FAST rotating their large ships...it leaves
huge fractally non-linear wakes of cloud formations which
are very detectable-by-satellite-and-radar. MOFO BAD!!!!

b) In-atmosphere large scale Field Effects Propulsion Systems
leave highly detectable gravity wells as the field generators
bend local time & space around the ship. The faster the ship
moves in atmosphere, the more intense and detectable
the gravity well.

c) Atmospheric cavitation collapse leaves a rather large acoustic
trail as a fast moving ship using Field Effects Propulsion lets
the air collapse in its wake after it passes through the atmosphere.

Unlike aerodynamic flight, the atmosphere that is repulsed
away from the ships hull lives intact outside of a repulsive
gravity bubble for a short period of time before the gravity
bubble collapses and lets the atmosphere rush in causing
something like a sharp popping balloon sound. The faster
the ship moves in-atmosphere, the more cavitation that
occurs, which is highly detectable both acoustically
AND on gravitometers.

This is the biggest reason why aliens don't like engaging
a non-Euclidean Space (N-Space) drive (aka Warp Drive)
in-atmosphere on both SMALL and LARGE ships which
would cause localized creation of very large and intense
gravity wells...the resulting acoustic signature is ENORMOUS
and there would be destructive ripping apart of time & space
thus damaging buildings and killing people within
a few hundreds or even thousands of metres as
the local atmosphere close by the departing starship
gets imploded to fill the resulting vacuum.

So based upon seeing a lack of fractally non-linear cloud wakes,
not hearing any acoustic signature and NOT hearing the characteristic
buzz & humm of ionized-by-field effects-air as it collapses into a vacuum
created by a collapsing gravity well....AND the fact I see LINEAR macroblocking
and Inverse Squared edge anti-aliasing on the ship hull....i'm gonna
say this is a 3D rendering.....I'm also gonna say it was done in
BLENDER or LIGHTWAVE and NOT Maya or Softimage
or 3D StudioMax. The actual compositing was probably done
in Adobe After Effects because of the signature Adobe RGB colourspace
conversion factors on the Chroma portion of each pixel which is also fairly
detectable.

So you aliens out there....I got the starship propulsion science correct...Right?

Message/U2U me if I missed something........;-)

Does the above post not make it a fake now. It is a professional or so he says(no diss on you ,,,just can never trust people on internet) but his analysis sounds thorough.

The end result of his analysis is FAKE. Not to mention the others in this thread who have also proven it be fake. I am not talking about the propulsion of the fake UFO...which if I am not mistaken is a joke,,..the CGI analysis...

reply to post by StargateSG7

Problem solved! Now 1,000,000,000 stars for you. And one more thing, CAN I BE YOUR FRIEND?!?!?!

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
Does the above post not make it a fake now. It is a professional or so he says(no diss on you ,,,just can never trust people on internet) but his analysis sounds thorough.

Yes. It does sound thorough. He used a lot of really complicated descriptions and very large and specialized words.

I find that the people which I trust and admire the most, are the ones who try to explain things in ways that non-experts can grasp...because they truly WANT the person to understand what they are trying to say.

And I find that there are other types of people who go out of their way to speak over a person's head.

People don't like to feel stupid by admitting that they don't know what in the world you just said. And sometimes other people count on that as a tool for ending a debate.

However, I am just making and observation and am not saying that the previous poster is doing any such thing. What I am saying is...

How can I trust you if I don't understand you?

reply to post by bluemirage5


That looks like the district 9 ship just saying anyways getting back to reading.

reply to post by kerazeesicko

He said he did not have the software to prove it one way or another. The video right above you on this page, was put through all of that software, yet it still has Not been proven Fake. If he knows all of this then he should at least know someone who can look at this. I will ask. Until then don't breakout your fire works just yet.

reply to post by idunno12


To make my explanation somewhat easier to understand...in 3D computer graphics rendering,
the edges of objects need to be smoothed out and blended in with the background properly
so the edges don't look all jaggy or like stairsteps....this process is called anti-aliasing.

There are a number of techniques and ONE of them is called Inverse Squared Edge Blending
which means make each pixel on the edge (of a starship!) half as bright as
the previous edge pixel. This is done usually for 3 or 4 pixels from the solid
edge of a graphic object. Here is a numeric example of inverse square edge
smoothing where a solid outline or edge is at brightnesss 100%.

INVERSE SQUARED EXAMPLE:

Solid Edge Outline = 100% Brightness
Inverse Square 1st pixel = 50% Brightness
Inverse Square 2nd Pixel = 25% Brightness
Inverse Square 3rd pixel = 12.5% Brightness

Notice our each subsequent pixel is HALF the brightness of the previous pixel.

LINEAR EDGE RENDERING has a mathematically EVEN NUMBER of steps between each pixel.

LINEAR Example:

Solid Edge Outline = 100% Brightness
Inverse Square 1st pixel = 90% Brightness
Inverse Square 2nd Pixel = 80% Brightness
Inverse Square 3rd pixel = 70% Brightness

Because of the way the human eye works which give preferences to the colours
closest to Bright GREEN...it means that inverse squared edges LOOK the smoothest
and least jaggy when blended with a photo background.

LINEAR edge blending is mathematically EASY AND FAST to do on a computer.
INVERSE SQUARED is HARD and SLOW to do...so some artists do a GOOD ENOUGH render
which tells the computer to SMART RENDER a 3D image by ONLY using the fancy blending
when an object edge is actually NOTICEABLE to a viewer. If the edge is too thin or too far away
the computer doesn't used the slow INVERSE SQUARED, it uses LINEAR edge blending to
save time.

SMART RENDERING can also refer to a 3D computer rendering technique called Ray-Tracing
which follows individual beams of light from a 3D rendered light source out to all surfaces and
edges as those beams of light bounce around in a scene. Those beams of light will brighten
or darken portions of an image or will create shadows based upon well-understood laws of physics.

Ray-Tracing makes objects look REAL by emulating how light bounces, reflects, refracts
and shimmers upon any metal, glass, wood, rubber or other surface. This of course takes
LOTS OF COMPUTER RENDERING TIME to do....ERGO...by SMART RENDERING,
we only follow beams of light that hit objects which are actually noticeable to the viewer.
This saves TIME but makes the resulting image LOOK MORE FAKE
than when FULL RAY-TRACE is turned ON.

====

When I talk about Fractally Non-Linear....I mean that the noise or colour shifting in a still photo
or video video should look random rather than have a distinct computer-like pattern to it.
That separates out real from fake.

Real clouds in the sky should move wobbly and stuttery with wispy edges and many curled
points AND NOT HAVE way-too-smooth or far-too-perfect movement and straight-lined edges.

The mathematics behind nature is a Fractal Equation...the mathematics behind 3D rendering
are binary powers of 2 which can be DETECTED by examining the brightness and colour of
individual pixels closest to each other in any still image or moving video.

Macro-Blocking is the resulting effect of making a video look like it was shot through a
mesh screen door. You start seeing the pattern of lines and squares caused by video
compression algorithms which keep throwing away image data to save computer
storage space until the final result becomes objectionable to the viewer. When that
point of seeing too many obvious blocky patterns in your video has been reached,
you'll KNOW whether too much compression has been applied.

HOWEVER, that blockiness artifact can be used to your advantage to DETECT images which
are real versus those that are FAKE by examining the SIZE and SPACING of the "Macro-Blocks"
which SHOULD BE somewhat random in "REAL" images. If the macroblocks are too uniform or
regular in size and placement or too smooth in colour, ESPECIALLY ON THE EDGES of an
on-screen object such as a starship, that means FAKERY to me! Edges should have some
randomness to them. If you ZOOM IN to an edge, you SHOULD SEE some randomization
to the placement, colours and brightness of nearby pixels.

If you see smudging or gooey-looking edges on ZOOM IN, that means artificial
blurring or blending of separate image layers. CAN YOU SAY FAKE!?

On smooth textures NOT near an edge, if you see banding or regular steps of colour
or brightness that could be caused by improper rendering of surfaces such as metal
or glass. The real stuff doesn't have colour banding and doesn't look artificially
smooth...there is ALWAYS SOME noise or random waviness in the surface
of a metal or glass. It's imperfect and thus REAL.3D fakery
is too smooth...and too perfect!

In my earlier post I said I saw motion that was too smooth....When a computer 3D artist
makes a round starship rotate, they usually set a single starting point and an end time point.

If they want the ship to rotate 3 times around within 6 seconds, they let the computer
figure out the amount of distance the ship must move as it spins for the number of frames
per second in a video. Modern television is approximately 30 frames per second...or
show 30 still photos one right after another PER SECOND to give the illusion of motion.

Mathematically if I want to rotate a ship 3 times in 6 seconds I let the computer calculate
that I must move 720 degrees of spin within 180 frames of video...ergo the result
is that I must render 4 degrees of spin for every frame that is rendered out.

HOWEVER...if i let the computer do that...the result is too perfect...nature has laws of
physics such as Inertia and Aerodynamics and Atmospheric Friction...To make my
rendering look REAL, the ship should SPIN somewhat irregularly, slightly speeding
up and slowing down in a semi-random manner. It should also wobble and jitter
slightly as if being BUFFETED by wind or other forces. By adding IMPERFECTION
to a 3D rendering, I can make it LOOK MORE REAL !!!! and THAT is why LucasFilm
and WETA and DIGITAL DOMAIN are the current MASTERS of 3D computer graphics!
They add the imperfect of the real world to an unreal 3D computer graphic which
when rendered out to video...looks REAL!!!!!

====

And regarding the other parts of my post....what makes you think I was joking?

Let's just say..... I have a bit more of an inside view on those topics......;-)

reply to post by StargateSG7


You know a great deal about CGI not to have any experience with using it, but then I do know how the UFOs travel but have never flown one. Dr. J. Allen Hynek, director of the US Airforce Blue Book on UFOs and myself agreed that they change the Time and Space around the craft, something like a constructed worm hole. Not a Black Hole. Thus Enistine was right, NASA just discovered proof of Time and Space anomolies here on Earth.


Here is the member that ran it through the Software to Run a Comparison against the Hendrik "OVI" and the Original captured by Orlando de la Cruz. Top Post: by NowanKenubi

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We had someone with CGI experience to run it through some software, and it did not turn out to be Hoaxed. Of course Mods didn't see it until after they put it in the Hoax Bin. They said when the person that did the Original video emails me they will put it back in UFO Forum.

That is all the Debunkers do is try to derail threads they never so any proof or evidence for their claims. But then all these Nonprofessional Debunkers got on hear yelling "Proof its a Hoax" and got it moved to the Hoax Bin without any proof what so ever. You can see about 30% of the thread is deleted. Mods can't read the whole thread. Since you don't have the experience or the software, do you know someone that does? And could you ask them if they would give this a run through, so we could establish some idea.

reply to post by idunno12

Only thing in the first sentence he said he had No experience. Or "If we could find someone with experience with CGI and the softeware. Like him, there are a lot of things I know about yet have no experience, or tools to do it.

I hope he knows someone who does, then I can get some sleep. I just want to know one way or the other. Then I can get some sleep.

reply to post by coolottie


Hmmm....I've Got MAYA, SoftImage XSI, Lightwave, Truspace,
BLENDER, 3DS MAX...plus After Effects, Adobe Premiere,
DPS Velocity, Eyeon 2D/3D Software, Grid Processing,
Corel Draw & Photo Paint, Photoshop, ACDsee, NewBlueFX,
BorisFX....and two HD Canon D5's, a Sony Betacam SP, JVC HDV,
and a RED EPIC and Sony CineAlta F35 on the way...plus 20 computers
and 150 TERABYTES of ONLINE DRIVE SPACE...what other
software and hardware do you think I need!?

I work in a professional video production house in the Editing/Post Production/3D graphics
arena...with a two year DIP in computer graphics from an accredited Polytechnic College
that has 22,000 students (SAIT) and plus my 18 years CGI experience ... I'd say that
kinda helps...not to mention background in real-time 3D rendering code development
in C/C++/Delphi/ADA of specialty graphics systems AND some hardware GPU IP
development and ENGINEERING of FPGA (Field Progammable Gate Arrays) for
MASSIVELY PARALLEL processing of real-time 2D and 3D imagery...I'd say
that should HELP!!!!!

So is there anything ELSE you'd need?