Bob Lazar UFO footage Analysis

As interesting and as useless as a lava lamp.

Using a method that is supposed to work with different light sources with just one image and using digital alterations of the image to create the idea of different light sources may give interesting results, but they are meaningless, as we are looking at processed artificial images.

originally posted by: ArMaP
they are meaningless, as we are looking at processed artificial images.

How so armap ?
I don't think its anything more than zoom apeture, but have you a thread or article on this being artificial images?

originally posted by: ArMaP
As interesting and as useless as a lava lamp.

As a comment, as snarky and irrelevant as a know it all airhead.
Nice intro for your next 'point' which is technically incorrect.

Using a method that is supposed to work with different light sources with just one image and using digital alterations of the image to create the idea of different light sources may give interesting results, but they are meaningless, as we are looking at processed artificial images.

All processed images are 'artificial'.

Your carelessly worded reply gives the impression that these results are created from artificial images that are then processed.

Not so.

These results come from processing original frames.

Running filters or processes on mundane objects give mundane results.

Running these same processes on objects from S-4 do not give mundane results.


Results are only meaningless when the observer is too thick to grasp their meaning.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Polynomial Texture Mapping works by taking several photos of some object(s) under different light conditions. When analysing the differences between the photos the system can create a 3D version of the object, as it knows that the different lights resulted in slightly different versions of the photo.

In this case we have one (or more) frame(s) with a specific light condition. As there aren't any other images with the light coming from different directions, it's not possible to use PTM effectively, as PTM doesn't work on those conditions, so they are working with artificial images, not several images of the UFO taken from the same position with the UFO in the same position but with different lighting.

If the PTM images are based on artificial images the result is irrelevant, it's like taking a photo of the back of your hand and based on that identifying your finger prints.

In the video explaining the PTM process they even say: "During the PTM processing the picture of the UFO is translated into a depth map and by (artificially) shining light on the surface from all directions texures (relief) begin to reflect light and features start to show."

So, they use some process to turn an image into a depth map (a system that doesn't work with images in which the light is not shinning perpendicular on the scene) and then they "artificially" shine light on those artificially created surfaces to get an artificial texture that can or cannot be representative of the original object.

It's just a waste of time for those doing it, a much smaller waste of time for those watching it and a good way of fooling people, probably including those doing it.

PS: if the system works then can reproduce any object that we photograph and send them to process. If the system cannot do that in a controlled situation it cannot do that in an uncontrolled situation like the video of the UFO.

originally posted by: A51Watcher
All processed images are 'artificial'.

Obviously, but that's not what I was saying, what I was saying (or at least trying to say) is that when we use a processed image (artificial) image as the basis of another process, the second process is working with an artificial image, not with the original.

Your carelessly worded reply gives the impression that these results are created from artificial images that are then processed.

Not so.

These results come from processing original frames.

The images weren't processed twice, with two different methods? If they were, the second method worked with artificial images.

Results are only meaningless when the observer is too thick to grasp their meaning.

No, results are meaningless when they do not have a real relation with the original data, that way their only use is to fool people, if they are presented as being done with the original data.

a reply to: ArMaP

No they were -not- processed twice.

As I said, once from the original frame.

Ok for those of you needing some 'context', here is a version with introductory context -

a reply to: gort51

I have nothing but good feelings about Bob.

He seems like an honest intelligent guy.

Imagine how hard it would be to prove that you did something/worked for the gov on something like an alien craft-especially if the gov didn't want you to.

Luckily,he was allowed to live after speaking out-I heard that (in one of the interviews with Lazar) the gov took a few shots at him.

I wish nothing but the best for him-I just wish that he felt like coming out with another more detailed interview about what exactly happened.Like at least a 2 hour interview or something.

originally posted by: FalcoFan
a reply to: gort51

...I just wish that he felt like coming out with another more detailed interview about what exactly happened.Like at least a 2 hour interview or something.

I am confident you just might get your wish sometime this year FalcoFan.

That is a common reoccurring theme I hear from those interested. And those wishes are being made known to George and Bob.

You can send your questions to George at KLAS.

He just interviewed Bob last weekend live onstage at the UFO Congress in Scottsdale, AZ.

As far as your previous post re: the craft being inter dimensional or operating outside of our time, you could well be right.

This is the first time the public has been exposed to enhancements and filtering of these craft, giving us a glimpse into the odd mechanics they employ. So your guess is as good as anyone's at this point. We just don't know.

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: A51Watcher

I just wasted the time of 4:42 hoping to find something of substance in this video. Knowing from decades ago that Lazar is a fake didn't help.

The problem with your statement is you do -NOT- know that 'Lazar is a fake'.

It is pure speculation on your part.

I happen to know the exact opposite is true. And it is not speculation.

And yes I do have pics.

...and now for those wanting perspective on distance of the craft, a fence etc. take a look at 5:06 of this video.

The original footage is just before that mark.

The craft was between the mountain range and our tourists, roughly 2.5 miles.

originally posted by: A51Watcher
a reply to: ArMaP

No they were -not- processed twice.

As I said, once from the original frame.

Then I misunderstood the explanation on the second video you posted, sorry.

Anyway, I don't trust the results of using PTM (or any other technique) in a way it was not meant to be used, specially a technique that was meant to be used with several light sources being used with just one real light source.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: A51Watcher
a reply to: ArMaP

No they were -not- processed twice.

As I said, once from the original frame.

Then I misunderstood the explanation on the second video you posted, sorry.

Anyway, I don't trust the results of using PTM (or any other technique) in a way it was not meant to be used, specially a technique that was meant to be used with several light sources being used with just one real light source.

if the object is lighted and spinning, wouldn't that provide a different light source during and between each rotation of the spin?

originally posted by: undo
if the object is lighted and spinning, wouldn't that provide a different light source during and between each rotation of the spin?

Not really, because when the object rotates what was under a specific light is now under the same light but from a slightly different position in relation to that part of the object but it also changes the perspective in which that part of the object is seen.

I don't really know what the result would be, but I think it would create a kind of three dimensional blur.

originally posted by: ArMaP

Anyway, I don't trust the results of using PTM (or any other technique) in a way it was not meant to be used, specially a technique that was meant to be used with several light sources being used with just one real light source.

That's pretty funny. Just how many techniques do you suppose are 'meant to be used' to examine UFO's? LOL

And I think someone with 22 years experience using PTM software is quite familiar with how 'it is meant to be used'.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: undo
if the object is lighted and spinning, wouldn't that provide a different light source during and between each rotation of the spin?

Not really, because when the object rotates what was under a specific light is now under the same light but from a slightly different position in relation to that part of the object but it also changes the perspective in which that part of the object is seen.

not if there's more than one light source.

originally posted by: A51Watcher
That's pretty funny. Just how many techniques do you suppose are 'meant to be used' to examine UFO's? LOL

That's not what I meant, as you probably know.

You can use any technique to examine UFO images if you use them in the right way.
PTM is supposed to be used with several light sources, so, if you have images of an UFO with light coming from several different directions for each image I don't see any problem in using PTM, in fact, PTM would be a great tool to try to find more detail of the UFO's surface.

And I think someone with 22 years experience using PTM software is quite familiar with how 'it is meant to be used'.

Someone with 22 years experience using PTM may be quite familiar with how PTM is meant to be used, but that doesn't mean they cannot use it in different situations, for whatever reasons they may have.

originally posted by: undo
not if there's more than one light source.

More than one light source but one light source for each photo, that's how the method "knows" that what the photos show represent relief and not just changes in colour.

PTM works by taking several photos with the object and the camera fixed and with several light sources for which the positions are known or knowable, but one light source for each photo.

UFO with light coming from several different directions for each image I don't see any problem in using PTM

that's what the ufo is supplying, light coming from several different sources, on the ufo itself.

originally posted by: undo
that's what the ufo is supplying, light coming from several different sources, on the ufo itself.

Only if you have a light on a specific point in the UFO lighting up and illuminating the UFO, then that light goes off and another one turns on, on a different position, and illuminates the same areas of the UFO that were illuminated by the first light.

PTM works by comparing the different lighting from the different sources and creating a virtual model of the surface based on the different shadows created on the whole object by the different light sources.