Extracting and animating data from the "UFO Video Captured By Homeland Security"

Wowzers. There are some tech savvy and super smart folks on ATS.

Another great thead by IssacKoi and kudos to those helping with his latest project.

I have no clue how to do anything it is you are doing or I would help. The PR UFO/USO video is off the chain and I am looking forward to seeing what you all come up with when finished!

I would like to take part in complete the spreadsheet of data extracted from the video.
If you still need some help , I would like to help.
I just need the correct and fully updated spreadsheet file so I can get this going.


(Don't ignore me because it's my first post here , I'm totally serious about help in every way I can.)

originally posted by: FederWBush
If you still need some help , I would like to help.
I just need the correct and fully updated spreadsheet file so I can get this going.

Sure. The more the boring bits of the work are spread out, the sooner we will finish.

The current version of the spreadsheet is at:
prrr.isaackoi.com...

To avoid confusion or duplication, I think it would be best if you are assigned a specific column. Column AU is 20% done, so perhaps you could continue that one.

originally posted by: IsaacKoi

To avoid confusion or duplication, I think it would be best if you are assigned a specific column. Column AU is 20% done, so perhaps you could continue that one.

No problem, I'll complete this column

a reply to: IsaacKoi

You kinda have to wonder why this is in the Aliens and UFO forum if OP explicitly states that no conclusions should be made about what his data is or is not, and that he is merely "animating" the data for further inspection by ATS members.

To expect members to remain without bias, when this is clearly a forum meant for the discussion of UFOs and related subjects, yet OP states that no conclusions should be made and discussion remain unbiased, would prove OP's thread not only has no purpose than to perhaps conflate an existing issue with a purported UFO video, and to ultimately obfuscate the sighting with data that OP mandates should not be assigned to any pre-existing notion of what it may or may not be.

I'll thank you for the determination it took to assemble this data collection, but it feels like cowardice to refuse to take a position on what your data actually is, or even resembles. Instead, you expect the members here to take a stance, despite claiming you are against this, there really is no where else to go when you've examined the presented information.

You cannot avoid a polarization in the end, you either believe it is something we can explain or believe it's something we can't explain. So this either belongs in the UFO forum because you actually think that's what your data suggests or this thread does not belong in here at all.

Since you posted it in here, the underlying message is that you want us to think it is, but you refuse to commit to this notion yourself. That's alot of time invested to simply refuse to take a side.

Should we have an entire forum dedicated to posting the deconstruction of sightings that skeptics believe are NOT UFOs? Or should we just rename this the Not-Quite UFO's and Definitely-Not Aliens Forum.

a reply to: yourignoranceisbliss

You seem to confuse UFOs and aliens.

Or a totally new thread can be made after the data is compiled? If you want to debate the content there is an existing thread you can go to.

a reply to: yourignoranceisbliss

I've got the first 3k done and moving to the second PDF. I'll have it to you by tomorrow.

a reply to: IsaacKoi

a reply to: yourignoranceisbliss

Not sure of your point, unless it's to be snarky. If so, you achieved your goal.

The object filmed in the Puerto Rico video IS a UFO, until it isn't. I think the MODS would've moved the thread had they felt that it wasn't posted in the correct forum. Since that is their job and all.

Now, let me get back to what's important...

This thread/project has been nagging at me!! Are there detailed instructions on how to extract the data/add it to the spreadsheet? I do know a lot about photos, I can use spread sheets, I can use a computer and do data entry, etc. I would just like to take a closer look at the process before volunteering to help out. I'm a pretty smart cookie to boot. However, I'm a nurse and so not an IT professional, haha.

I am totally interested in helping as long as I understand how to do the assigned task so I don't muck it up, that is. Plus, I think it would be very cool to be a part of this project! TIA!!

a reply to: Mastronaut

Agreed.

a reply to: lovebeck

The point here is to do some serious analysis of the video itself. That's all, find what we can find from the data presented in the video, and identify that which can be identified, simple really. ;-)

Ultimately it gets us closer to the truth of what's in and what's not in the video...

originally posted by: Springer
a reply to: lovebeck

The point here is to do some serious analysis of he video itself. That's all, find what we can find from the data presented in the video, and identify that which can be identified, simple really. ;-)

Ultimately it gets us closer to he truth of what's in and what's not in the video...

You gotta be kidding! Serious analysis? Of what? A featureless orb or round or oval object is tracked forever and there is nothing in that video that is useful. Yeah, it did go over roads with automobiles and above buildings so I estimate its size to be between 10 and 15 feet in diameter. Nothing can be identified so pursuing information seems to be an empty effort.

I'll tell you what's in that video: nothing to gain any knowledge from. What's not in that video? Details!

The things some people get excited about!

Can someone clarify to me frame 1721 AU number ? (
prrr.isaackoi.com...

And from some reason I can't send you P,M IsaacKoi.

originally posted by: Uggielicious
Yeah, it did go over roads with automobiles and above buildings so I estimate its size to be between 10 and 15 feet in diameter. Nothing can be identified so pursuing information seems to be an empty effort.

How exactly did you arrive at that size estimate? A wild guess? Do you know the laws of perspective can make your thumb look the same size as the moon? Same with this object, you have no idea how far away the object is, so you have no idea the size it is.

With the information in this video, such as the type of camera, the amount of zoom, the GPS position of camera, and the GPS position of the "lookat" point or "target", which is all available. We can actually get a very accurate size of this object, and if it is the size of a balloon, well, there we go.

We can also get a confirmed speed of the object, which can tell us if its average speed of wind at those altitudes pushing a balloon, or we can determine if it is way too fast to be wind.

We can be more certain than just a wild guess.

Guys, can I ask you a question? Why are you extracting data from all 7027 frames? How granular do you really need the simulation to be? The video seems to be doing about 35 frames per second (rough calculation based on the timestamp). You only really need to extract the data from every second which would be about 200 frames total. Then you can pretty much fill in the blanks between each second when you go to animate.

When you animate you only need keyframes, and the space between the keyframes can be simulated.

You would be done by now if you only did every second. It seems to me the time between each second is not very valuable if the point is to do basic calculations.

The report cites eyewitness testimony stating that the object initially appeared as a forward flying horseshoe, which later morphed into a spherical shape shortly before submerging in the ocean. This reminds me of the following video of which I cannot affirm its authenticity:

a reply to: clay2 baraka
Correction.
The report cites second hand testimony (from an un-named source). That's it.

a reply to: clay2 baraka

Sorry but that video can be proven to be CGI with rudimentary tools. The camera shake is simulated. The motion blur applied to the scene also is standard fake motion blur you can enable in After Effects...

Oh and it is a video by YouTube user 'xxxdonutzxxx' who has been confirmed to be a serial hoaxer who owns several hoax YouTube channels full of bad CGI. Google the name and see the proof.

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: clay2 baraka

Sorry but that video can be proven to be CGI with rudimentary tools. The camera shake is simulated. The motion blur applied to the scene also is standard fake motion blur you can enable in After Effects...

Oh and it is a video by YouTube user 'xxxdonutzxxx' who has been confirmed to be a serial hoaxer who owns several hoax YouTube channels full of bad CGI. Google the name and see the proof.

Ah, thank you.

originally posted by: Mastronaut
a reply to: yourignoranceisbliss

You seem to confuse UFOs and aliens.

You seem to not know what forum you're in right now.