Exellent UFO footage out of Utah taken in 2016 just now posted Clear What do you think ATS?

a reply to: UKWO1Phot

Ok here is what I have done in approximately 10 minutes...

Step 1: Track the camera movement.
streamable.com...

Step 2: Create a simple gray ellipse shape to act as our UFO (this is a step I can spend a lot more time on).

Step 3: Enable 3D and motion blur for the scene and UFO shape.

Step 4: Animate the UFO shape in a 3D curved path to follow, and attach it to the camera movement tracker.
streamable.com...

Step 5: Render
streamable.com...

Now, this was only 10 minutes. Give me an hour and I can do even better. Give me a day and you'd debate if its real or not. Give me a week and you wouldn't doubt we are being invaded.

To answer your point... Most experts don't want to waste their time remaking this. It is easy, but its still time consuming. In the end the effort isn't even worth it. All that usually happens when debating a UFO is someone will say "your video looks nothing like the original" or "so what we all know it can be done in CGI".

Then when you argue about how the UFO is moving in way that suggests its fake they will say, "this UFO can probably bend space time, and use magical pixie dust to create a wormhole, and pass through into a holographic alternate universe where the laws of physics don't exist" so anything can be explained away.

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: TheOnlyBilko

originally posted by: peacefulpete


I think it's still an open case; this one person saying it's "proven" to be CGI, didn't give a link when asked (because I'm curious about this topic).

He didn't give a link? A link? What type of link?

There is NO stinking "link", the link is what he told you about the frames. It's his personal analysis on why it's CGI. There Is no stinking link to give lol

lol I was asking because he had made the authoritative statement that the case was "proven" CGI.

So I was curious if there was a good video etc. that showed the proof.

I guess not.

So until I see otherwise, it still seems an open case...

Lol yes I'm with you on that

a reply to: UKWO1Phot

Look at it, the background is moving down. Look at all the land to the left of the tree, that is not the foreground that is the middle between the tree and the mountain background. That whole area is moving down too. The tree is moving down as well. Everything in the entire scene is moving down at some degree or another because the entire camera is moving UP. However the "UFO" stays stationary. This means its fake. The UFO is not in the video, its on top of the video.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Now that is what I meant.
Amazing, Thanks for the quick tutorial.

As you say with a bit more work you could get it perfect.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

I'm seeing that as zoomed in too much + pixel blur due to the lens n sensor.

As I say it looks real enough to me.

Although your example does show how easy it is to fake.

a reply to: UKWO1Phot

To each their own. I can prove its fake, but the only people that would understand it are the experts. So whats the point?

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Well at least you're trying, which is a lot better than shouting fake because it can't be real.

Explaining and giving good examples too

Please! For the sake of my personal sanity!! .Me (paul) a total 'non entity' on this planet.Please excuse my simple brain,I live in UK,near Gatwick,yesterday,I thought, TruthSerum,had blown it out of the water,with frame analysis,65,64,and the gravitational effects,my thought process,no one, CGI ing,can,could,go to that extent?..,Now, More1thanAnyone,has convinced me,this is total fabrication,talk about confused,...So,if? This has been done,as a grand deception? Can someone? Anyone,take the originators,to task (please)
And,hope,my lame attempts,at self deprication,and hunour,are understood.I am totally bamboozled,but happy to learn,AND then some. Thank You (all)

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
a reply to: TruthS3rum

The UFO [...] remains stationary for 4 frames no matter how much the camera moves during those frames, which proves the object is not really in the scene at all, but added on top of the video.

To each their own. All this indicates to me is that the object is far in the background at that point. You use the word "proof" with an immense amount of liberalism. Can anybody else identify with this as being "proof" of anything? I sure can't.

Also, Sam Chortek's YouTube channel shows he "liked" a video tutorial for After Effects. This is an instant disqualification for me. I realize he is in the film industry, but the video just isn't that good, and this is more evidence to consider.

So, he watched a crappy After Effects video. How exactly does that lend credence to him being someone hypothetically capable of making something original (i.e. not a replication of something else) with such realism? There's multiple places in this footage where the vehicle becomes, for all intents and purposes, completely invisible to the camera—except that it's not technically invisible:





These are frames 6507-6513 (top) and 6489-6496 (bottom). Without the colors inverted and a 20:1 scale, it's completely impossible to see, and in the bottom .gif, it's virtually impossible to see unless you also watch the frames go in reverse and look really #ing hard. The only reason you can even see it is because it perturbs the background directly behind it in a concentric fashion.

I'm sorry, but no CGI artist is going to give two limp dicks about detail of this magnitude—none.

originally posted by: UKWO1Phot
a reply to: More1ThanAny1
Being a photographer "to me" the motion blur looks correct and what I'd expect for a fast moving object.
I don't do videography or CGI effects so I'd like to see someone add say a square block or football and track and match it to the video presented.

People really don't seem to grasp just how much more difficult it would be to create an original forgery of something like this. When you have a stencil or a template, all bets are off. That's a grossly inadequate comparison as far as I'm concerned.

To all the supposed CGI experts out there, I challenge you to create an original product not mimicking this video, that looks just as convincing in every possible way.

A 5 year-old can use crayons and a stencil, but I have yet to see one paint like Picasso or Van Gogh.

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
a reply to: UKWO1Phot

Look at it, the background is moving down. Look at all the land to the left of the tree, that is not the foreground that is the middle between the tree and the mountain background. That whole area is moving down too. The tree is moving down as well. Everything in the entire scene is moving down at some degree or another because the entire camera is moving UP. However the "UFO" stays stationary. This means its fake. The UFO is not in the video, its on top of the video.

I don't think you have proof here that you think.

The closer landscape is of course moving more because it's closer. The farther object would be expected to show less movement just because it's farther away. (Or maybe the object is moving?)

originally posted by: TruthS3rum
To each their own. All this indicates to me is that the object is far in the background at that point. You use the word "proof" with an immense amount of liberalism. Can anybody else identify with this as being "proof" of anything? I sure can't.

Well my friend, you aren't an expert in this field so I understand why you would think that.

But, do try to explain why the entire camera was able to pan up a few pixels, moving everything in the scene down including the sky, mountains, and foreground, but the UFO remains fixed in place. Generally when a camera moves, everything in the scene moves with it. Unless of course the object was added to the video later and is not really in the scene.

originally posted by: TruthS3rum
So, he watched a crappy After Effects video. How exactly does that lend credence to him being someone hypothetically capable of making something original (i.e. not a replication of something else) with such realism?

You must be new to UFOlogy. Let me get you caught up. About 99% of the time a UFO video is posted on YouTube, if the video owner has or likes other videos regarding special effects software, the video is usually a hoax.

Also, what "realism"? Where is this "realism" you speak of? The only thing real in the OP's video is the background in which it was shot. Nothing else in the video represents anything in this reality. So I don't know what you are talking about.

originally posted by: TruthS3rum
There's multiple places in this footage where the vehicle becomes, for all intents and purposes, completely invisible to the camera—except that it's not technically invisible:

Without the colors inverted and a 20:1 scale, it's completely impossible to see, and in the bottom .gif, it's virtually impossible to see unless you also watch the frames go in reverse and look really #ing hard. The only reason you can even see it is because it perturbs the background directly behind it in a concentric fashion.

I'm sorry, but no CGI artist is going to give two limp dicks about detail of this magnitude—none.

I'm sorry but you need to brush up your understanding of image and video compression artifacts and also the limitations of raster graphics. The artist didn't add those details, nor is it detail, they are artifacts.

When small objects that only fit in a odd number of small pixels are moving, they tend to blend over into neighboring pixels. For example, say you have an object that is only 1 pixel in size and its moving toward the right. Lets say that object is white, and the background is black. Well, what happens when that object is halfway between the next pixel over? Two pixels become light gray in color. The object is now two pixels wide. If it moves another half to the right it becomes 1 pixel again. This is the limitation of raster graphics.

Now here comes the compression algorithm. Do you understand how that works? Basically it tries to reduce the number of unique colors in the image so it can store them in a definition table and reduce the size of the file. For example, imagine 4 pixels with RGB values (4,4,4) and (4,5,4) and (5,4,5) and (5,5,4) that are all in the same area and make a little square. When you save this to a bitmap file you will have a 12 byte file because there are 12 integers; (444454545554). Since all 4 of these RGB values create a really dark gray color, almost visibly black, and they are all close together in position and value, you wouldn't care if I changed them all to be the same color. I can change them all to be 444 and you wouldn't see a big difference. When I do that, I can also reduce the file size by using a definition table. When I save the file I can say that A=444 at the beginning of the file, and then everywhere I save the value "A" it will be 444. So I can save the file like so; (A444AAAA). So it went from 12 bytes to 8 bytes.

That is how lossy compression works (well the most basic ones). You lose a little bit of data/detail but you don't really mind. This does create some blocky images that I am sure you have seen before, and small objects that are only a few pixels tend to blend in and out of the background, and "appear and disappear", depending on their current position between pixels and the color of the background and surrounding pixels. That example of the single white pixel turning into two gray pixels while it is moving, well, it doesn't survive lossy compression very well if the background is similar in color to the object. Say that 1 white pixel was actually a darker gray, and the background was a mixture of various dark greens, when the object is moving and is halfway between pixels it would be a mix of dark green and gray, and eventually get eaten up by compression artifacts.

But what do I know?

a reply to: peacefulpete

You are focusing too much on that little GIF image. Go see in the full video, the entire scene is moving down, including the sky which is the furthest object in the scene. This means the camera moved up slightly, and everything should have moved down, but the UFO didn't. It is 100% proof the video is fake.

a reply to: TruthS3rum

My friend, now you have gone off to Lala Land. To claim there are no original and creative artists, and noone is capable of making something that convinces you so passionately that it is real, is absurd. What is even more absurd is to not understand the advancement of computer technology and software in today's age that makes all this as easy as drawing with stencils and crayons. With the click of a few buttons, the software does all the tricky stuff like motion blur and lighting for your scene, and anyone can be a special effects artist.

Now you've gone away from facts and science, and have moved toward opinion. I don't think you can prove this is real or fake with opinion.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

But what do I know?

Apparently you think you know it [SNIPPED] all. I don't need a [SNIPPED] crash-course in video compression, and I'm not a fan of your condescension in the slightest.

My assertion of its realistic appearance is based on my exposure to digital video spanning many years, which is ultimately subjective. You could learn a thing or two from the meaning of that word: "subjective". For all your pontificating and tangential [SNIPPED], there isn't a single shred of objectivity in relation to those .gifs.

The [SNIPPED] they're artifacts. I fundamentally disagree with you here. You're going to have to let everyone else decide for themselves, because the bottom line is that you don't [SNIPPED] demonstrate that compression artifacting has anything to do with what those .gifs show. You don't have "100% proof" of [SNIPPED].

You're pretty [SNIPPED] bold to call me out for "authoritative opinions". [SNIPPED]

My challenge stands. If you're such [SNIPPED] CGI sensei, then make one for yourself that's original and let everyone else grade it in comparison to Beaver, UT.

a reply to: TruthS3rum

Yes, this is not my first rodeo. I can spot fakes from a mile away. So I do know what I am talking about. So far I have only been discussing point #4 from this post of mine, maybe I should start talking about the other 3 points with relentlessness depth? www.abovetopsecret.com...

From my perspective, it indeed looked like you needed a crash course on video compression and raster graphics limitations. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted GIF images that show the result of the two said subjects and mistook them for being artistic detail.

Furthermore, when you created those GIFs you modified them from their original format by inverting the colors, and when you resized the image to zoom in you erroneously used what appears to be a form of interpolation that completely obfuscates the original pixel data. It appears you used "bicubic" or "bilinear" interpolation when you should have used "nearest neighbor" in order to preserve the pixel data. By applying the type of interpolation you have applied to resize the image, you have basically made a new image that has no relation to the original frame data.

So it appears you also need a crash course on interpolation. Here is a good one:


So not only are you looking at raster limitations with compression artifacts, you also just applied interpolation artifacts on top of it and you didn't even realize it. So your opinion on this subject is basically meaningless if you don't even know the basics of computer graphics.

I don't need to waste my time creating a realistic original video, nor will I. That is because I already know the outcome of this challenge, it is not the first time it has been requested. What happens is, I create a video that fools everyone that didn't know about the challenge, because they didn't know it was CGI. However, everyone that did know about the challenge already looks at the video with suggestive bias, because they already know its CGI. Therefore it looks fake to them no matter what. Then cue the people that say "this doesn't prove anything we all know someone can make realistic CGI UFOs"!

Again, this is not my first rodeo.

a reply to: TruthS3rum

My friend,

I haven't posted anything subjective. My observations can be measured and tested. Go ahead and measure the lack of movement of the object over those 4 frames, and then measure the average movement of all the rest pixels in the scene. You will see the all the pixels move down, because the camera is moving up, and the object stays stationary. This is a classic "match moving" error.

As for the rest of your comments, pointing out gaps in one's knowledge is not condescending. It's an inevitable self realization that you will need to embrace.

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
a reply to: TruthS3rum
My friend,

I haven't posted anything subjective.

Exactly my point. And don't suppose to being my friend. [SNIP]

pointing out gaps in one's knowledge is not condescending.

No, it's not, but the manner in which you go about it most certainly is.

I don't need to waste my time creating a realistic original video, nor will I. That is because I already know the outcome of this challenge, it is not the first time it has been requested. What happens is, I create a video that fools everyone that didn't know about the challenge, because they didn't know it was CGI. However, everyone that did know about the challenge already looks at the video with suggestive bias, because they already know its CGI. Therefore it looks fake to them no matter what. Then cue the people that say "this doesn't prove anything we all know someone can make realistic CGI UFOs"!

Whatever you say, sensei...