A reply from Bob Lazar to our analysis of his video footage taken at Area 51

a reply to: spf33

Ah yes, I remember you now.

In the intervening years it appears someone or something has taught you how to state your objections in a polite way with manners instead of coming off as unhinged as you used to.

Unfortunately atm time does not allow for me to point out in detail how your false assumptions are incorrect but if you can sit tight for a week or two I will be happy to do so.

In the meantime I will leave you with this - If our analysis is so flawed, then why does the original photographer (Bob Lazar) state with amazement that it looks exactly like what they saw that night?

a reply to: A51Watcher

Hm, I don't remember any conversations with you regarding the Lazar video.

Sure, I can wait. Looking forward to further discussion.

I'm not really concerned with what Lazar, Lear or Knapp have to say about your analyses.

My interest is purely in the video.

I am interested in your response to spf33 too. I was under the belief that it was the original camcorder tape. I am not rebutting your work but the refined image implies some incredible things. It's important enough that the frequency, range from broadcast, exact type of medium the analog broadcast was stored on, how long it was stored, etc all should be presented. Anything you can provide about the source you worked with.

I asked in my previous post basically if you would prefer to work original recordings from digital sources, or old school analog tape. I have heard that analog tape potentially has infinite resolution, or at least beyond what a single projection can provide, and work like yours can resolve details you would normally never see. Digital recordings, however cannot be more resolved without 'guessing' some of the missing data. A pixel is always the same pixel. This is somewhat related to spf33's question.

A51Watcher - I'm aware of your Lazar, Kaikoura and Gimbal analyses, but are there further projects on the horizon?


For example, have you considered going way back to study the 1950 Mariana film or the 1952 Newhouse footage?

i enjoyed this thanks for sharing

originally posted by: spf33
a reply to: A51Watcher

My interest is purely in the video.

I get your polarized point but it's similar to the left vs right issue currently overtaking this forum. Picking a stance of non believing because of a gray area technicality without optical perfection is ... Well .. polarized because nothing is perfect..i agree to ask more but you have nothing to add other than grilling over not having the smoking tape?

3rd gen analog is not like resaving a typical jpg at a 10th quality 3 times. I am highly familiar with such regarding analog/digital transfers. While there is definitely a loss of original vs broadcast vs recording.. there is a great deal available to evaluate. Analog was/is so much better than current tech imo. On top of that, the programs used are beyond normal scopes.

From what i watched and read about the programs used, the analysis was done and provided a consistent result validated with a human response which also coincides with decades old testimony.

Its baffling the consistency of the program related results dont make an impression of some sort other than pointing out this wasnt the exact original taken physically from the camera.

I've seen "things" and dern if this doesnt resonate .

My main issue (even after reading about the gen level provided + programs used) is the supposed internal view. I understand how the internal view was derived but .. thats a stretch imo

Do i wish he had the physical original.. hell yes. But when does that ever happen. Sigh .. my original ufo photos are long gone via lifes twist and turns... havent seen em since which is a common vein for sone reason.

Final statement... After researching the techniques used combined with personal experience, this is actually cool as hell imo

b

originally posted by: spf33
a reply to: A51Watcher

Hm, I don't remember any conversations with you regarding the Lazar video.

Sure, I can wait. Looking forward to further discussion.

I'm not really concerned with what Lazar, Lear or Knapp have to say about your analyses.

My interest is purely in the video.

Please accept my sincere apologies.

Seeing your join date you must surely remember the good old days when trolls ruled the roost around here.

Looking through my old threads you can see I was not treated politely or with courtesy in those days.

It appears that these days their recent crackdown on ill manners has had a positive effect.

Anyway from the wording in your post I incorrectly assumed you were one of the previous trolls come to have a another crack at it.

This weekend I can get back to you and we will start over.

a reply to: Bspiracy

Can't disagree more.

For me, it's simply, does the video show anything more than a blob of pixels and are the presented analyses of the blob appropriate, legitimate and valid?

Within this frame of mind, one has to ask how the video came to be and what was done to it;

1) Recorded by an unknown VHS camera

2) Recorded onto an unknown VHS tape

3) Tape to KLAS who did who knows what to the VHS recording before the NTSC broadcast signal

4) NTSC broadcast signal of unknown quality recorded

5) Recorded by an unknown VHS recorder

6) Recorded onto an unknown VHS tape

7) VHS tape digitized using unknown procedures

Each of these issues inherently introduce their own visual degradation of the original; tracking and scan lines, signal transmission noise, compression artifacting, etc.

The OP's analysis isn't so much revealing features of the object as it is enhancing these visual degradations.

Look at the quality of this still from presumably the same VHS transfer - youtu.be...

Does this man has fingernails?



Bottom line for me is even disregarding the sketchy path of the original video, you can stack a 100 images in a 100 different color spaces or run the video through a 100 different algorithms and

there is no rational way to go from this:



to this:



and then claim the results are some sort of scientific enhancement that reveals the true details of a tiny blob of pixels.

a reply to: A51Watcher

Absolutely no apologies necessary.

Apologies from me, I tend to come off as belligerent at times. I'll try to tone it down.

I'm wondering if you've ever tried this same type of analysis on a video of a known object, maybe something like some sort of aircraft at night?

a reply to: spf33
It's the consistency of recurring frames you leave out. Sure i can understand the apprehension of rhe techniques used if you don't understand but when said techniques consistently provide a universal result.. dunno.. seems self evident to me

I do like your irrelevant pics btw.

b

a reply to: Bspiracy

You've got it backwards. My apprehension is caused by my understanding of the techniques.

Ok I will try to answer the various questions and comments put forth in my absence -


We have been approached by others who also wanted to provide us with pictures and video material.

The Image Analysis Team has a strict policy: we primarily only investigate original material. This must be material provided by the owner of the material or an original source. Before we do any investigation we verify the integrity of a file (hash). When we have any doubts about the origin or genuineness we also have other means to check if there has been any manipulation of the material.

If the original file is not (immdiately) available, as is the case with Lazar, where they still try to locate the 1989 original tape, we will only go for the best alternative. This can be a 1st generation digital transfer from the original VHS tape or a 1st generation VHS recording of an original broadcast, a scanned 8mm / 16mm / 35 mm film, or any digital (uncompressed) 1st generation copy of a video - or photo. For an indepth investigation we will never use any material supplied by a non-official source or third-party. Forensic video- and image enhancement is time-consuming and it must be carried out with extreme caution in order to avoid creation which may lead to wrong conclusions.

To answer the question: "For example, have you considered going way back to study the 1950 Mariana film or the 1952 Newhouse footage?"

The answer is simply no we have never considered this as we have NOT have been given access to the original (uncompressed) material.

For those who do not understand how it possible to retrieve so much information from a VHS tape, please note this comments from Burt Brown, he is a (80's) VHS video expert.

The image of the Bob Lazar UFO is not a single frame but a series of extremely well stabilized frames, which after stacking have left a solid composite. When you watch a faint object in a (low resolution) VHS video on your TV screen your eyes cannot see that there also is a whole lot of indescernible data (colours) hidden left out within the random pixels as the field scans. Using numerous images that each captured a different portion of light put off by the UFO we eventually supplied all the pixels available from the image and so we could reconstruct a complete image and not just a series of flickering scans.

From the processor: Regarding Bob Lazar's UFO: In order to get a complete and detailed image of the craft we stabilized each single frame by hand using a forensic video feature named perspective registration. We located the best frame and used that as our reference frame. We carefully marked the center of the craft in the reference frame and placed a series of markers around it. By moving the craft to the center coordinate of the reference frame we matched all previous- and a consecutive frames with this one best visible UFO frame. Simply put: We put all frames on top of each other and one frame after the other we filled those gaps / missing pixels that were left open in other frames.

a reply to: A51Watcher

Agreed, frame stacking is a well known, and legitimate technique that is useful for forensic analysis.

However, as you've stated and contrary to your videos, this method is useful for distilling an enhanced single image out of many images:



to this



or something this



The problem is further compounded because in the Jupiter example the camera and the planet are both in fixed, relatively, positions. In other words, in situations where the scene isn't changing due to motion or varying light and shadow.

And in the license plate example there is a known element, the plate is used as a reference guide.

In the original Lazar video, there is a varying amount movement of both the camcorder and presumably the object and there is no known reference guide. Both of these facts nullify your analysis of the frame-stacked results.

In addition to these two disqualifying points, you're dealing with at least a third generation.

Even if you choose to shorten your reach and stack the video frames then settle for a single image analysis, there is no way to be certain the revealed details aren't due to VHS artificating, broadcasting signal noise or macroblocking from compression.

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
A51Watcher - I'm aware of your Lazar, Kaikoura and Gimbal analyses, but are there further projects on the horizon?

Yes there are actually 3 more videos on the Kaikoura event which will be coming in the next few months which will be starting in the next few weeks.

For example, have you considered going way back to study the 1950 Mariana film or the 1952 Newhouse footage?

The answer is simply no we have never considered this as we have NOT have been given access to that original (uncompressed) material.

originally posted by: A51Watcher
Yes there are actually 3 more videos on the Kaikoura event which will be coming in the next few months which will be starting in the next few weeks.

I look forward to seeing those.

And I understand your need to work on original uncompressed material. In another thread, I wondered if the 12 seconds of legendary footage from the alleged 1971 Holloman AFB landing could be a potential project, but I realise access to the original may be virtually impossible.




By the way, do you have any general thoughts on those few seconds of film? Just curious as I've never seen it analysed by anyone, whether using original footage or not.

originally posted by: SouthernForkway26
a reply to: A51Watcher
Good to know that they gave access to the original film to skilled researchers and analysts. Absolutely incredible work. It looks like the Philadelphia Experiment perfected...

Actually Bob has no problem in providing us with the original tape for analysis.

At the moment he has no idea who has it. Last he remembers he gave it to George to broadcast.

George says he can not find it.

However there is a search underway for it by a 3rd party who has access to all parties involved.

So we may yet get to analyze this tape.

However my analysts tell me that the results will not be that much different than what we already see, only a little finer and sharper in detail, but not a whole lot.

The overall shape and details will remain the same.

In a recent interview the infamous story of the Bob and George wrestling match was revealed in which Bob changed his mind about the tape being broadcast and he tried to wrestle it out of George's hands after pulling it out of the VHS player just before airtime.

So apparently the tape was broadcast directly from one of KLAS's VHS players with no transfer done ahead of time.

originally posted by: spf33
a reply to: A51Watcher

"I'm not really concerned with what Lazar, Lear or Knapp have to say about your analyses."


Have to disagree there since what Lazar,Knapp and Huff have to say about it IS relevent,
since they were witness to it and have an opinion on how well it restores the original details they saw.

Don't forget Lear brought his Celestron telescope along that night and they all got to get a good look at it through the scope.

That is why what they saw through it with their naked eyes pertains directly with the accuracy of what our analysis revealed.

Now then What Knapp has to say about it's accuracy is irrelevant to this question since he was not a witness to the event. But since he displays frames of the analyses at his lectures it is safe to say he is confident in it's accuracy after speaking with the witnesses about it.


"In the original Lazar video, there is a varying amount movement of both the camcorder and presumably the object and there is no known reference guide. Both of these facts nullify your analysis of the frame-stacked results."

Can you please provide evidence that "there is a varying amount movement of the camcorder"?

The movement of the craft is a separate element.

originally posted by: charlyv
Indeed interesting to watch.
That was some epic video analysis technique.

Thanks charlyv. Glad you enjoyed it!