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

originally posted by: SacredLore

(For those that don't like music soundtracks you should click mute or turn your volume down.)

I just loved how you anticipated the most common criticism that people can use as an excuse to not even look!

Phantastic work, thanks a lot!

Bob Lazar may have been used as a tool to spread false information, but something unusual was up there in the air that night.

Thanks SacredLore, glad you enjoyed it!

originally posted by: Spacespider
wow.. this is very good work on such a old video clip.
In part 3 I see a center with a guy almost laying down in a seat of some kind.. ?

Thank you Spacespider, glad you enjoyed it!

originally posted by: MerkabaTribeEntity

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: A51Watcher

i shall be rude :

i CBA reading emails on youtube

just publish the dammed reply on this thread as plain text

its quite simple - why are you making it complex ?

Would you like that on a silver spoon?

Excellent analysis OP, S&F 👍

Hah! How very cheeky! (Not you the post you replied to.)

Thanks and glad you enjoyed it!

originally posted by: fromtheskydown

originally posted by: Hunkadinka
a reply to: A51Watcher

Unimpressive video, there's nothing to appreciate. A waste.

There's the pot calling the kettle black.

S&F for you! LOL

originally posted by: Caver78
a reply to: fromtheskydown

Can't believe not having Lazars thank you note posted here is the inanity being fixated on.
Not the mind numbing, time consuming work of years of development in producing the programs to enhance video's such as these, the hours spent cleaning this one up and unpaid hours of labor.Nice way to derail a thread and attempt to minimize the discovery.

Some peoples kids, right?
SMH

I would have to agree with that.

originally posted by: tjack

originally posted by: MerkabaTribeEntity

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: A51Watcher

i shall be rude :

i CBA reading emails on youtube

just publish the dammed reply on this thread as plain text

its quite simple - why are you making it complex ?

Details, details.

Would you like that on a silver spoon?

Excellent analysis OP, S&F 👍

Platter.... Silver Platter.

originally posted by: AlienAnonymous
i enjoyed this thanks for sharing

Glad you enjoyed it AlienAnonymous. Thank you for commenting.

originally posted by: Bspiracy

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

Good points Bspiracy. Thanks for the comment.

originally posted by: Bspiracy
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

Another good point Bspiracy.

Ok for the moment let's take a look at the footage with no enhancements, just the original footage with 2 magnification/zoom views side by side so you can see they match up. First at original speed, then in slow motion.

On the largest zoom window I used a cross fade transition to illustrate how they fit together one after another.

I recently asked Bob about why the shape of the craft changes radically from frame to frame, and if it was caused by localized gravity lensing such as Astronomers see frequently.

He confirmed this as being the case.

This video has further evidence to come confirming it is accurately reproducing what was seen that night.





(to be continued)

originally posted by: A51Watcher

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

The movement of the craft is a separate element.

I think it's a reasonable to assume the camcorder wasn't on a tripod or stabilized on the hood of a car or somewhere.

But, as you are the one performing an analysis technique that totally requires no movement of either the camera or the thing being recorded, the onus is on you to be certain the camera was not moving.

Fire off another email to Mr. Lazar and see if he can confirm the camera was stable.

It doesn't matter though, as you have admitted and as was reported, the object was moving.

Unfortunately, this fact alone nullifies your frame stacked results.

a reply to: A51Watcher

I don't have too big of an issue with this analysis.

However, these are not the original pixels, these are interpolated results of upscaling.

If you intend to examine upscaled images you should be using nearest neighbor interpolation as this a closer representation of the original information.



But, you've still got the aforementioned degradation of the original; tracking and scan lines, signal transmission noise, compression artifacting, etc. to contend with.

originally posted by: spf33
a reply to: Bspiracy


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.

The above statement is incorrect. If you watch the video you will see the image we started with was not this image -




but was instead this image -




Big difference in starting images wouldn't you say?



BTW, that image was chosen because it is one of several that appear to be the clearest i.e. the least distorted compared to a lot of the others images as demonstrated by the above video.

Also because it appears to match the shape described by the witnesses that night and also Bob's description of how it appeared when landed and not surrounded by glowing plasma when powered up and in flight, in other words - The Sports Model.

Also, understanding the mechanics of how a program operates is no substitute for years of experience with the program, and knowing which frame(s) to choose and how to operate the program for the most reliable results.

Just some further variables to consider in the equation.

I think I am nearly caught up on your replies and will get to the rest fairly soon.

originally posted by: spf33
a reply to: Bspiracy

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:

A couple of misconceptions we will take partial responsibility for here:

Your comment about how we got from here to here is still has the incorrect starting image BUT, when that statement is made in the video it does seem to imply starting from the blue colored sphere and ending up at the colored photo.

What he meant was our journey in processing of starting at the blue sphere and gradually progressing to the color photo as that it took us a while.

As stated in the introduction to part 2 it states " The details that became visible in part 1 were already pretty amazing but the story continues."

However the next misconception is on you since the same introduction to part 2 states " The next video has been generated from a single frame."

NOT as you state "100 images in a 100 different color spaces or run the video through a 100 different algorithms".

It consists of 24 stacked BAS-R images + 48 PTM images.

All images stacked come from the same original single frame.

So all your concerns about camera movement or craft movement are moot points in this case.

Surely you must concede the validity of stack images derived from same frame provides a more detailed presentation than from a single image.

Take astronomy images for example where they combine (or stack) xray and visable light images or UV images resulting in a much more detailed view of Nebula's or whatever target they are imaging.

To compete a full BAS/PTM procedure you are required to create the full 24 + 48 images in the procedure. The resulting combined detail is quite effective.


I'm still trying to catch up as you race ahead so please be patient so we can keep this discussion in a chronological order.

originally posted by: A51Watcher

Big difference in starting images wouldn't you say?

Yes, it is big difference.

Your image is an upscale of the original pixels.

And inherent in the upscaling process is interpolation, a generalized approximation.

In other words, error prone. But, more simply stated: not at all the original pixels.

An image will always lose some quality each time interpolation is performed.



You cannot perform an analysis, such as your stated methods, with any sort meaning or relevance.

It's just eye candy.

originally posted by: spf33
a reply to: A51Watcher

I don't have too big of an issue with this analysis.

However, these are not the original pixels, these are interpolated results of upscaling.

If you intend to examine upscaled images you should be using nearest neighbor interpolation as this a closer representation of the original information.

But, you've still got the aforementioned degradation of the original; tracking and scan lines, signal transmission noise, compression artifacting, etc. to contend with.

Your concern with upscaling is noted and well understood.

And on a microscopic view the difference is clear -




So now let's examine the difference in a real world view instead of microscopic one and see if your concern is warranted -

frame with no processing -



frame with contrast strectch for brightness -



frame with no processing upscaled with various algorithms -



contrast stretched frame with various algorythms -



further interpolation -



pixel block interpolation -



CLAHE interpolation -





As we can see, in a real world view the shape of the craft does not change discernibly in any of them, but minor details do in some of them.

That is where decades of experience comes in, knowing which algorithms work best for the job at hand.

Even then, at the beginning of the project experienced processors will try a few different ones to compare results.

So for real world results, one CAN perform an analysis, such as our stated methods, with any sort meaning or relevance.


The previous video I posted above with 3 sizes of views to observe, were carefully placed so that the naked eye could easily see all 3 views at once and compare if they accurately represented the view preceding it.

Most viewers of this video agree that all 3 views match perfectly.

For a further understanding of our analysis, we created this video that goes into further detail on how this process works with an over the shoulder view of a pro forensic image analyst at work as he processes a frame from Bob's footage and in part 2 he processes a different frame so that viewers can understand and learn how forensic image analysis works.

a reply to: A51Watcher

Apologies, I guess I was rushing ahead. I completely missed this post.

But, I believe your incorrect usage of PTM images was already fully addressed here:

www.metabunk.org...

a reply to: A51Watcher

I think we're getting in the weeds.

This is simple.

If you're claiming to be able extract "unseen" data from the video then you should easily be able to prove your technique works by reproducing the results on other data from the same video, no?

Use your process and show that this man has fingernails:



Failing that, or in addition to, run your technique on this and show the results:

originally posted by: spf33
a reply to: A51Watcher

Apologies, I guess I was rushing ahead. I completely missed this post.

But, I believe your incorrect usage of PTM images was already fully addressed here:

www.metabunk.org...

Apparently so Blake,


How about responding to our detailed reply about your concerns about upscaling before rushing off elsewhere.?

Then we can move ahead to other concerns.


Mike