Comparing Footage Analysis Taken by Bob Lazar 1989 and A51Watcher 1991 at Area 51

Raw footage taken by Bob Lazar at Area 51, and raw footage taken by myself there both show a blob of light flying around in the sky.

Not much detail to compare.

However when we compare the processed version of each film there is a LOT of detail to compare.

You be the judge if they are indeed the same craft with the same mode of propulsion -

image-analysis-team.com...

originally posted by: A51Watcher
Raw footage taken by Bob Lazar at Area 51, and raw footage taken by myself there both show a blob of light flying around in the sky.

Not much detail to compare.

However when we compare the processed version of each film there is a LOT of detail to compare.

You be the judge if they are indeed the same craft with the same mode of propulsion -

image-analysis-team.com...

I watched the offering and, frankly, we have to accept as factual that you and Lazar are responsible for the images. But you could have done the same thing with an old fashioned outhouse for the images serve no purpose. No narration is offered so we do not have any explanation of what we're seeing and what we are to make of it. Finally, the name Lazar is used but we are not given any provenance. Since you say for us to be the judge all that be honestly said is that the images are sort-of similar. An image showing the actual craft would have been a plus. As it is, there is nothing to really comment on.

Ua reply to: A51Watcher
I can see you've put a lot of effort to surface details of lazars sportsmodel ,how bizarre that you can actually see something that look like portholes?

Nice work

originally posted by: [post=26395287]idusmartias

I watched the offering and, frankly, we have to accept as factual that you and Lazar are responsible for the images. But you could have done the same thing with an old fashioned outhouse for the images serve no purpose. No narration is offered so we do not have any explanation of what we're seeing and what we are to make of it. Finally, the name Lazar is used but we are not given any provenance. Since you say for us to be the judge all that be honestly said is that the images are sort-of similar. An image showing the actual craft would have been a plus. As it is, there is nothing to really comment on.

As stated in the video the enhancements are made from a single frame of Bob's footage which is displayed at the start, and then a single frame from my footage which is also shown at the start.

As for provenance, apparently you are not familiar with my past work, or the work of my team of processors.

If you visit my webpage here - image-analysis-team.com...

You can first see Bob's original raw footage as broadcast by George Knapp on KLAS-TV in 1989.

Then you can watch the next video our first primary processing analysis which we sent to George, which he then forwarded to Bob.

Then you can watch the next video which displays Bobs' email reply to us regarding our primary analysis video, and also shows our secondary analysis video.

How is that for provenance, comments from both photographers.

If you need an explanation of what processes and filters are used, I can certainly provide that, but to most people such terms are meaningless.

I found you. I love your YouTube videos, but you moved it, closed it, or they closed it. I just favorited your website. Your breakdowns are the coolest I've ever, ever seen. Seriously.

a reply to: A51Watcher

This is really good work. Thank you

Given that Bob Lazar is a total known bull# artist, I'm not sure what value we get from comparing something that's definitely nonsense to anything else.

The sooner we stop bringing him up, the better this subject is overall.

a reply to: BurnsXL

Hilarious!

Sorry mr. burns but that is THE most amateur attempt to elicit an emotional response I have ever seen.

Better luck next time errrrrr next thread cause you have been ghosted on this one.

ANYone can tell you the value of comparison, even other trolls.

Looks like a zoomed in object on an old camera and that the artifacts, pixelation, compression and other things are assigning shapes and contours to the image that arent really there. For instance the top dome looks like a big square pixel thats been processed enough using various filters and gradients to appear like a dome. I dont see electricity, or any kind of field around it.

Extra bonus points if you can tell me why its basically lumpy and why its got a colored ventral side. Not saying the object isnt essentially oblong shaped or has a protrusion of sorts on the top but i am saying i dont believe thats a ufo. The color on the bottom gives the whole thing away. If you understand that and why then you understand what youre looking at and what theyre doing with it.

These look very similar to images posted by Jeff Ritzmann. I can't find the thread right now, but I saved these images from it:

originally posted by: Magnificat
These look very similar to images posted by Jeff Ritzmann. I can't find the thread right now, but I saved these images from it:

WOW! NICE CATCH!

Where taking picture of the donkey or did you know UFO was there?

CATCH!

Funny you should mention that word……Looks a bit like a severed, silvery, fish head…and over water at that!

For example….




More like….CATCH OF THE DAY!

👽🛸🍺 🥴😁

a reply to: Ophiuchus1


HA!!! you are right, look like a freaking fish head hilarious 😂😂

🐟🐟👽👍


Something fishy about that UFO 😂😂😂👏👏👌

a reply to: A51Watcher

What do you mean with raw footage? What camera types have been used? Is it analog or digital (what encoding was used).

As bassplyr mentioned it seems to have typical compression artifacts.

What is the resolution of the "raw" footage? How much actual information do you have to work with (how many pixel values, what are the value ranges)? It is not clear how much you are enhancing and how much you are adding information that is not there?

a reply to: A51Watcher

You might have mentioned this and I didn't notice, but what are the timestamps in the video where the images switch from Lazar's footage to your footage?

Oh n/m, I think it's at around 2:34 where you shift over to your images.

No idea what filters you're putting the images through, but the colors/patterns looks very similar across the two different image sets.

As far as the shapes, it almost seems like the second image (I guess your footage?) has a slight protrusion or tapering of the object on the right hand side, as oriented from our point of view. So it sort of seems asymmetrical to a degree, which is what I'd expect if there was a front and back of a craft.

Otherwise they are very similar.

ETA: whoops, looks like BASSPLYR already pointed out the differences in shape/form.

My understanding of the "sports model" is there is no front or back (classic "flying saucer").

Whatever the second object is, seems more wedge shaped.

a reply to: MisguidedAngel

Flying Fish Head Soup! 🍲🤣

Naaaaaah….see, now I’m hungry 😋

👽🛸☕️🍩