Remarkable UFO footage

Originally posted by Dr Love

Originally posted by Gazrok
One of the most obvious was also the pixelation "haze" around the craft...

Could be just a distortion caused by the gravity field. Any expert can tell you how they could computer generate anything, even if the video was REAL.

Peace

That surmises into a dangerous area, that the camera from that distance could capture any "distortion", could capture it even if such was present, AND assumes a propulsion system. Thats over the edge of data, and really cant be put forth as anything.
Getting into those areas assumes alot onto a chip from a video cam. Some people out there do "analysis" and claim to know that lights or pixels off color are the result of all sorts of exotic things. Relying and making that claim is like testing a photo of Jim Morrison for his DNA. The camera is only "seeing" so much. It is not based on anything but light hitting a chip, exciting that chip and turning that into impulses on tape.

It's not testible for that kind of thing. To attribute video noise or video artifacts to anything so exotic as propulsion is only a guess, and a guess based on a video artifact.

Circumstantial evidence only disproved this Mexican UFO.

Firstly it was Jamie Maussan the "reknowned Mexican Ufologist" who "promoted" this video in UFO circles.

He is known to follow the trail of the silver dollar rather than the forensic and scientific trails when it comes to evaluating ufo evidence.

He has had some spectacular coups including getting Mexican TV all agitated by the "Alien at the World Trade Centre" video which EVERYONE knew was purely an advert for the Sci Fi Channel.

Every ufologist knew that it was an advert but him..............ermmmm right, yeah ok then.

Secondly he claims that it was sent to him anonymously and nobody has ever claimed to have sent it him.

Thirdly, it was "shot" in downtown busy Mexico City and investigators found nobody, nobody at all who saw an object above and behind the buildings .

Fourthly the spot from where the video was "assumed" to be taken was in the opposite block of commercial buildings... a more precise estimation was that it was dead in line with one of Mexico Citys foremost computer generated graphics companies... now aint that just a hell of a coincidence.

Fifthly, the video was analysed professionally and ( I cant remember why) it was proved to be a fake.

Sixtly, nobody of any substance has ever mentioned this video in any of their books, presentations or seminars.

Seventhly.....its best to dismiss 99.99% of all ufo "stuff" coming out of Mexico.

Not to add fuel to the fire however i recently spoke to a retired fairly high ranking military official in regards to did he ever see anything, oddly enough he shared what he said he could with me. He stated that all the ufo sightings since the 60's have either been the US goverment experimenting with what they found in the 3 crashes in mexico ( yes i said 3 crashes, roswell was the last according to him ) or an optical illusion or someones mind playing tricks on them. He did state that in the mid 90's there was an actual sighting that was non of the above scenarios in mexico city that was legitimate and the US goverment had no idea why THEY where there. I am not sure if this was the one he refferenced however it does seem to fall in the time frame.

Generally when i here an individual make statements like the ones told to me by this person i just dismiss them however one thing he said seemed to stick with me , he called the visitors carbons. I asked if that meant they where carbon based he said no that "carbons" was the term used by the military to refer to these life forms because that was what they where Carbons as in carbon copies. I asked him if he meant clones he oddly enough wasnt familiar with that term but he did say yeah thats what the term carbon meant.

DR love,
just a point about bob lazar...(the same point that enlightened me)
He gives a pay check reciept as evidence for his story... it is only for $750 (from los alamos)...
seems he would be getting paid more for doing super secret research...huh?

in fact that is about what the janitor would make...
I have trouble believing anything he says (would love to, but just can't)
Stan friedman also has big questions about him.

I do accept that this film could be a fake. Some people make money off scams... it is the harsh reality...

you know i never really thought about it but ive worked off and on with an individual who worked in los alomos for years and i remember him telling a few stories of some of the security systems he helped design there among other things. I never even thought to ask him what the security systems where protecting that they had to be so intense as he explained them to me. I guess ill see if i can slip that into a conversation sometime soon.......

jritzmann, you seem to be the voice of reason here, and your analysis is quite good. But, I'm afraid it's a little out of place in this thread. We don't want your stinking logic. We want flying saucers, little green men with big libidos, X-Ray guns, alien debauchary, terror in the streets, and most of all, Amazon Women From Mars!!! Logic? Don't make me laugh! We spit on your logic. Logic is for children and the insane.

Now, for the serious minded here, my only question is, "Did you get a load of that chick flying the saucer? Eh, eh. Nice cantelopes, heh? ..."

PS: To everyone on the ATS forums: Sorry. I had a stupid fit and completely lost control. It won't happen again, cough, cough ....

PPS: Seriously, nice analysis jritzmann. It's the most convincing I've heard on this incident.

I needed a laugh. Thanx dude.

Jeff@Hypergraphics Imaging, Baltimore

Great discussion guys!

Jritzmann, I'd like you to read through this thread and give your analysis of the video contained within. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally quoted by jritzmann:
That surmises into a dangerous area, that the camera from that distance could capture any "distortion", could capture it even if such was present, AND assumes a propulsion system. Thats over the edge of data, and really cant be put forth as anything.

But that doesn't mean the video's not really picking it up. The data is over the edge, but so is all data regarding UFOs. You can't use scientific method because there's no data to pull from, you can only use suppositions. If you read the thread above you'll see where I'm coming from. My posts and opinions are too numerous to rehash again in this thread.

Originally quoted by LazarusTheLong:
DR love,
just a point about bob lazar...(the same point that enlightened me)
He gives a pay check reciept as evidence for his story... it is only for $750 (from los alamos)...
seems he would be getting paid more for doing super secret research...huh?

Well Lazarus, I certainly don't know what the payrate is for people that do that kind of research for the government, but I think you would be surprised to find that the pay is a lot less than one might think.

Originally quoted by LazarusTheLong:
Stan friedman also has big questions about him (Bob Lazar).

As I've stated in another thread already, Friedman originally had a lot of misgivings about Mr. Lazar, but upon further research he did in fact find proof of the credentials Bob Lazar claimed to have. He did find the aforementioned tax documents. He did find that Lazar had indeed attended the academic institutions that he had claimed. He did find the phone book with Lazar's name in it. In doing this he did find evidence of a possible smear campaign against Lazar. I saw a show on The History Channel about Lazar, and in that show they had maybe a five second soundbite from Dr. Friedman where he said something to the effect of "Bob Lazar is full of bull", but when you read Alien Contact by Timothy Good, you find that Friedman's mind changed somewhat once he discovered the evidence. So what's the real deal? It's hard to tell.


Peace

Originally posted by Dr Love
Great discussion guys!

Jritzmann, I'd like you to read through this thread and give your analysis of the video contained within. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I cannot give any real analysis, as I dont have access to the original material. If I did I could go to work. People often try to present hard core "analysis" off internet posted videos and photos, and it's really pretty assinine. But it goes to show you how inept alot of people are when it comes to really doing stuff they arent trained to do.

What I can do is tell you what I see from whats there. This is NOT a thorough examination, just a comment on what I see there, with all the digital artifacts and compression therein.

Lets start with the first frame that shows a reference point:
early unmarked frame

Firstly, we have a row of lights, and what appears to be a structure above it, but lets see if that structure shows the same "highlights" shape as the first frame. Nope, they dont. Whats this mean? Well, it could mean it's not a solid object. I can hardly ascribe the loss of shape to video noise, or compression...but is it possible, yeah. But lets work with what we got.
So, what could the highlight be?
a)reflection-but from what light source? There's none to be seen.
b)the lights themselves, highlighting something.

Ok, so we have the lights, and theyre twinkling. This could be put to scintillation, which is heat from the earth rising making a distant light move slightly or twinkle. This is especially true of low degree off the horizon sightings of lights...and has alot to do with Venus at a low degree horizon, the light it casts and UFO reports.
But this isnt Venus.
So what else twinkles like that.
Oh yeah, burning objects. Any on fire object doesnt have a constant burn rate, nor consistent light. It fluctuates depending on the object burning, and the amount of air it's getting.
So lets guess those are burning objects. What then would be the whitish highlight above them?
Smoke.
The wind appears to be blowing to the right. Surmising that the wind is very heavy, as evident from the noise, there would be alot of smoke from a burn like that. Look at the above picture again...IF it's smoke, and the wind is blowing right, do we see the highlight predominently on the justification of the right.
Yes.
Ok, but it's clear from the day shot of the same area, these lights are in the air. The mountain isnt high enough for them to be on top it.
So, we say they are in the air.
Ok, so are they falling? Lets mark the beginning and end with a reference point and do a mark and overlay, we marked with blue crosshairs:
Marked early frame
then...
Marked near end frame with same reference points as first frame

The marks are unmoved from the early frame, and lightpost aligned in frame to original early frame.

So not only is the objects highlight not the same throughout, but the lights are moving in the direction of the "smoke" and the wind.

If we had about 5 minutes or many 3 minutes of good video footage, I'd be able to tell alot more, and we'd be able to deduce alot more information, ALOT more accurately.

I stress again, this is NOT an "analysis" in the true sense, but a guess based on the information thats there, and could be effected by the quality to a great degree. This is a broad first impression ONLY.

I typically only work with 1st generation video of the original footage or the original footage. Like I said before, to pin down anything based on net footage is stupid. This is just to give you an idea of what you might go thru looking at this as it is.

So, based on the VERY limited video data, no weather reports, and no contact with the witness, whats the best guess? The broad first impression?

Dropped flares. Probably military flare exersize, which has been reported and documented in that area before. The lights do appear to be that kind of color, we seem (based on the 'net video) to have smoke, and we have wind direction and trajectory following that direction. It would be my guess that the object is not over the house at all, but rather far past the mountain range (by the obvious scintillation effect).

But, until some time comes where I get a good copy of the actual film, I would not be at all willing to make a statement that this first impression is toally accurate. The quality to make absolutely sure of the impressions just isnt there.

Originally quoted by jritzmann:
That surmises into a dangerous area, that the camera from that distance could capture any "distortion", could capture it even if such was present, AND assumes a propulsion system. Thats over the edge of data, and really cant be put forth as anything.

Originally posted by Dr Love
But that doesn't mean the video's not really picking it up. The data is over the edge, but so is all data regarding UFOs. You can't use scientific method because there's no data to pull from, you can only use suppositions. If you read the thread above you'll see where I'm coming from. My posts and opinions are too numerous to rehash again in this thread.

No, all data on video of UFOs is not over the edge. There is data to pull from, none of which suggests video is capable of picking up "energy fields" or anything like that. When you know how video captures an image, and how those artifacts happen, why they are there etc., then the idea that it's some sort of energy field is really way out there. I have video from family events in low light that have the same artifacts, doesnt mean there's an energy field around Aunt Edna.

Thats what video analysis and photo analysis is all about. Taking out the artifacts and looking at the object, it surroundings, and determining what is camera, what is object and then how is that camera seeing that object. Distance, size and all that is determined by real life and optic measurement.



[edit on 7-4-2005 by jritzmann]

As I've stated in another thread already, Friedman originally had a lot of misgivings about Mr. Lazar, but upon further research he did in fact find proof of the credentials Bob Lazar claimed to have. He did find the aforementioned tax documents. He did find that Lazar had indeed attended the academic institutions that he had claimed. He did find the phone book with Lazar's name in it. In doing this he did find evidence of a possible smear campaign against Lazar. I saw a show on The History Channel about Lazar, and in that show they had maybe a five second soundbite from Dr. Friedman where he said something to the effect of "Bob Lazar is full of bull", but when you read Alien Contact by Timothy Good, you find that Friedman's mind changed somewhat once he discovered the evidence. So what's the real deal? It's hard to tell.


Peace

That's really interessting(sp?), but as far as I know doesn't he still state on his website that he thinks that Lazar is a fraud?
Also, do you know approxmately when he found these evidence supporting Lazars story?

[edit on 4/10/2005 by Amorymeltzer]

jritzmann

Thanks for the analysis. I know it was formed with limited information, but I thought you did a thourough job based on what you were given.

The alleged flares in the "Phoenix Lights" video were white and these were red. It is possible that the military has different color flares for different occasions, but this would be the first thing I would question about your analysis. Also, would smoke from flares even be visible from a distance at night? Wouldn't the smoke have a red tinge to it since the only light source would be the flares themselves? I think it is possible that the movement of this object was so minute that the naked eye could not pick it up, but when you're able to mark two frames like you did, the movement shows up.

Anyways, I sent a U2U to Worldblend, and hopefully he'll give us his take on this.

Peace

Originally posted by Phood
That's really interessting(sp?), but as far as I know doesn't he still state on his website that he thinks that Lazar is a fraud?
Also, do you know approxmately when he found these evidence supporting Lazars story?

The book's at home. I'll bring it in on Monday and provide some excerpts from it.

Peace

I'm pretty sure I saw this on TV a while ago and it was fully debunked. The camera movements and the crafts movements were insync or something.

Originally posted by Ess Why Kay
I'm pretty sure I saw this on TV a while ago and it was fully debunked. The camera movements and the crafts movements were insync or something.

When they put a video of a UFO on TV and say that it's REAL, that will be the first time.

Peace

I think that was a fake, made by the TV station because of all the hype that was going around they put it on live on air to check ther eaction but It was a fake and the TV tation admitted it. It was on Sky the other week about UFO's and that was one of them.

Originally posted by Dr Love
jritzmann

Thanks for the analysis. I know it was formed with limited information, but I thought you did a thourough job based on what you were given.

The alleged flares in the "Phoenix Lights" video were white and these were red. It is possible that the military has different color flares for different occasions, but this would be the first thing I would question about your analysis. Also, would smoke from flares even be visible from a distance at night? Wouldn't the smoke have a red tinge to it since the only light source would be the flares themselves? I think it is possible that the movement of this object was so minute that the naked eye could not pick it up, but when you're able to mark two frames like you did, the movement shows up.

Remember, it's NOT an analysis...LOL..dont use that word one this. It's just first impressions.
Yes, military illumination flares for troop illumination can be red, and thats because red light doesnt kill your vision at night. When you are in darkness and then exposed to white light, when the white light is removed your vision at night is impaired. Thats why ground search teams use red gels in their flashlights.
Secondly, it's not an issue that there wouldnt be a red tinge to the smoke. If the wind was blowing the smoke is going away and up from the lights. Anything could be lighting up the smoke including the moon.
I also point out that white lights of considerable distance can be colored by atmospheric weather, heat etc. They could be seen as amber or even red. Albeit in this case it seems a little to close for that kind of thing...admittedly it's too hard to tell.
At any rate, I'd sure like to get a good copy and *really* look at it properly. It's a very interesting piece of footage. But I do concur with other analysts view of the original Pheonix lights videos that they were flares. I do not however discount other sightings that same night.

this was shown fake because the camera moves with the u.f.o but nice video

This video clearly shows a computer generated ufo model. But don't get yourself wrong, despite some stupid hoaxes like that, there is definitively a big activity of authentic ufos in this area.

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
DR love,
just a point about bob lazar...(the same point that enlightened me)
He gives a pay check reciept as evidence for his story... it is only for $750 (from los alamos)...
seems he would be getting paid more for doing super secret research...huh?

in fact that is about what the janitor would make...
I have trouble believing anything he says (would love to, but just can't)
Stan friedman also has big questions about him.

I do accept that this film could be a fake. Some people make money off scams... it is the harsh reality...

The paycheck could be Lazars "weekly" paycheck which is $3000 a month cleared. Where I'm from, thats a pretty good amount of money, especially for someone like Lazar who was young and just started.

Just a thought.

Originally posted by jritzmann
I stress again, this is NOT an "analysis" in the true sense, but a guess based on the information thats there, and could be effected by the quality to a great degree. This is a broad first impression ONLY.

But, until some time comes where I get a good copy of the actual film, I would not be at all willing to make a statement that this first impression is toally accurate. The quality to make absolutely sure of the impressions just isnt there.

Thats what video analysis and photo analysis is all about. Taking out the artifacts and looking at the object, it surroundings, and determining what is camera, what is object and then how is that camera seeing that object. Distance, size and all that is determined by real life and optic measurement.

Fairly good analysis for not having any more data to work with. It is important to note that this is shot from N. Phoenix looking north and very far removed from any AFB Bombing Range. Flares dropped here would be illegal and a public danger. The object/s are roughly 2.5-3.0 miles away and this video is being shot in 30-35 mph winds in a storm with low level clouds. (passing in between the camera and lights at certain points)
I can get this capable individual some better footage to work with if he is interested. Note: We just received aeromagnetic maps of the area from NOAA. It is straight from their anomaloies data base. The earths electromagnetic field measures a whopping 0.0 here....no fooling. What a coop for anyone doing quantum computations!

[edit on 10-4-2005 by Worldblend]

[edit on 4/10/2005 by Amorymeltzer]