Remarkable UFO footage

Worldblend, would love to see more. I'd have to have no later then 2nd generation from the original recording to do any good.

Just U2U me if ya can do that.

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

I'm sorry fellas.......I just don't think that the camera is tracking the UFO's exact movements. I don't see anything strange about it at all. Am I missing something?

jritzmann

It is possible for a video camera to pick up a distortion. What about the distortion caused by the heat of a paved road on a really hot day? A camera would pick that up, would it not?


Peace

me too me too..

im no expert - but ive always held this footage to be among the authentics.

any evidence can be discredited by the 'powers that be' -so who knows. i remember when i first came across the mexico footage it was pretty renoundly accepted as THE BEST FOOTAGE. PERIOD. today, it seems its been debunked?

whos the athourity? looks genuine to me.

Hi-
Could a camera pick up heatwaves, sure. Thats an effect of scintellation, but a gravity wave is a whole different deal. What I'm saying is thats dealing in alot of conjecture, and thats not verifyable in any way. We dont have the disc in question to see. Youre guessing wildly at a propulsion system, that there's no evidence for. Not only that but again, youre supposing what the camera can capture that, in a video of an unknown object. So not only is that kind of thinking building a castle in the air, but building the castle in the air on top of a cloud. I only deal in what I can prove by hard data, by what and how a camera captures an event, or non event.

Does it smear the same as the buildings in relative camera motion, consistent to a real object within the camera.
No.

Does it match in camera motion with all stationary objects consistent with a hand held camera.
No.

The bottom line, is it really there, or not.
No.

Here's one very small section I can show ya to illustrate the motion inconsistency.




NOTE that the building shakes due to camera movement, and the disc does NOT follow suit. Take note of the smear of the buildings, and then of the disc.
Short of uploading the entire footage in full resolution (which I cannot do), this illustrates one small point of a large number of inconsistencies that point conclusively to a CG composite. Altho I was the first to come to that conclusion, and go public with it, I was not the only one. I have worked with image processing for going on 20 years, and delt in composite CG/prop and set design work for the past 10-15 years including virtual sets more recently.

Another item not based really on my field of expertise, is the witness issue...which few want to bring up. This is one of the most crowded cities in the world, and 100 witnesses to a broad daylight event. BUT, as I have said before, not before this footage was broadcast on national TV not once, but twice. NOT ONE witness came forward before, ONLY after the footage was aired. Telling? I think so.

I hate to sound like some know it all, because I'm defintitely not that kinda guy (I learn new stuff every day), but when it comes to this kinda stuff, if it's a fake, I will find it because I know exactly where to look. I work this stuff every day. You would not believe what some people try to get across me...I'm serious, some of it is so laughable.

I recently had a man show me a group of photos that blew my mind. Large object, off center framing, behind trees, good focus correlation...it has it all. A week into it, I have one shot drum scanned to the size of a small billboard. What do I see? Print pattern. Not one on the disc, but the sky, and so on. Then I zoom the disc, and it's got a heavy right edge. He made a model, and shot it in front of a white sheet. He took a picture of a really gorgeous state park, and had it made into an offset print poster. Cut out the disc photo and pasted it onto the poster, and reshot it. Oldest trick there is next to actually shooting the model at the scene. The guy had it down, but the first giveaway was the lack of consistent lighting. 3 shots out of 7 showed a distinct slight lighting abnormality.

Getting back to the Mexico thing....

This is one of the problems with UFO information being brought to the public. There are only certain venues for mass dissemination of information on cases, but none for follow ups in the same fashion. Lets face it, the real answers dont make for good tv, even though it's more important then the initial release. "What the hell is that?" makes for more viewers then "it's this..." When the answer or lack thereof, should be the important issue.

Jeff@Hypergraphics Imaging, Baltimore

**eating my words..

well said, and great explanation. i can certainly see the glitches in those few frames you posted. cant argue with ya.

jritzmann

Yes, I must say that after you broke it down like that, I can see it clearly now. I usually have a "what if" or a "but" for most of these videos, but I'm fresh out on this one. Good job jritzmann!! It's good to see that we have someone with your expertise floating around here. See you at the next one.

Peace

Thanx fellas. I know we all wanted it to be what it seemed, I know I did, and was vastly dissapointed when it wasnt.

I'm just glad I could remember enough about this to even explain it. It's been more than a few years and I'm gettin older.

Jritzmann, I'm new to this website but I followed the discussion concerning Billy Meier's photo's. The looked 100% fake to me but there were a number of people who disagreed. Perhaps you could enlighten us with an 'analysys' of his footage.

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...

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

Actually, I decided to contact Stan Friedman on the subject to see if his views were changed. This is the mail and reply:

Mr. Friedman

A few days ago I was browsing the www.abovetopsecret.com forums when I saw a poster mentioning something about, I belive the propulsion system of a UFO, according to Bob Lazars stories. Well, the question about Lazar being a fraud came up, and the fact that you considered him a fraud. Then I saw this post:

"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(in Italic writing) 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."

Now my queston to you is, do you still have the same opinion of Lazar (the one stated in the article on your website) or has it changed?

Reply:

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I never said any such thing. This is total baloney. The view on my website is correct. Lazar is a total fraud. How can I get this vicious nauseating fraud retracted?

So, according to him, the info is incorrect

Tonnis-

Analysis?

Thats an easy one, there's nothing to do analysis on.

It's a highly volitile case, in my opinion due mostly to the initial "researchers" and current "representatives". I offered to do analysis completely free of charge with a very modest protocol of data to be presented. I asked for 1st or 2nd generation film or photos, or negatives, or high quality scans even. I was told none exist, and I should buy a book and a DVD and use that for analysis..when of course thats useless for any serious examination. I was then insulted personally and professionally ("idiot", incompetant", "liar" etc etc etc) because I pressed the issue, that they offered a challenge to all researchers to prove or disprove the case.

I'm a pretty clam guy, and it takes alot to piss me off, but I believe at the end of the conversation my reply was "F--- You." Thats how bad you get insulted and verbally attacked when you question anything they put forward.

You'll get a list of companies who these "researchers" got to do their "analysis" or provide equipment a mile long with a "dispute these!" tone. You'll get a list of credentials of individuals involved, insinuating youre a moron and these guys really know whats up.
Here's one media story on the merits of the image "analysis"...make sure you read it thoroughly..it speaks volumes.
www.phoenixnewtimes.com...

Many speak more these days about his "prophetic" information. That is not my field of study, nor profession. But some have taken it upon themselves to study it, and you can read one here:
www.iigwest.com...
It contains footnotes, reference points and proveable, researchable data to prove it's point...Something this case sorely lacks. Supporters call this individual a "coward" because he uses a screen name. I frankly dont blame him, the backlash from believers in this case are really volitile, and abusive.

Metal samples were "analyzed" and then "lost or stolen". A sound sample was analyzed and was not duplicatable, showing 32 different "frequencies"...sounds alot like a delay feedback which was available in the timeframe, and what do ya know...the filter the delay runs through is a 32 comb filter. Hmmmm. When such sound is presented, the claim is made that it was heard 4.5 kilometers away....pretty damned loud huh? Funny you can hear a dog bark over it on the recording.

Doesnt matter, they have an excuse for everything, and nothing to back it up.

My opinion on the photos and video? My opinion is based on what I've seen, is the use of small models, tethered. Some photos are obviously small objects close to the camera, and some employ matchbox cars in an effort to force perspective.
A camera was used that was essentially fixed focus, giving a large field of view, and an overall focus. Perfect for forced perspective shots. With many shots, if it was in truth a large object at the distance alleged, the shadow is curiously missing on the ground.

Again those who believe the photos to be uncredible, are challenged to duplicate them, which have been done. Although the duplication proves *nothing*, believers will not accept the result of such a thing...and cry that the duplicated photos be put to the same testing as the originals, which due to outdated equipment isnt possible...and the original analysis of such was not based on the same premise, but on photographic trickery.

Trying to do *anything* in terms of analysis on those pictures and film is an exersize in futility, as you'll never get any data worthy of analysis. Others have done work on them outside the main "camp", and have found the case to have no basis in legitimacy. They dont need any help or input from me.

I for one will never, ever get even remotely close to doing anything again on this case. Those who wish to believe it, are certainly within their right to believe whatever they want.

I choose to put my efforts towards cases that merit attention and are searching for a proveable, duplicatable outcome for basis of conclusion...not ones that insult my intelligence, abuse those with dissenting views, and have data that can actually be tested critically.

I'm sure I'll be bashed somewhere for what I've written, but I can tell you that barring verbal abuse here, this is my one and only post on this case...you can refute anything I've written, but facts dont lie, and I wont embroil myself in another debate or argument over a case proven in my opinion not to be at all credible. It's a totally dead issue to me, and (this is not said to be mean, or condesending...so dont take it that way) I'll not engage in any further debate on it. I'm not kidding, I'm not open to that kind of abuse again.


EDIT: Cant get second link to work on Prophetic research, you'll have to copy and paste...I'll try and get it to work.



[edit on 12-4-2005 by jritzmann]

[edit on 12-4-2005 by jritzmann]

[edit on 12-4-2005 by jritzmann]

[edit on 12-4-2005 by jritzmann]

[edit on 12-4-2005 by jritzmann]

"Viscious, nauseating fraud"???? First let me say that Stan Friedman is one of my favorite people. Second let me say that I was pulling that right off the top of my head. I've read a lot of books with references to Bob Lazar and Dr. Friedman. I did not have the book directly in front of me at the time, so I apologize to Dr. Friedman for my inaccuracies. I'm a man, and I'll take my lumps. Here's what the book Alien Contact: Top Secret UFO Files Revealed-- by Timothy Good says verbatim:

An inevitable consequence of Lazar's revelation was that attempts were made to discredit him. To begin with, it has proved extremely difficult to substantiate his educational background. This is partly due to the fact that he left behind many papers at his house in Las Vegas, following the tragic death of his first wife, Carol Strong, and that Lazar tends to be absentminded at times. But there is evidence that certain officials have gone to great lengths to ensure that as few records as possible were located.

When George Knapp contacted the hospital where Lazar says he was born, in Coral Gables, Florida, no records could be found. And when Knapp contacted the schools and universities where Lazar claims to have studied, he was informed that they had never heard of him.

Bob told me that he attended Pierce Junior College, California, then the California Institute of Technology (Cal Tech), and California State University at Northridge. A period of employment by Fairchild was followed by a return to Cal Tech. He claims to have obtained master's degrees in physics (his thesis: Magnetohydrodynamics) from the Massachusettes Institute of Technology (MIT) and in electronics from Cal Tech. To date, no evidence for these degrees has been forthcoming. Although physicist Stanton Friedman has been able to verify that Lazar did indeed attend both Pierce Junior College and California State University, he drew a blank at MIT. "There's no trace of him at MIT and no record of him having attended any course. Maybe he took a lot of courses but didn't get a degree-----that's a possibility."



There it is for everyone to read. Please forgive me, but know that I hadn't read the book in a while, and like I said before, I was pulling it right off the top of my head. Honest mistake. If you read all that I had wrote, you'll clearly see that it wasn't my concrete position anyways. I was confused myself partly becase I had confused myself.

My sincere apologies to Stan Friedman. Please don't hate me!! Your words were a bit harsh though. Was that really even you who wrote that reply???

Peace

P.S. Thanks to Phood for straightening me out.

[edit on 12-4-2005 by Dr Love]

[edit on 12-4-2005 by Dr Love]

[edit on 12-4-2005 by Dr Love]

Jritzmann, I'm new to this website but I followed the discussion concerning Billy Meier's photo's. The looked 100% fake to me but there were a number of people who disagreed. Perhaps you could enlighten us with an 'analysys' of his footage.

See this thread. Quite frankly, one can easily understand why one wouldn't want to be associated with that mess again, hehe...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This went on for pages, until eventually even most supporters realized how false this all was. I'd suggest going over the whole thread to see the evolution of the evidence from both sides, (which regardless of the outcome, was well done on both I'd say).

Originally posted by Dr Love

"Viscious, nauseating fraud"???? First let me say that Stan Friedman is one of my favorite people. Second let me say that I was pulling that right off the top of my head. I've read a lot of books with references to Bob Lazar and Dr. Friedman. I did not have the book directly in front of me at the time, so I apologize to Dr. Friedman for my inaccuracies. I'm a man, and I'll take my lumps. Here's what the book Alien Contact: Top Secret UFO Files Revealed-- by Timothy Good says verbatim:

An inevitable consequence of Lazar's revelation was that attempts were made to discredit him. To begin with, it has proved extremely difficult to substantiate his educational background. This is partly due to the fact that he left behind many papers at his house in Las Vegas, following the tragic death of his first wife, Carol Strong, and that Lazar tends to be absentminded at times. But there is evidence that certain officials have gone to great lengths to ensure that as few records as possible were located.

When George Knapp contacted the hospital where Lazar says he was born, in Coral Gables, Florida, no records could be found. And when Knapp contacted the schools and universities where Lazar claims to have studied, he was informed that they had never heard of him.

Bob told me that he attended Pierce Junior College, California, then the California Institute of Technology (Cal Tech), and California State University at Northridge. A period of employment by Fairchild was followed by a return to Cal Tech. He claims to have obtained master's degrees in physics (his thesis: Magnetohydrodynamics) from the Massachusettes Institute of Technology (MIT) and in electronics from Cal Tech. To date, no evidence for these degrees has been forthcoming. Although physicist Stanton Friedman has been able to verify that Lazar did indeed attend both Pierce Junior College and California State University, he drew a blank at MIT. "There's no trace of him at MIT and no record of him having attended any course. Maybe he took a lot of courses but didn't get a degree-----that's a possibility."



There it is for everyone to read. Please forgive me, but know that I hadn't read the book in a while, and like I said before, I was pulling it right off the top of my head. Honest mistake. If you read all that I had wrote, you'll clearly see that it wasn't my concrete position anyways. I was confused myself partly becase I had confused myself.

My sincere apologies to Stan Friedman. Please don't hate me!! Your words were a bit harsh though. Was that really even you who wrote that reply???

Peace

P.S. Thanks to Phood for straightening me out.

[edit on 12-4-2005 by Dr Love]

[edit on 12-4-2005 by Dr Love]

[edit on 12-4-2005 by Dr Love]

Yeah, it sounded kinda harsh(maybe he was talking about Lazar?), but that's the reply I got from the e-mail at his website.

I dont think Stanton was referring to any one person, but rather the mistaken information.

You guys also have to realize, that by in large his reputation is his livelyhood. Any rumor-mill type "he said this" that isnt correct can severely impact his credibility. I dont think I'd be a whole lot calmer, and this isnt anywhere close to being my living or main focus.

I think if nothing else you guys realize how volitile the UFO community is.

But again I dont think he's referring to you Doc Love, but rather the statement. Thats the way I took it anyway. (I dont assume to speak for Mr. Friedman)

his reputation is his livelyhood.

i know it, you know it and he knows it - and thats why i dont trust him. but what do i know....

maybe its just my point of view BUT....doesnt the ufo look a bit odd when it rises from behind the building....like its super imposed...if its a fake ive seen better and worse..the quality of the ufo doesnt match the quality of the rest of the surrounding area...Has this been PROVED or DISPROVED to be fake...id like to know..

Few questions to jritzmann (little offtopic maybe).

1) You sound like a pro, are you?
2) If you are do tell about your techniques, software/hardware and such.

PS. I'm only asking this on thread because I suspect many of us would like to see the answer.
PPS. If I ever get serious $ I'll start doing video forensics as a hobby

[Edit] Oops, should've checked your profile before posting. And great job btw

[edit on 13-4-2005 by PsykoOps]

Psyko-
I use so many damned programs to arrive at some sort of final provable answer. It can range from ImageTool, to Saber, to proprietary image and video software...to Adobe Photoshop (which alot of people dont know the full capability of, especially with custom written scripts.) Then you have the Flextight 343 drum scanner for photos and negatives. The scanner can scan the negative as a positive image, and it's great. If it's there, it's gonna be seen.
Many, many times you dont need hardcore stuff to really prove or disprove anything...most times it's right in front of you.

I've just got some digital photos on a memory card, taken with the same camera, an Olympus C-5000 5.0 megapixel auto focus/normal focus range of 50cm.
I have the story and permission to post the photos as I do work on them, as long as the photographer's name is left off the net. I have no issue with that, so people will get an idea of what you go thru in analysis. Digital pictures can be a pain, or great...we'll see once I get into it.

Look for a post from me soon on that.

Great, looking forward to your post. So is there any UFO/paranormal specific issues in image/video forensics that differ from 'real world'?

Psyko-
Short answer? No. Youre dealing with a alleged real life event, with an object that is registering on CCD or whatever, it's a matter of if it's seems to be there, captured on film, video or whatever...then it should by all rights be restricted to the same optics as anything else in the frame....if you get my drift. Sure there's unbelieveable motion to be considered, which is out of the realm of what we know. But that like alot of things can be faked. We only have our knowledge and reality to draw from. Going outside that is supposition, and cant be backed up with hard data.

Ghosts, and all that stuff I dont really get involved in, although it's interesting...with that kinda thing you can only say what the camera is seeing or not...there's so many varibles barring a hoax, that I for one would not be willing stand behind saying "this is a ghost".

Same applies to UFOs. I can only say it's really there or it isnt, or it's big and far or small and close. It's a hoax or it is really what it is as registered on camera. But can I say, "thats an alien craft"? No way. Can I say "we dont have anything like that on this planet"? No way.

I can only say it is what it appears to be, or it's not, and here's why and how. And those results have to be duplicable, and verifyable by others. Otherwise your analysis is just so much hot air.