Amazing new UFO Footage, June 8 Phoenix

hmmm.
not shure what to say about the first video.
im gona be up in that area next month for 2 days.
so i def. am gona be keepin an eye out for anything like this
ima take up a vid. cam too just incase.
anyways thnks for the footage

TruthCanHurt-

Ya know, the other day I drove by the car dealership and saw an entire row
of objects that looked exactly the same. I then knew that I must be looking
at CG because how else could so many objects look exactly the same?

Your a real smart a$$ hu? But you forgot to tell us about the part where it started snowing and all the little snowflakes looked exactly the same.. must be CG also...

menacer, you make the mistake of thinking that many of us are ignorant
with CG and video. I think you'll find there are more than a few of us that
know both in great detail.

LOL looks like it....,

Most of us know that it is possible to create just about any type of effect
you want to with CG. If you want to PROVE CG though, you'll have to come
up with something more concrete than, "they're all the same size" or "I can
do that with my home program" type of comments. We want science damnit.

LOL your to funny!!! I love it... Its a two way street .... If you want science to prove that its CG.... Why don't you want science to prove thats it real?

Okay, since it is so easy and you seem to think you are an expert at this then
show us your video. It should only take a few minutes of your time, right?

Hummm..., I guess I should... You going to host the video for me?


Oh and I was looking back on this post and noticed something so funny that I did not see before!!!! I think someone is trying to make a clown out of you guys!! and its not me.... but it could be the aliens operating the crafts you see in the video! take a look!



Ok So I edited it a little.... but check out the orignal... 1st pic on the post.


[edit on 15-6-2005 by menacer]

cownosecat -

Interesting! I would just like to say that I think it's possibal that they all change at the same time, I meen, it IS a UFO.

I would also like to add that it's plausable that they all change there shape to the exact same shape because they are UFO's and they just do that.

Yes Yes.... I here you for the second time... So I guess I'll have to put it to you guys like this for the second time.. All fingers might look just a like cuz there simply that.. fingers......

I'm sorry cownosecat... I could not resist.. I understand what your saying but theres more to it than that. Your talking about the way light effects a camera linz.. You don't see any UFOs / Objects in this video... all you see is so called light from UFO's




[edit on 15-6-2005 by menacer]

Truth-
Dont sweat it, it's painfully clear he doesnt know what he's talking about, by his own "points", and calling you a smart a$$ is more then enough to see it's gravitated to personal insult (which happens when you have someone who tries to portray knowing everything...and knows very little.)

Best just to ignore it. I'll have the video in a few weeks and then we'll see whats what. With the permission of the shooter I'll post everything regarding the video here.

jritzmann -

Yes true he made it personal with his comments direct at me and not the video... You also did the same but I see you took it back...

Why is it going to take few weeks to have the video? Is he still working on it?? or just walking to your location to drop it off in person?

[edit on 15-6-2005 by menacer]

While u guys are duking it out, here's a link to a film editor's perspective from a guy who has a friend who works in Hollywood in Special Effects.

Comment
David Sereda
6-12-5

I am going to tell you why, from a film editor's perspective and my friend who works in Special Effects here in Hollywood, why again the Phoenix UFO would be extremely difficult to hoax:

1. The UFO moves consistently in the video frame with the hand-held movement of the video camera.

2. To create a fake UFO, you need to add an effects vide layer that sits on top of the real background footage layer.

3. When the camera is hand-held and has jerky movements, the UFO layer has to move exactly and consistently with those movements. That is extremely difficult to match.

4. Then the camera zooms in on the UFO. As the camera zooms, in the second layer would also have to zoom the same, in tandem with the camera movement. This is very difficult for a special effects Guru to duplicate.

5. As the wind blows, there is a light pulsing from the UFO caused by wind and dust in the atmosphere: the same reason stars twinkle.

6. As the camera goes in and out of focus from the auto-focus, so does the UFO. That means you also have to match this.

Because there are so many factors to match in this hand-held video, and so few people who know how to do this, and considering most special effects Gurus stay away from bad camera movement to do multi-layering, I think we are looking at an object (UFO) that was actually there, up in the sky, when the video was shot.

Sincerely,
David Sereda

Originally posted by menacer

jritzmann -

Yes true he made it personal with his comments direct at me and not the video... You also did the same but I see you took it back...

Why is it going to take few weeks to have the video? Is he still working on it?? or just walking to your location to drop it off in person?

[edit on 15-6-2005 by menacer]

I take nothing back buddy, believe that.
I'm guesstimating a few weeks, as he's had alot of requests for copies of the video. Most people who do go public with such videos are highly unlikely to even answer an email much less be willing to send you a copy at their own cost.

So while youre being smug, think if someone would be confident enough in a hoax to send a direct dub to so many people, with so many avenues of being caught. It's an unusual practice, and frankly I was pretty surprised.

So, have you taken the route of actually looking up the man's contact information, written him, and asked anything about his footage...or asked for a copy to evaluate yourself? Or will you continue to throw smarmy comments and make obviously uneducated "analysis" points?

Will you put forth the due diligence? Or sit in comfortable anonymity and self importance, lobbing empty shells?

Evilution-thanx for posting that. Like I said, there's alot more reasons that dont point to a CG hoax, but rather whatever it is, was truly there being shot.

The camera matching would be horrendous to do, nevermind anything else. The scintillation effect in conjunction with he wind is what gets me, as something you'd totally expect on a low horizon light far away. It's one of the reasons I'm even interested in looking at it further.

I thought for sure this video would be shot down by now. To me it looked like a hoax, but if jritzmann says it worth looking further, then I will wait for his analysis. By the response of this guy, tells me he didn't hoax the vid, but it still could be something other than ET.

jritzmann, thanks for looking into it, and don't forget to invite this guy to join us on ATS, then we can ask questions.

Anyway, the footage always looked real to me, but I know virtually nothing about these kinds of stuff.

Originally posted by Hal9000
By the response of this guy, tells me he didn't hoax the vid, but it still could be something other than ET.

Oh hell nobody is gonna ever be able to concretely say its "extraterrestrial". Unless they come out and shake hands, there isnt any real way to tell that.

I mean whatever it is, it's either *really* there or it isnt. Thats all I wanna know.

disregard

[edit on 15-6-2005 by Freenrgy2]

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
... responses were directed at those who were thinking that it could be real and debating (sorry...applying your "critical thinking")on why it could be a fake. Now that we have those stating that it is a hoax, you almost sound as if you are defending this as it it were more "real", explaining how hard it would be to fake this. Just trying to figure out why you gave me grief about it.

What is important here is that if you're going to make a statement about
the video (either in support of it being genuine or debunking it) your reasoning
needs to be sound either way. Criticizing a poor attempt at debunking the
video does not imply belief in its authenticity and visa versa.

Originally posted by menacer
Your a real smart a$$ hu? But you forgot to tell us about the part where it started snowing and all the little snowflakes looked exactly the same.. must be CG also...

Sarcasm is my forte. None the less, my simple example illustrated where
your reasoning is flawed. REAL objects can be identical and they can be the
same size on video.

Originally posted by menacer
LOL your to funny!!! I love it... Its a two way street .... If you want science to prove that its CG.... Why don't you want science to prove thats it real?

What makes you assume that I don't?

Originally posted by menacer
Oh and I was looking back on this post and noticed something so funny that I did not see before!!!! I think someone is trying to make a clown out of you guys!! and its not me.... but it could be the aliens operating the crafts you see in the video! take a look!

Ok So I edited it a little.... but check out the orignal... 1st pic on the post.

Okay, so you've now shown that you have the maturity of a 12 year old.
That explains a lot.



[edit on 15-6-2005 by TruthCanHurt]

Well just to let you all know... hummm I'm here in Hollywood , Los Angeles myself and I do VFX for a living NOT A DIRECTOR but the creater... If you would like to know my name I have no problems saying it.... Also you can look up my credits from yahoo...

I will be doing 2 videos... one that looks smiler to this one and one that should look the correct way...

Oh yeah! Jerald Doerr.

Originally posted by menacer


Well just to let you all know... hummm I'm here in Hollywood , Los Angeles myself and I do VFX for a living NOT A DIRECTOR but the creater... If you would like to know my name I have no problems saying it.... Also you can look up my credits from yahoo...

I dont exactly know what thats supposed to verify. Thats your main backing for stating it's CGI? That you do CGI?

Can I add that some VFX houses have been consulted on cases such as The daylight Mexico City disc footage, Billy Meier, Flordia's Adrian, and the alien autopsy...and said on record they couldnt duplicate those, and had no explaination?

Sean Morton touted that the VFX artists who did Independance Day he consulted said the Adrian case photos were not models, and they had no idea how to do them. Within hours I sent a photo to Morton showing the strings on his Adrian spaceships.

Michael Horn (American representative for the Billy Meier contacts) claims an Academy Award winning FX house said they were "very impressed" with the Meier photos, and if they even could duplicate it, it would require sophisticated CGI. *blink* *blink*...Meier's photos have been duplicated with models and pie plates.

Lets face it, VFX guys (at least that have been talked about in UFO circles as being consulted) dont have a great track record.

Now thats not saying youre one of them. But I'll say it again, all the "points" you've made are not dissuasive, and some are not even present.

An FX professional has been quoted in the post saying he does not believe it to be CG, and has listed viable reasons why. I have stated several of the same reasons. So why not address those if you have such an issue.

Your line of thinking so much into a web based video being CG also means that the shooter would have to be versed in CG, and in a format (free camera) that alot of CG guys, myself included, dont really like doing because it cant be done perfectly without a hell of alot of work in cam matching and measureable ref. points. That was one of the main downfalls of the Daylight Mexico City disc footage and would surely be the downfall of this one.

Originally posted by menacer


Well just to let you all know... hummm I'm here in Hollywood , Los Angeles myself and I do VFX for a living NOT A DIRECTOR but the creater... If you would like to know my name I have no problems saying it.... Also you can look up my credits from yahoo...

I will be doing 2 videos... one that looks smiler to this one and one that should look the correct way...

I have seen your credits. You are a PRO. Therefore your comments are very qualified and I find your step-by step procedure in faking this video certainly descriptive. Your offer to recreate this video to be shared with all is very important for this investigation. I look forward to see your recreation work.

Personally, this is the most convincing UFO footage I've ever seen, for reasons already long stated by others with far more expertise than myself. I have a few CGI animation buddies at Monolith and EA I'll ask to take a look at this, but it sounds like jritzmann is already way ahead of me, and has FAR more expertise in this subject.

I realize this doesn't add much to the conversation, but I just wanted to throw my two cents in, in case anyone cared. I believe that the footage is genuine, though I am not convinced it is alien in nature. As someone else mentioned, that would take a lot more evidence, since I've got a pretty good idea of what military aircraft can already do, and it's not outside the flight range of prototypes at The Ranch.

My Guess? A new type of Drone.

I've been following the attempted debugging of this video on this and other sites/newsgroups and am also convinced that there is something real being photographed in this video tape. I have no idea, either, what the origin of the objects we see may be. That does mean that we are seeing U)nidentified F)lying O)bjects.

In other words... yup... dem be UFO's.

Now.. here's the trick for the debunkers. Break out your best swamp gas, light of venus, lenticular cloud formation theory and explain what we might be seeing in the video, assuming that the video is genuine.

Here's my theory... swamp gas rising from the Okefenokee swamp was caught in a rare reverse jet stream, carrying it thousands of miles westward. The gas formed a layer around a lenticular cloud formation that refracted the light of venus into the images we see on the film. Any apparent motion of the objects was simply an artifact/wind/etc.

How's that? Have any of you debunkers ever noticed how silly you sound when you go to great lengths to explain how people are hoaxing and/or fabricating excuses?

p.s. please excuse me for poking fun at the debunkers. I think they need to realize, however, that when the explanations (i.e., the alleged extravagence of a hoax) becomes more implausible than the concept that they're trying to debunk, the debunkers start looking like the crazy ones... and we UFO believers can't have that