UFO Video London

Originally posted by rightuos
Here is the guys MySpace page.

www.myspace.com...

check out page 2 of his photography and art pictures

uh oh someones busted

I took the liberty to snatch one before he removes it once others catch on

I say its time to label [HOAX] and case closed, ( should have looked into this before messing with stabilizing the video...

EDIT: He is oviously on ATS as right after I made my post with his myspace info he removed the pictures, too bad I have screenshots as well

[edit on 29-4-2009 by rightuos]

Nice work. The funny thing is, I even went to his myspace page, and I couldn't look at his pictures cause I'm not a member. I just snooped around to see his hobbies, friends, and tried to find out a little about him.

The only thing thats strange is that when I contacted him on youtube, he asked me to look at both his myspace and facebook pages. Oh well, I guess he forgot. Good find, and keep it up.

All I can really think of how the guy did it was to shoot the LEDs in a dark room and then somehow overlayed the image as the camera was rolling giving the impression there was someting there.
Or it could be he used Cling Film in replacement of Glass, giving the impression there was nothing else between him and the object, and cling film wouldnt reflect street lights as Glass would either.

[edit on 29-4-2009 by ROBL240]

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
I know no one has had any real training in this. It seems all the conclusions are for some nebulous points system for ego-status.

Funny how the smug attitude by someone who seems intent on belittling this thread and the ATS reward-point system would make the effort to craft a mighty impressive Avatar.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3d853af5d753.jpg[/atsimg]

Perhaps ZG will check back in with we wobbles when he returns from his Ego Trip.

I don't fabricate the irony, it just seems to find me.

Regards...KK

[edit on 29-4-2009 by kinda kurious]

By the way, that is a copyrighted image you used in your accusery imply. FYI

You yourself call yourself "Kooky" and you don't state your age. What billions of things can we ass-u-me from that? Nothing. I'm an illustrator and that was for a book cover I retained my copyright.

Smug? Science might seem so to those who do not understand the rigorous standards imposed by the discovery of certain laws of physics and logic.

I have seen and experienced real UFOs at close range with others and on camera. I've worked with and for some of the brightest scientists and investigators some authors of books you can read on the subject. I work with researchers who have decades of experience with UFOs. I've contracted to NASA, SETI and others for my technical imaging skills and have to understand science, HARD SCIENCE to be able to interpret and sometimes take the research further visually than the scientist I was working for. I actually do the work professionally. I don't have the paper, I have the working knowledge and experience.

So you think your teacher is smug by pointing out a misspelling on a test? What does that say about how you are misinterpreting my contributions.

You can see the points or get stuck by them later. Your choice.

Guys,

you are looking at a low resolution video by a young man that shows no aptitude for the techniques or technologies for which you would accuse him of using to fake this video. Have you found anyone in his MySpace friends or associates with video production chops?

I see nothing here worth any conclusions. Show me empirical evidence or I am forced to dismiss any statements made fore or against this videos authenticity as mere conversational opinions.

I am trying to show and explain why you cant get enough data from the available material to make anything but an opinion, let alone a determination.

ATS is a great place for discussion, but a less than appropriate for serious study unless you adapt better methods than looking at his MySpace and making assumptions on scant data. Unless you are trained remote viewers or psychic you have little solid evidence for anything yet.

Probability for this video so far goes to the positive here. All the points you have covered are showing it is not likely faked. Unfortunately you are not seeing the good work you are doing. You are misinterpreting your own evidence.

You have convinced me that this should be put into an "unknown" category. At least that is how I would put it in my report as it stands.

Smug. That's cute.

ZG

reply to post by ZeroGhost


Come on now...



coincidence? I think not...


Look It's obvious he's fishing for views to push his band. (which is not bad at all, I actually like it)

To say he has no aptitude??? maybe not in digital manipulation, but photography he knows what hes doing. I don't know why your so adamant on denying the obvious.

Originally posted by Verklagekasper

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
You are misunderstanding. I do not see anything worth making any conclusions. Real or faked.

I'm saying that no one here has the right to call anything fake or real yet with anything but an opinion.

Still, AFAIK the entire CCD is read out only once per frame, not multiple times.

In some video cameras, the cheaper ones, in low light conditions, the processor will collect several images from the CCD and express them as a single frame. In the video below, one frame was a long exposure of several 1/4 second samples. It looked like still symbols to everyone but those who knew what was really going on.

If you go to the Stephvenville Lights case where Sirius was mistaken by an amateur video person for a UFO making symbols in an alien language you will see that the person did not understand the process any more than how to interpret the sky for star positions.



So because there are many cameras and ways of processing the visual information the CCD sends out, and that the other images on the man's site show similar information we can only assume the multiple lights in the frame of the objects disappearing from frame is either that, or the specific strobe of the light source.

Match the frequency of a similar colored LED to the frame rate at the level of light sensitivity of the camera and you have proof the lights are Light Emitting Diodes. You need the video data from the original file to do this. See if the man is not already too upset about the accusations everyone is loosely throwing to see if he can send that or make it available.

That is one reason you don't pee in the bathwater by throwing around opinions that challenge the witness character. If they become uncooperative you loose the game before it even starts. Amateurs loose the edge by doing that so they never get any further. Experience teaches that.

ZG

[edit on 4/29/2009 by ZeroGhost]

reply to post by ZeroGhost
Hi Zero,
I forgot about the music,
the backing may be midi,(just can't hear clearly enough)
but the lead licks are "realtime"
guitar,and fairly balanced with the backing.
Nice bit of speed playing BTW.
Do you play guitar?if you do you'll know what I mean.

Originally posted by rightuos
reply to post by ZeroGhost

 

Come on now...

coincidence? I think not...


Look It's obvious he's fishing for views to push his band. (which is not bad at all, I actually like it)

To say he has no aptitude??? maybe not in digital manipulation, but photography he knows what hes doing. I don't know why your so adamant on denying the obvious.

It is not obvious to me. You are making an assumption. Just because he has or is affiliated with a band is not proof of anything. I don't see any evidence after looking at his site or reading his information that he is, or, has any tendency to create a ruckus to bring attention to his music.

I'm not saying it is impossible. Some people will commit a crime that they had no previous indicators for. True. But it is very speculative and highly unlikely.

ZG

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by ZeroGhost

 

Hi Zero,
I forgot about the music,
the backing may be midi,(just can't hear clearly enough)
but the lead licks are "realtime"
guitar,and fairly balanced with the backing.
Nice bit of speed playing BTW.
Do you play guitar?if you do you'll know what I mean.

No, sorry to say I do not know all the specific gear for guitar effects and live mix. I do album covers, not album recording. (both don't make me a living)

I did not catch that it was live jamming with midi, but it was only an example, not part of any actual careful observation. I've done some midi so recognized the tonal sets.

I know just enough about sound and instrument recording to do soundtracks for my own productions. Mostly loops. I gave away my guitar a couple years ago to a real guitarist who teaches so it could do more than collect dust. My wife is the professional musician, but she is a classical oboist.

I used to do electronic music in college. I'm more of a percussionist. I saw all the cool tools since the electronic synthesis stuff started. I actually did drawings of an electronic drum set in 1977, before they existed. My wife tells me I'm a natural musician, but I went visual not audio.

Next life for the guitar.

ZG

reply to post by rightuos



OK, I misstated. Not general aptitude, but specific technical aptitude.

I took a new digital camera to New York in 1999 I purchased just before I took off. When I got there I walked from my hotel in Soho to broadway and shot pictures with it the whole way. It got dark so I kept on shooting with this new camera I knew virtually nothing about.

When I got to the center of the road near the Virgin sign and the split where the big lights and signage are, I discovered that the motion of the camera when it was shooting was doing cool things to the images, so I did several intentional effects by moving the camera while it was sampling the light.

I had no "specific" aptitude for it. I just saw it was cool and played with it.

I think these images you reference are essentially from the same sort of creative exploration. He's not a pro trying to fool anybody. He's having fun and sees the beauty of the images.

At least that's my read.

ZG

I don't see any evidence after looking at his site or reading his information that he is, or, has any tendency to create a ruckus to bring attention to his music.

I'm not saying it is impossible. Some people will commit a crime that they had no previous indicators for. True. But it is very speculative and highly unlikely.

ZG

As unlikely as it may be, I',m wondering why you have not made one remark to the image i posted. Something you yourself can do in photoshop to double check on your own... I dunno I get the feeling your just arguing a point for the sake of arguing. To which I'm done as I have nothing else to bring to the table. Good day ZG

P.S. from one designer to another check out designbay.com pretty nifty for extra work.

reply to post by ZeroGhost


I wasn't merely speaking of discovering the light effect, look at his photos he has skill in photography.

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
I am trying to show and explain why you cant get enough data from the available material to make anything but an opinion, let alone a determination.

OK ZG, it seems to be about semantics then. Would you be content if we all simply added
IMHO to all of our posts? Of course they are our "opinions" as this is an internet discussion forum. No one here is being nominated for a freakin' Nobel prize.

You seem to theorize we cannot accurately assess the footage based on the available clip and lack additional "data" which is why many have dug deeper. What, pray tell, else can we do but hypothesize? It is obvious you are intelligent and talented, but you seem to have beamed into this thread and "alienated" yourself from the rest of us by your "lofty" posture. Smug is not really an insult but more a personality judgement.

If it is no too beneath you, please enlighten us with your scientific assessment.

We are all curious and would appreciate a fresh perspective from a trained eye.

In the kindred spirit of cooperation, please share your theories.

Regards...KK

Originally posted by rightuos

I don't see any evidence after looking at his site or reading his information that he is, or, has any tendency to create a ruckus to bring attention to his music.

I'm not saying it is impossible. Some people will commit a crime that they had no previous indicators for. True. But it is very speculative and highly unlikely.

ZG

As unlikely as it may be, I',m wondering why you have not made one remark to the image i posted. Something you yourself can do in photoshop to double check on your own... I dunno I get the feeling your just arguing a point for the sake of arguing. To which I'm done as I have nothing else to bring to the table. Good day ZG

P.S. from one designer to another check out designbay.com pretty nifty for extra work.

No need really. Look at all the images he has done with his camera using the same effect. He saw that moving the camera could do cool things. I don't see why you would belabor that without finding more information on his particular camera. I don't see enough evidence that it is anything special.

I'm a Photoshop expert. This was not Photoshop or a plugin I am at all familiar with.

BTW, I am don't argue for anything but common sense and some thoughtful discovery. I dont "argue" just to argue. I gave that up when I decided to not be a teen with an attitude. You got me wrong 100% That was a long time ago.

ZG

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
I am trying to show and explain why you cant get enough data from the available material to make anything but an opinion, let alone a determination.

OK ZG, it seems to be about semantics then. Would you be content if we all simply added
IMHO to all of our posts? Of course they are our "opinions" as this is an internet discussion forum. No one here is being nominated for a freakin' Nobel prize.

You seem to theorize we cannot accurately assess the footage based on the available clip and lack additional "data" which is why many have dug deeper. What, pray tell, else can we do but hypothesize? It is obvious you are intelligent and talented, but you seem to have beamed into this thread and "alienated" yourself from the rest of us by your "lofty" posture. Smug is not really an insult but more a personality judgement.

If it is no too beneath you, please enlighten us with your scientific assessment.

We are all curious and would appreciate a fresh perspective from a trained eye.

In the kindred spirit of cooperation, please share your theories.

Regards...KK

You do realize you are exhibiting the same character you are implying I am sporting.

Yes, opinions are so far all I can muster here and I am trained. I am hoping someone can do better, but I have a contract I must attend to and do not have time for an investigation, phone calls and extrapolating details. I am simply providing the acid test for what everyone is bringing to the table. Some are insulted by this and frame what I am saying as smug, or lofty. Not the case.

I do get frustrated trying to explain things sometimes. Especially when people defend their opinions like they are being personally attacked. In science and working with professionals as I do, such countering ideas are welcomed, and people are glad to have more information. We all advance each other and don't let egos get through the door.

Sorry if my style of writing seems terse or "smug". I know what smug is. I'm not smug. I do have information and experience and write to be formal somewhat from a science point of view. I can be wrong too. We all can be wrong.

When I see a good argument against my theory I will have the humility to acknowledge that hopefully. I just have not heard that yet.

No cause for any bad feelings. I am not out to prove I'm right. I'm out to find the truth, and if you have such I'm already there with you.

I'm off to meet with my UFO investigator boss. So until later, dig till you find rock, then blast!

ZG

hmmm... not one photo in his profile uses the same effect...

He actually has a good eye for photography in keeping in lines with color and balance, not to mention a few well in tune with hierarchy and dominance.

The photoshop expert claim...meh, your just ruffling your feathers now.

reply to post by ZeroGhost


Well now I know what it is like to get whipped by one's own olive branch. What the heck was that all about? I suppose he doesn't work for free and my UFO consultant fund is tapped for the year.

OK, back to us arm-chair ufologists and hobbyists. Now where were we? Based on rightuos find and comparing the photo from MySpace with "departure" frame grab (posted earlier), I'm jumping into the "faked" camp.

KK

[edit on 29-4-2009 by kinda kurious]

Well I stick by fake, never dealt with the kind of defiance like that before though...especially with the evidence screaming it....

The color looks green, my first thought was green lasers pointed at the clouds and the lasers are reflecting off the clouds. The only problem is green lasers you can usually see the path of the laser as well. I did not see a path of light to the reflection. The mystery remains.

Well, i came late to this one but for the record, I did a bit of analysis on the video. I selected all frames which did not display significant motion blur, translation-stabilized them to keep the three lights stationary, and created a composite image. Here's the result:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0792bda59645.jpg[/atsimg]

My first impression was that this was done with green LEDs reflected in a double-pane of glass. There is a subtle motion of the lights coincident with the camera movements. This is evidenced by the blurry, "jittered" appearance of the scenery in the composite image. Some of it is due to camera rotation (which i did not correct-for).
[edit on 29-4-2009 by zerotensor]

[edit on 29-4-2009 by zerotensor]

Do you want really know why does this object quickly disappear at high speed from the scene?

That's because tracking softwares took ages to perform even 10 secs of tracking.

Making the object flying away so fast is a common trick used in order to avoid to leave the PC working for a whole week.

The tracking itself, is not perfect at all. You can see the lights floating unnaturally with the background.

An ugly fake.