Amazingly clear UFO vid from Moscow

I finally realize that no matter what the video or image is there will be those that will tear it apart. It is too out of focus, no back ground to compare it to, why didn't they do this or do that, blah, blah, blah.

As many of these as I have seen if one popped up right in front of me I can't say I would maintain my composure enough to get the kind of image that people won't pitch a you know what about.

I think it is a very good shot myself, clear with background stuff so we can judge distance, etc.

Those who believe will just continue to, and those that are on a mission to destroy will keep doing that. One thing for sure, the day that there is indisputable evidence I want to see the faces of those who have enough courage and character to say they were wrong! If this is proved to be all fake and a fraud, I could admit I was wrong....could the debunkers do the same?

Whether this is CGI or not I have no idea, however no one who has posted so far has given any definitive proof to it being cgi. Saying it is fake is hardly convincing, just like saying it is real. The focus issue mentioned...... well the way I see it is when it zooms in at its closest point, both the building and the object blur the same in my opinion suggesting they are equal distance.

The one thing I find odd about this vid is that it says this is a shopping mall. Yet when the camera pans around there are no people or cars anywhere it is like an empty movie set. Not saying this isn't a mall, but the decription also states there were several witnesses, but there is no one there at a mall? If the mall was closed why was this guy there? the whole scenario seems like odd circumstance.

reply to post by redhead57



I really feel that both parties would have a far better time not playing the roles of "Believers" and "Debunkers". It's old and quite tiresome to constantly have to wade through post after post arguing over this. It would be more PRUDENT to wait for videographers and special effects/digital artists to confirm validity of this "sighting" or confirm the use of CG. The problem with the constant back and forth argument is that both sides looks stupid before anything is discovered concrete.

It would be better to just file this under the interesting folder in your mind so that when independent analysis is completed no one is disappointed.


[edit on 3-5-2009 by projectvxn]

sorry,

but when he zoom in/out you can see ..this one is just CG

motion tracker didnt work well on zooming :S

for me its a fake..i saw better ones ..

I'd rather believe it to be true then be disappointed later.

Looks cool.

Originally posted by Mclaneinc
If that's real then I'll eat my hat.

Btw, how to tell it's fake, look at the direction it's heading as it zips away, it SHOULD have been seen emerging at the other side of the building but there's no sign of it.

Poof, just vanished...

I would argue that the very point you made could be used to declare that it's a real video of a real ufo. You're own argument kind of kills your own argument. Besides, maybe after the ufo disappeared behind the building, maybe it took a fast right. Or perhaps it made a turn and just went over the horizon behind the building. You don't know.

Do you need some mustard with that hat?

my 4 years experience in post-production as an image compositor (which included a lot of tracking motion of the camera) tells me that it is fake

why?

because if you look closely you can see discrepancies between UFO and camera
movement

I could be wrong, but I'm sure 98% that this is computer generated imagery

cheers




[edit on 3-5-2009 by donhuangenaro]

reply to post by donhuangenaro


Yes, I agree with you. I don't have a lot of experience in post-production, but from the little I do have, this just looks like an overlay of a blob created in something like Adobe Premiere over some footage with some zoom effects.

It's very unconvincing.

reply to post by Albertarocks


I showed that it didn't vanish in another post over the page. I even made pictures, have a look.

reply to post by donhuangenaro


Well I looked at the thing frame by frame. From :20 to :21 the object just disappears shifting only a few pixels to the left of the frame giving the illusion of movement.

I'm not a videographer or a CG specialist. But Internos has shown me a thing or two about motion and how CG behaves. I'm still going to wait for independent analysis or someone on YouTube to come forward with their story.

reply to post by Seany

Humankind mostly believe they are the only living 'Life Form' in the Cosmos. Gladly I can say this is not so and why would and could it be so? Earth is tiny, minuscule compared to the billions of galaxies and their parent star clusters that exist and are constantly expanding beyond the realms of human comprehension.

Suppose I said, via a cloaking mistake, that 'That was my craft' in your video/image. That I, with my crew had been in your star vicinity for over 4000 Earth years. That we and not any Earth God created by your scribes had given your early ancestors the knowledge to learn and build upon great inventions that in those 4000 thousand Earth years would equal or come close to our current achievements. Then you would be wrong. We are some six million years ahead of this segment.

Do not despair, it is in ours and the interests of the Universe that Earth finds a way to co exist and move forward as one.

Your planet is vulnerable but will survive if you just stop fighting and killing each other.

Ghostwriter

reply to post by Goastwriter


Oh for gods sake. Really? Come on man, people are gullible but not stupid. You know you can get banned for spreading BS on this board right? That we don't take to kindly to being BS'd by people be it by video or by the letter.

I don't want to be rude to you or anyone else. But this site isn't really for children looking for a laugh, and no one is going to indulge your histrionics.

I've taken a close look at the video & it seems to be CGI. I'm not certain however.

Like many pointed out, this is a problem we'll always have. If it's too good, it can be labeled as CGI, if it's not too good...it's something else other than a UFO & the person who recorded it is labeled as retarded for not being able to hold a camera steady.

One person pointed out that, if it were the real deal, the object in question would blur, as the buildings did when the camera zoomed in. This is true, granted that the object is roughly the same distance away from the camera that the buildings are. But, we don't know that. If the object is much further away from the building, it will appear clearer, while the building becomes more blurry. So, there's a hole in your theory there and there's no real way for us to tell the distance of the object from the building. We can guesstimate.

On the youtube comments, people are even mocking ATS users. We're getting a bad name here. Oh, well...that's how it goes when dealing with things of this nature. Our best bet, is to hope to get the video analyzed by a professional(preferrably a team of professionals) & wait fot the conclusion.

As with other videos of this kind this one smells fishy. At first it looks legit but the tell tale to these fakes is the way the ufo shoots off at the end. I have seen countless fake videos that use the very same effect or technique if you like. It just doesn't look realistic in my eyes. I have seen some fantastic videos and can smell the good from the bad.

This one is bad.....

October

Originally posted by stewartw2
This is one of clearest UFO vids I have ever seen, I have run an analysis on it and it is probably not, if not certainly not CGI-what do you think?

www.--.com...

[edit on 2-5-2009 by stewartw2]

At 21 - 22 seconds is interesting
At exactly the same time the camera moves the object disappears.
How could any one antisapate and react so fast.

Busted.

They said "several other people" saw this. Any corroborating eyewitness testimonies? That would be the most important thing, I think. Also, does the video just end there? I'd be videotaping people's reactions. I always get suspicious of video that just.. ends.

Originally posted by donhuangenaro
my 4 years experience in post-production as an image compositor (which included a lot of tracking motion of the camera) tells me that it is fake

why?

because if you look closely you can see discrepancies between UFO and camera
movement

I could be wrong, but I'm sure 98% that this is computer generated imagery

cheers

[edit on 3-5-2009 by donhuangenaro]

You may have a whole life experience in image composition or anylike, yet you still wouldn't know anything about the nature of UFOs.
What if the UFO was blury by itself? Its possible, since these things seem to come out of an other dimension and there have been witnesses that have seen UFOs being morphed from a cloud like into a solid appearance and vise versa.
So, if the UFO was blury by itself, because it was in a not fully materialised state or something, it wouldn't become (much) sharper no matter how much you focus in on it with the camera.

Ko3

[edit on 3-5-2009 by kid_of_3NKi]

Already being discussed here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The video is a product of employing simple Adobe Aftereffects capabilities.

Anyone can do it.

Originally posted by redhead57
I finally realize that no matter what the video or image is there will be those that will tear it apart. It is too out of focus, no back ground to compare it to, why didn't they do this or do that, blah, blah, blah.

As I said in the other thread:

what doesnt seem right about the footage is the zoom-in.

the building and the ufo enlarge at the same rate, if it were a real object, farther away than the building, it would have enlarged at a different rate, parallax consistent with perspective.

this is a great bit of footage for motion tracking practice in aftereffects, the downside is, using the building corner as the tracking anchor gives it away.

this footage is a fairly skilled hoax, anyone completing a few tutorials can do it.

dont believe me?

download the trial from adobe and do it yourself, should be required for anyone who is interested in distinguishing genuine footage from offerings by mischievous pranksters.

Originally posted by Welfhard
You see it there. Now I'm not suggesting that it's real, I personally don't think it is, but I am saying that it has continuity and if it were faked then the person who did it took care of that.
[edit on 3-5-2009 by Welfhard]

The masking tool in Aftereffects would take care of that easily.

You simply draw the shape of the building on the layer mask, and the software does the rest, complete with edge blending.