Amazingly clear UFO vid from Moscow

Originally posted by Tayesin
I often see people asking why didn't others see the object too?

Simple answer, most people never look up. True.

In fact, most people are looking at the ground or at shops when in the city. To get attention onto something else it usually has to be pointed out first.

Also, maybe the video was taken on a Sunday when the streets and shopping centres around the world are not usually open, etc.

I find it amusing that people say with these things,"it should have done this or that", when we do not know how these things should behave.

The other thing people are saying here that is total BS is : 'the UFO could not have been out of focus: that is impossible'

Even if it was CGI the maker might well have created a blurred look to imitate a surrounding energy feild or cloaker (albeit not operative)

If UFOs use exotic methods of flight involving gravity chances are they would appear blurry.

Originally posted by stewartw2
reply to post by woogleuk

 

b-there were other witnesses-One can be seen in the video itself.

Ok really now.... this is getting dumb.

The YouTube video says this, and this only:

"April 6, about 9 pm, on the TC Kashirskiy courtyard, the ufo."

Yet, "--" has it's very own make-believe story behind it, claiming there were multiple witnesses, blah blah, they were trying to take energy from a mall, blah blah... No proof what-so-ever. Someone is making this story up as they go along.

We already know this is a hoax, the video sucks, and multiple people are making up their own stories about it.

Where did "--" get their info?

Seems the same exact guy "mikha555" submitted the video here on the same day:
777mikha777.rutube.ru...

It's funny that this guy also submitted the video on the same day as mikha. 4/23/2009.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Either this is the same guy, or he ripped the movie off, and uploaded it, the same day. Not sure how they "ripped" it so well, they must have had the source file.

So why is "--" posting fake descriptions of the video? Why is the same guy posting the same video on different names?

Seems to me that this is just another guy trying to spread a viral video.


[edit on 3-5-2009 by 0nce 0nce]

reply to post by 0nce 0nce


Your post shows the problem when people assume they have all the evidence at hand-you don't.
Again let me say I lean towards thinking the video is fake....but:
None of what you just mentioned proves that
you have no idea where info on the event comes from.

Some amazing stuff...If anything its cgi..

reply to post by stewartw2


I already know the video is a complete hoax, I already gave you info on how to debunk it. If you are going to sit here and defend it like it is your child, so be it. Just know you can not fool the experts. Also, I was questioning the "info" because it seems that "--" knows more than the person that submitted the video to YouTube, which is really fishy.

Hold your hand out in front of you and wave your hand really fast like you are saying "Hi"... do you see motion blur? That is one of the hardest effects to master with CGI, and this video you are defending completely failed to even try.

What makes it worse, is that video cameras have a much slower speed then your brain does, which makes the missing effect even more noticeable.

It IS possible to simulate motion blur with CGI, but only a few graphics programs do it as of today, however, this CGI HOAX you are defending completely lacks any type reality based effects.

You can cry and say UFO's have some special light bending abilities, but you will only show your lack of understanding of basic science. If you can see an object, that means light is reflecting into your eyes, or camera. When an object moves fast, and you can still see it, it is trying to exist in multiple frames of reference in a short period of time. If it was a cartoon, and you drew it page by page, you get something similar to the video HOAX you are defending.

However, in real life it is a different story, because there is an infinite amount of pages, and cameras are trying to fit an infinite amount of pages of movements into a finite amount of pages. It's like taking 5 different pages of a cartoon, and drawing all 5 pages into 1 page (will be blurry). In real life with infinite pages (frames of reference), and a 30FPS or less video camera, you are going to get a motion blur.

This CGI hoax is totally lacking any type of motion blur, which is a direct sign of CGI animation. In order to recreate motion blur the right way with CGI is to have "ghost objects" which are transparent clones of the object that is moving, and the ghost objects must follow the main object that is moving. If they are to slow, it will look fake, to fast it will be hard to see, and if it isn't there at all, well, it will look like the video in the O.P. (FAKE).





[edit on 3-5-2009 by 0nce 0nce]

Originally posted by 0nce 0nce
reply to post by stewartw2

 

I already know the video is a complete hoax, I already gave you info on how to debunk it. If you are going to sit here and defend it like it is your child, so be it. Just know you can not fool the experts. Also, I was questioning the "info" because it seems that "--" knows more than the person that submitted the video to YouTube, which is really fishy.

Hold your hand out in front of you and wave your hand really fast like you are saying "Hi"... do you see motion blur? That is one of the hardest effects to master with CGI, and this video you are defending completely failed to even try.

What makes it worse, is that video cameras have a much slower speed then your brain does, which makes the missing effect even more noticeable.

It IS possible to simulate motion blur with CGI, but only a few graphics programs do it as of today, however, this CGI HOAX you are defending completely lacks any type reality based effects.

You can cry and say UFO's have some special light bending abilities, but you will only show your lack of understanding of basic science. If you can see an object, that means light is reflecting into your eyes, or camera. When an object moves fast, and you can still see it, it is trying to exist in multiple frames of reference in a short period of time. If it was a cartoon, and you drew it page by page, you get something similar to the video HOAX you are defending.

However, in real life it is a different story, because there is an infinite amount of pages, and cameras are trying to fit an infinite amount of pages of movements into a finite amount of pages. It's like taking 5 different pages of a cartoon, and drawing all 5 pages into 1 page (will be blurry). In real life with infinite pages (frames of reference), and a 30FPS or less video camera, you are going to get a motion blur.

This CGI hoax is totally lacking any type of motion blur, which is a direct sign of CGI animation. In order to recreate motion blur the right way with CGI is to have "ghost objects" which are transparent clones of the object that is moving, and the ghost objects must follow the main object that is moving. If they are to slow, it will look fake, to fast it will be hard to see, and if it isn't there at all, well, it will look like the video in the O.P. (FAKE).





[edit on 3-5-2009 by 0nce 0nce]

The thing I think mitigates against this video is the fact that the thing zooms off so soon after he began filming, and that it zoomed off just as he zoomed out-seems a bit suspicious

The thing I think seems suspicious is the area the guy is standing filming it.

It does look real, but it was almost predictable that it was going to shoot off the the side.

How about this. Those that think this video is real, why don't you provide technical analysis of it that supports your opinion?

I don't know why it often falls on those that are labeled "skeptic" to "debunk" a video. If ever a video come about that appears to be the holy grail, you will want the skeptics on your side, trust me.

It is very difficult for those of us that have video editing and special effect experience (I use maya, adobe, LW, and a few other programs) to explain to those that don't what makes this video bunk. Especially since they don't appear to read our posts or even follow our links.

Look, defenders and believers of the "alien conspiracy", we are on the same side as you. We want the truth. However, there are those of us that understand that complete and utter bunk such as this video, and the ignorant amount of attention it gets from those that are either blind or gullible hurts the very cause we are all fighting for.

And, again, I'll say this a hundred more times this month I am sure, there is no reason to even debate the merits of the actual video to debunk this thing. If you don't understand why I say that, then you are part of the problem that keeps this subject the butt of the average Joe's jokes.

Originally posted by stewartw2
b-there were other witnesses-One can be seen in the video itself.

Where can that other witness be seen?

I did not saw anyone on the video (but I didn't looked very closely).

Could you point it to me (and possibly other people that did not saw it)? Thanks.

Originally posted by Tayesin
Simple answer, most people never look up. True.

Yes, very true.

Also, maybe the video was taken on a Sunday when the streets and shopping centres around the world are not usually open, etc.

You just had to use a calendar, April 6 was a Monday, and this was filmed at 20:40.

I had to put my headphones on because it was screaming CGI..

Originally posted by stewartw2

Originally posted by Nightchild
Regardless of the clip itself, it is interesting to note, that as usual the information in the opening-post about the clip allready been investigated, goes ignored.

I am not saying that this video is real, it might well not be. it isnt CGI either, as the attempt by the guy who spent three hours doing one up and didnt even come close implied. It might be a remote controlled object, and the film sped up at the end. it might be a real ET craft. The less familiar things are to people the more they will look like special effects.

Just to clarify.

I spent three hours from idea to finished product and that included making the 3D model, shooting basic footage, setting all up in my video editing suite and adding several effects to make it out to be from a camera phone. And the three hours include rendering the footage into a WMV file.

I don't claim to have come "even close" (whatever that means. I claim to be able to make a hoax video with all the paraphenelia and whistles and bell. AND you wouldn't be able to see that it is a hoax.
IF I decided to use a day or two to tweak it "just right".

I also claim that the video I made is a test - just to show how much can be done by an ordinary guy in a very short time.

I further claim that most hoaxers are ordinary guys with too much time on their hands.

If you think it is a remote controlled "thingy", then you wouldn't recognize CGI if it jumped up and bit your donkey.

What we really need is some sort of "sticky" with a number of videos on how to spot fakes - UFO, GHOST etc.

Perhaps in the end we can educate people on how to avoid being too gullible.

nice vid, it may be a bit hoaxy but atleast its better thstn recording a bunch f people with flashlights running around in a field and saying its a UFO

It says...

The UFO was spotted above the well-known Kisharsky Shopping Mall.

So what's the big deal? As soon as those ETs made all their grocery purchases from the shopping mall, they stepped on the gas and zoomed off! Elementary, Dr Watson!

Ok, seriously, I wonder what made the photographer zoom in to that particular spot when the 'UFO' was pretty difficult to see without the zoom? How did he know it was there? That raises some suspicion that this vid may be a hoax after all.

Cheers!

reply to post by stewartw2


cool video, i'm still wondering about our governments' will to hide the truth from us

Cheers

good points from youtube: first thing that I think is odd is the filmer starts filming at his feets. All hoax vids start with this shot..

2nd: he zooms out, and after this the ufo shoots away like its waiting for the camera man to zoom out

3rd: it flies away to the left like in all ufo hoax vids. why not to the front? or back?

4th: judging the line it flies away it should reappear again on the left of the building.. doesnt

i think i can go on and on about this

I certainly must say that this is one of the clearest videos I've ever seen. But I will agree with someone who wrote on here (and I'm sure dozens others have as well, but I don't have the time to go through every single post on the threads, I mean I DO have to eat and sleep), with all the CGI and video editing software out these days-especially with a large number of high end software with great results in the hands of the public-it certainly makes it harder to ultimately decipher what is the truth and what is a hoax. And that is aggravating because it's almost like it's a game for the non-believers who appear to just get off and enjoy torturing the ones who really want the truth.

But hey, even if it IS fake, it's still dang cool to look out. They ALL are.

I Want To Believe,
Fox

[edit on 04/25/89 by Agent Fox Mulder]

Hate to say it but this looks fake. Why was the camera operator even there and filming in that area to begin with? The sudden take off was also too perfectly timed just for the camera to be credible. This was a nice atempt at getting us all excided over nothing.

For all the people that say that the UFO does not appear on the other side of the building, please look at this post from Welfhard, back on page 2.

The UFO does appear on the other side, you just have to look at the video or read the thread (at least up to page 2 ).

Originally posted by mikesingh
Ok, seriously, I wonder what made the photographer zoom in to that particular spot when the 'UFO' was pretty difficult to see without the zoom? How did he know it was there? That raises some suspicion that this vid may be a hoax after all.

That I don't find suspicious, the tests I did with a digital camera (not a cell-phone camera), what I can see with the naked eye was equivalent to a 10x zoom on that camera, our vision is very good when compared with the cameras on cell phones, and if you have one you can try for yourself (I do not have a cell phone, so I cannot try it).