UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!! First ever video footage!

Originally posted by waveguide3

I'm referring to what I see in this single YouTube video, not over a selection of different
versions. I'm ambivalent as to whether this particular video is hires or not, that's not
relevant. What I'm talking about is sections of this one video. There are at least two
sections in this video showing the same sequence at different resolutions. Can you explain
it?

WG3

Yes I can explain this, I did before in this thread but so much pages to read again I will
instead tell you. What you are watching is a video report produced, edited and
enhanced by the tv network for the show. In this video report the original footage is
shown but not entirely because it is a long video, if you know the television bussines
you understand that minutes are the escence.

What we have here is an interview with the witness who is telling his story and some
shots are inserted along with his narration, some of these shots are even repeated,
all this made in post-production. Then we have an enhancement segment made by
the production to show a more enhanced images for the purposes of a tv network
standards and to add a more descriptive images for the audience. This process was
made with a proffesional high tech equipment like an AVID PRO as well as advanced
peripheral. A professional footage analysis will use a similar equipment and peripheral
as required by standards.

The result is a several minute segment of a UFO report including introduction,
interviews, original footage and enhanced footage, different shots and a dynamic
edition just like major tv networks do all the time. That's the reason why you saw
different resolutions in those images.

There was a second report as an update also posted here showing a second part of the
case incuding a recreation with the actual witness on location and again images in the
same process. Very soon a third update will be shown with a new witness presenting
his experience and the tv network will produce the report the same way so don't get
disconcerted by the edits, that will be done by the tv network.

Originally posted by free_spirit
By the way about your second option CGI you are not updated my friend, there is an actual second withness to this phenomena who also took a very good and descriptive video showing the phenomena from another position adding more elements to the research, his appeareance on national television is coming up with interviews so you will have to reconsider your second option, why don't you check my update on this
thread and check the images I showed. CGI no way.

Yes - you are right. I saw that second report that you posted a few days ago.

I did not think about that second report when I commented again upon the CGI option.

I will have another look at that report.

Originally posted by free_spirit
By the way about your second option CGI you are not updated my friend, there is an actual second withness to this phenomena who also took a very good and descriptive video showing the phenomena from another position adding more elements to the research, his appeareance on national television is coming up with interviews so you will have to reconsider your second option, why don't you check my update on this thread and check the images I showed. CGI no way.

Not exactly.

It could be CGI made in a 3D environment (the best way of reproducing a 3D object), and in that case they could do as many "takes" from as many points of view as they wanted, with different camera characteristics, it would be just another rendering job for each "take".

reply to post by zorgon


480 flags and 66 pages, thousands of viewers, all over some garbage bag with styrofoam in it. When I saw how the white "spheres" slowed down their "dance" that did it for me. They were following the momentum of the vortex left in the wake of the airliner. It is also what caused the bag to spin.

And don't yell at me for your spaceship, save it for the PTBs. If push comes to shove we could always use the Tomahawk. Maybe.

And I am still waiting on some VIP responses for Theory C.

Man-o-man, bring on the straight jackets, 'cause I'm fit to be tied!

Seems no one is buying your garbage bag theory

Originally posted by free_spirit
By the way about your second option CGI you are not updated my friend, there is an actual second withness to this phenomena who also took a very good and descriptive video showing the phenomena from another position adding more elements to the research, his appeareance on national television is coming up with interviews so you will have to reconsider your second option, why don't you check my update on this
thread and check the images I showed. CGI no way.

I looked at those images from the 2nd witness again. The quality is very poor & it is very difficult to draw any conclusions from them.

Armap states the obvious. Those images could also be CGI & poor CGI at that.

This is all going to get extremely repetitive & frustrating unless we can be shown better quality video or images.

Are you certain you cannot show us better quality video or images?

reply to post by ArMaP


Exactly! If you can supposedly videotape a UFO from multiple angles, the hoaxers would do this knowing this event would get more attention and credibility. It would be the perfect hoax. Especially, like you say, it wouldn't be too difficult to pull off.

But couldn't you also use the sky as basically a blue-screen kind of animation pallette? I have done 3d animations before for my business (involving commercial and residential structures) but the software I use is a little different, therefore it has its own capability limitations. I'm just not too familiar with other software people might use to pull off a hoax like this. But couldn't you technically tape the videos first (making the hoax harder to debunk) and then add-in the UFO and orbs later in digital format?

If this is some kind of animation, I'd think that someone would eventually figure out how to prove it. Alot of CG UFO hoaxes over the years have been debunked rather easily. The stupid Haiti UFO video, for example(remember that one?).

-ChriS

[edit on 23-7-2009 by BlasteR]

i dont know, i have no exsperience in video or that. it would look more real to me if i could see it better. the plastic bag theory is out of it. the spheres dance all over and go in angles away from the plane. if you look at the footage again i saw for a brief moment what the shape of the thing was , it looked like a triangle shape object for a brief second when he tried to focus it. can some one slow motion this here to this point where the thing was in focus. watch closely, you will see it will get focused for a second or two. is there any other way this could have been done, maybe with lights or something. or maybe the plane dropped off some sort of mist you could not see. the mist for a backdrop and then someone on the ground useing a laser of some sort manipulating motion. maybe the laser had a lens on it for the effects of the other objects. i dont know , someone prove me wrong. can that be done?

Originally posted by free_spirit
Then we have an enhancement segment made by
the production to show a more enhanced images for the purposes of a tv networkstandards and to add a more descriptive images for the audience. This process was made with a proffesional high tech equipment like an AVID PRO as well as advanced peripheral.

I'm sorry to persist with this, but I don't think you understand the point I'm making about the repeated sequencies. The use of video enhancement technology cannot increase the amount of detail over what's present in the original. By 'increased resolution' I do not mean making a hundred pixel image into a five hundred pixel one. That doesn't increase the optical resolution at all. It simply makes one original pixel into several pixels, but all they show is the original pixel in a larger format. Magnifying a blur just makes a larger blur. You cannot get more detail (resolution). However, you can use software based on NASA's 'Drizzle' techniques to improve optical precision, but you cannot get detail out of an image that isn't present in the first place.

Having clarified that fact, I'd still like to know how the second ('enhanced') sequencies show detail in the blob which isn't present in the original. This can only be achieved by two separate video captures made at different optical resolutions.

WG3

Originally posted by Sam60

Originally posted by free_spirit
By the way about your second option CGI you are not updated my friend, there is an
actual second withness to this phenomena who also took a very good and descriptive
video showing the phenomena from another position adding more elements to the
research, his appeareance on national television is coming up with interviews so you
will have to reconsider your second option, why don't you check my update on this
thread and check the images I showed. CGI no way.

I looked at those images from the 2nd witness again. The quality is very poor & it is
very difficult to draw any conclusions from them.

Armap states the obvious. Those images could also be CGI & poor CGI at that.

This is all going to get extremely repetitive & frustrating unless we can be shown better
quality video or images.

Are you certain you cannot show us better quality video or images?

Oh I certainly have copies of both raw footages. But for you as well as Armap it's no
use buddy. It doesn't matter if there are two separate witnesses of the same event,
it won't matter if a third or more witnesses come forward, it won't matter if the whole
neighborhood comes forward tomorrow as a witness to this event, for you and Armap
all of them will be suspicious, cheaters, liars and part of a massive scam by a massive
CGI creation incuding the tv network people.

It's clear as water that you both are suffering the CGI syndrome in wich no evidence,
no testimony, no investigation will be enough for you because it has to be CGI one
way or another. You know pal CGI infatuation may become an addiction in wich your
mind play tricks and you may end thinking that your own shadow is just a CGI
hologram, your own reflection in a mirror is a CGI projection. It would be healthy if
you both just move on instead of staying in your CGI world. This is the obvious.

Originally posted by waveguide3

Originally posted by free_spirit
Then we have an enhancement segment made by
the production to show a more enhanced images for the purposes of a tv
networkstandards and to add a more descriptive images for the audience. This process
was made with a proffesional high tech equipment like an AVID PRO as well as
advanced peripheral.

I'm sorry to persist with this, but I don't think you understand the point I'm making
about the repeated sequencies. The use of video enhancement technology cannot
increase the amount of detail over what's present in the original. By 'increased
resolution' I do not mean making a hundred pixel image into a five hundred pixel one.
That doesn't increase the optical resolution at all. It simply makes one original pixel into
several pixels, but all they show is the original pixel in a larger format. Magnifying a
blur just makes a larger blur. You cannot get more detail (resolution). However, you
can use software based on NASA's 'Drizzle' techniques to improve optical precision, but
you cannot get detail out of an image that isn't present in the first place.
Having clarified that fact, I'd still like to know how the second ('enhanced') sequencies
show detail in the blob which isn't present in the original. This can only be achieved by
two separate video captures made at different optical resolutions.

WG3

I think I've missed something here, what exactly is your point?

Originally posted by free_spirit[/i
I think I've missed something here

That was pretty clear from the start of this discussion. What I'm trying to explain as simply as I can, is it isn't possible for the two sequences to have one and the same source.

Wikipedia has a good explanation of optical resolution and pixel resolution, maybe that will help?

WG3