Debunked???: 'UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!!'

Originally posted by internos
reply to post by necati

 

To replicate some effect does NOT imply that you have debunked anything: while i do admit that the resembleance is embarassing to say the least, i can't accept it as a full debunking. Let's say that you raised some serious problem of credibility about the footage, and that NOW the absence of the original footage would mean that someone has something to hide. Very impressive, but not a conclusive proof.

I agree with internos, that just because you found a way to make this, in some program, that it proves the footage is debunked.

As mentioned in a few other recent threads (most notably the intelligent spheres thread) technology and CGI has come to a point where it's down to faith basically.

Anybody with some programs like you have and some time can create theese sorts of fakes, some of which are very well done.

So you have proven that it COULD be a fake and I will not be so quick to believe good footage in the future, but I really cannot say I believe you HAVE proven it to be a fake, and nor would I think you had PROVEN it even if you had been able to replicate the effect over footage of a man, the outdoors and the sky and clouds.

I don't know what I WOULD accept as proof though.

So in the end I think UFOs and Extreterrestrials comes down to a certain degree of faith, not religion if you will, but faith.

And my faith in the subject tells me that while you replicated the effect, you by no means proved that the same effect was used in the original video.

This of it this way, if I took a video of an oak tree with my camcorder, then you made an animation of an oak tree, does that prove my original oak tree footage is a fake? Does that prove oak trees do not exist?

reply to post by BaronVonGodzilla


Whoa, why the aggressive nature in that post? The OP changed her title to "Debunked???". All she is doing is what any good ufologist or person simply interested in the phenomina would do, and that is try to explain a case.I think she has a pretty damn good explanation myself, but it is NOT conclusive, nor is it stated anywhere in the title or OP that it is.

I won't be so quick to believe good footage in the future

Well then she did her part then didn't she?

reply to post by jkrog08


lol, thats better then my balloon theory.... but I like my balloon theory an dthis theory.. Perhaps if it were somehow combined? Doubtful I know, I think you got it solved.

reply to post by TheMythLives


Oh you mean my theory I put forth about a combo of balloons enhanced with CGI? Yea that seems possible.

reply to post by jkrog08


well...hmmm.. I said balloons then you said a mixture..lol.. lets call it a co-op theory.

First of all here is another instalment with a few improvements like a simple sky and some rather cheap camera shakiness effect. Will update the opening post accordingly.



Whatever you consider this being proof or not is up to you and I am well aware that even if I would be able to copy the said video pixel by pixel there would still be a claim like:”Okay you were able to copy a video but that doesn’t mean that the template wasn’t genuine”.

How likely is it that there is an unknown, genuine phenomenon which occurred in the skies over Mexico City that is almost 100% accurately included in a software package?

When they program particle simulations like fire, snow, rain, smoke, dust etc the software programmer has a natural phenomenon he tries to mimic; not the other way round.

Please keep in mind, the assertion was (after my claim that this probably might be CGI) that there is no way that this could have been made in a 3D application.

Even if I should have proven nothing as many claim, I at least was able to show you that with 2 days ‘experience’ in After Effects and the right plug-in you can easily mimic the behaviour and appearance of the objects in question.

Try to imagine how much more an experienced, skilled After Effects user with some years of experience could do.
I again have to point out that I actually do believe in the UFO phenomenon but this imho isn’t anything close to something which would represent extraterrestrial presence in our skies.

reply to post by necati


Ms. Dana Scully the skeptic..........lol


That was a very good illustration, I for one think the chance of the original video being a hoax is about 95%. But I will be VERY happy to be proven wrong. Good job!

reply to post by jkrog08


Actually I am a male
This is just the fragile female in me

reply to post by necati


Oh crap! Sorry man! LOL, that is always an issue with me on the internet, hard to tell sometimes.

This, like so many other subjects, has been discussed many times here on this site, and will likely be discussed again many times in the future.

Photos/videos by themselves are only marginal bits of evidence to begin with and by their very nature can't "prove" anything one way or another without other corroborating evidence. Recreations are only marginally useful, since they only prove that such and such an image could be faked (roughly -- I've never seen an exact duplication), not necessarily that the original was indeed faked.

Nope. The only things that can help prove what an image is would be images taken of the same thing at the same time by different people or equipment, none of them anonymous, solid evidence directly linked to whatever is in the image, testimony from experts who don't have a dog in the fight as to the object's authenticity, etc.

As for the video of a UFO releasing spheres? It may be exactly what it looks like, but nobody even knows what that is. "Intelligent?" That's debatable. "Alien?" Who knows?

Again, this is one of those videos that can't be "debunked" per se, but is essentially useless by itself, anyway, even without being debunked. It just goes into the files -- not really proving anything or adding much to the subject. Whatever.

reply to post by Nohup

Again, this is one of those videos that can't be "debunked" per se, but is essentially useless by itself, anyway, even without being debunked. It just goes into the files -- not really proving anything or adding much to the subject. Whatever.

Yep, the 'floaters' as I call them,lol. They just float around doing nothing, I guess I could analogize them with WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles),lol....

I guess they do add some spirit to the cause though in a way, they get people interested in ufology. However I do wish bad things on those who hoax and pollute the field.

Originally posted by Nohup

Again, this is one of those videos that can't be "debunked" per se, but is essentially useless by itself, anyway, even without being debunked. It just goes into the files -- not really proving anything or adding much to the subject. Whatever.

Nohup I am watching and insisting in this case having Mr. Jaime Maussan in mind. Recently I watched his 2007 presentation, it's hillarious to say the least.


Here is a quote from ufowatchdog.com Hall Of Shame on J. Maussan:
Link

Promoter and supporter of various UFO hoaxes. Constantly claims to have scientific proof, but nevers seems able to produce it when asked. Claimed to have radar tapes confirming UFOs in Mexico airspace. Was reportedly asked for the tapes - the tapes never came to fruition. Supported Hale-Bopp UFO hoax made infamous via Art Bell and Courtney Brown. Told people at a 1996 UFO conference that stars in the sky were actually giant UFOs hovering in space above the planet. Said this was reason stars shifted position in sky! Sold infamous tape of daylight UFO to a television network for a reported $120,000 - the tape was proven to be a hoax. Maussan has also supported the Billy Meier UFO fraud. Maussan is now best known for his promotion of the shameless Reed UFO Fraud. Maussan claims to have scientific proof of the Reed UFO Fraud - again, he has yet to produce it. Will jump the gun and claim a bogus alien photo is real without proper investigation. Maussan had the gall to call your ufowatchdog.com an amateur - funny, but I recall this so-called amateur exposing the Reed UFO Fraud that was sitting right under Maussan's nose. So, Jaime, what ever did happen to your supposed investigation showing "Dr. Reed" to be real? Beware of so-called journalists that don't report all of the facts...it is indeed a wonder why anyone would give Maussan a grain of credibility. Let's just hope a real case of import never finds its way to Maussan...God help us if it does...clowns belong in the circus, not doing investigations.

bold emphasisby me.......

Originally posted by internos
reply to post by necati

 

To replicate some effect does NOT imply that you have debunked anything: while i do admit that the resembleance is embarassing to say the least, i can't accept it as a full debunking. Let's say that you raised some serious problem of credibility about the footage, and that NOW the absence of the original footage would mean that someone has something to hide. Very impressive, but not a conclusive proof.

No, it's not conclusive proof that this was a hoax.

However, whenever a video of an alleged UFO is posted on ATS, invariably someone would say "That video must be real...what else can it be?"...
...well, the OP here has shown what else it could be, so that argument can't be used to attempt to verify this event.

The "it's impossible to fake a video/picture like this" argument is used all the time on ATS as "proof" that a video or picture is real.

I suppose it could be some sort of ET controlled UFO, or possibly some secret military craft, or it could also be exactly what the OP has shown us here.



[edit on 7/13/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by necati


Yea, the credibility of the producer does not help, and now with the CGI possibilities you have showed, added with the balloon possibilities this case seems likely a fraud IMO, BUT there is no way to know for sure. It really is not a big deal because this is not even close to the 'smoking gun' proof we require.

Originally posted by Yummy Freelunch
reply to post by avat178

 

......
Its people like you that have killed the unicorns..lol

You are free to believe what ever you choose to. You can still have santa, the tooth fairy and goblins etc.
I only doubt whether you understood what the quote in your sig means.

edit: spelling

[edit on 13-7-2009 by necati]

reply to post by jkrog08

You jumped on someone else for being snippy and you yell at me for my opinion? Whoa, I was stating that it looked like a hoax to me, especially with the new video the OP posted.

Good job OP!!! Adding the sky really sealed it for me, that's just me, not speaking for anyone else, justmyopinion.

Could this be circumstantial evidence, coincidence or nothing at all?

Pedro Hernandez

On the right the UFO watcher who made the video. On the left, his namesake who uploads Adobe After Effects tutorials. Family resemblence? Maybe, maybe not.

I asked the same question in the first thread, but few were interested.

WG3

I SMH @ DISCREDITORS NOW CARRY ON
ALSO JUSTIFY THE 4 BALLS THAT DANCED AROUND THE IMAGE BEFOR IT RELEASED THE SPHERES

[edit on 7/13/09 by Ophiuchus 13]

[edit on 7/13/09 by Ophiuchus 13]

reply to post by necati


Great Job! That looks so much like the video! So, is this guy a hoaxer or??

GOOD TRY IT AINT LOOK THE SAME PLUS THE MAIN FIGURE WAS SPINNING REALLY FAST WHERE IS YOURS FELLOW UNIVERSALTARIAN



Mod Note: Please don't use ALL CAPS in posts. -- Majic



[edit on 7/13/2009 by Majic]