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

reply to post by Matyas

If you noticed my earlier comments, I made similar comments regarding something caught in the slipstream & turbulance of the passing plane.

However, unless Free Spirit or someone else with access makes better quality video available I don't believe it's possible to exclude anything.

Originally posted by Akezzon
Just let it be Zorgon. None of us will never be able to make them atleast concider it to be something else than cgi, or birds.

Well sure but this Matyas dude... I'm kinda stuck with him as he is co-founder of Pegasus and our propulsion dude. but he gets excited when I pester him about deadlines on the spacecraft

Originally posted by Akezzon
reply to post by zorgon

 

Just let it be Zorgon. None of us will never be able to make them atleast concider it to be something else than cgi, or birds.

Cgi or birds, sure I can accept that there is an possibility.

But when they come to trash bags....
I begin to think that some just don't want this to be something else.

So, let them believe what they want, let them call it debunked...

But to me and many more it will still remain unknown and unexplained.
The raw footage is the key here. So no matter how good you are handling legal or pirated softwares it will never explain anything.

At some point we will have an answer.
Something IS going on. To much is happening around the world.

How did you come to the conclusion that I don’t even want to consider this to be something else than CGI or a bird?
It’s only a question of clues which lead me to consider other probabilities as well. And those doubts turned out to be reasonable.
I didn’t slow down the video expecting it would turn out to be a wing flapping bird. I just wanted to take a closer look at how this could have been made using particles and came across a different explanation concerning the nature of the centre object.

I kindly would like to ask you at which point some evidence convinces you?

However you should comment the presented clip by saying it’s no way a bird because xxxxxx, that would be more fruitful and I could give you a proper reply.

Having chosen to believe isn’t good, being convinced to believe something is much better, I think!


[edit on 24-7-2009 by necati]

ATS media doesn't work for me again. Have no idea why.
Have just uploaded the file to rapidshare.com, too.
You can download it here.

reply to post by necati


Uhmm. I wasn't refering to you personally even if Zorgon were responding to you.
I spoke in general.
I have not read all your posts, but from what I have read you seem to put down time to show that this IS cgi just because you manage to make a short clip with a similar animation thus you seem pretty convinced that is is cgi. The thread were first named debunked before someone pointed it out and you added the question mark. And therefor I figured you were pretty convinced.

To answer your question, that depends from case to case and of what you need to prove. Now we need to prove if this is cgi or not ( cause I personally don't think it is a bird because of the behavior, and I don't believe it to be a trash bag... ). And the only thing that can prove this is the original tape. But how we will get our hands on that is a whole other story. I doubt the cameraman never will hand the tape over to someone. If you want to see the original tape I guess you need to visit him. And I can tell you know, I plan not to go to Mexico to look at a tape. If there are critters, aliens etc out there, the evidence will reach us at some point.

I have made the choice to believe because I find it more fun. That doesn't mean I automatically believe anything presented or that I am unwilling to accept when a case is debunked. But instead of setting my default state to sceptism I choose to have an open mind from the start. Again...because I find it more fun.
But this is just a matter of opinion. I will not say it is better to get convinced than choose to believe cause both ways can be right/wrong.

And I have debated alot in the other thread why I believe as I do.

[edit on 24-7-2009 by Akezzon]

These are living creatures, which are Etheric biological Entities, or "Critters". They live in the upper Atmosphere, and rarely come down to the lowers area where we are. They can be seen quite easily in many NASA videos, for instance, "The Tether Incident", and other occurrences that have anything to do with the launching of Satellites, or other items that are let loose into space by our Astronauts. Now the famous Tether Incident, there were a lot of these Critter Creatures all over the area around the Tether,along with "Real UFOs". These "Etheric Biological Entities"are also known to be "Shape Shifters" and have been known to take on shapes of "Flying Disc's", which are not flying Saucers with Aliens inside flying them around and shooting Ray guns! The science of Etheric Biological Entities, "Critters", Inter dementional Light Beings with Craft, and rael UFOs is a topic that needs to be addressed in the World and subject of Modern UFOlogy! If you want to find out more about them, there are some videos on You Tube that will tell you all about them. Also, there are books that will tell you pretty much everything that's known about them. The videos are named; "UFOs they live in the sky(update version)" Sky Creatures, living UFOs, Undeniable proof of Real Aliens, The Cosmic Pulse of Life, Etc. Which can be found on "YOU TUBE" and the Books, Are; The Cosmic Pulse of Life By, Trevor James Constable. They Live in the Sky, by Trevor James Constable, and others by different Authors. Also, I am the only person that is known to have had an "Actual Two on One Physical Incident" by these Creatures of the Sky, up to this point in time! If anyone Knows of any other Occurrences with these "Critters" and are interested in this subject, please send me an email, at [email protected]

Originally posted by necati
ATS media doesn't work for me again. Have no idea why.
Have just uploaded the file to rapidshare.com, too.
You can download it here.

Might be the file type? .rar?

Good job! I can't say this debunks it completely but it raises some interesting questions! I am sick of people and their hoaxes! I used to LOVE reading about and watching ufo stuff, but not so much anymore because a lot turns out to be hoaxed! I feel like I'm just wasting my time reading about this stuff when 90 percent turns out to be hoaxed.

And some of you hardcore believers are SO ARROGANT and disrespectful to people who disagree with yall. Thats another reason I hardly read this stuff. You call us skeptics dumb and some of yall cant even spell or form proper sentences and you believe every youtube video.

Peace.


[edit on 24-7-2009 by jeasahtheseer]

reply to post by zorgon


I know it is cliche, but it does fall into line with Occam's razor. It is most likely, most probable. I could go back to being funny and adopt one of your theories, but it is still a waste of time all told.

You know, I really don't believe man will have the same freedom he has enjoyed on Earth polluting the space environment. See what a paint chip can do, it can almost punch a hole through the shuttle window panes. And I don't think we will be able to enjoy the vast new territory of other worlds until we learn to clean up our own backyard. I am not talking about conscience, I am addressing common sense.

Seems to me this is all the central theme of all messages regardless of the origins. The trouble with us is we're pigs, and we must first evolve out of the stage before moving on. Just as you and many others, I salivate at the prospect of being off world. It is a great proposition, but can we have the cake and eat it too? I think not. Even if we were the sole intelligent beings in the whole expanse of this universe, which I believe is not so, the way we treat our environment will inevitably return to bite us in the ass (tush for autocensors).

So I do get excited, and I wonder what is wrong, why it hasn't materialized yet, and then I remember, 'oh yeah, that's right, we're the problem, and that obsticle has to be removed first', which is a lack of respect for creation and our own self loathing.

Originally posted by jeasahtheseer
And some of you hardcore believers are SO ARROGANT and disrespectful to people who disagree with yall. Thats another reason I hardly read this stuff. You call us skeptics dumb and some of yall cant even spell or form proper sentences and you believe every youtube video.

This knife cuts both ways I may add.
I don't mind people putting down time doin videos like OP of this thread has done. I think it's good.

What I do reject is that just because someone can reproduce a PART of the reference video it's automatically called debunking evidence. This is what I don't agree with.
Cause what OP's video proves is that is it POSSIBLE that the original video is cgi. It does not prove it IS cgi.

As I have said in the other thread. I am not totally unfamiliar with 3D modeling softwares, I have tried alot of them including the expensive and advanced ones as Maya and cheaper ones as the crap program Bryce.
I have also done some 'rotoscoping' ( google it ). And from MY point of view I don't believe this to be cgi. Put the possibility that it is cgi is still there.
Put to claim this to be birds or trash bags are kinda silly in my opinion.
But that is my opinion.

[edit on 24-7-2009 by Akezzon]

Originally posted by Akezzon

Originally posted by jeasahtheseer
And some of you hardcore believers are SO ARROGANT and disrespectful to people who disagree with yall. Thats another reason I hardly read this stuff. You call us skeptics dumb and some of yall cant even spell or form proper sentences and you believe every youtube video.

This knife cuts both ways I may add.
I don't mind people putting down time doin videos like OP of this thread has done. I think it's good.

What I do reject is that just because someone can reproduce a PART of the reference video it's automatically called debunking evidence. This is what I don't agree with.
Cause what OP's video proves is that is it POSSIBLE that the original video is cgi. It does not prove it IS cgi.

As I have said in the other thread. I am not totally unfamiliar with 3D modeling softwares, I have tried alot of them including the expensive and advanced ones as Maya and cheaper ones as the crap program Bryce.
I have also done some 'rotoscoping' ( google it ). And from MY point of view I don't believe this to be cgi. Put the possibility that it is cgi is still there.
Put to claim this to be birds or trash bags are kinda silly in my opinion.
But that is my opinion.

[edit on 24-7-2009 by Akezzon]

Yeah man I totally agree with you. It goes both ways there are idiot skeptics who automatically dismiss everything and there are believers who believe everything.

Peace.

Originally posted by jeasahtheseer

........It goes both ways there are idiot skeptics who automatically dismiss everything and there are believers who believe everything.

That is a really good way to put it......very succinct

Originally posted by Matyas
reply to post by Sam60

 

It could very well be a budgie, but that does not readily explain the amount of ejecta. I would not think a bird has that many feathers, or # (poopie for the autocensors), or whatever a bird has to give up when caught in the wake of an airliner. Also the size would be dimunituively small, not so easy to pick up would you think, unless the airliner is closer than we realize. I also wouldn't suspect budgies fly that high either unless we assume the origin is the cargo hold, and as such it could be a bird and/or other stuff, like a bag filled with packing material.

No one is picking up on my garbage theory. It wouldn't take much to cause a plastic bag to flap like a bird in a turbulant air mass after it emptied out, not to mention the slowing of the "spheres" which starkly reflect the slowing and widening of the momentum of the air vortex over time.

Well, unless you can show me how that much ejecta can come from a bird I am still inclined to stick with a plastic bag and styrofoam.

I also saw the flapping motion a long time ago and immediately the thought "bird" registered, but then there are several problems with that bird theory, like the ejecta just as you mentioned. The other problem is that if you keep watching the video after this flapping part, the whole yellow thing starts flapping and it no longer looks like a bird, but looks like a big plastic-sack like thing.

So I had to drop the bird idea and I agree it could be a big yellow either garbage bag, or other type of plastic material with a container shape (such as a tarp-like material). I would estimate the chances are 80% that the big yellow sack is filled with helium balloons are threaded on a couple of pieces of fishing line or other string-like material to yank the balloons out in opposite directions, and there's a possibility the flapping motion we see is from "flaps" made in the big plastic sack to allow exit holes for the balloons.

After the balloons slip off the fishing line (or I suppose could still be attached to the fishing line but no longer under tension) they dance around in the turbulent air like so many other balloon videos. They could be styrofoam I suppose but there are many reason I believe they are balloons rather than styrofoam:
-prevalence of balloon UFO videos in Mexico (this is no proof, but a bias)
-Movement just like other helium balloon videos I've seen, once they slip off the string or the string loses tension
-Easier to run a string through balloons such that the string will slip off, than with Styrofoam
-Easier for the helium filled balloons to remain airborne than the Styrofoam particles.

So actually I don't think our theories are that far apart, except for the Styrofoam in yours being replaced by balloons in mine, and I agree it could still be Styrofoam.

And I'm only giving that balloons in a sack theory an 80% probability in my own personal database, I could be completely wrong and it could be something else, I give that a 20% probability, so if you think it could be something else I'll be the first person to agree with you, it could be something else.

I also reserve the right to update my interpretation if better quality videos are ever released, but I got tired of holding my breath waiting for that.

Originally posted by necati
ATS media doesn't work for me again. Have no idea why.
Have just uploaded the file to rapidshare.com, too.
You can download it here.

Is this the same video you embedded on p8? I downloaded it from rapidshare, and it looks about the same.

[edit on 25-7-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Thanks for more of your thoughts about this interesting case

I think your last point is your most pertinent one. We need to see the better quality videos if we are to extend our considerations & our discussion much further.

Those that have the videos are not allowing that to happen.


[edit on 24-7-2009 by Sam60]

@Arbitrageur

I also saw the flapping motion a long time ago and immediately the thought "bird" registered, but then there are several problems with that bird theory, like the ejecta just as you mentioned. The other problem is that if you keep watching the video after this flapping part, the whole yellow thing starts flapping and it no longer looks like a bird, but looks like a big plastic-sack like thing.

I consider the whole thing to be a composite work consisting of different events which were done with different methods of CGI/and or video editing in postproduction.

- First object behind the plane (could be anything including a balloon).

- Centre object ejecting spheres (the event I am referring to).

- Centre object (in the meanwhile changed its behaviour) with small spheres flying around it. Again no seamless transition to this event, only a rather harsh cut.

(Could also be made with the Particular plug-in using its built in ‘spherical field’ function under the physics option. It allows to determine an object which serves as a kind of magnet to attract or push away particles.
I have already some good results in recreating it but won’t be able to work on this for the next three weeks. I will finish it as soon as I am back home.)


I tried to find a seamless transition from the flapping behaviour to the plastic-bag like tumbling appearance but couldn’t find it. All I can see is a cut. Even if there would be a smooth transition from one appearance/ behaviour to another, this could be easily made by morphing one object to another.

Right after the plane passes by the cloudy sky fades into a view without clouds.
It is very convenient that for the most difficult editing part of the clip the sky/ background is clear and shows no clouds which would complicate the task. There is only a hint of a very fluffy and hazy cloudlet on the lower part of the screen which could be easily added afterwards.

Okay, if I have footage of a bird flying in front of a clear blue sky I first stabilise it and then can ‘blur’ its appearance using different video editing effects. I would have also skipped and rearranged some frames to ‘blur’ the natural wing flapping motion. Whoever made this obviously didn’t. That’s why the flapping bird which served as the centre object for further editing by applying the Particular plug-in can be still identified as what it is, a wing flapping bird.

Speeding up the motion is quite easy since no other movement in the background would disclose what you did. Speeding up the motion of a man in front of a wall is fairly easy but almost impossible if he stood in front of a street with moving cars behind.

Having provided a good background in terms of a ‘clean’ sky and a centre object that remains stationary while making its (now sped up) motion, you can add the ‘ejecta’ in After Effects using the above mentioned plug-in. The last step of ‘blurring’ telltale elements would be adding out of focus and camera shakiness effects. An extra level of security for the illusion would be withholding the raw footage and only make grainy versions with lots of compression artefacts available.

Even a frame by frame editing of a 30 seconds lasting clip wouldn’t take that much time. Having a frame rate of 30fps would result in 900 images which isn’t a daunting task at all. It’s tedious but a work of a few days at most. Hope I haven’t made a mistake here, I’m an absolute deadbeat at maths

@all
Finally, I would like to ask you to read at least the ‘Spirograph’ example as a reply to wookiep which might generally help to understand my point concerning the use of Particular and why I think that this alone imo debunks the Mexico City video.
You can find it here.

edit: a missing word

[edit on 25-7-2009 by necati]

reply to post by zorgon

Might be the file type? .rar?

I’ve uploaded the same clip to ATS media in .avi-format and in compressed .rar-format to rapidshare.
The problem had to do with my browser I suppose. I wasn’t able to see any clips in the media window. After having reinstalled the latest version of the browser everything is fine now, thank you.

Looks like another fake CGI video. The 2nd video has clouds in the background and appears a lot darker. Also it's quite along sighting, so where are all the eye witness testimonies?

After watching the video I noticed a black marker object moving from left to right in the bottom right hand corner at 7.35 mins. What is it? More proof that the video has been edited before hand maybe.

a reply to: necati

Hello necati, maybe 8 years late but this video was made on August 18, 2009.

Best regards.

Edit: Changed Youtube number

a reply to: kindred

Hello kindred, you are right, there are 4 more objects in that video.

I post here a link to my page with someYELLOW UFO VIDEOS videos and a GIF archive.

Regards.