New alien footage. Real or fake? Experts, have yourself a look & discuss

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Found a good analysis of the video and it mentions ATS and it's members.

(nolink)/analyzing-the-latest-alleged-et-video-675/9517

Had trouble with the link put www. before it.


Hhhm must be a banned site from ATS.

Anyhow it says it is a fake.

Confusing misinformation and speculation, nothing at all that debunks the video, and erroneous statements.

The article goes to some length to discredit Judy Faltskog, yes, she sounds kind of out there, says she is the source of the video, but admits she was not the one who uploaded it originally.

See, the way it works on Youtube is like this, someone uploads a video, and other people if they like it they upload it to their channels (I don't want to get into improper and proper attribution and youtube cancelling sites etc).

So this crazy confusing article is saying the person who uploaded it after the original person is the source of the video? Is there any proof of that? No. Ivan0135 is the original uploader of the video.

Why the KGB logo? Hasn't the US been infiltrated with spies over the years? Aldrich Ames? Robert Hansen? Maybe it was sent to the former USSR for whatever reason, to be used as leverage, a bargaining chip, whatever..........and the KGB re-packaged it.

All the rest of the little "red flags" are just red herrings, such as the projector sounds, who cares if the sound is fake or not?

All I care about is the apparent alien being. Even today it would be hard to CGI the pulsating blood veins on his forehead and neck, and his eyelid movements. No mask could achieve this and no CGI pre the year 2000 could achieve this either.



So this article is pure speculation and does nothing to debunk the video.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

I'm with you. This is a real alien because those have to be pulsating veins. What else could anyone possibly need to confirm this?

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

CGI can replicate pulsating veins?

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

CGI can replicate pulsating veins?

don't be silly

this technology has been around since the 60s

a reply to: Swills

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

CGI can replicate pulsating veins?

There are 101 level tutorials for creating veins etc that pulse inside creatures. There are a number of ways of doing it, but generally you can extract an animated bump map from your 3D app, dump it into your compositing software as an alpha, and give your compositor some control of the animation; compositor then gives it an undulating motion. You can also just use a 2D or 2.5D bump inside comp software or a myriad of other ways.

sted by: Swills
I agree the sound is cheesy but the footage is fantastic. Still not debunked eh?

Discussed this ages ago. Summary is below. Most of the critique below is based on another piece of footage by the same person, but a similar critique could be written up for the footage in the OP and it's all on the same channel.

If you look down the bottom of this image, you can see a straight as a ruler horizontal line:

Source

I've simply never seen a piece of footage cut off that sharply outside of an after effects composition and maybe some higher quality film cuts. It's a very sharp focus in comparison to the rest of the film and doesn't seem native to the film projection itself, so where did it come from?

The other thing is the number of vertical lines trailing the footage. It's pretty common to see those lines all the way over the right since that's where the take up claw grabs the footage. There aren't usually many reasons to have a large number of those deep scratches in the centre of the film from what I know.

Some examples:




'Restored' footage:


The most common reason to have those sharp lines at the base of a piece of footage and to have so many scratches and stains that don't seem to 'fit' with other examples of similar footage is those little plugins you get in After Effects and other compositing programs. They will have something like 'horizontal scratch amplitude' and 'jitter' which you can set to add this type of thing into the footages. They also commonly apply far too many stains and not enough spots or the like by default. This is mainly because the defaults aren't set to 'hoax' they're set to show off all the features of the pluggie and look cinematic at best.

There is the issue of this being a very unique collection of film artefacts and perhaps this is the best place to start prior to critiquing special or visual effects works.

Hope it helps.

You all fell for the oldest trick in the book ......MISDIRECTION.

Its fake.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

CGI can replicate pulsating veins?

I think CGI could produce pulsating veins today - but it would be the same vein or veins.

If you watch the footage and pay attention to the forehead and neck, you see different veins pulsating in different areas randomly, I think this would be extremely hard to create via CGI even today, let alone in decades past.

a reply to: Pinke

Thanks for bringing some technical knowledge to the thread.

Do you mind if I ask if you have some professional experience in this area or is it more of a hobby? Just trying to get a handle on your level of expertise, and I value your contribution either way.

As I mentioned above, about the pulsating veins - I'm sure there is CGI, as you confirmed above, to create a pulsating vein. But wouldn't that be a vein or veins that remained in one location? As you can see in the video of the being, the one to me that seems the most realistic of the 3 videos, there is a spiderweb of veins that appear on the creatures forehead in different locations, as well as the larger ones on the neck as well. I can't imagine an algorithm that could produce such random movement.

And as for the "old style" video quality effects, you are basically saying there are programs to replicate this, so the video could actually be old, or just have old style effects added in, as the projector noise appears to have been done. Would it be useful to compare the video here with one that has the old-style effects added in?



I guess I'm just focusing on this one video because it seems the most realistic to me, and if we can prove it is authentic or if no one can prove it is a fake, that is all we need, and the other videos are immaterial.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: Pinke
Do you mind if I ask if you have some professional experience in this area or is it more of a hobby?

Most information within media and signal processing will stand up on its own merits really.

Discuss a bunch of stuff in some threads like this. Have been learning things since I joined ATS, so my views have got more mature (and less wrong) with time. The area you're looking at (image authentication) often gets juxtaposed with visual effects work. The MSM makes this error commonly. Just take a look at media outlets asking visual effects artists to analyse ISIL videos. Signal processing / image authentication / VFX all have overlaps but it's not a 1:1 ratio. Making something fake doesn't immediately give expertise in working out if something is real. The fact I know this is probably more helpful than printing out my resume.

I doubt there is anyone in existence who is an expert in the entire media field, so claiming to be one seems to be a silly thing to do!

As I mentioned above, about the pulsating veins - I'm sure there is CGI, as you confirmed above, to create a pulsating vein. But wouldn't that be a vein or veins that remained in one location?

I'm not sure I 100% understand the question, but I'll try!

If you're referring to the lighting, a 3D model can have a number of 'layers' when texturing. Here is some example. You could create that effect very successfully without moving to a compositing application, just using mental ray or some other renderer. Creating effective materials is a very basic skill for 3D artists these days. That's not to say everyone is good at it, but its expect that a junior artist will at least be able to make a bump map that doesn't look like porridge.

I can't imagine an algorithm that could produce such random movement.

Imagine a line graph. Now move the line up and down sharply or as smoothly as you like. Anything you want to do with that line can be done using a computer, editing, and scripting. Almost every major application I know has ways to plug in algorithms either with automation or scripting into whatever field you would need. Most of the heavyish maths is kept from the user in many instances which is why people pay for the applications. We can track a camera moving in three dimensional space to insert an object into a scene without ever dealing with actual maths. Hollywood example:

Would it be useful to compare the video here with one that has the old-style effects added in?

If you're mega interested, U2U me and I can tell you what to download and where from to experiment for yourself? Once you see how easy this type of thing is, it can change your perspective. More than that, sometimes you can recognize a plugin or stock footage just by looking. Sometimes its plugins, sometimes its stock footage. Thing is, without that experience you will forever be at the mercy of 'the wizards' whether you believe what they say or not. It's magic but once you see it, it's quite mundane.

I guess I'm just focusing on this one video because it seems the most realistic to me, and if we can prove it is authentic or if no one can prove it is a fake, that is all we need, and the other videos are immaterial.

I'd disagree.

In an insurance case, if one photograph of car damage is fake and the other five are 'unknown' then the image authentication takes us in a new direction and the shoe changes foot so to speak. We ask ... why? Same thing here. If the person is creating some fake videos then makes the claim that some are real ... it changes how we evaluate the rest of the footage. In an insurance case it's usually quite obvious, the 'fake' image tells us something about the accident. In this case, I can't think of a reason why you would do this without considering fantastic reasons.

Side note: The term 'image authentication' is also a bit of a misnomer. The process can tell when an image is fake, it can't necessarily tell you when something is 100% real. Though be careful, some people try to extrapolate this statement to fit their world view on both sides.

Enjoy.

I don't know whether real or fake. All I know is I want it to be real, but I get that "too good to be true" feeling when watching it.

I can't debunk anything about it, but I don't see anything screaming that its definitely real either.

I'll just add it to my ever growing file of "I hope so" stuff.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

I can't imagine an algorithm that could produce such random movement.

If you see "pulsating veins" then you should be able to work out a pulse rate. If you cant, then there is nothing actually pulsating and is probably an optical illusion. I don't see anything pulsating anywhere.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

If you see "pulsating veins" then you should be able to work out a pulse rate. If you cant, then there is nothing actually pulsating and is probably an optical illusion. I don't see anything pulsating anywhere.

Perhaps it was throbbing instead...

i personally think the 'skinny bob' footage is legit.

alas, an opinion is no proof of any kind.

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
i personally think the 'skinny bob' footage is legit.

alas, an opinion is no proof of any kind.

I used to think the "Rubber Johnny" footage was legit.

Thank God I was wrong.

What are people trying to argue here; that the footage is fake, or that the footage can be replicated using CGI?

If it's the former, then I would argue that nothing right now has comprehensively proved it fake or real. If it's the latter, then I would say that the argument may as well be "That £60 pair of Adidas trainers I bought in the sports shop? They're obviously fake because I've seen the exact same trainers for £5 in a market in Thailand".

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

If you see "pulsating veins" then you should be able to work out a pulse rate. If you cant, then there is nothing actually pulsating and is probably an optical illusion. I don't see anything pulsating anywhere.

Perhaps it was throbbing instead...

Perhaps. Could also be a twitch. Or a subcutaneous implant.

It's a Faaaaaaake !

Cmon people you cant spot stop motion when you see it ? Plus the alien is trying too hard with all the blinking. Just screams fake to me.

So by the time real ET footage surfaces it will hold no water thanks to all these hoaxes. CIA probably produced this. That is how disinformation works.

a reply to: Pinke

Hey Pinke,

Thanks so much for your time and contribution, its been a busy week so I apologize I'm only responding to this thread now.

I guess I phrased my question about your background in this wrong, I realize looking back how it sounded, I was just curious how you came about your knowledge in this field which you have answered. I also realize that a professional who just produces some CGI in his/her line of work and who never analyzes fake material may not be as good as spotting "fakes" as someone who is self taught in this area and just spends time winnowing out the "fakes", as you alluded to.

Anyway, I guess if one is researching the UFO issue these are good skills to have, or many "topics" on ATS.

Thanks again for your participation in this thread.

originally posted by: DarthFazer
It's a Faaaaaaake !

Cmon people you cant spot stop motion when you see it ? Plus the alien is trying too hard with all the blinking. Just screams fake to me.

So by the time real ET footage surfaces it will hold no water thanks to all these hoaxes. CIA probably produced this. That is how disinformation works.

So you think you can see stop motion which would indicate you believe this movie was made with some kind of puppet?

I have never seen a puppet with pulsating blood vessels.

We're assuming the alien footage is from the late 1940's or 1950's, and if we compare it to other stop motion/animated footage from that time, there is no comparison.

Here is some footage from a Sinbad movie made in 1958 of a Cyclops; the Cyclops, though having some features such as muscles, bones, and even blood vessels - nothing moves or pulsates, and it looks like a well-sculpted model made from plasterine. This was the best Hollywood could do in 1958, and it comes not even close to the purported alien in the 2nd video below: