Jets escorting UFO - CGI, US tech, or UFO please comment

reply to post by Kali74


No sorry, you are wrong.... Each object grows from their center. The distance between the two jets actually decreases because each jet grew from its very center independently. The UFO even grew from the center independently, and the distance between the UFO and the jets decreased when it happened. This is because the HOAXER who made this video SCALED each object independently and not as a group.

It's a major flaw that proves it is a CGI fake.

Thank you come again..

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


I think you'll find that is contrast adjustment of the camera (either a physical camera or a faked effect) and as a result blurring around the edges of the objects, which gives the illusion that they are increasing in size as the outer extremities become more in focus contrast-wise, the objects themselves always appear a consistent size (from what you can tell from this video based on the darkened pixel area of the objects, and taking into account similar bleeding in the rest of the footage), and only the contrast bleeding makes it appear that they "grow". They don’t actually start to increase in size until the camera starts to zoom in at the 21 second mark; then they increase consistently with the camera zoom.

Originally posted by puzzlesphere
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

 

I think you'll find that is contrast adjustment of the camera

NOPE, wrong...

If that were true then the edges of the trees on the hills would do the same thing, but they don't, like I said.

The sharpness and focus of the camera does not change when the UFO and jets increase in size. The UFO and jets are the only objects increasing in size. This effect is absolutely, positively, without a doubt, an increase in scale on each object. It is not any other effect.

reply to post by KSprepared


The UFO is gliding across the sky slowly. I've personally never seen a ufo glide at a low speed like that before
but by intuitive senses tell me it's just CGI, cool video though.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


It is, but it doesn't matter really...IF you're right then great, my reason for sticking around the thread was to make a point about people just dropping the "you're so stupid, it's so fake" or "worst cgi ever" BS, because it's a pretty good fake IMO, and I'm certainly learning a lot by scrutinizing it with a friends help and I hope others are as well, that and making people feel stupid just isn't nice.

reply to post by Kali74

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

 

It is, but it doesn't matter really...IF you're right then great, my reason for sticking around the thread was to make a point about people just dropping the "you're so stupid, it's so fake" or "worst cgi ever" BS, because it's a pretty good fake IMO, and I'm certainly learning a lot by scrutinizing it with a friends help and I hope others are as well, that and making people feel stupid just isn't nice.

Honestly, if you think this is a good fake then you should see yourself out of this debate ASAP. If you can't instantly see it is fake then you are lacking much needed skills to debate this video. It's like non-mechanics telling professional car mechanics that an engine is running well when it is obviously missing several needed parts and looks and sounds horrible.

Many people such as myself have already acquired the needed skills to see the fakeness of videos, and it's very frustrating talking to people who don't have said skills. This is why there are so many "you're stupid if you think this is real" comments. It's great that you are trying to learn, but do so on your own time by actually learning how to make said fakes. Debating endlessly without any knowledge is just a backwards approach.

UFOlogy is so far gone these days that any incorrect statements that are made during a debate to support a fake video may be echoed infinitely between those lacking the skills, and nobody will learn anything but how to parrot ignorance.

Seems to me, military jet aircraft cannot go that slow. As was not the case with the late Betty Cash, Texas encounter...Chinooks can. Soooo, I'd suggest if all was not slowed for the viewers to view, then "Jets escorting UFO..." is not real.

Decoy

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

Honestly, if you think this is a good fake then you should see yourself out of this debate ASAP. If you can't instantly see it is fake then you are lacking much needed skills to debate this video.

I'm still learning, yes...doesn't mean I haven't learned anything. Anyone using/interested in anything having to do with graphics, will never be done learning. I don't need to see myself out of this debate, I've been accurate.

Many people such as myself have already acquired the needed skills to see the fakeness of videos,

I think more than likely your arrogance outweighs your skill. Acquiring skills doesn't have an end point.

and it's very frustrating talking to people who don't have said skills.

Are you for real? Please forgive me, your majesty.

It's great that you are trying to learn, but do so on your own time

This is my time. You made the choice to participate in this thread, same as I did.

UFOlogy is so far gone these days that any incorrect statements that are made during a debate to support a fake video may be echoed infinitely between those lacking the skills

Debunking is also so far gone that people comment that it's fake without knowing anything, it goes both ways and both hurt any shot at truth.

reply to post by puzzlesphere


thankyou and I also commented on that.another also said ufo disappears before going behind the building. More than anything I think the real phenomenon here is the power of suggestion happening between posters

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


just so you know. this debate you seem to be campaigning wont prove anything.not diddly squat

reply to post by mikeybiznaz


I don't need to prove anything. Anyone with any type of graphics, special effects, and art knowledge should instantly see this is another horrible fake. The only people that these stupid hoaxers are fooling are the blind and ignorant.

Some of you people really need to stay away from the sci-fi movies and go outside and study reality. Then maybe you will you see how fake this video is. Have you ever gone to an air show? Have you ever seen real jets fly by in formation? I have, many times... They don't look anything like this video... it's all stiff and a horrible animation. But, how do you explain or show that to blind people?

reply to post by Kali74


You think it is a good fake...
With that comment, you basically just displayed everything you know, and everything you don't know about graphics and special effects.



So which one of you is the hoaxer defending their work? Hmm I wonder.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


you got me and I put the marker light on the belly just for grins and giggles cause well I just assumed that cause we do it on terra well then they must do it intergalactic,you know, yep I did it

reply to post by KSprepared


Can someone tell me what is on the ground between the 15 and 16 second mark.It's red..To me it looks like a bloody fish or something.I can't make it out though?

Originally posted by Qemyst
The question is: when is something NOT cg, or fake?

There are only 2 answers:

1) When the viewer is a believer
2) When it's real

Obviously a believer is going to believe CG is real, and will argue with skeptics.
And obviously, skeptics will try to prove why something is CG, or fake.
Neither side typically has a good answer however.

If an alien craft landed in my back yard, which is quite secluded... No-one else saw it but me. I walk out, the alien is standing there relieving himself in the bushes. I say whats up..he's like "oh not much just had to stretch my legs.. you know.. long trip back to Gliese 581."
I get to step foot in his ship.. it's legit. It's a real alien, and this is a real alien craft. The alien is so cool that he even lets me take video of him getting back in, and taking off.

Even though what happened is 100% real, no-one would believe the videos. Even though what they were looking at in the videos was 100% proof that aliens exist. It would be discounted as CG or faked, and I would look like an ass.

This is why I find posting videos silly....No-one ever believes it, unless they're hardcore believers.

Cheers.

Starred. This is so true. The "too good to be true", "aliens aren't real therefore this footage that otherwise looks real can't be real" attitudes. Nothing will ever be good enough. It's either perfect enough that it must be fake or imperfect that it can't be real.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


Now this is what an "obvious fake" looks like...

... I’d give this a 3/10... actually, I’m taking a point off for those terrible laser sounds, so 2/10. The video from the OP (if it's fake) I’d give at least an 8/10, dependant on criteria. Though I still maintain that the quality of the video means it is very difficult to easily call true/false, and definitely not call fake at a glance, unless you want to fall into the "too good to be true, so must be false", kneejerk reaction group.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by Kali74

 

You think it is a good fake...

With that comment, you basically just displayed everything you know, and everything you don't know about graphics and special effects.

... and with that comment you just displayed your skewed opinion of the graphics and special effects professions and how rude you are... all the best digital artists I know are always more than happy to "play" with and discuss footage/graphics, regardless of its validity/source, especially if those graphics become a point of contention, then they're even more fun to scrutinise, and I’ll add it to my stock of footage. (What started for me as just a passing interest, has become more interesting because no-one has yet produced a verifiable irrefutable flaw with the video)... it is indeed a good fake... and if you say otherwise without providing debatable evidence (and not just your opinions), then you can't really call other people out for still looking at it.

The main arguing point that you've put forward is that the objects scale unnaturally, and you have stated the reasoning for your opinion, but not provided any evidence, (though you said you would post it somewhere else later, I look forward to seeing another professional opinion). Other points of view have been presented (just as valid as your non-evidenced opinion) as a possible explanation for the issue that you raised, but without even offering a counter explanation for why they were wrong, other than a stubborn adherence to your own opinion, and with a dismissive and arrogant tone you brushed their comments aside.

I looked again at the footage, and here are a few reasons why the objects size might appear to grow in size, if it were real footage: jets getting closer to the viewer’s position (perspective), jets "turning" so their comparative positions in relation to the viewer changes, and auto contrast adjustment of the camera (you can see a similar effect on the trees at the 19 second mark). The perspective thing is obvious, and if fake would be exactly how you would mimic reality, the contrast thing is harder to verify without knowing the camera used and the type of dynamic contrast control it is using to control the knee-point of the levels. You can make some assumptions though based on a frame by frame look at the adjustment. At the 19 sec. mark you will see the trees appear to "grow" as the contrast "wave" (for want of a btter word) envelopes them up until the 20 sec. mark. In the adjustment frames the sky darkens first around darker objects, such as the hill-line then adjusts into larger areas of similar illumination, the final area of the video to adjust is the top right of the frames (most likely the angle of the sun). By the 20.3 sec. mark the objects have mostly adjusted to the contrast levels, so up until then they visually appear to grow due to camera effect. By the 20.5 sec. mark the camera starts to zoom in. There is very little (if any) space, (maybe between the 20.3-20.5 sec. period... that's 0.2 seconds), where something could possibly not ring true with a real phenomenon. I don’t think you can say definitively at a glance that these objects grow unnaturally based on a quick look at a 0.2 second window of error.

With your obvious prowess with digital media, I'd like to see you produce a fake this well, or even better than this since you think it's so bad.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
...Debating endlessly without any knowledge is just a backwards approach....

In fact Kali does seem to have a good knowledge of graphics and video, and has made some very salient points throughout this thread, showing a level headed approach to discussion.

It's funny that... you and others in this thread get quite viscous calling "fake", attacking other people's credentials and saying that they shouldn't even have their opinion, but you are essentially expecting people to believe this is a fake just because you say so, without any evidence to support your claims. Even going as far as providing opinions as proof, and your reasons for not showing any evidence is that it's so obviously a fake that it's not worth your time, thus creating a circular dependency. As someone who knows how to look closer at graphics people should be more than happy to share their knowledge, as realistically, once you know what you're doing it only takes a few minutes to really look at digital content.

My first impression when I saw this was... "it's got to be a fake"... and here were my initial reasons for thinking that it was a fake based purely on first impressions:

Too good to be true.

The scenario is just too convenient. (Walking alone in the bush, with the camera switched on and ready, with two ideal camera vantage points with a very conveniently placed building in between, where the objects have to fly behind from the camera's viewpoint so they could make any needed direction changes out of sight). It seems almost like somebody storyboarded it.

The sky is just the right amount of overcast to make a high glare factor, conveniently washing out any footage that may be taken, due to high contrast levels.

The formation of the jets/ufo seemed to be too rigid and possibly too close together (though I'm no expert on aviation).

The objects appear to speed up just a little unnaturally right before they go behind the building (which is possibly why people thought that they disappeared before going behind, even though they don't).

Low quality and short enough video that any real interrogation of the footage would prove very difficult.

Something just didn't seem right.



All of these are essentially unfounded opinions. The first two are completely unverifiable, the third could be a graphic thing, but has to be analysed for certainty. Number 4) didn't really know enough about jets to say for sure, but after watching a bunch of videos of jets flying, there is nothing completely unbelievable in the footage. 5) could be a combination of the respective angle of the objects to the camera viewpoint making them get larger as they get closer, and in the later part of video the camera zooming in that appears to make them speed up. With only a few frames to work with at that point, and without pulling out the old equations, it is difficult to be certain that it's not just a real effect. 6) With all the unknowns and limitations of the information such as where the footage was filmed, what type of camera, etc. and without access to the original raw footage, all that taken with the relatively low quality of the video, many aspects of the video can never be confirmed. 7) I don't usually base my opinions purely on gut feelings (guts are often wrong...)...

I have been to an air show, and seeing things in real life is often very different than seeing a video... our eyes deal better with contrast and we have points of reference to help us ground things like scale, distance and environmental reactions such as gravity, wind, etc. Plus at an air show the pilots are showing off, so you as an audience get a dynamic view of their machines, as opposed to flying low and in a straight line for any number of unknown reasons, that may appear more rigid.

After looking at examples of jets flying, and camera contrast adjustments (it was hard to find stuff on that) there is still nothing that anyone has suggested that "proves" this is a fake, and if it is then it is exemplary fake. As I stated in an earlier post, the more I look at it the less sure I am of it being faked... especially because I can usually tell when something has been digitally edited. They have covered many minutiae details, and everywhere I look, there is nothing glaringly inconsistent with reality... or its real... can’t really say at the moment.

Here are a couple of videos of F-15's flying low and slow, so it is more than possible for them to be flying as they are even if it isn't likely that they would be, especially accompanying a disc-shaped object.
Hawk Turbine F15 slow flight
F-15 Slow-Flying Pass - Portland AirShow 2005

The interesting thing about this video is that based purely on this footage alone, and without applying any assumptions I haven’t found anything to indicate definitively that it is a fake, regardless of what my feelings may be (and I am still sceptical, even though I seem to have become a bit of the devil's advocate... ).

Now I HAVE officially spent too long on this thread... ... My final position is that it's most likely a good fake, but from this video alone (and without further study) you can't 100% confirm either way... In the end believe what you want.

Cheers

double post...

..

GOP, I sort of get the impression you've forgotten you're on a public forum. I feel you've dissapointingly dropped your ball.

You had a captive audience here, and you could have easily turned a disagreement into some supporters which makes me wonder what it is you're actually aiming to do.

You have some valid points, but you have the attitude of someone thats been smacked around by a 2x4 for a year or two. If you want to be a hero of the UFOlogy community you're completely alienating yourself from it by acting this way. If you're aiming to be an expert, or teacher it's a similarish problem.

It's especially bad when you're stating something is a horrible fake, yet aren't able to provide quick evidence as to why. Horrible should = quick evidence.

Example of what you could have done instead ...

Generally speaking, unless you're on the moon, you have to deal with hazy atmosphere. Atmosphere on Earth allows us to percieve depth.

Air itself is not completely transparent contrary to what a person might think. Further away objects lose contrast, areas become more diffused and blurry, and distant objects often take on the color of the atmosphere as they become more distant. Essentially the detail of the objects should soften, and they should be pushed more towards grey.

In this scene that we are looking at here, the artist would have (in theory) wanted to match the back ground colors to the objects. We're using an 8-bit color space meaning color values are mapped between 0 - 255 in our scene.
The pylon near the bottom right in the second part of the clip hovers around 50 - 80 in the red and green channels and takes a nice hop up in the blue channel varying between 80 - 120. This is likely one of the most distant objects in our scene. Similar objects on our tree line also mirror similarish values, but the more distant ones are pushing towards grey as expected by drop in contrast.

Now it's important to note that the nearby blacks, the signs and close by trees are a much more contrasty black. Richer. Darker. Even before the camera's autoexposure kicks the darkest black is closest to us at all times. This is to be expected. Further away objects are less rich and contrasty.

Somehow, here our objects break the laws of physics. Around frame 0461 our UFO is much closer to our pylons, as are our two planes. In some pixels the blue value of the UFO is around 120 and in others around to 80. Green and Red channels jump around 60 - 100. (I'm too lazy to use slice averaging tool for this as am just proving a point) At frame 507 contrast of the UFO has gone up, its somehow managed to get darker. The gulf between the blue channels and other channels hasn't narrowed muchly at all. The contrasting of the objects appears to have made it become sharper/blacker. The opposite of what probably should be going on. The UFO has more contrast than the trees it is going behind. So now we're sitting around R 30 G 40 B 50. If we compare this to previous values there appears to be a consistent 20 - 30 difference between the blue channels and red channels which carries through a lot of the clip. This suggests that, rather than toy with the contrast of the object, the person who made this video used something else. Likely brightness/lightness/exposure tool and they were likely matching the auto exposure of the camera. On a side note the first part of the clip is breaking some rules even more brutally, will post screenie at end since it's fairly easy to notice.

In general summary:

- The objects are becoming darker instead of losing contrast as one would expect. Adjustments seem to be made to mimic the auto exposure more than match atmosphere/haze.
- The UFO begins with a blue cast which continues, but values uniformly decrease for the most part.
- Distant object should be reflecting itself which should then hit the atmosphere and scatter before getting to the camera which should soften (blurish) object. Note the distant trees and how blurry they are.
- To get a better look at these things you can take image into editing program and drag up the gamma or (personally) I prefer just cranking up gamma on my monitor, though if your monitor isn't fantastic it can be best to use gamma operation/adjustments. Some of the biggest things you should notice when cranking your gamma is the tree line haze. Despite the fact the UFO and planes are behind the tree line from the get go the UFO and planes have more contrast, are not scattering light much (not very blurry) ... (Would highly recommend experimenting with this if it interests you).

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/598a3657d9c8.jpg[/atsimg]

^ Compare diffuse and blurry trees to sharp UFO and plane which go behind them. Is wrong. This is with a gamma adjustment which a correct/real scene should be able to 'survive'.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3694bb0405cf.jpg[/atsimg]

^ Has very similar values to later in the clip. Oddly the implicated distance is totally out after a gamma adjustment. The further away tree line is more contrasted than our closer objects.

- Considering sizes of the objects ... I might be wrong about this, I'm not sure of dimensions of plane, but ... plane is implied to be close but just beyond tree line ... is a very big plane in this case! Looking at the pixel values of all objects involved and where the UFO is supposed to be it may be huge.

To test the theory that a lightness/brightness adjustment instead of a contrast adjustment was used, I've knocked together a small clip. The first clip you will see shows what a manual lightness adjustment would look like animated on the clip. It's animated a bit fast, but you should be able to get a general idea. Values below the threshold of the trees are being replaced with the color red so you can clearly get an idea of what is becoming dark and what isn't.
The second clip simply shows the clip playing through with darker pixels being removed to red so you can clearly see how its behaving in the clip when it's moving. Notice the mathematical change is very similar to myself doing it manually with a still.



Someone may perhaps say ... oh is exposure of camera, however if you test with gamma settings and take a peak yourself you will see more of the issues being discussed. I've also included some other gamma adjustments below of scenes which involve heavy and slight atmosphere.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/213e4a1d8b72.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/47f3fae1ba80.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/244da0a6d0cc.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/890678601deb.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c0fa80163257.jpg[/atsimg]

^ Notice these images hold together despite gamma adjustments. Gamma adjustments can be a nice way to check your layering, color matches, and white/black points.

Hopefully this gives an okayish idea of what I myself would like to see in a debunk. It should also give a decent idea of why I don't do things like this ... Not being a professional debunker. It's very time consuming and often under appreciated I think.

I would note though that often when I deal with people they say 'oh it just doesn't feel right', and that's the usual reaction to why a shot is working or not. They rarely immediately point out issues such as 'oh the atmosphere haze is wrong!' or 'the object isn't scattering light!' This is more than mere editing information or knowledge. I've met plenty of video editors and other persons that wouldn't have a clue about these things ... so how a person expects users on a public forum to know these things is slightly beyond me. Even the angle/animation issues (which are certainly there) require knowledge of planes, and reference. As far as I saw, the people in this forum were saying what people usually say ...

Something is wrong!

DISCLAIMER: Debunk is an example debunk only. Pinke accepts no responsibility for pain, loss of earnings, or accuracy of debunk. By reading this debunk you're agreeing to Pinke's terms. I'm on a horse.

reply to post by Pinke


Thank-you Pinke! Once again you have given your time and expertise to give an explanation. I'm happy to stand by my opinion and now I have new knowledge to use in the future. I value your contribution, and I'm sure others will as well even if their pride won't allow them to say so

This thread demonstrates two of the biggest problems there are in the study of unidentified aerial phenomena...

*Hoaxes
*Experts

Off the shelf programs for the personal computer/laptop can today render hoax imagery and video effects of a quality once only the purview of Hollywood and other professionals.

And so for for every photo and/or video, there is a self professed expert (or desk'pert) who will proclaim either a genuine article or an undeniable fake. Case closed.

Of course, the problem is that there are no credentials available for the study of UFOs because it has been so successfully held hostage in the corner of the unknown. So, what we're left with are those self anointed experts of video and image who ply their opinions not as opinions, but as inarguable truth.

Oh... and so there is no mistake, I do happen to agree that this video is a likely hoax. For one, it looks as though the aircraft are F-14 Tomcats and they have been decommissioned for a number of years now.

Also, this is just one person's opinion - my own