Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: airbumba on February 02, 2003, 04:59:51 PM
-
Here's that url for the UFO vid I was clammering about. I've seen lots of footage, but this takes the cake, if it's real.
http://ufocasebook.com/wtcvideo.html
Let me know what ya's think.
Bumba
-
Now that... I just have no idea what to say about that.
-SW
-
That has to be the best UFO fraud ever, really really cool. I bet well see more of them as more talented people get access to digital effects programs.
Great video! :)
-
For a fraudulant video, the audio is in sync with everything that happens. (Turn up your audio, just as the object blasts by you hear the lady gasp)
-SW
-
lol! totaly stupid.
1st, girl says "are you getting all this? " as if filming a girl filming the WTC is a big deal.
2nd, girl says" what is that?" a few seconds b4 the "UFO" appears in view.
3rd, the video ends upbruptly................ why? Why no "rolling film" discussion about what they "saw"
Total set up and fake.
LOL.
Very amature IMO.
-
Yep, Ive watched it several times - it is very good! Very talented filmmaker at work no doubt. Has that professional movie feel.
-
remeber that "Alien" autospy show? LOL, I knew that was a fake within 30 seconds due to camera bouncing around like crazy.
You'd think that if the USAAF was going to document an event that big, they would have had 10 cameras perfectly fixed to see everything.
I like a good hoax, but some people are so dumb.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yep, Ive watched it several times - it is very good! Very talented filmmaker at work no doubt. Has that professional movie feel.
maybe a talented effects guy, but no film maker. Gotta look at pretext. What pretext would a girl be in a helecopter with a chitty camera, being filmed by a guy with a better camera and asking a the "cameraman" if he was "getting all this" ( getting all what?) when in fact he was only filming her looking at the wtc.
Then girls asked "what's that?" about 3 seconds before the "UFO" stutters into view.
Then she says "it's over there" the instant the light-speed UFO appears where she is looking.
She wasn't even pointing her camera at the WTC.
Funny.
-
Nuke- it's filming a girl taking a picture of the WTC in a helicopter ride.
I think if you pay attention, you may find most people who take rides, tours or other tourist attraction type deals, they bring along cameras of all sorts to document their adventure.
So, I fail to see how this makes it less real.
Second, she says "what is that" when it is in view, but the camera is not zoomed in all the way... however, as the camera is zooming in, the object is clearly visible (a lot of it) by the side of the WTC.
Answer to 3rd question: To save bandwidth, seeing as how this is a 3rd party website, I highly suspect they didn't want to show a couple of people who also don't know what's going on.
-SW
-
I saw the whole thing as a short movie about a UFO sighting, it's very good work and the plot is entirely plausible. Some girl and her boyfriend go for a trip to NY and take a helicopter rider around manhattan. He's filiming the trip and their experience and she has a her still camera. In fact I dont think it's all that unlikely that they took the ride on puropse to make the film just for kicks.
Very cool stuff! :D
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Nuke- it's filming a girl taking a picture of the WTC in a helicopter ride.
I think if you pay attention, you may find most people who take rides, tours or other tourist attraction type deals, they bring along cameras of all sorts to document their adventure.
So, I fail to see how this makes it less real.
Second, she says "what is that" when it is in view, but the camera is not zoomed in all the way... however, as the camera is zooming in, the object is clearly visible (a lot of it) by the side of the WTC.
Answer to 3rd question: To save bandwidth, seeing as how this is a 3rd party website, I highly suspect they didn't want to show a couple of people who also don't know what's going on.
-SW
fake all the way
-
Well, if you say so... of course I'd save my definite answer until someone who can actually analyze video goes over it and determines it's authenticity.
A couple of guys watching a low quality replay aren't really definitive confirmation of video authenticity.
-SW
-
LOL, look at when she says "its over there" . She must have super human vision and reflexes in order to follow that UFO
100% unbelievable imo
-
You can't be serious on offering that up as proof Nuke. Watching the normal speed replay, I can clearly see the object begin moving right. Then by the time she says "look over there", it's already there and didn't move more than a couple thousand yards.
The object didn't move at lightspeed, a good hundred miles per hour, sure... but it was no where near instantaneous.
-SW
-
not to mention the cameraman's super super super sense on timing in following the UF up after it buzzed them.....I'm so sure.
That cameraman better have had a lazer lock on the UFO in order to follow it up after it buzzed them :)
Some people have little common sense.
I'm glad Im fairly intelligent...........
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
You can't be serious on offering that up as proof Nuke. Watching the normal speed replay, I can clearly see the object begin moving right. Then by the time she says "look over there", it's already there and didn't move more than a couple thousand yards.
The object didn't move at lightspeed, a good hundred miles per hour, sure... but it was no where near instantaneous.
-SW
Look at film, she says "it's over there" almost the instant it jumps "over there"
-
Well, broad daylight, over one of the most heavily populated places on the planet, and only two reported sightings. Don't think they really expected anyone to take it seriously.
-
No, it was already jumped over there when she said it was over there.
But nevertheless, I have no common sense and you are the uber-intelligent guy.
(btw, the camera didn't follow the UFO... it had already passed the copter, then the camera traversed to the UFO that had just made a 90degree left turn, then proceeded vertically, it's not like it zoomed straight at the helicopter then straight behind it)
However, I will concede... since you are apparently smarter than I am.
-SW
-
There are some errors that clearly show taht the video is a fake. The object size varies from 3-6 meters when it's at WTC side, to +/- 0.5 meters when it passes at the side of the helo (it can be clearly seen if you stop the video at the exact frame). Plus it passes at the side of the helo, from front to back, but the smoke trail is only in front of it AND, it's (the smoke trail) immobile, while the helo is clearly advancing.
I hope the message is not lost embedded in my horrible english :D
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
No, it was already jumped over there when she said it was over there.
But nevertheless, I have no common sense and you are the uber-intelligent guy.
(btw, the camera didn't follow the UFO... it had already passed the copter, then the camera traversed to the UFO that had just made a 90degree left turn, then proceeded vertically, it's not like it zoomed straight at the helicopter then straight behind it)
However, I will concede... since you are apparently smarter than I am.
-SW
apparenty I am more logical than you, I will concede that.
You think the cameraman made an instantanious transition from the UFO coming at him to the UFO going past and up? Ever try to follow any moving object from a camera?
There are so many things wrong with the film it's humorous to me, that's all.
-
Iron, you ever been to NYC, specifically around the World Trade Center?
Ever looked up? The buildings there are so tall and densly located that you can't see very much at all.
Of course, this was shown to 90% of the population on 9/11 when the cameras were taping the planes run into the buildings at street level. Except for the split second before the plane hit the buildings, you didn't see it.
DA98, you are juding size in a low resolution video file. The object has no defined start and stop because of the video compressor's algorithm which blends in pixels close to it. So instead, it's simply a blur and no defined object.
As far as the helicopter moving.. it's a touring helicopter, they don't move at more than 5MPH when going over a city, and at the time of filming it actually appears as tho they are hovering.
-SW
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You think the cameraman made an instantanious transition from the UFO coming at him to the UFO going past and up? Ever try to follow any moving object from a camera?
You may be logical, but you are severely failing on your use of words here. Instanteneous implies one second it's here
now it's here. In that time frame not even a nanosecond has elapsed. The camera panned over and caught the object going left and away from the helicopter while it was going up. And yes, I have followed objects with a camera. It's not that hard when you keep the other eye open to get a wider view.
There are so many things wrong with the film it's humorous to me, that's all.
Aside from what I have rebuttled (to which you can provide no logical explanation for my replies), what else is wrong with the film?
If you're so good at analyzing films, why don't you have a top security clearence job with the CIA?
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Iron, you ever been to NYC, specifically around the World Trade Center?
SeaWulfe, yes, I spent several months upgrading the network and PCs at what was then the Woolworth building. You had a very nice view of the WTC from many of the upper floors. I'm not saying it ins't possible that no one else saw this, just so unlikely as to make me believe it didn't happen.
-
At the start of the video, the buildings are clearly seen moving relative to the helo. The smoke trail doesn't move AT ALL. And if you stop the movie at the exact frame, the supposed UFO passes very near the helo, almost touching it. So the smoke trail should be left behind relatively fast...
And about the UFO trajectory, when it approaches the helo, it passes almost touching it (again, search the correct frame) but then the smoke trail starts to go up clearly in front of it.
It's a fake ;)
-
Yeah, you do get good views from a lot of the high rises there.
But as I've noticed, people tend to not pay attention to the skies even in cities with very small buildings (DC) and even when planes are taking off from the nearby airport(JFK)- no one noticies, not even tourists.
And then who's going to report this to who? And who will put all of the reports of unusual aerial activity into one location as a means to verify how many people actually saw something?
All I'm saying is, we got a low quality video that may or may not be real.
A couple of arm chair self-proclaimed video analysts (not you Iron) have declared this to be fake while having no factual evidence. Aside from assumptions, they have nothing more than I do to prove this videos authenticity.
-SW
-
"Meowrrrr!!"
-
It's a fake.
Look at photo 4. The motion blur is a film style motion blur (and a bad example of that as well) and it's shot with a video camera, which interlaces stuff instead of motion blurring it.
Whoever did it, should have interlaced the render instead of using motion blur. Smoke trail is nicely done, though.
Daff
-
Originally posted by DA98
At the start of the video, the buildings are clearly seen moving relative to the helo. The smoke trail doesn't move AT ALL. And if you stop the movie at the exact frame, the supposed UFO passes very near the helo, almost touching it. So the smoke trail should be left behind relatively fast...
[/B]
I'm having problems seeing the buildings clearly moving relative to the helicopter in the first frames. I notice a lot of "movement", but when attempting to judge how much sky has disappeared between the canopy support and the building, I just don't see any discernible difference. I see a lot of movement, yes.. but everytime the person adjusts the camera the amount of room changes so that is hardly a reliable source for telling whether or not the helicopter is moving forwards or backwards.
As for the smoke trail, I thought that was a pretty obvious diddly up if it was fake. But who's to say the smoke trail wasn't something else.
We all know what jet engines look like on normal power, and then what they look like on afterburner power. normal power doesn't have the giant cone of fire, while afterburner does.
And about the UFO trajectory, when it approaches the helo, it passes almost touching it (again, search the correct frame) but then the smoke trail starts to go up clearly in front of it.
I can't really understand what you are saying here. Are you saying the smoke trail is going up when it should of been moving perpindicular to the helo?
I'm not arguing if it's real or not, I am arguing on whether or not your accusations of it being fake are legitimate or not.
-SW
-
Actually you missed my concern, the con trail. It takes a precipitous nuclei (sp) in super cooled moisture laden air to allow water to form a con trail, like a carbon cluster or something similar. So if alien technology was to be so advanced, i don't think it'd be emmiting an exhaust of any sort, i would presume it'd be along the lines of magnetism.
Still cool though.
bumba
-
Heh, I'm having a hard time trying to explain it...
Ok, the UFO is immobile in front of the helicopter. Then it starts travelling very fast towards it. In just 6 frames it travels the distance. Well, in the 2 last frames, the UFO is passing the helo from front to back by the side. It almost touches the cockpit glass at the 3 o'clock position traveling to somewhere between the 4-7 o'clock region. But then, when the camera turns to the right, the smoke trail is not following the same path the UFO travelled. It goes up in front of the helo, not at the side. The point where the smoke trail crosses the helo level is not where it should be, right by the helo side, but in front of it. I mean, the UFO passes by the helo side and THEN starts climbing, but the smoke trail start the climb BEFORE arriving at the helo position. (Hell, I have the Minus
Syndrome :rolleyes: )
As for the buildings moving, from second 8 to second 14, there are two buildings that can be seen thru the window at the back of the woman, one appearing at second 8 with green roof and another appearing at second 12. Both are clearly moving, the second one faster, as it's nearer.
Then, the video capture... as Daff says, video doesn't works like photo or cinema cameras. It doesn't blurs a fast object, it captures it in two fields (I don't know if that's the correct word). Two fields, interlaced, make a frame. So instead of a blurred UFO, we should see two UFOs intelaced. There are distance/time flaws too. The object travels an enormous distance in the first 4 frames when approaching the helo, and then... it stays near it for 3 frames more. In the las two frames it travels less than 0.5 meter :eek:
Also (and this is pure guess by my part) the object leaving the smoke trail, in some frames, has the appearance of a little plane... could it be a RC or acrobatic plane pasted on the video?
-
Another thing...
What does the guy with the camera do when the UFO stops in front of the helo? Zooming in as every mortal who has ever used a video camera would do? No, he zooms OUT... :rolleyes: Yeah, it could be that he is searching the perfect plane, or he missed the correct button, or wathever, but in this context, it's somewhat suspicious ;).
BTW, I'm using the QuickTime version of the video; you can view it frame by frame, play it forward, backward, slow motion... it shows some details that can't be seen in normal play mode.
-
Whole lot of experts here. :D
-
1. Smoke floating next to the helicopter? No downdraught from the rotors then?
2. Smoke looks almost exactly like smoke generated using 3DS Max.
-
"Whole lot of experts here."
I am an expert on SFX. It's what I do for a living.
Daff
-
;)
-
thats neat. something at really high speeds went really close to that chopper and did not affect its flying?
Heehee. nice FX work.
-
Fake. If you smoke POT dont bother replying.
-
Pot smoke! Maybe that's it? Maybe it's them two aliens from that movie, whats that again......'Heavy Metal'. Maybe they flew over a forest fire in Colombia..?
Bumba
-
Originally posted by Daff
"Whole lot of experts here."
I am an expert on SFX. It's what I do for a living.
Daff
Im George Lucas. Youve heard of Star Wars, no?
Its real I tell you - REAL!
::runs for foil helmet::
-
people have seen too many 50's style ufo movies..the idea of the 'saucer' ship is so imbedded in the psyche of the masses that that is all we think of when we say 'ufo'..the same with the idea of the 'greys' with their big black eyes and huge heads.. just once I'd like to see a ufo fake movie that has a decent looking craft.
-
heh. ... if you watch the slow motion one, you'll notice a really bad edit of spacial and positioning relationships. The 'ufo' is really large on one side of the cockpit frame, then when they pan over as it zooms away, it is a bit higher in the frame and much much smaller to really flow smoothly from the size that is was on the left side of the cockpit frame.
-
my question.. why would the "UFO" smoke like that as it takes off? Bad movie. not realistic. :o
-
Acutally, you can see the "ufo" travel between the towers right after the lady in front gets her damn head out of the way. I was watching the quicktime version so I didn't have any sound for some reason.
Very weird...
-
and no one in the building happen to notice a very large object right outside their window?!?!?!
FAKE
-
wow...how come people who see them never use colour film OR properly focus the camera...
-
That's only way to capture images of UFOs: be completely inept with your camera. I'm convinced of that, and to that end I will never read the manual on my camera in the hope one comes and abducts me.
-
Wow....I can transpose some cool stuff in Adobe but that looks pretty damn good
-
can't call that an UFO. It's a rocket, as can be seen from the exhaust in the last part of the video. Who fired it, I have no clue. Either that or the whole thing is fake :P
-
The problem with people who fake UFO films is that it makes those of us who have actually been abducted by UFOs look like we're nutburgers. Really, reporting a false UFO sighting or producing a phony UFO video should be grounds for the death penalty.:mad:
-
Bumba,
"Pot smoke! Maybe that's it? Maybe it's them two aliens from that movie, whats that again......'Heavy Metal'. Maybe they flew over a forest fire in Colombia..?"
As a Colombian i must STRONGLY correct you in this insulting sentence.
we make stronger stuff than pot. Lock your doors and sleep light, my amigos will be visiting you with some of the REAL stuff ;) ;) :D
(of course this is a joke.. last thing i want is a crazy gringo on my arse hehe)
-
Airhead - You should form some kind of Fight Club orientated support group for 'Those That Have Been Elsewhere'.
Then people would take you seriously.
-
Dowding- Actually I do communicate with other abductees from all over the world, but we communicate telepathically. Look, all I'm saying is that fabricating fake encounters with aliens makes a mockery of those of us who have been anally probed by aliens with large fingers. This is a real, and serious, issue. Nobody's sphencter is safe.
-
That is some strange stuff. The sound the buffet of the helo and the con trail from the turn wow. Fake who knows cept the ones that filmed it. I would sure like to see the whole video the way they acted after the flyby. If they are not histerical and the pilot aint yelling over the radio its a fake. Either way stunning film!
-
hmmm..now where's my tinfoil hat?
-
Hmm
Interesting. I must confess, that UFO's puzzle me, as well as those weird things like cornfield circles etc.
Where does the saucer idea come from? Not from the movies, but from people, - that's where the movies got them. And everyone that sees/photographs one is either nuts or a faker, - must be a hard experience really.
I know of pilots that have seen some, but would not report, - too afraid to be questioned as mentally unstable really.
Anyway, here is something to lighten your curiousity ;);)
-
Absolutely fake and/or scam. (I could list point by point but it would be a lengthy post)
From the "letters" that try to convince the readers that the film is genuine to the film itself. Seems that three seperate model rocket shots are inserted into the "helicopter ride film."
BTW, aren't helicopters supposed to be traveling at a certain minimum/maximum speed when flying within city limits (in case of engine failure so the helicopter can glide somewhat using the main rotor's autorotation as a wing.)? Other than taking off and landing.