PDA

View Full Version : Probable Fake...Gulf of Aden??



Hiram
23rd December 2010, 19:01
Just a 2 minute video someone sent me that reminded me of the Gulf of Aden situation. This is most probably a fake, but I have never seen anything similar and it looks amazing. Has anyone else seen this video before?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpvcafY1ZDY

str8thinker
23rd December 2010, 20:05
Complete absence of any supporting documentation (when?, where?) makes this very suspect.

Luke
23rd December 2010, 20:08
hmm .. looks like it is played backwards...

Harley
23rd December 2010, 20:24
No Description, No Leader, No Footer, Nice Music...IMO it's just another fine Hollywood Wannabe Production made just for You Boob.

Kinda pretty though! :)

Ammit
23rd December 2010, 21:10
Nice, strange how it was stated to be running backwards, I saw no time frame, clock, no one walking backwards so how do you know it is run backwards, besides the fact it had a comment to the same..... I would like to learn....

Ammit

Ilie Pandia
23rd December 2010, 22:19
Indeed it looks like is played backwards.

The orange fire should emanate the gray smoke not the other way around... now it looks as if the smoke is converted back into fire...

Teakai
23rd December 2010, 22:49
Was that taken from a plane?

I found a link to this video while I was there - go ahead to the 1:11 mark and watch a few seconds on from there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se0AfvfNXb0&feature=watch_response


Strange things they are a happenin'.
:)

Ilie Pandia
23rd December 2010, 22:55
Was that taken from a plane?

I found a link to this video while I was there - go ahead to the 1:11 mark and watch a few seconds on from there.
Strange things they are a happenin'.
:)

So they had a professional camera with a tripod and did nothing!? No zooming? No following it around? That is a bit odd... Also based on the fact the really bright object does not cast any light on the environment I would suggest that is has been added a later time.

Bill Ryan
23rd December 2010, 23:35
So they had a professional camera with a tripod and did nothing!? No zooming? No following it around? That is a bit odd... Also based on the fact the really bright object does not cast any light on the environment I would suggest that is has been added a later time.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se0AfvfNXb0


Looked authentic to me! I was actually quite amazed when I saw this. I do recommend everyone to take a look. The object becomes clearly visible at about 1:20.

I'd like to get a translation of the commentary - and the discussion in the studio. I suspect the camera was on a large heavy tripod (fixed and locked for the outdoor interview, hence being slow to respond when the object rose above the ground just out of view).

I think this might be the real thing. In documentary and newsreel camerawork the cameraman never interrupts a reporter - even for an introduced effect. They are always 'not there'.

http://projectavalon.net/Moldova_UFO_on_TV.jpg

Carmody
23rd December 2010, 23:42
Someone get the original footage. Well, I hesitate to say what needs to be done, as that would only encourage hoaxsters.

Ok. I'll say it anyway.

Also, find out the camera model and make in use.

Compare the footage to the colorspace of the camera's natural curves.

The colorspace should be full value RGB, across the board. UFO propulsion systems will emit a perfect full bandwidth white light.

The light is very intense, as well. It's a reflection-like (dimensional torsion/tear like emissivity) aspect of energy infinity, in a way.

The light is the correct color here. The optics and sensor package running at full capacity will likely have a very subtle blue tint on a full bandwidth RGB. Meaning if the values R, G, or B maxed out at lets say 255, the sensor would have a 255,255,255 recording on the RGB values. As the intensity drops, the values should drop, but perfectly in sync with one another.

If the footage has incorrect values for the colorspace, then it is likely not a UFO.

I also noticed a near hiss like sound. A UFO MIGHT emit that sort of sound, as they can, depending on design, work on an electrostatic based drive system. It might sound like an over-amped buzzy ionizer. Which seems to be what we are hearing.

Everything in the image regarding shadowing and placement of light source is properly done, including the impact of such a bright source as dealt with by the optics package on a 3ccd professional camera. If someone faked this, they know more about the camera's optics and electronics and the issue of shadowing and light sources...than I do. In my experience, that is highly unlikely to happen. As well, I personally do not know of any technology, real or in prototype/research stages.... that is capable of putting that much wide band light in one spot, without leaving a chemical smoke trail. As a matter of fact, I know of no light emitting technology that could near that level of light without being bandwidth limited in it's emission spectrum.

Effects achieved via software do tend to leave their mark. The mark they leave is one of the design the algorithms for manipulation of the given image, and the software leaves it's mark in the way that electronic effects do things. They aren't perfect and they usually are fake, visibly so, if you know what reality looks like. In the immediate take, the image does not seem to suffer from any software manipulation artifacts.

whether it is a man made device/craft or not, who knows.

A real test would involve better quality footage. I'd like to see the original.

In essence, it's the one of if not the best things I've seen yet.

The above is a combination of knowledge, extrapolation, and guesses. I'm familiar with the hardware, I've seen UFO's, and I know what to look for, due to that.

Ilie Pandia
24th December 2010, 00:55
Carmody,

When a bright object enters the frame shouldn't the camera darken the image to compensate for the "over-exposure" caused by the bright object? Especially if the light is white and intense (as you said in RGB 255,255,255)? This alway happens to me when I try to film something and something bright (usually a reflection of the sun or the sky) enters the scene.

Also the rays of light at some point look too clear and very well defined for such a low quality video... You seem to know about cameras... do you know of any lenses that will produce such well defined and very thin rays of light? It should have very large number of blades to generate so many rays, right?

And third point... such a low and intense source of light shouldn't have casted some long dark shadows on the ground: shadows for thick grass, rocks or land features?

I hope someone who understands Russian is able to provide a better quality video, but until then that light looks a lot as a ray lightning effect I used to play with in 3D Studio Max.

To be able to analyze the color space issues you would need the original footage as is on tape or DVD, is that correct? I think the color space is adjusted once you broadcast the video on TV or start editing it.

PS: At 1:23 you can clearly see the rays of light in what appears to be perfect focus while the lady is also in focus. From the entire footage the lens does not seem to have such a big depth of field to keep in focus both subjects... So you can explain away those anomalies I would gladly accept that this may be the real deal... and I do hope it is...

Ilie Pandia
24th December 2010, 01:35
Hello,

I have attached some images as examples to explanations above. The rays of light are cause by the number of blades in the lens iris (at least for a photo camera, but I imagine a video camera is just the same). So for X number of blades you have: X number of rays if X is even and 2X number of rays if X is odd. So for 7 blades you will get 14 rays of light (7 major and 7 minor) and for 6 blades you would get only 6 rays. Also for this effect to be visible you would need a small aperture. Also notice that we must always have an even number of rays.

The images attached are as follows:
1. actual_frame.jpg - frame from the Youtube Video
2. exposure_adjustment.jpg - how I think it should actually look once the bright object gets into the scene
3. sun.jpg - picture of the sun with 7 blades iris. notice the dark colors in the house
4. light.jpg - picture of the same light with 7 blades iris but different apertures

PS: Hope the attachment works.
1
3460
2
3459
3
3461
4
3462

Carmody
24th December 2010, 01:51
it depends on the distance and the amount of light in the given small area. A pro camera (and most others) may be set to a manual aperture control in a controlled environment, in order to maximize signal in the given desired exposure range of the foreground. This is likely the case here.

You've got the light drop off of distance vs area on a smaller seemingly spherical object in a diffusely lit environment, which means fairly intense seeming distance related reductions in output per unit distance with the 'black level' for this intense source being the diffuse lighting level....and the set aperture is taking away some of the system's dynamic range.

This is something we learn the first day in the given course on photography and film making. As for the number of blades, that' s impossible to easily detect in this video.

It's also impossible to tell too much with google's video editor and algorithms having a go at the video, besides other issues. I'm talking about generalities. What can be discerned without going too far down the road of speculation and sticking to what is in the video.

I've spent time rebuilding and improving the light handling characteristics of the optical blocks in Cameras, so I have a certain understanding of the optics from that direction. ie, high end analysis and rebuilds based on single change modifications. Strictly eyeballed, but this does become a very good basis of understanding how the given optics may behave. I rebuild binocular optics as well and camera lenses. Modifications for maximum contrast ranging and the lowering of artifact levels. Same for the binoculars. And a whole bunch of other stuff I'm not willing to mention. (too many details on my professional background) I own about 30 pair of binoculars and have disassembled and rebuilt/improved almost all of them. Besides the imaging and associated optics hardware.

Thank you for doing the needed thing and taking the opposite position in a debate.

Ilie Pandia
24th December 2010, 02:07
Carmody,

I must say I do not have such an extensive expertize as yourself. I mostly use my Canon SLR camera for experimenting and lots of Photoshop for editing and later composition (adding/removing stuff from photos). I did not take a part the camera to actually see how it works though :).

Indeed the object may have been small enough not to cause dramatic shadows or exposure issues.

That leaves the focus problem then.

Being at a distance and not in the focal plane (from what I can see the grass and landscape behind the lady is not in very sharp focus just below the object) this light source should have caused the "bokeh effect", right? Because of this effect most of the "glowing lights" UFOs appear as a blurry spot in the shape of the lens iris. It could be diamond or more round if more blades in iris. So what are your thoughts on the focus issue?

Carmody
24th December 2010, 02:13
I don't see it as being more in focus then the houses as In the video I watched, which is the attached one. This light, if it is real... is incredibly intense. We're talking magnesium level and more. but with that surface area.

I'm still taking the contrary position for the purposes of debate!

i will say though, that you may know the actual use of the hardware better than I. My sole interest was improving the hardware that one gets to use. When I say rebuild optical blocks, I say 3ccd units, which use a lightbox and separating prism with 3 sensors, which decreases contrast and image quality compared to a single CCD camera. What is gained is image fidelity through pixel density and color range.

A 3ccd camera usually has a very good lens on it and a very good lens usually means a good focal plane accuracy, with low distortions. they also usually have maybe two to three more lenses inside the given lens assembly, which gives them sharpness and contrast via that direction... but they loose contrast when out of their pick-up (CCD sensors) aperture sizing range of perfection. ie, the need for a perfect aperture setting goes up, as the dynamic range in a static image has gone down, due to the complexity of the optics compared to a standard DSLR. this means they can't show starring and other artifacts as easily as a DSLR. And that they 'white out' easier under the given heavier load. This would lead to a white out in the area (and overall contrast) where you would expect to see the given focus issue with the bright light. (bokeh effect). Especially if the aperture was set to manual, which it likely was.

The more complex lens does lead to a more pronounced halo effect as well. Which we seem to be getting here.

And the overall noise or starring in/around the light is a bit of a puzzle, it might be dirt or water on the lens (dew? fog?), it might be a lack of cleaning that only shows it's face under the incredibly intense load, I dunno. Sometimes when I rebuild optics I can only see the dirt in them under maximum load. Ie, off center extreme light sources, or at night, with no light coming in and my eye being close to the contrast reach of the optics (binoculars, telescopes, etc)

We need the original 'footage' to analyze this further.

As you may understand from my comments that...if it is a fake...it is done by some very knowledgeable people. it would not be two guys drinking beer and having fun with garden variety software and their half baked ideas of what is what. It would take a very optically, electronically and, 'software-smart' crew to get this done the way this one came out.

Ilie Pandia
24th December 2010, 02:36
If you look at Bill's frame and at my frame you will see that the object once has no rays and then it has rays (that at least to me look to be in focus).

Because the rays keep appearing and disappearing I could conclude that they are not caused by the blades of the iris ?(because otherwise they should always be there and with a constant angle orientation).

So could this mean that the rays are specific to the alleged propulsion system? Can you say anything about that having seen UFOs?

The first time I have seen the video I had thought of the effect used to render the ascended beings in Stargate SG1... and therefore computer generated. I can also get a similar effect if I squint my eyes while looking at small source of light, but in this case the rays appear and disappear because I can not keep my eye lids from shaking :)

Carmody
24th December 2010, 02:40
i keep thinking the appearance and appearance of the rays is a algorithm artifact. Let's face it, the resolution is startlingly low and to a certain extent we are wasting our time debating it, as we are now at the wall of what can be done with the video as it stands, in most respects.

As for rays, it MAY be a UFO static charge build/release issue. I really don't know about the one or that aspect. It certianly did not look like what one would call a 'dry' (air) day.

As well, my knowledge of UFO's I've seen of similar brightness, had a 'square' starring effect due to the CCD design and orientation that my camera had. It was a dumbbell Chemtrail sprayer, in my personal witnessing. So, the given specific pro 3CCD camera CCDs will have their OWN version of a starring effect. The saturation of the given digital CCD causes pixel bleed, which is the exact same thing seen in these images of the Sun as imaged by the given satellite (CCD sensor overload), here on the forum, when someone thinks it's a UFO that looks like Saturn.

A remaining question is if that particular CCD pick-up artifact can be seen in the video. The camera, no doubt, will produce that artifact under heavy load. Of course, it could be CMOS technology.In my recall, most triple sensor cameras are CCD type. Could be wrong, though!

CMOS imaging sensor
http://dvxuser.com/jason/CMOS-CCD/CMOS-smear.JPG
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CCD imaging sensor
http://dvxuser.com/jason/CMOS-CCD/CCD-smear.JPG

Teakai
24th December 2010, 03:07
So they had a professional camera with a tripod and did nothing!? No zooming? No following it around? That is a bit odd... Also based on the fact the really bright object does not cast any light on the environment I would suggest that is has been added a later time.

And the other thing I found a bit curious, Undeadpixel, is that you'd think the camera man would focus the camera on it as soon as he saw it, rather than calling the reporters attention to it first.

noxon medem
24th December 2010, 03:19
Just a 2 minute video someone sent me that reminded me of the Gulf of Aden situation. This is most probably a fake, but I have never seen anything similar and it looks amazing. Has anyone else seen this video before?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpvcafY1ZDY&feature=watch_response

Have not seen it before, but have studied it a bit, and looked at it some times, now.
I have a good portion of experience with videomaking and effects,
so this can also count as a professional opinion. But concider that I do not have
a high quality file or solid references to work with here, and limited time on simple hard/software.
on The videoclip: U.F.O. Wormhole or "Optical illusion" !? Unknown Source.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpvcafY1ZDY&feature=watch_response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpvcafY1ZDY&feature=watch_response
(btw, there are some good comments to the clip on youtube)

There are pixelanomalies around the center of the videoimage,
and other visual suggestions of masking being applied.
I would agree, and emphasize, with thread title, and say
it is very probably (a fake) a composit of at least two separate videoimages.
- Of course I have the handicap of not knowing what a wormhole would
actualy look like, and its effect on video-equipment..

To me it looks that the final video we see is filmed off a screen,
that would account for the overall consistency of blurring and movement
when there is zooming in and out, and moments out of focus, small vibrations.
The screen it was recorded from have a reflective surface.
There are some reflexes, like a mirror of a person, maybe the cameraman
(look in the upper left side of image, and follow from there)
that could support this suggestion.
The reflex could also be original to one of the videolayers,
- and to me it seems there is at least two of them.

The outer, or frame, layer looks like a hurricane, or some other circling cloud-phenomena
filmed from above, maybe from space.
Something like this, a bit more refined:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5725Etc4bI&feature=related

The inner, or center, layer looks like a slow fire played in reverse.
Could be a volcano, or some other fiery/smokey stuff, or computer generated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Wmv4PECeQ&feature=related
or slightly more visual and exciting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqFHybVtLn0&feature=related

This is a remote visual example, just to imagine
masking out the center of a backwards fireclip,
and imposing it on the hurricane-clip above.
Then you get a rough sketch of the wormhole videoclip in question,
and an illustration to my first interpretation of it.

Very nice video though. Fascinating. Took me some time to look in the corners.
:fish2:

bilko
24th December 2010, 03:38
This is a very interesting video.
My observations are:
We are looking through a window.
You see the reflection of an operator of something for most of the video.
It is not a commercial passenger craft because the window is a funny angle.
There appears to be a hatch outside the window.
The hatch appears to be open.
The hatch suggests keeping pressure out.

We are either looking down or up.
My first thoughts were down but it might be we are looking up into water.
This ( in my mind ) would make the reflection seem right.
Is it a submarine?
We are witnessing some kind of energy displacement
There appears to be fire that stops abruptly.
My mind tells me it is intense heat.
It reminds me of an underwater volcano.
The reflection seems to be of a grey or metal gloved hand.
There are people at this event.
They are either witnessing or engineering this event.
The white hazy glow in the enter seems to be causeing the air or water to heat up. This suggests it is manmade.
The water or air is being drawn into the vortex so we know it is heat causing convection?
I can't make up my mind if it is cloudy water or air.
I keep thinking ISS but if it is then this appears to be too low. Maybe 50-60 thousand feet up ( guessing ).
Here is the music, I might buy it lol, its good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5DMdAHhKpI

The window is glazed on the inside but towards the bottom right it is oval like a dome which suggests secondary glazing of dome like structure.
There is lots of activity in the craft.
I think they are upside down looking from a shuttle or the ISS.
I think it is some sort of harp technology being deployed from low altitude space.

bilko
24th December 2010, 03:41
Noxon
I think there is definitely intense heat there causing the vortex.

noxon medem
24th December 2010, 03:58
Noxon
I think there is definitely intense heat there causing the vortex.

See your point here, and the previous post. Good perspectives.
Interesting that it can be underwater, filmed from a submissable craft.
So maybe we are talking about gulf of mexico here. ( or aden ..)

Will look at it again, have to sleep now.
Happy holidays and/or merry christmas.
:yo:

some snips from youtube-comments:

MrRadunham91 3 days ago

it seems like its video of a fire played in reverse.

Mloenkaugm 2 days ago

@MrRadunham91 I can tell it isn't. If you were to unreverse it it definitely wouldn't have the same patterns as actual fire.

Carmody
24th December 2010, 04:04
OK. Iris rays do appear to be happening repeatedly in the same spot of the given light source. But, IIRC, most computer programs that are designed to fake lensing effects do this automatically, so this would be a simple manipulation.

I'm not sure, this one may be slightly higher resolution.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zh4pnxakNs

Jacob
24th December 2010, 05:17
Just a 2 minute video someone sent me that reminded me of the Gulf of Aden situation. This is most probably a fake, but I have never seen anything similar and it looks amazing. Has anyone else seen this video before?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpvcafY1ZDY

It looks like a Fire Tornado, filmed from above. Have a look at this Nat. Geographic video of one in Hawaii. http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/news/environment-news/us-fire-tornado-vin.html
I was trying to figure out what plane is doing the filming, and purely on colour, (yellow), and window configuration, I would speculate that it is a CI-415 Water Bomber.

Ilie Pandia
24th December 2010, 10:35
As you have said Carmody, I think we have pretty much exhausted what we can to with this video. I am no longer convinced that it's a fake, but not entirely convinced is the real thing either :)

bilko
24th December 2010, 11:59
Just a quick update about the music. It is copyright infringement replacement music available on youtube as an alternative backing track.
Originally taken from Mi Gente - Tercer Cielo.
See here for a youtube recording of lyrics free music, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wjXxs9OYNg&NR=1
Doesn't mean much but it tells us we are not looking at some headbangers ( no insult to metal lol ) fake.
Choice of music can tell you a lot about a persons temperament. the video can be viewed as an extremely violent or beautiful event and this backing track is designed to sooth.
Without being too philosophical i would say the uploader is friend rather than foe although one could dispute that till the cows come home.

Here is an shuttle viewing window.. Can a mod please put the picture in.
http://www.dlr.de/iss/en/DesktopDefault.aspx/tabid-4417/7222_read-11765/gallery-1/gallery_read-Image.19.4981/
Tell me that isn't the same white framing with the dark curve. Different glazing i know but i think a space craft is definitely the way to go.

http://www.dlr.de/iss/en/Portaldata/19/Resources/images/columbus/columbus_galerie/schlegel_iss_380.jpg

holcaul
25th December 2010, 05:30
So they had a professional camera with a tripod and did nothing!? No zooming? No following it around? That is a bit odd... Also based on the fact the really bright object does not cast any light on the environment I would suggest that is has been added a later time.

I'm no technical guy so I cant comment on "what" you see but I can comment on what people say, specifically the cameraman. 1-2 seconds after the object enters the view from the left the cameraman tells the reporter to look at and actually does turn the camera to the left to make the object fully visible, then after 2-3 seconds the object goes up and then "it's gone" (actual words of the cameraman). Considering what Bill said :

...I suspect the camera was on a large heavy tripod (fixed and locked for the outdoor interview, hence being slow to respond when the object rose above the ground just out of view).

I think this might be the real thing. In documentary and newsreel camerawork the cameraman never interrupts a reporter - even for an introduced effect. They are always 'not there'.

Even if the camera guy wanted to change his "mindset" and leave the reporter out of the shot he just didn't have the time to do it.

ascendingstarseed
25th December 2010, 10:04
Just a 2 minute video someone sent me that reminded me of the Gulf of Aden situation. This is most probably a fake, but I have never seen anything similar and it looks amazing. Has anyone else seen this video before?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpvcafY1ZDY


NASA never shows photo's of the poles, they always photoshop them out....My first and strongest impression is we're looking out the shuttle window right over the north or south pole, I've only seen a couple of still photo's of the poles and it was from more of a distance. There appears to be some sort of energy field emanating out from the poles through a hole which looks very similar to this video.

Bill Ryan
25th December 2010, 10:28
NASA never shows photo's of the poles, they always photoshop them out....My first and strongest impression is we're looking out the shuttle window right over the north or south pole, I've only seen a couple of still photo's of the poles and it was from more of a distance. There appears to be some sort of energy field emanating out from the poles through a hole which looks very similar to this video.

Here's an aerial photo of the South Pole.

(source: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/04.13/01-winterover.html )

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/04.13/photos/16-winter1-450.jpg

HURRITT ENYETO
25th December 2010, 19:31
Just a 2 minute video someone sent me that reminded me of the Gulf of Aden situation. This is most probably a fake, but I have never seen anything similar and it looks amazing. Has anyone else seen this video before?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpvcafY1ZDY

Its an animation done by a guy to show how a black hole might look from a space shuttle.

See link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dua07C30ck0

HURRITT ENYETO
25th December 2010, 20:05
Was that taken from a plane?

I found a link to this video while I was there - go ahead to the 1:11 mark and watch a few seconds on from there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se0AfvfNXb0&feature=watch_response



Strange things they are a happenin'.
:)


Apparently the anchor woman comments that the birds come to that area every April 1st etc etc.
IMHO its a bit of a coincidence that April Fools day is mentioned in the clip.

Edit to add : The programme was originally about birds before the "Orb" showed up or rather didn't.

bilko
26th December 2010, 02:20
There we are then, good find!
Shame though. At least it got the old grey matter working.

ascendingstarseed
26th December 2010, 11:37
Here's an aerial photo of the South Pole.

(source: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/04.13/01-winterover.html )

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/04.13/photos/16-winter1-450.jpg

Thanks for that aerial shot Bill! :thumb:

Actually, the one I was thinking of is allegedly of the entrance to Hollow Earth from outer space:

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:DmpdPKz4-P8GUM:http://www.facts-are-facts.com/magazin/3_south_pole_mysterious_antarctica_2.jpg&t=1

Admiral Byrd, poor guy...didn't they lock him up in a psych ward for a while to silence him, and as a part of the disinfo campaign?

jimmer
26th December 2010, 20:26
as for the brilliant aerial light, wouldn't it
cast a really harsh shadow on the surrounding
shrubs and plants?
the light blasts the descent area with 'light,' but
it seems like a sfx, an area filter, not the real thing.

here are sequential screen captures.
to me, the green arrow points at a row of shrubs
that should have either pronounced long shadows or
(if the light was just over the shrubs) no shadows.
throughout the video sequence, the shrub shadows should
have changed and they do not. looks phony.

yes?

noxon medem
26th December 2010, 22:30
About:
UFO. Documentary team witness paranormal event ...

Jimmer: as for the brilliant aerial light, wouldn't it
cast a really harsh shadow on the surrounding
shrubs and plants?
Warning:
Object in video might be closer than it appear.
Meaning:
To me it looks like the light-orb is hovering/moving about
right above the row of bushes in the depthfield of image,
that is pointed to in your nice illustrations. And would then
not necessaraly create harsh shadowing on those bushes.

Also it does actualy seem to emit two different lights.
One source is the luminance of the orb/object itself.
And then a separate light (beam) on the ground, that is confined
(like a spotlight) and directed. Could be connected to propulsion.
And the higher the orb go, the wider the beam diameter on ground.
(this can of course easily be created in a 3d video effect-program.)

Disclaimer:
These are purely visual, imageanalyzis observations and statements.
I am not at this point concerned with whether this is real or sfx.
Wiki on SFX :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_effect

And if it is real footage, not fixed or doctored, then still remain a question
of: What is it, realy ?

:music:

jimmer
27th December 2010, 19:09
[QUOTE=To me it looks like the light-orb is hovering/moving about
right above the row of bushes in the depthfield of image,
that is pointed to in your nice illustrations. And would then
not necessaraly create harsh shadowing on those bushes.[/QUOTE]

well, n.m., that's my point.
if the light is real, then the light would
affect the surrounding objects/shadows,
which is not evident in the video/my illustrations.
what is apparent is an unrealistic overall brightening
effect, like a filtering effect.

I like h.e.'s theory that it was an april fool's stunt.
good catch.

noxon medem
27th December 2010, 23:17
well, n.m., that's my point.
if the light is real, then the light would
affect the surrounding objects/shadows,
which is not evident in the video/my illustrations.
what is apparent is an unrealistic overall brightening
effect, like a filtering effect.

I like h.e.'s theory that it was an april fool's stunt.
good catch.

Sorry, jimmer. Slightly misunderstood your post on first reading.
Your observation and illustration make a good point.
There are some small effects to light and shadow in the landscape
and on the objects, but not very dramatic, and does not have distinct
realistic look or feel to them. Then again, if this is fact it is quite "unreal".

Have been looking closely at the video some times now,
but find it hard to make any further conclusion about the
LightOrb itself at this point. Hope a better quality video appear.

However, I did notice something else that supports the theory
of this being a deliberate (1.april) joke, or fictional film.
If you think of this as a scene in a movie, then there is one actor,
the female reporter, and a cameraman as supporting cast.
She is in front of a large, open, empty field, apparantly doing a documentary
reportage on birds. A lightobject appear in the background on the left side.
The cameraman calls to her "Agnes" and "soi" (anyone know the language?)
and she turn her head to look at the background.

At that point I think the "acting" fail for a split second, and give away the play, sort of speak.
When he call her "Agnes" she turn immediately towards the background light,
then stops herself halfway (oops) and turn to the cameraman
who says "soi" (see?), and she turns all the way round to look at the strange light.
Detail in her timing indicate she had the forknowledge and intention to look at the light,
when given a signal from the cameraman, key word being "soi". She slips up a bit,
and starts turning on "agnes", and then correct it. Look suspicious to my filmmaker eye.

This happens between 00:15 and 00:17 into this video, in slo-mo from 00:40 to 46


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zh4pnxakNs&feature=player_embedded

The chosen scenario and cameramovement is also the easiest possible for applying
a special effects light-object.

None of this is conclusive, but hints at this being a practical joke at play,
including the use of sfx.
More references on this material would be needed to come further.
A translation of the long video (U.F.O. During Moldova TV News) would be helpfull.
It is normal that the press report the next days on the 1.april jokes in the media.
Maybe we are lucky enough to have someone with that cultural knowledge present.

nm

Billiam
27th December 2010, 23:43
I just e-mailed my ex in Chisinau to find out what the buzz is in Moldova...

Billiam
27th December 2010, 23:51
I found this translation on another forum

The news-woman: Today we celebrate the bird day, this celebration started at year 1906, when the national bird-protection convention was signed. Our country started celebrating this a little later. Since then there is a tradition, to build (dunno english word for this, basically, a place for birds to live, small treehouses for birds or whatever) at the beggining of the april and wait for birds to arrive. Our next video is a coverage about birds, but during this coverage, the sky brought our filming crew an unusual surprise.
------------------------------------------

Thats when the part about birds begin, later, when the ball of light appears, the operator yells oh damn, what is that, female reporter goes all - "whoah", "damn", "what is that" and operator says "check it out, what is that" and in the end he says "look at it, it disappeared" and all that.

-----------------------------------------
This was indeed an unusual thing that our crew caught, looks like sky is not only place for birds. Of course, we couldnt let this go unnoticed, and we contacted a ufologist. Here with us we have a ufologist, Ernest Politaev.

- Good evening, could you explain us, what did our crew see?
- Good evening, Im not really sure, I'll have to study the recording, talk to your crew, but it isnt an natural phenomenon, and judging by the lighting, they were lucky to see a ET. All sightings are divided in 3 groups, When a person sees an UFO, When the UFO is landed, and when the person sees an actual ET. Your crew witnessed a sighting of a first kind. Of course, there are skeptics, who dont believe in existence of ET's, but there are more and more contacts.
- Well one thing is when the object is caught on tape, and other thing is when a lot of witnesses tell their story. Western ufologist have counted, that since the end of last century till now there have been around 5 million people that have had sighting of a UFO, and some of them were famous people, like Famous astronomer Klyde Tumble (spelling), US president Carter, Russian scientist Kusov, you cant accuse them of hallucinations or lies. It is really a wonder that you had a chance of filming such object, by the way, could you show the recording one more time?
*Shows the recording again*
-------------------------------
- Really awesome.
- Could you please tell us, are these things any danger to us? Because even in movies ET's are usually a bad thing for humans.
- I think it depends on what civilization tries to interfere with our lives, you cant be aggressive to them, who knows, they might bring us new technologies and cures to sicknesses that dont have a cure yet.
- But should we await this contact in near future?
- For the current generation of people it is like finding one special snowflake when there are millions of them around us. Its hard, but its our job.
- Thank you for coming to our studio and watching this sensational footage with us.

Robstar
28th December 2010, 03:41
Hi guys. Here are my two cents on this videos.
I have worked in the Video and audio production business for over 15 for years. I also work as a freelance camera man and still photographer for major networks. As a news photographer your job is to get the shot or action no matter what and never interrupt the reporter no matter what. The reporters know that. So it seems odd that the camera man would call out to the reporter because this looks to be on air live.
The reporter would have just kept going with her intro. The reporter would know not to stop and the camera man would not call out to her because they know they are live. Believe me i have been in that situation.
What you do is you focus an the action even if the action has nothing to do with whatever the reporter is saying.
Then you slowly return to the reporter and never call out to them. You let the anchor person interrupt them and say " hey turnaround what the hell is that"
I know it is fake if someone makes the argument, they where not "live". The news chief would have made "The incident" their top story and under no circumstances would he allow footage of birds flying around to lead their top story for one minute. Time is money specially in news.
As for the first video...FAKE,hurricane footage running backwards , it even skips frames!That means it was taken from a low resolution source video.
I also recognize the canned effects video you can use to composite together.
I can make any and better convincing effects like this with ADOBE AFTER EFFECTS.
And that is what they used.
Sorry but if you ask any film,video & audio professional they will tell you as this professional will tell you FAKE, FAKE, FAKE!:pound:

Billiam
28th December 2010, 05:41
You are probably right about it being a fake, but standards are very different in Moldova and it was not filmed live as they had already organised somebody to come into the studio... Media equipment is not of the highest quality there either... Remember Moldova is by far the poorest country in Europe....

loveandgratitude
28th December 2010, 07:50
whatever it is.....it was beautiful

Roofie
29th December 2010, 01:38
I remember seeing the Video in the first post 2 years ago.
It's a snippet from a short film which was made about the LHC creating a black hole. This was used as a tool to try and halt the progress of CERN's LHC.
From memory it goes for about 10 minutes and is shot from different peoples perspectives all over the world.
IMHO, A nice bit of CGI, I am trying to find the original video as we speak.

Edit, here is a condensed video of the one I am talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUwKeovj6wk