Probable Fake...Gulf of Aden??

[Hiram]

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?

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=UpvcafY1ZDY

[str8thinker]

Complete absence of any supporting documentation (when?, where?) makes this very suspect.

[Luke]

hmm .. looks like it is played backwards...

[Harley]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=se0AfvfNXb0

Strange things they are a happenin'.

[Ilie Pandia]

Posted by Teakai (here)
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]

Posted by undeadpixel (here)
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.

Source: https://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'.

[Carmody]

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]

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]

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

2

3

4

[Carmody]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CCD imaging sensor

[Teakai]

Posted by undeadpixel (here)
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]

Posted by Hiram (here)
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?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Upvca...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.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=UpvcafY1ZDY

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Upvca...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:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=S5725Etc4bI

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:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=x7Wmv4PECeQ

or slightly more visual and exciting:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=GqFHy...eature=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.

[bilko]

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.
https://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.