UFO over Los Angeles 10-8-2012

[Setras]

Just found a link to this video on David Icke forum..... watch on youtube the quality is better

D1ibFMfWQRs

[gooty64]

Wowsy!
Are a bunch of witnesses and other videos coming out to on this UFO.
Creepy since there is speculation of EQ and tsunami for So. Cal this week!

*Maybe it was just galactic tourists taking a close-up snapshot of downtown L.A. at 41 second mark.
:ufo:

[Setras]

Wowsy!
Are a bunch of witnesses and other videos coming out to on this UFO.
Creepy since there is speculation of EQ and tsunami for So. Cal this week!

this has just been upload so nice and fresh will see if any more come out... what i did find strange though was the total silence.......

[D-Day]

Reminds me of the Dome Of The Rock videos from early 2011.
Seems a little bit "too familiar"... if you know what I mean ;)
Interesting footage though.

xTQVtyh4XkI

[Billy]

Dome of the rock take 2 :director:

[Cartomancer]

It is possible this was CGI'd from the Jerusalem UFO. On the other hand if its fake its a good one. As soon as I started to watch the video I found myself waiting for the flash and takeoff just like the other one. It is very similar to say the least.

[Peace of Mind]

This can easily be done with photoshop and similar applications. IMO, what makes it fake is the lack of sound. I’d expect to hear a lot of commotion from people around the area. I guess the maker figured he can still pass this off as real thinking people are really that naïve. No sound, no footage of other people looking at the object, nothing but a white dot in a dark background that even a preteen can create on mommy’s laptop.

Peace

[wynderer]

David Icke does not have much of a track record for supporting fakes & charlatans

just because it was possibly the same ship over Jerusalem & over LA does not mean one or both are a fake -- the ships do manage to get around pretty fast -- also there could be more than one of these ships, hovering above us in 4D

i got this mental image while watching the LA video of the beings inside the ship sucking up energy from below

[ernesto]

Humm they look two computer generated effects to me.

Movement Path:
It is not a normal behaviour for a UFO to move in a "human" way.
This is: a) slowly accelerating, b) moving at a constant speed, and c) desaccelerating until stopping.
That behaviour is a waste of time and a dangerously predictable way of moving for any UFO pilot.
On the other side this way of moving is the only way in which a human pilot can survive, so it looks like a human creation.

Camera movement
In both movies I can tell a very carefull composition, ignoring the supposed UFO.
This can be due to the fact that the cameraman did recorded the scene without any UFO which was probably added in a posproduction process.

Convenient Distance
In both cases the object is conveniently distant, and none of the cameramen used any ZOOM, which is not belibable. Zooms are so common today that it is very unprobable that none of the cameras had it. It is also very unprobable that none of the cameramen tried to use the zoom.
On the other side there are good reasons to NOT to use a zoom if you were going to do a posproduction work, which would make the special effect much more complex.
In one of the videos they did a posproduction zoom, which seems deliberately deformed. Perhaps to hide any unconvenient deffect?

credible or incredible
We use to recognize what is credible or not, comparing to our memory file and finding familiarities. If anythis is familiar then it is credible. But when we talk on UFOs, you should understand that what is familiar with humans is not with UFOs, so the fact that these videos looks familiar to human technology is the main proof that it was human made. We must remember that their technoogy is almost magic for us.

Nevertheless i know some cases of real UFO sightings that were specially arranged to confound and missinform, where the ufos were driven accordingly human expectations. These cases can be related to CTRs / Archons / Giza Intelligences / Old Empire agents, or whatever the name you would prefer to use. The case of Anthony Woods in England is one of them. I am not saying that he is a lier, I am saying that he was sincere althhough the aliens were using him to confound us.

Proof
Finnally let me explain what should be a proof for a serious UFO investigator (in my opinion) . We as humans in a phisical world use to expect phisical proofs, or evidences, and if validated by someone with a degree in cience it should be better! Some others expects a goverment to release an official statment!
But all that is just not assuming our own responsibility.
The real proof in in our minds, and we should us our minds in a rational way to find the proofs for ourselves. If you look at the proofs that you may find with a Phisical viewpoint or a legal viewpont you will discredit any proof you may find.
We must get rid of the Phisical viewpont! Nobody will find any proof in the pixels of the image that cold be detected by a machine!
The proof is not that easy to find! It needs hard work for the mind!

[Setras]

David Icke does not have much of a track record for supporting fakes & charlatans

just because it was possibly the same ship over Jerusalem & over LA does not mean one or both are a fake -- the ships do manage to get around pretty fast -- also there could be more than one of these ships, hovering above us in 4D

i got this mental image while watching the LA video of the beings inside the ship sucking up energy from below

in fairness it was posted on his forum by a member not David himself.....

[SilentFeathers]

Seems like quite a few people would of seen this and the net would be lit up a bit more about it than it is.....not much I can find so I'll write it off as either it's a fake or most of LA were sleeping at the time or walking around in a daze looking down.....

[wynderer]

OK -- my misunderstanding -- tho i still don't understand why, on threads like these, many rush to post 'Fake! ' when it's a fact that there are lots of ships being seen right now --isn't that more important than whether or not a particular video is found to be a fake?



David Icke does not have much of a track record for supporting fakes & charlatans

just because it was possibly the same ship over Jerusalem & over LA does not mean one or both are a fake -- the ships do manage to get around pretty fast -- also there could be more than one of these ships, hovering above us in 4D

i got this mental image while watching the LA video of the beings inside the ship sucking up energy from below

in fairness it was posted on his forum by a member not David himself.....

[Peace of Mind]

Humm they look two computer generated effects to me.

exactly, I'm thinking if I should trouble one of my friends to make a few of these vids for me so I can show people here just how easy they are to make. It saddens me when people see these vids and believe them to be real. Actually it angers me a bit that people actually get a kick out of making them....they seem to be oblivious to the fact they cause more harm than good, some people just want an alien experience so bad they have no problem tossing out all rationale just to strenghten their faith in something that NO ONE has yet to prove exist. I think there's a big false flag event on the horizon and there are a lot of agents out there working over time promoting it.

Peace

[SilentFeathers]

OK -- my misunderstanding -- tho i still don't understand why, on threads like these, many rush to post 'Fake! ' when it's a fact that there are lots of ships being seen right now --isn't that more important than whether or not a particular video is found to be a fake?



With the mass amount of people having eyes and cell phone cameras one would think there would at least be a bunch more youtube videos and stories on the web going around about this ufo....considering the "GREAT" visual this one clip captured.

It's a bit hard not to write it off as a fake IMO

[wynderer]

perhaps someone of a techno turn of mind can explain exactly how one determines if a photo on the net is fake or real?

lots of folks never look up at the sky -- i've seen a mothership sail over, & no one below is aware -- weird, as much on this planet is

also quite a few ships up there seem to prefer not to be filmed -- folks completely forget that they have a camera w/them while looking at a ship, for instance -- i've seen a few disappear the instant i reach for my binoculars


[QUOTE=SilentFeathers;535978]
With the mass amount of people having eyes and cell phone cameras one would think there would at least be a bunch more youtube videos and stories on the web going around about this ufo....consider the "GREAT" visual this one clip captured........it's a bit hard not to write it off as a fake IMO

[ED209]

This can easily be done with photoshop and similar applications. IMO, what makes it fake is the lack of sound. I’d expect to hear a lot of commotion from people around the area. I guess the maker figured he can still pass this off as real thinking people are really that naïve. No sound, no footage of other people looking at the object, nothing but a white dot in a dark background that even a preteen can create on mommy’s laptop.

Peace

Actually, in Los Angeles, people don't just walk around on the sidewalks. Especially not just off of a freeway on a median of some sort. And especially not downtown because most people believe that it is dangerous there at night. The filmer looks like he is standing just off of the 101. I am not surprised that nobody else is looking. I am surprised that no police helicopters were mobilized because the police helicopter heliport is also downtown. Also, when you look at this filmer's other you tube movies, it looks like they make movies regularly for art. So, maybe the film quality has to do with the filmer having a professional grade camera.

[bogeyman]

The piece of footage here could be perfectly true, but with modern day computer techniques and graphics it is getting easy to reproduce similar if not the exactly the same footage. It comes down to other factors, like credibility of the witnesses, other points of reference, radar tracks etc. A photo and film footage are not enough. You could be watching a genuine film footage from WW2, but you can reproduce this footage with modern day techniques, doesn't mean the original footage is phoney.

[Hip Hipnotist]

And what if it is/was a real UFO?

Does anyone still need convincing?

I wanna see little green men/women/monsters or whatever color, shape, size gender(less) -- right here on good old terra-firma and less up in the air stuff.

But I always was hard to please. ;-)

[ernesto]

Well, After analyzing the first movie, I have found a mistake in the computer generated effect.
Fortunately It is impossible to create a perfect fake!

First I will explain certain rules of ghost images in photographic lenses. When a strong lightsource gets in the frame, all lenses show some ghost images, or parasitic images, due to the reflection of that strong light source in the several lens elements. The current optical technology is very advanced and there are several tricks to avoid those ghost images. One of them is the lens coating. Each element is coated with a thin layer of certain pigments, in a way that the pigments are of complementary colours to block those internal reflections, but at the same time they compensate each other in a way that the light that reaches the sensor would not show unreal colours. Anyway these tricks has their limits when very intense lights gets involved.

These reflections follows strict geometrical rules. For instance if you look carefully the movie you will see a strong light near the bottom of the image, slightly to the right of the center. It is probably a lightsource pointing in the camera direction, which makes it stronger in relationship to the other lights. That is the ideal light to produce a ghost image, So I started to search for it! If you look at the top slightly left of the image frame, you will see the ghost image that belongs to the previous lightsource. You may ask How I know they are related? The answer is that because they are where they should be, and I will try to explain this:

In order to show the geometrical relationship we should determine the central point of the frame. (see images below) You can find it by drawing an X that touches the 4 corners of the image frame. The intersecting point of the X will be the center of the frame. Then if you draw a segment connecting the central point of the image frame, and the strong llight source, and a second segment connecting the same center to the ghost image, you will find that both segments are exactly the same length, and are perfectlly aligned and oposed as a reflection in a mirror. In fact the ghost image is a symetrical reflection of the light source!

Both the light source and the reflection "moves" across the frame because of the hand held camera movement, but no matter the frame you chose, the geometric rule will be the same.

Now, the supposed UFO flashes with an intensity higher than the previous exmple, so it should produce a ghost image following the same rules, as it happened with theother light. But it is NOT there!
Anyway there is another Fake "lens flare" that appears up at the right of the UFO flash, that violates the geometric rule of the reflections insde optical lenses.
Finnally if you draw the geometric construction to determine where the ghost image should be visible, you will see that in that spot there is nothing!

This is totally impossible considering that a dimmer light produced a clear ghost image, in the same lens!

This is in my opinion the best phisical proof of a digital trick in the Los Angeles Video.
Together with these considerations: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?48400-UFO-over-Los-Angeles-10-8-2012&p=535967&viewfull=1#post535967 I can conclude is a fake.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/5778/laufo.jpg
The fist image is the X marking the image center.
Te second shows the real lightsource connected with ghost relection with exactly the same length and oposed segments.
The third image shows the same construction on the Fake Ufo light, showing the oposite spot where the ghost reflection should show.
The last image shows the fake lens flare effects violating the optical rules.

[Lifebringer]

Great footage. You do Avalon proud.

[SilentFeathers]

Makes sense Ernesto!

Another great tool to use is "common sense" :)

If this was real, it would be a very "HUGE" sighting!!!!!!! and it makes no common sense at all that in a city of about 4 million people that only one person just happened to be looking up and seen this....and had a video camera to boot!

Of course some things do defy logic and common sense.....I don't think this is one of those cases.....

Sadly I sometimes create enemies because I try to be logical and think with common sense!

[Kindred]

I'll posit a theory here: It may be that the Dome o-t Rock episode was a real event... however, it was done by US 'Star Command', as part of a gradual uptick so as to promote any number of agendas, particularly the 'alien invasion' false flag.

If so, then it's also possible, even probable, that they took videos of the episode from various vantage points exactly so that they could compost a video just like this one. They could then post it at various times, causing everyone to think it's 'another one'.... if enough of them occur, tptb could 'justifiably' promote this 'invasion' concept.

Telling a lie often enough puts the idea in peoples heads that it's the truth.

Just one theory...

In Unity, Peace and Love

[wynderer]

Hi Ernesto -- thank you for all the work you put into your post

this is going to sound really rude probably --pls forgive me -- but when i was reading your post, i got the same feeling i got sometimes when i was doing proofreading for one of the USA's top med publishers -- esp w/some chapters i proofread from a 'cutting edge' book by some neuro-molecular biologists

what i would think [again, pls forgive me] is , 'These guys are nuts! They focus on one tiny little bit of the picture & think they are finding truth!' -- tho i have noticed that Human males seem to really enjoy the search for what James Baldwin called 'the hallowed fact'

i can picture you diligently working on your computer, searching for/ferreting out the 'hallowed [techno] fact', while outside your window, a huge mothership sails over

i hope this post does not offend you

wyn




Well, After analyzing the first movie, I have found a mistake in the computer generated effect.
Fortunately It is impossible to create a perfect fake!

First I will explain certain rules of ghost images in photographic lenses. When a strong lightsource gets in the frame, all lenses show some ghost images, or parasitic images, due to the reflection of that strong light source in the several lens elements. The current optical technology is very advanced and there are several tricks to avoid those ghost images. One of them is the lens coating. Each element is coated with a thin layer of certain pigments, in a way that the pigments are of complementary colours to block those internal reflections, but at the same time they compensate each other in a way that the light that reaches the sensor would not show unreal colours. Anyway these tricks has their limits when very intense lights gets involved.

These reflections follows strict geometrical rules. For instance if you look carefully the movie you will see a strong light near the bottom of the image, slightly to the right of the center. It is probably a lightsource pointing in the camera direction, which makes it stronger in relationship to the other lights. That is the ideal light to produce a ghost image, So I started to search for it! If you look at the top slightly left of the image frame, you will see the ghost image that belongs to the previous lightsource. You may ask How I know they are related? The answer is that because they are where they should be, and I will try to explain this:

In order to show the geometrical relationship we should determine the central point of the frame. (see images below) You can find it by drawing an X that touches the 4 corners of the image frame. The intersecting point of the X will be the center of the frame. Then if you draw a segment connecting the central point of the image frame, and the strong llight source, and a second segment connecting the same center to the ghost image, you will find that both segments are exactly the same length, and are perfectlly aligned and oposed as a reflection in a mirror. In fact the ghost image is a symetrical reflection of the light source!

Both the light source and the reflection "moves" across the frame because of the hand held camera movement, but no matter the frame you chose, the geometric rule will be the same.

Now, the supposed UFO flashes with an intensity higher than the previous exmple, so it should produce a ghost image following the same rules, as it happened with theother light. But it is NOT there!
Anyway there is another Fake "lens flare" that appears up at the right of the UFO flash, that violates the geometric rule of the reflections insde optical lenses.
Finnally if you draw the geometric construction to determine where the ghost image should be visible, you will see that in that spot there is nothing!

This is totally impossible considering that a dimmer light produced a clear ghost image, in the same lens!

This is in my opinion the best phisical proof of a digital trick in the Los Angeles Video.
Together with these considerations: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?48400-UFO-over-Los-Angeles-10-8-2012&p=535967&viewfull=1#post535967 I can conclude is a fake.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/5778/laufo.jpg
The fist image is the X marking the image center.
Te second shows the real lightsource connected with ghost relection with exactly the same length and oposed segments.
The third image shows the same construction on the Fake Ufo light, showing the oposite spot where the ghost reflection should show.
The last image shows the fake lens flare effects violating the optical rules.

[ernesto]

Dear Wyn,

No ofense at all! Anyway I am not sure I have got your point... But just in case, the truth is not outside our mind, in my opinion. Yes, I enjoy logic games, but i know logic can be manipulated too. The interesting fact of little details, is that not many people notice them, so they do not receive so much attention from fakers, therefore they are the weakest points of any false evidence. The truth is not in the little details, but if they do not fit in the whole thing, they could expose a lie. Regarding the nature of truth, I believe size doesn´t matter, since reality seems to be like a fractal, repeating itself in all the diferent scales. The truth is not binary, so if you focus on detail, it doesn´t means that you are loosing the whole picture. Finnaly, I am not my writings!

Ernesto

[Doctor]

I am fairly certain I would have seen this, and I didn't. The first thing that came to my mind when I saw this was that it was a fake taken from the Jerusalem(sp?) video.

Dear Wyn, please do not group all of us guys into one single group. I, personally, find it annoying when someone comes on with this "proof" that it's fake by using a program they have on their computer. I don't think Ernesto's research is false, in any way, but the way some of us go about coming to our own conclusion doesn't depend on a single person's homework. I am a believer and I know these kinds of encounters happen, but I believe that this one is not real.

[wynderer]

i've seen so many UFOs in the sky that usually don't pay much attention to videos of them -- i learned some things from this thread:

1] Ernesto & Doctor are a couple of really nice guys

2] it is possible to determine -- to some degree -- whether or not a photo/video on the net is fake

3] common sense is important re videos of UFOs -- if a lot of people saw it, like the Jerusalem Dome light & the Phoenix lights, then the video can much more likely be trusted

[Doctor]

Wyn, i appreciate you not taking what I said a little too much to heart. We are all different and when it comes to doing research and figuring out what we believe on the inside. I agree with you, to an extent, that these programs can help but I do not believe that they determine the final say in whether or not a video is fake. I don't believe that, the more the people see it, the more they will believe it, because it doesn't create any real credibility from thin air. It's like music on YouTube, you can't judge the best music by how many views it has, because some of the best music is rarely seen. Plus, I can NOT stand Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga. BLERGH!!