Real or Fake? You make the call "Dominican Republic, Haiti UFO Videos"
Time for UFO sightings!
These two are very good...for CGI. Still, makes you wonder whether our Alien Overlords are staging a coup in Haiti or the Dominican Republic...
Has it come to the point that almost any sighting can be "faked" to look "real" with technology?
Comments
If a "genuine" alien craft landed in the middle of the Superbowl (for a silly example), and "real" aliens emerged, all on TV, then took off again... it would be undoubtedly be regarded as an excellent fake... How could one prove otherwise, unless the "aliens" did something aggressive (a very human quality). But there again, why should a race of beings, presumably way in advance of mankind re. their civilization (given the ability to traverse space in a way that circumvents relativity as we know it).... have to be encumbered with such human traits as wanton hostility?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnxIITeNftE
Maybe Powerade should go to Haiti.
Personally, I'd be very disappointed if we actually are alone in the universe. That would be a tremendous waste of real estate! At the same time, Einstein hasn't been proven wrong yet, so visiting other star systems is obviously problematic at best, unless there is some way to violate the law of relativity we haven't discovered yet...
I think most UFO sightings are fake/wishful thinking, but there have been so many sightings, by so many people from all cultural/economic groups that at least a few would have to be real.
There's no way of proving its a fake, unless examination of the videotape etc showed signs of tampering/editing post the shooting. Anyway, those craft could be modified Moller-like devices? There's no way of proving these sightings are "genuine" either.
Them Mollers are extremely loud.
What I look for in viewing any UFO footage.
1. Anomalies, something that really makes my heart skip. The overall movement and sound of the footage. Even some 9-11 footage can baffle your senses as to whether it's real or not. The fluidity of the UFO's flight and the woman(?) gasping in the beginning of the Haiti video does that, though it also makes me think it's staged.
2. Lighting and shadow. A given, but in the second video one of the craft passes just across the sun and that takes a lot of skill to pull off and the craft flying over and behind trees shows that this could be a professional job. Also, at the end of the Haiti video did you see the other lights (craft) converging? Stunning. But that lone cloud puts me off.
3. Realism. That feeling that what you are watching is real. If you take all doubt and believe what was recorded is what was there. I try to pretend that I am the one capturing the video myself.
This is one of my favorite UFO videos. Just a couple outside in their backyard on Labor Day 2005 and suddenly...
This has a the realism (shaky camera, crickets and the couple's discussion throughout) that makes it feasible that they actually saw something that no one can explain.
I have seen a UFO myself, solid (looked like a flattened disc of mercury) and viewable in broad daylight (with binoculars no less). I have a friend who was with me that could corroborate the sighting.
Time for UFO sightings!
These two are very good...for CGI. Still, makes you wonder whether our Alien Overlords are staging a coup in Haiti or the Dominican Republic...
Has it come to the point that almost any sighting can be "faked" to look "real" with technology?
Not that difficult to fake something like this these days. The hand held feeling is a give away... It doesn't quite feel real. And the palm trees look fake to me. I'd say these were done entirely in something like Vue 6. http://vue6.com/
Rendered.
The palm tree between the two craft in the first one, and the palm tree just below and left of the craft in the second, are identical.
Rendered.
We have a winner...!
Here's the two videos together, with the frames stopped. How can the same tree be in two different locations?
I have to give the originators credit, it is a real good job. But they fubared by splitting the locations. From the looks of things, you could actually splice the Dominican Republic video ending with the Haiti beginning. Why would they split the two and think anyone would believe they were different locations? Oh well. Still fun to watch.
But after reading the comments and looking at examples from the linked to software, I can totally see how these can be rendered.
I think the psychology of this is interesting though. It started with FX houses figuring out how to add "flaws" such as lens flare to the rendered scene, then progressed through the BSG and Firefly look-- as if your space scenes were being shot by a handheld documentarian, complete with snap zooms, focus overshoot and camera shake. I especially like instances of camera wander, as if the operator were hunting around in the viewfinder for his shot.
Then there were the video game ads, that took all of that and added the "camcorder" look, so you got guys goofing around on "DV" when the meteorite hits or the ray gun does its thing or whatever.
All of that relies on the idea that "amateur equals truth", and it really does sell the verisimilitude. There's something about fx embedded in that "I just happened to be running my camcorder" look that is really persuasive. Which is ironic, because I assume the low res/funky thing actually hides a lot of rough edges and requires somewhat less polishing.
It's what makes the trailer for the JJ Abrams "untitled project" look so interesting-- flaming debris and bouncing Statue of Liberty heads just look more involving when it appears to be caught on the fly like that.
It's very much like the older motif of "hand-held 16mm black and white" that used to give a documentary (hence, "unmanipulated") feel to portions of some movies. And, like that strategy, I assume that as our exposure to manipulated video of all sorts increases the trick will stop working, as we no longer associate "hand held camcorder" with "real".
I'm not sure why the UFO sightings are such a big deal. It's highly improbable that we are the only intelligent life in the universe.
Is that bate? The probability of finding another life supporting planet in the universe is dismal, if you consider the fine tuning required.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
This principle applies to the earth as well as the universe.
It's very much like the older motif of "hand-held 16mm black and white" that used to give a documentary (hence, "unmanipulated") feel to portions of some movies. And, like that strategy, I assume that as our exposure to manipulated video of all sorts increases the trick will stop working, as we no longer associate "hand held camcorder" with "real".
Ever seen Woody Allen's "Zelig"? No CGI. None. Yet you are led to believe in this mockumentary that Woody Allen's character appears and participates in many of the famous and infamous events in history.
Here's the introduction of "Zelig".
To create authenticity, the production used actual lenses, cameras and sound equipment from the 1920s, and used the exact same lighting that would have been done. In addition, Gordon Willis took the exposed negatives to the shower, and stomped on them.
In order to help create the look of genuine footage from the 1930s, DuArt, the lab that handled processing, called some of their experienced technicians (who were experienced with processing techniques of the 1930s) out of retirement.
Another more contemporary take on this was Robert Zemeckis' "Forrest Gump".
'fine tuning'
it may be low, but it is certainly not lower than 1/the total number of planets in the universe.
Is that bate? The probability of finding another life supporting planet in the universe is dismal, if you consider the fine tuning required.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
This principle applies to the earth as well as the universe.
Well, I think with the evidence of Black Holes/Worm Holes and the like there still is a chance that intelligent life exists somewhere. Even from another time.
I saw what I saw and so did my friend. It was real, physical, tangible and unforgettable. Whenever we run into each other we both ask, "Seen any UFOs lately?"
On the galactic time scale, interstellar colonization is a "flash" phenomena. That is, once an intelligent, technological species develops the means to travel between the stars, the time it takes to pretty much overrun the galaxy is relatively short, next to the life of the universe.
Of course, that's a pretty massive ratio-- say, 200 millions years for the outward expansion vs. many billions year window of opportunity. 200 millions years because we don't want to rely on speculative FTL drives, which currently appear to be unlikely, but rather some kind of very advanced hibernation techniques, or massively extended life-spans, neither of which violate any fundamental principles that we know of.
So if there are any other intelligent species at all, we could reasonably expect that at least some of them would have arisen some hundreds of millions or years ago, and that at least some of those would have endeavored to travel between the stars, and that even at sub-light speeds that there has been plenty of time for such a race to have gone from world to world, establishing colonies which themselves would become capable of undertaking space flight (the time it would take for a colony to become a full fledged civilization is to brief to even consider, at these time scales).
So by this point they really ought to be too numerous to avoid. The argument against this theory is, of course, that intelligent life arose in the universe only fairly recently, and there in fact has not been time for the process of colonization to take place.
But its unclear why that would be true. Conditions in the universe have not changed appreciably in the last 200 millions years, it really isn't that long a span, universe-wise Same for the trial and error of evolution on a galactic scale-- if it was going to happen, 200 millions additional years doesn't increase the odds that much.
Of course, there are a lot of other speculative scenarios: technological civilizations almost inevitably destroy themselves, they are there but theirmeans of communication is something we aren't looking for, etc.
Myself, intuitively, I side with those that say the universe is an awfully big place for just us.
Personally, I believe all intelligent life destroys itself.
. . . Basically, we are either functionally alone in the galaxy or we are going to be fucked by our nearest neighbors -- but ultimately we can say that there will likely be no visits by intelligent species from the other side of our galaxy let alone other galaxies. . .
Okay. But since the other planets, or moons, cannot support life, we are alone in our solar system. Sure, we may send somebody to Mars, but life support must still come from Earth, no? So, if there are real UFOs, they come from nearby stars. Therefore, we don't have to look very far for them, but they are not right next door either. It sounds like you might agree with that.
Okay. But since the other planets, or moons, cannot support life, we are alone in our solar system. Sure, we may send somebody to Mars, but life support must still come from Earth, no? So, if there are real UFOs, they come from nearby stars. Therefore, we don't have to look very far for them, but they are not right next door either. It sounds like you might agree with that.
Mars probably can support life right now (and probably has it in some form or another)