| | | OFFLINE | Post: 963 | Città: CASAGIOVE | Età: 48 | Sesso: Maschile | |
|
  30/12/2010 15:33 | |
Certo lui alla fine ha escluso che si trattase di un video in CGI proprio per la sua complessità, ma ha anche mensionato i punti per cui avrebbe potuto essere un falso e come si sarebbe potuto realizzare. da qui questo testo in inglese.
CONSIDERING THE HOAX HYPOTHESIS
In general there are three possibilities for any UO sighting: it is a hoax, a misidentification or the "real thing" (a True UFO - unexplainable as a conventional phenomenon).
The possibility of a misidentification seems unlikely here because of the shape.
It wasnt a bird or a plane or Superman (.....well, maybe Superman).
One can barely imagine that this was just a misidentified blimp or an oddly shaped motor-driven balloon of some kind that just happened to be passing by.
Yet, this is the only conventional (i.e., not a True UFO), non-hoax hypothesis that could be consistent with witness testimony about seeing a real object.
However, this hypothesis must be rejected because of the video evidence which shows anomalous accelerations of the UO.
What if it were a full scale hoax involving a large object, 20 or more feet in size, designed to look like a True UFO that could fool unsuspecting witnesses?
This could be a motorized blimp or simply a wind borne or tethered balloon of an odd shape.
However, even with the most advantageous combination of assumptions about mechanical capabilities of this blimp/balloon one cannot explain the initial "instantaneous" acceleration to a constant velocity at the beginning of the video, the sudden stop in its vertical ascent, the rapid right angle turn with large acceleration just before it went away and the lack of effect of these accelerations on the continuous rocking motion.
Finally, it is hard to imagine that the unsuspecting witnesses would not realize they were just seeing (and hearing?) some motorized blimp or a balloon dragged by the wind.
Alternative hoax hypotheses that do not involve a full scale model are based on the assumption that the witnesses dont count. Either they were all delusional or part of the hoax conspiracy.
One possibility is that a several inch sized, motorized MUFO (model UFO) was videotaped inside a room in real time while the MUFO was moved past a window with a camera looking through the window at the background scene.
In order to make the MUFO appear to go behind the real building out there it would be necessary to have inside the room a flat model of the building which would be slightly closer to the camera than the model itself so the model could move behind it.
Of course, the edges of the model building would have to be perfectly aligned with the edges of the real building as seen from the camera and this alignment would have to be maintained throughout the video despite the camera jiggle, something that would be difficult to do.
There are many other details of this hypothetical MUFO method which would make it both time consuming and expensive although probably not impossible.
An alternative is a rear screen projection method in which a stationary view of the whole background scene from farthest left to farthest right is projected onto the front side of a large screen (i.e., the projector is on the same side as the video camera that records the scene). This screen is assumed to be translucent rather than opaque. There is also a projector on the opposite side of the screen (rear projection) which creates a movable and dynamic image of a UO on the other side of the screen. Because the screen is translucent some of the UO image leaks through the screen. Thus the UO image can be videotaped along with the front projection of the real scene. The UO image is then moved sideways to create periodic tilting, rotation, acceleration, steady motion to the right, etc., while the hand held video camera follows the image, thereby recording (a photograph of) the real scene with the supposed UO moving against the sky background. It would be necessary to place an opaque mask with the shape (outline) of the buildings at the rear of the screen to block the UO image from the rear projector at the locations where it seems to be behind the building. This method, while perhaps not as difficult as the MUFO method described above, would still require considerable effort and equipment.
Finally one must consider the all-out electronic fake.
In this case one might imagine that the cameraman videotaped the background scene with a handheld camera to make it look as if he were following the path of a True UFO that hovered for a few seconds and then moved across the scene. Then the computer graphics geniuses would create a classic UFO shape and make it appear to rotate and oscillate (tilt) at a steady rate. Then they would have to analyze the random camera jiggle motion of the background scene on a field by field basis. (Note: an alternative would be to have the camerman videotape the scene with the camera on a tripod and then the computer geniuses would add a synthetic camera jiggle later on.) Then on a field by field basis they would have to place the EUFO image on top of the background scene (hazy sky) in such a way that the EUFO would appear to move in a manner consistent with the motion of True UFOs. Finally, after about 1440 fields of EUFO video had been generated in this way the geniuses would be finished, since the last 11 seconds of the video dont show the EUFO.
Considering the number of possibilities for faking this video in a studio I would have to say that if Stephen Spielberg had given me this video I would have asked if he had been talking to George Lucas recently!
On the other hand, if the witnesses are credible these methods can be tossed out the window.
WOODOK, 30/12/2010 15.07:
Cito da un link. Per la serie, Noi che proviamo ad oscurare le ricerche degli ufologi attivi ![[SM=g8888]](https://im0.freeforumzone.it/up/0/88/5297248.gif)
Una posizione neutrale è quella assunta da Bruce Maccabee fisico ottico per la divisione Armi di Superficie della Marina Militare americana. Questi, vista la scarsa qualità delle immagini a sua disposizione, non ha potuto condurre un serio lavoro di analisi del video. Dalle sue prime stime "la velocità corretta (usando il coefficiente di ingrandimento) 16.9/0.425 = 39.7 piedi/sec (11.9 m/sec.). Il cambiamento di velocità (da zero a 39.7 piedi/sec.) sembra compiersi in 1 fotogramma del filmato non ingrandito. Da questo, si deduce che l'accelerazione è pari a 39.7 (1.30) = 1191 piedi/sec^2), che corrisponde a 37 g's (g = 32 piedi/sec^2). Se l'accelerazione si fosse compiuta in 2 fotogrammi, il suo valore sarebbe stato la metà di quello appena ottenuto". Maccabee, inoltre, avrebbe saputo, da fonti non ufficiali, che l'autore del filmato sarebbe noto, che la versione originale esiste e che ci sono altri nove testimoni
----------Fire1969----------
======================
CGI...((--000--))...non UFO. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
