:: HispaVista :: Correo :: Mensaje para ummo@hispavista.com


ummo@hispavista.com	Estás en la carpeta: Bandeja de Entrada
Responder \| Responder a todos \| Reenviar \| Marcar como destacado \| Siguiente no leído \| Borrar

De: Javier Fraile Peláez <jfraile@com.uvigo.es>
Asunto: [ummo.sciences] [OT: Off-Topic] [NYC UFO video] [UTIL]
Fecha: Jue, 9 Ene 2003 16:58:51 +0100
Para: <ummo.sciences@youhaveadream.org>

Sorry for this little distraction from the 'ummo.sciences' main corpus...    Time ago there was a controversy (in this group) about the authenticity of the dramatic TV movie showing a UFO maneouvring around NYC's World Trade Center. The release of the video clip inmmediatly triggered statements of suspiction and claims of it being "a well-known hoax that had been around on the Web for long," etc, etc, etc.    My intention is not provoking further discussing the topic: I just want to provide two analysis of the images that I found, so everyone can judge by himself.     (I'm not sure, but I'm afraid the .mht files can only be opened with Explorer, but not with Netscape.)    Amicalement,                      Javier Fraile

De: <Guardado por Microsoft Internet Explorer 5>
Asunto: Analysis of VIDEO SHOT OF UFO AT WORLD TRADE CENTER PRE 911!
Fecha: Sab, 2 Nov 2002 01:33:11 +0100

Analysis of VIDEO SHOT OF UFO AT WORLD TRADE CENTER PRE 911!

ANALYSIS OF VIDEO OF UFO AT WTC PRE 911!
No clear signs of Digital manipulation!

Jerri DeAngelo - Lead Special Effects Creator Adoni Productions
Video Analysis of WTC UFO for Real UFOS .com
May 29th 2002
Opinion on authenticity of video file known as WTC UFO.
I am the lead special effects creator for Adoni Productions.
I have veiwed over 600 frames of the video file known as THE WTC UFO. I veiwed it many times frame by frame, the file is approximately 20 seconds in lenght in .mov format rendered at approximately 30 FPS (frames per second)
The video was clearly shot in one take where a 180 degree view of the Manhattan skyline was shot from inside a helicopter.
At various times throughout the video, the helicopter rolls from side to side, the skyline is observed in a manner consistent with a live shot.
As the camera moves or zooms in on an object there is no clear manipulation of the video through a digital effect.
Objects remain consistent with a live panoramic sweep outside and inside the helicopter.
There is no evidence of editing this shot, as to splicing together multiple takes or digital creations.
The sound is synched perfectly to the video.
Certain anomalies appear in the frames that are consistent with an auto focus home use video camera.
The camera used was not a professional level video camera in my opinion, although it did work out very well for this shot.
The shot starts off with a north westerly view of the Manhattan Skyline in which the World Trade Center is clearly visible.
A small object is viewable near the North Tower at the approximate height where the second plane crashed into the WTC on 911.
Once the small object appears on the screen, the female in the video asks what is that while pointing to the small image near the WTC.
The cameraman zooms in and a UFO is seen hovering near the WTC.
Normal auto focus anomalies appear in the frames due to auto focus stabilization abilities the camera obviously has.
The UFO then heads easterly in front of the helicopter, a blurry sequence of frames then appear with blurred images of objects inside and outside the helicopter.
These features are consistent with a continuous live shot made in one take, it would be impossible to correctly blur every object inside and outside the helicopter if this was a created effect.
While such a move could be created by a high priced studio, tell tale signs of editing such a created sequence would be obvious under high resolution.
Such created scene anomalies are not in this sequence of events.
High Resolution analysis of created video or digital effects using even advanced equipment that is available, all show a clear drop into a scene where an object materializes.
At normal viewing speeds these anomalies are not viewable.
And they do not appear in this video.
Here is a dropped in image from Spiderman using THE LATEST GREATEST DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY. It looks great!

Yet, it is easy to see a change in pixelation as soon as you magnify the image a little proving the Spiderman image was dropped into the photo!!

Again, this pixelation difference is NOT IN THE WTC VIDEO!
The cameraman eventually relocates the image at a far distance viewing a north easterly landscape of Manhattan.
Within a few frames the UFO heads to the front of the helicopter where an amazingly clear closeup of the UFO is taken!
The UFO then heads right up into orbit. A view of the UFO heading into orbit is seen since the helicopter has a clear roof.
To summarize, what this video displays is a panoramic view of Manhattan pre-911.
It is a single shot one take view of the Manhattan skyline.
It features a focused north westerly view of Manhattan including the WTC, a blurred northerly view of Manhattan, a focused north easterly view of Manhattan and finally a easterly view of the sky.
Super high resolution analysis of the UFO in many frames shows the outline of the craft has a pixalation degradation consistent with other objects in the frames.
This match is impossible to get consistently in a digital manipulation.
The dropped in object always has a different pixalation degration at high resolutions compared to the background scene.
While someone could have theoretically taken a helicopter ride in Manhattan PRE 911 and pointed to the EXACT LOCATION where a future video would later be taken of a world famous airplane crash and then digitally dropped a fake UFO into hundreds of frames matching pixalation degradation perfectly in every frame. I doubt this was done or is even possible using the most advanced special effect equipment and computers available today.
The technology to do this manipulation so expertly does not exist, or at least I have never seen or heard of such an advanced piece of equipment.
Also, to have the shot match the target zone of where the second plane crashed, is just so far beyond the realm of chance, that I wouldn't even try to estimate how unlikely it would have been.
In my opinion, this video is clearly an approximately 20 second - one take - one camera shot - of an object navigating at incredible speeds with such precision it can come to within feet of a target and do a 90 degree vertical turn!
This video has no clear digital editing of images.
This video has no clear digital special effects added to it.
It is simply an amazing raw footage of a UFO at a now infamous historical location over the most famous city in the world!
These are some samples of what I mean by High Resolution Pixel Degradation.
This is a normal resolution of the UFO near the WTC.

This is a high resolution close up of the UFO and the object near it, the WTC. Note how the SQUARE PIXELS and even the color match perfectly. This is what I call pixel degradation. If an image is not altered then the pixelation of objects of similar distance have the same look at high resolutions.

Now here is stealth bomber model I dropped into the photo.

As soon as I view it at high resolution the drop in image does not match the surrounding pixelation degradation.

If this video is fake, I'm sure either Spielberg or Lucas will offer the person a partnership and the video should win an Oscar for Special Effects.
Our advanced but limited technology cannot fake such an video this perfectly yet.

12088

De: <Guardado por Microsoft Internet Explorer 5>
Asunto: TV:SCI FI Channel:SCIFI Happens:About NY UFO Criticisms
Fecha: Sab, 2 Nov 2002 01:40:59 +0100

TV:SCI FI Channel:SCIFI Happens:About NY UFO Criticisms

Attention SCIFI.COM members. We are currently working on a new BBoard system. This change will be more than the upgrade of the past. We are building a whole new system from the ground up. If you have any suggestions or features you would like to see in the new BBoard, please e-mail them to, bboard@www.scifi.com.

TV »

SCI FI Channel »

SCIFI Happens »

About NY UFO Criticisms

Date: 07/26/2001
From: DBraun

I have been employed by a major defense contractor in the aerospace industry for almost 20 years. I work on a classified government project and am around military high-performance aircraft quite a bit, and I believe the NY UFO video is authentic.

I would like to initially offer some commentary on the criticisms presented (w/numbered still photos) available at:
http://www.geocities.com/tsakali77/HTMLs/UFO.htm

Critic: Frame 527 top of object is sunlit, but not in Frame 528.
Rebut: In 528 object is beginning to bank upward exposing it's underside - top not visible.

The definition of the craft's image is also not distinct in 528; possibly due to a unique combination of speed, (focus) and angular transition at that specific distance from the camera.

Critic: Frame 529 top is visible again.
Rebut: This is actually the sunlit edge, not the top.

Critic: Frame 535 horizon mis-match between two adjoining windows.
Rebut: The windows in the helicopter are not flat, but contoured slightly. This in itself can cause some distortion around the edges. Also the two windows are not on the exact same geometric plane as each other, which can further exacerbate any distortion. Notice that the left-to-right horizons in frames 527/528 DO tend to transition to the fuzzy quality of 535.

Critic: Frame 536 different sky-tones between two windows.
Rebut: This is not unusual at all, particularly because of the different planar and reflective qualities as mentioned before. I've used Adobe Photoshop quite a bit, and anyone who has done any retouch work knows that even in an ordinary picture, where the sky appears to have a uniform appearance, you find it just isn't so when you try to clone an area into another area even closely adjacent. At 30 frames/second (each being 1/60 sec.) a video camera can attempt to make all kinds transitional compensations especially when you're moving the camera quickly too.

Critic: Object appears lower in Frame 538 than 537.
Rebut: A closer look reveals the beginning of what appears to be the top curvature of the helicopter's window frame coming into view in 538. The object hasn't moved lower; the camera has moved HIGHER.

Keep in mind that the helicopter itself is probably not in a perfect hover, which will further distort the apparent relative motion of any other moving object.

Critic: Frame 539 sudden appearance of "smoke" trail not visible in 538.
Rebut: 538 is not a real clear frame, and the beginning of a contrail may be present, but not yet formed up. As quick as the object is, I don't believe it actually goes supersonic in the video, (about 650 mph) except perhaps after getting fully vertical.

This type of low-altitude contrail is not caused by heat, (friction) or warm exhaust (in cold high-altitude air) as some might suspect, and I've seen it many times. When the fighters at our base take off in summer (humid) conditions and decide to do a little showing-off, they'll pull high "G"s off the end of the runway, (going into a hard vertical turn) and the sudden contrails are caused by the extreme low air pressure generated over the wing's upper surface. It literally sucks the existent humidity out of the surrounding air and makes it visible. When the airplane's flight-path straightens out, or even lessens, the contrail abruptly stops, even if speed is maintained. This is what I believe is happening in the video (notice the contrail stops when the object's trajectory becomes vertically flatter). The turn is incredible violent, and I don't think a hoaxster would have even known to put a contrail in under those conditions, much less one that was so intense, as those are hard to make.

Some of the other criticisms I've read include the helicopters noise level not being high enough:
Our local TV weather/traffic anchor-person pilot frequently reports "live" from his (similar type) helicopter, and is able to talk normally into the mike on his headset, while the onboard cameraman films him from a standing position perched on one of the chopper's skids! He has a safety harness, of course.

The UFO appears merged with the edge of the World Trade Center tower:
An illusion caused by atmospheric (humidity) conditions, and the "anti-aliasing" (blending) properties of photographic images.

Girl seems to know where it is too soon:
Actually they apparently had noticed it prior to the beginning of the clip we saw, and knew it was still somewhere off to their left. Then it discreetly is seen passing between the two towers, before it peers out from around the buildings edge (like cat and mouse, and getting ready to put on "a little show"). Then she says, "what's that?" (…as in "is THAT it?"). ZING!! It shoots across the sky, fully aware it's being watched. She points and says, "It's over there!" Directing the guy with the video in which way to go, in case he missed it while watching through the viewfinder - she's being his "spotter."

Also, notice how her forehead is constantly wrinkled. This is what people do when something exciting and unexpected is happening (stress).

UFO appeared much bigger when passing between the building's towers than when up close:
I believe this one was probably at least 30 feet in diameter. That's a commonly reported size. The illusion is that it looks much smaller when it makes it's pass at the helicopter. I don't believe it came as close as our eyes would have us believe, because: it would have hit the rotor, or at least shook the helicopter noticeably at that speed.

We're not used to seeing things that big flip around so effortlessly. Take a look at Frame 529 again, and consider that you may be looking at something that is still at least 100, or more, feet away.

I welcome any commentary on my analysis

D. Braun

Reply Title Created by Beginning Text

1. UFO Redux 08/13/2001 techrider My take on this is thus:

Total Crap Bug video obviously fake

Post Reply for: About NY UFO Criticisms