Startling Footage of a Triangle Craft over the Netherlands
Published on 29 Oct 2013QuoteDon't be fooled by the apparent lack of action.
Thank you American Kabuki for sharing. If that's a TR-3B, they seem to have mastered the Galactics' propulsion/navigation techniques.
This triangle shaped object was sighted near Amsterdam in Wormeveer, Netherlands. The film-maker discovered it to the east outside the village. Since it was windy he first thought at a kite. But it looked larger on the sky and it looked like made of some sort of metal. Also a string was not seen. The object did absolutely not move like a kite. As afterwards the object suddenly flew away lightning fast the film-maker was scared. It is again an UFO in a triangle shape, which often is seen in the year 2013.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKuYNtg7M0s
The perspective looks wrong, the sound (and the time it takes to reach the camera) looks wrong.
I don't think that's real.
The camera pans before the object moves at the end. Set up.
Thread Killers :P
What is wrong with the perspective? Can you please suppy details?
Why would the time from object to camera be off, please explain the amount of time and calculate the distance. Like Lightning it should be delayed.
Sarge, I can't see the video yet, what is the problem with a hand held camera moving before it moves, did he get lucky. It is a 50/50 change right or left.
More to come,
Deuem, I need the HD video.
any good posting the link Deuem?
be interesting to put this one to bed it does look dodgy.
there is like pixelation when the 'craft' shoots to one side where it was?
and you can see the sun glint off the 'craft'
yes it could be CGI and it probably is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=KKuYNtg7M0s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=KKuYNtg7M0s)
I swear I hate Hoaxers! >:( there not even funny.
post a clever bit of CGI? just say so!! so sick of all the BS >:(
When the vid is slowed down at the end, the camera is panned to the left to catch the 'craft' zooming away 'before' the craft moves as the cameraman is expecting it to zoom away in that direction.
Sorry Z
Quote from: deuem on November 03, 2013, 07:16:04 AM
What is wrong with the perspective? Can you please suppy details?
The object appears to be moving away from the camera but the perspective doesn't change as it should, as the object gets farther away we should see it more from the side than from below.
QuoteWhy would the time from object to camera be off, please explain the amount of time and calculate the distance. Like Lightning it should be delayed.
Sorry, my mistake, I didn't use the headphones to watch the video and I thought that the sound I heard was (supposedly) from the object, now that I heard it with the headphones I noticed is not.
QuoteDeuem, I need the HD video.
Does this work? :)
http://ssyoutube.com/watch?v=KKuYNtg7M0s
Ok After many times I managed to get the 720 version. Any Deuem work should be done on the 1080.
Now as far a perspective I did not see a problem, It did get smaller as it driffted away and he was zooming in on it very slowly. At a point he back zoomed and it became very small in the frame.
The UFO looks like it lost its floating field and could not remain level so they kicked in the main flight drive unit and took off.
Sarge The video has 3 sections. The original section where it took off is not panned at all, unless I missed something. Section 2 has a close up of the final burst on it goes off screen left, Section 3 is a computer control pan and "follow vid" of the UFO taking off. It is not a pre-arranged pan.
So I just watched 3 sections. The 1 close ups and pan are right neer the end. I can not pick up any noise from the UFO, It seems like all the noise is local traffic.
This is not a dead issue yet. Still working on it. Need to get the 1080 version for best results.
When working a white UFO it is very difficult to do and easier to fake so they take a lot of time and a series of frames neeeds to be evaluated to make any sense from a video. From frame to frame it can overpower even Deuem.
We will see, Sarge I would like to ask you if you just looked at the end and judged your remark or did you watch it through and see the 3 parts? I find no pan in the original....
This is a fun one........Someone get a cheep plastic ruler and measure the UFO in frame, from frame to frame and you will see it gets smaller. A clear 12 inch ruler was my first research tool, Second came a calculator and 3rd clear mylar taped to the screen to write on. They are very cheep but you can track the flight path and size. run the math and see what you get per frame. Do this with about 5 cents in waste.
Maybe UFO school on a budget is needed...
Deuem
Quote from: stealthyaroura on November 03, 2013, 05:50:38 PM
any good posting the link Deuem?
be interesting to put this one to bed it does look dodgy.
there is like pixelation when the 'craft' shoots to one side where it was?
and you can see the sun glint off the 'craft'
yes it could be CGI and it probably is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=KKuYNtg7M0s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=KKuYNtg7M0s)
I swear I hate Hoaxers! >:( there not even funny.
post a clever bit of CGI? just say so!! so sick of all the BS >:(
Hi, This is a good project to tackle. I am currently working with another team member on it behind the curtain. I have only processed 1, 1080 frame and it was a screen grab, not a frame grab. So I need frame grabs at 1080 with all the details that go along with it.
In the really good CGI world like Lucas, they do their best to make it a very clean job. Seems the cheeper you go the worse the CGI gets and other tell tails show up.
One of the things I talk about is atmospreric interference. On a CGI model they just add blur or motion blur and that shows up pretty fast. But why or how a CGI person can figure out what I do and then lay in interference in all the right places way beyond the craft is beyond my CGI knowledage. It is either there or not there.
This interference also should follow some laws. Where the bow wake is, how did it cut clouds, What does the trail look like and so on. Nobel gasses are the key, track them to figure it out.
More to come.....
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on November 04, 2013, 01:02:30 AM
Ok After many times I managed to get the 720 version. Any Deuem work should be done on the 1080.
See if this (http://armap.no-ip.org/armap/pegasus/Triangular%20UFO%20over%20Amsterdam,%20Netherlands%20on%2010-28-2013.mp4) works. :)
QuoteNow as far a perspective I did not see a problem, It did get smaller as it driffted away and he was zooming in on it very slowly. At a point he back zoomed and it became very small in the frame.
The problem is not the apparent size of the UFO, it's the position as seen from the camera; as it looks like it is getting relatively far from the camera it should appear as seen more from the side than from below.
QuoteSarge The video has 3 sections. The original section where it took off is not panned at all, unless I missed something. Section 2 has a close up of the final burst on it goes off screen left, Section 3 is a computer control pan and "follow vid" of the UFO taking off. It is not a pre-arranged pan.
I think you're right, the last section looks like a stabilized version of the end of the first section.
QuoteThis is a fun one........Someone get a cheep plastic ruler and measure the UFO in frame, from frame to frame and you will see it gets smaller. A clear 12 inch ruler was my first research tool, Second came a calculator and 3rd clear mylar taped to the screen to write on. They are very cheep but you can track the flight path and size. run the math and see what you get per frame. Do this with about 5 cents in waste.
Maybe UFO school on a budget is needed...
Or you can grab a frame from the video, paste it on your favourite image editor and measure it. :)
The side of the triangle on the first frame is (more or less, it's hard to get a clear measurement, as the image is not sharp) 48 pixels. At 1:30.09, when the triangle has one edge parallel to the bottom of the frame, that edge measures the same 48 pixels.
PS: I used the downloaded 1080 version of the video, Avidemux to see the video frame by frame and Paint Shop Pro to measure the triangle.
The link is doing something very very slow. Maybe have to wait a day or two.
I wrote about the ruler and mylar to let beginners know that they can do something without spending money or getting into the high tech we use. Many people stay on the side lines because they are not trained in the programs we use. I know many are free but then they have to self train. A lot of people stop rigth there.
We have what 500 members, how many work UFOs? A small handful. How many want to but can't? The note was for them. For you I expect you to know all of the programs we can use for free and bring them to the table. People might grab them and try it.
If you can't get a good measurement then wand it and do a pixel count frame to frame. The quantity should get lower as long as it stays flat. If a nose dips then the count would go up. As far at it going from a flat view to an on edge view with a craft that large it would need to move a great distance. Maybe a half mile or more. I never saw it more more than a few hundred feet.
I can now watch planes take off every day and they have to travel a few milles before I get a tail view and lose the side view. They just get smaller at first. But I have that same similar side view for at least 1 or more miles. just smaller and a little angled.
The video is of a rotating triangle that is turning and dipping and he is zooming. Perspective is all over the place. I don't even know where to start on where it is. Would have to track a position I gave it and see how that point moves. Can you apply a point and track it? Or even better apply 3 points and track them? Add 3 points over the video so we can motion track the UFO.. Now that would be cool to see.
Glad you found the 3rd section. Waiting for Sarge to chime in and see what he says... Oh Sarge?
Did the guy who took the video post the video?
Fakers follow a path and usually have other fake videos. Sometimes hundreds.
Is the man available for questions?
Was there any info posted, time of day, area, camera, any details?
If a real sighting, other details are needed to fill in the blanks.
Calling a UFO a fake with just a quick responce is like shoting your wife because you saw her in a bait and tackle store talking with another man and then after you shot her a new custom fishing pole shows up on you birthday.
So even if it is fake then how did they do it and can one of us duplicate it exactly? Otherwise what did we learn for the next one? Will that duplicate match in Deuem? I want to process it, if only to learn what to look for.
Deuem, more to come...........
ps it is getting time for another new keyboard, my keys are sticking and causing typos.
Quote from: deuem on November 04, 2013, 02:23:41 AM
The link is doing something very very slow. Maybe have to wait a day or two.
The link I posted on my last post is for my server, that's why it's slow, but it shouldn't be that slow. :(
QuoteI wrote about the ruler and mylar to let beginners know that they can do something without spending money or getting into the high tech we use. Many people stay on the side lines because they are not trained in the programs we use. I know many are free but then they have to self train. A lot of people stop rigth there.
As someone that always wants to learn more I forget about the people that do not want or have the time for it, luckily you thought of them. :)
QuoteAs far at it going from a flat view to an on edge view with a craft that large it would need to move a great distance. Maybe a half mile or more. I never saw it more more than a few hundred feet.
Not really, perspective is noticeable for small changes, although most people do not understand it.
QuoteCan you apply a point and track it? Or even better apply 3 points and track them? Add 3 points over the video so we can motion track the UFO.. Now that would be cool to see.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that. ???
QuoteFakers follow a path and usually have other fake videos. Sometimes hundreds.
Is the man available for questions?
Was there any info posted, time of day, area, camera, any details?
If a real sighting, other details are needed to fill in the blanks.
This is what they have about the YouTube channel.
UFOFilesTV is a "Latest UFO" channel on YouTube. Our goal is it to upload real UFO sightings because with today's modern Computer technology you can fake many things. Video Agency of Audio Color World own all distribution rights of the uploaded videos on our YouTube channel. If you like to use videos for uploads or commercial use please contact "info@videoagency.audiocolorworld.com".
QuoteCalling a UFO a fake with just a quick responce is like shoting your wife because you saw her in a bait and tackle store talking with another man and then after you shot her a new custom fishing pole shows up on you birthday.
It depends on how that quick response was obtained, a quick response based on many years of training is not the same as a quick response based on nothing.
QuoteSo even if it is fake then how did they do it and can one of us duplicate it exactly? Otherwise what did we learn for the next one? Will that duplicate match in Deuem? I want to process it, if only to learn what to look for.
Apparently, many people use Adobe After Effects, but I don't have it or know how to use it.
Deuem says; study the video from 1.14 to 1.23 plus
What do you see ?I'm not telling!
Figure it out !
CGI ?
ArMaP wrote: "It depends on how that quick response was obtained, a quick response based on many years of training is not the same as a quick response based on nothing."
What years of traing? And trained by who?
And yea, a responce in text with nothing to back it up is still nothing. My kid could have writen that and it would have meant the same thing to a reader
If you say it is out of perspecive, please prove it for us silly Deuems.
To me the perspective is alright. You say it is moving away I say it is falling and he is zooming in and out.
I will wait for your trained proof if you don't mind.
The words "I say" are just text, as thy say, "Show me the money"
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on November 05, 2013, 03:03:09 AM
What years of traing? And trained by who?
"Training" was not the right word, I should have said experience.
QuoteAnd yea, a responce in text with nothing to back it up is still nothing.
I think they call these things "opinions". :)
QuoteIf you say it is out of perspecive, please prove it for us silly Deuems.
To me the perspective is alright. You say it is moving away I say it is falling and he is zooming in and out.
I think the object is (apparently) moving away because of the way the clouds change, to me they look more like the same type of clouds, only farther away.
For a falling object I would expect the clouds would change faster, as a difference in altitude would result in a bigger difference in the clouds, the angle between the direction the camera points to and the ground would change faster than if the object is moving away.
Without any references besides the moving clouds is hard to distinguish between one possibility and the other.
There's no zooming during the first 1:33.5, when he zooms out.
QuoteThe words "I say" are just text, as thy say, "Show me the money"
Those are also just words. :)
I say it is falling. Do a work up on the sky and see which way the camera really moved. Measure the size of the craft for that first section up to the large zoom.
I say sorry because on this one opinions should be held back until proof is shown.
It is not like it is the Goodyear blimp up there and any easy 1 - 2 - 3 strikes their out deal.
This video may just be the real deal of a craft that was caught in trouble, losing its hover abilities and then warped out so not to hit the ground a minute later. The object looks to me that it CW cork screwed in at a slow rate. Not a 100% failure but enough to make them panic a bit.
I am not posting anything because I am following you and I want to see where you are going to bring us on this vid. Did you even look at that section I wrote about. I see no notes..
UFO research needs a lot more than opinions. Did you run your PMV of at least 1 frame? If so why not. It will show you something. Now go do several frames where it powers up. What do you get?
Did you do any Math on the size over frames.
Any Math on the fall rate?
Any photo stiching or PMV work or do you just like to toss the baby out with the water.
Did you try to duplicate it with CGI?
There are many things to do if you really want to be a researcher. Do nothing and your a cheerleader. On the side lines out of the game, just making noise. What do you really want to be?
I can only lead you to the water...................
Waiting,
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on November 06, 2013, 12:29:41 AM
I say it is falling.
It's possible.
QuoteDo a work up on the sky and see which way the camera really moved.
With only the moving clouds we do not have real reference points, and an object higher than the camera, moving away horizontally would result in a video similar to one of the same object higher than the moving vertically down, the only difference would be the rate at which the size and perspective change.
QuoteMeasure the size of the craft for that first section up to the large zoom.
I already did and posted the result.
QuoteThis video may just be the real deal of a craft that was caught in trouble, losing its hover abilities and then warped out so not to hit the ground a minute later. The object looks to me that it CW cork screwed in at a slow rate. Not a 100% failure but enough to make them panic a bit.
I suppose that's also an opinion, but one that does not need any proof. ;)
QuoteDid you even look at that section I wrote about. I see no notes..
What section, the "1.14 to 1.23"?
QuoteUFO research needs a lot more than opinions.
I agree.
QuoteDid you run your PMV of at least 1 frame? If so why not. It will show you something. Now go do several frames where it powers up. What do you get?
I did not run my PMV on any frame, and that's because the result of the PMV doesn't show any of the things I am interested in, it only enhances the differences in colours/brightness of the image.
And I forgot about it. ;D
QuoteDid you do any Math on the size over frames.
No.
QuoteAny Math on the fall rate?
What fall rate? For that we would need fixed references.
QuoteAny photo stiching or PMV work or do you just like to toss the baby out with the water.
No, I just like to think about things before wasting my time with things that result in nothing.
QuoteDid you try to duplicate it with CGI?
No, I don't have any software for trying to duplicate it.
QuoteThere are many things to do if you really want to be a researcher.
I agree.
QuoteDo nothing and your a cheerleader. On the side lines out of the game, just making noise. What do you really want to be?
I want to be myself (and never pretended to want anything else), someone that is interested in this subject but not enough to use more of my time with it than I already do unless I see an opportunity of learning something new.
Quote<blockquote>Deuem: Do a work up on the sky and see which way the camera really moved.</blockquote> ArMaP:With only the moving clouds we do not have real reference points, and an object higher than the camera, moving away horizontally would result in a video similar to one of the same object higher than the moving vertically down, the only difference would be the rate at which the size and perspective change.
You wrote the answer but did not act on it.. The answer is the clouds. I did it, now you try...
You can match the clouds in a program by laying them out like cards on a table. You just need a little kick to get started. Go try it and see what you get. Like a panarama. You need to think out of your box on this one...
So which way will the cards stack up, Right to left, left to right, up to down, down to up ?
After you figure it out, let us know. See if I do it, I think I will take some heat, If you do it, the heat will be your own and you will learn it can be done...Now go stich some clouds. To Sarge, I did mine in CAD but any program will work in which you can place many photos. Think playing cards....
AMP
QuoteWhat section, the "1.14 to 1.23"?
1.23 plus.....
Yes, again think out of you contained box. Like a magic show, look here while I do this there.
Forget the UFO and tell me what you can see. For those who have no computer magic, just cover the UFO with a slip of paper about that size and follow it by blocking it out of your vision. Hold the slip on the down side, the action is on the top. You may have to do this many times but it will hit you sooner than later. The "whala" moment....
Now what did you see? ??? ??? Forget the UFO.... Is this CGI ? I don't think so.....It is one of those things you have to see for youeself to understand. If I point it out, I am the nutter. Keep looking, got it yet?
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on November 06, 2013, 04:10:51 AM
You can match the clouds in a program by laying them out like cards on a table. You just need a little kick to get started. Go try it and see what you get. Like a panarama. You need to think out of your box on this one...
So which way will the cards stack up, Right to left, left to right, up to down, down to up ?
Without doing it (I don't have the time right now, I'm on my lunch break) I think the "cards" will stack from up to down and from left to right.
QuoteAfter you figure it out, let us know. See if I do it, I think I will take some heat, If you do it, the heat will be your own and you will learn it can be done...
You wouldn't get any heat from me, just my opinion. :)
Quote from: deuem on November 06, 2013, 04:43:58 AM
Forget the UFO and tell me what you can see.
Clouds. :)
No "voilá" moment for me.
QuoteIs this CGI ? I don't think so.....It is one of those things you have to see for youeself to understand.
I think the triangle is the only thing that may be CGI.
QuoteIf I point it out, I am the nutter.
No, you are the one pointing something that may or may not be interpreted in the same way (opinions again) by other people. :)
Quote<blockquote>Forget the UFO and tell me what you can see.</blockquote> Clouds. (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
No "voilá" moment for me.
Do you need me to send you a box cutter to help you out your box. Armap, you have to think outside the UFO and really think about what you are seeing happen. Think actio/reaction clue 3 use the 1080 vid for this. It is cleaner. but you can see it on the 720. Thats where I saw it first. clue 4 swooosh
Deuem
I think its real.a hoaxer wouldnt put the glints from the sunlight in it.also it looks like the camera was pointed up high and slowly arched over to the east more.its invisibility isnt working either.i go along with the theory that the craft doesnt have its invisibility/hover engines just its rear thrusters.so to gain altitude he has to use its thrusters and the shape of the craft to gain altitude.that craft is in desparate need of maintenance.
Being white instead of black tells me this craft was designed to be parked in a snow region instead of for use in black ops.my guess is its russian.this would explain the poor performance.lol.imho.
Quote from: deuem on November 06, 2013, 02:12:42 PM
Do you need me to send you a box cutter to help you out your box. Armap, you have to think outside the UFO and really think about what you are seeing happen.
I always do, and I hate that box reference, I always see it as a way of the person that uses to feel better than the other.
QuoteThink actio/reaction clue 3 use the 1080 vid for this. It is cleaner. but you can see it on the 720. Thats where I saw it first. clue 4 swooosh
I don't like riddles.
Ok no box huh, How about blinders, Take the blinders off. It is not about feeling better that the next person it is just a reference to think harder, Non contained. Ok your a programmer, think out of the program that somone else wrote. Don't use their rules//
Quote
Think action/reaction, clue 3 use the 1080 vid for this. It is cleaner. but you can see it on the 720. Thats where I saw it first. clue 4 swooosh
I don't like riddles.
How do you see this as a riddle. It is more like bread crumbs. Dropping clues is a way to find things.
action reaction is an engineering term not a riddle. Swooosh is a basket ball term. When Ever i use Deuem terms you don't understand me. A riddle is more like "What's black and white and re[a]d all over?" I did not write a riddle. Just clues.
Maybe it is harder to see than I thought. I can pick it up across the desk....Those Deuem eyes might see things others can't. Try again and look up. "Look up" is a dirrection not a riddle so I hope it passes. clue 5 The clouds, the clouds look at the clouds............
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on November 06, 2013, 10:49:57 PM
Ok no box huh, How about blinders, Take the blinders off. It is not about feeling better that the next person it is just a reference to think harder, Non contained. Ok your a programmer, think out of the program that somone else wrote. Don't use their rules//
To me that sounds the same, like a thought that I (in this case) am limited in some way while you (in this case) are not. That's why I don't like any of those comparisons, we can never be sure of what the other person is thinking, we may have the same idea but only different ways of talking about it.
QuoteHow do you see this as a riddle.
I see it as a riddle because you know the answer and instead of being clear about it you just talk about it while trying to avoid saying it (whatever it may be).
QuoteIt is more like bread crumbs. Dropping clues is a way to find things.
Yes, it's like bread crumbs, but why doing it? It's just a waste of time, if you know what you need to say, why don't you say it? That's why I see it more as a riddle.
Quoteaction reaction is an engineering term not a riddle.
I'm not an engineer.
QuoteSwooosh is a basket ball term.
I don't like basketball.
QuoteWhen Ever i use Deuem terms you don't understand me.
Most of the times I understand what you mean, but I cannot be sure if I do, as those are words/expressions that I am not used to read/hear. And it doesn't happen just with you.
QuoteThe clouds, the clouds look at the clouds............
I told you, if I ignore the triangle I see only the clouds. Is there anything there besides the clouds and the triangle?
QuoteI told you, if I ignore the triangle I see only the clouds. Is there anything there besides the clouds and the triangle?
NO ! and it's not the triangle....
Quote
To me that sounds the same, like a thought that I (in this case) am limited in some way while you (in this case) are not.
Yes !
You have never heard of the saying "For every action there is an equal and oppisite reaction" I find that hard to believe in this day and age. Maybe the word has not speread out to you area yet.
clue 6 Look for the re-action to the action.
See, if you can find it yourself you will respect your own judgement over mine for sure. This is not a Deuem thing, It is in the video, plain to see if you can pick it out. Think re-action "clouds"
This also happens late in the video where it warps out but it could be CGI there and easy to do. If it is CGI at 1 23 then I would like to anyone duplicate it so I could learn how they did it.
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on November 07, 2013, 12:25:43 AM
NO ! and it's not the triangle....
Well, I don't see anything else on the video, only clouds, the triangle and the sky.
QuoteYou have never heard of the saying "For every action there is an equal and oppisite reaction"
I have, that's at least as old as Newton. :)
QuoteSee, if you can find it yourself you will respect your own judgement over mine for sure.
No, a judgement is a judgement, I respect them all, regardless of who they come from, why would I respect one more than the other? ???
Deuem I think you may be referring to what I called pixelation?
When the craft bolts it leaves an after effect where it was like maybe a signature of sorts?
I can't see the point of adding it as cgi ?
The same effect is there where the craft zooms too as well.
It does appear to be tumbling aswell. I am inclined to say this is a real object.
Restricted to a phone so I can't do much to analyse it.
I "stacked the cards" for most of the video and the "cards" stacked from top to bottom, from left to right, but then they "moved" a little from right to left.
Considering that the clouds are moving from right to left at an unknown velocity, how can we know if the object is moving from right to left or vice-versa?
Quote from: stealthyaroura on November 10, 2013, 07:13:19 PM
Deuem I think you may be referring to what I called pixelation?
When the craft bolts it leaves an after effect where it was like maybe a signature of sorts?
I can't see the point of adding it as cgi ?
The same effect is there where the craft zooms too as well.
It does appear to be tumbling aswell. I am inclined to say this is a real object.
Restricted to a phone so I can't do much to analyse it.
Deuem is the cats meow on pixels. That is what it goes after and only them.. Even if a photo is so pixellated you cant see it, I still might be able to pick up a pattern and have done so many times.
I get a kick out of reading a lot of Utube comments. Like CGI, Fake, My grandma could do that. It would take me 5 minutes to do in Adobe. All "talk no action" I see it as bla, bla. If indeeed it could be reproduced in 5 minutes then what is stopping them. Then you hear, It is not worth my time. Ok but writing a stupid comment was? It does not balance in my book. I like to say, "then prove it or shut up"
It does not matter to me which way it is proven as long as the proof is real and not made up just to look better. The better the UFO flick, the more the paid people are writing it is fake. If a UT video is real and the first few posters are all over it with Fake, CGI, BS and so on then most readers fall in line like sheep and move on or agree with them without even looking at it. The same thing happens on threads. The problem is they use that same tatic on every thread, so they have to be right most of the time, so everyone falls in line. Bahhhha! See I don't care if a million posters say BS, I need to prove it to myself..
When a CGI UFO is pasted or layered onto a video there are a lot of problems to overcome, first to make it look real, to make it stick, to make it interact and most of all pass my testing. On this UFO you see a very bright white triangle. Deuem is seeing a triangle with a center light and also 3 lights in the corners that change the intensity as the video goes on. I can not pick up the 3 lights by eye off the video, only after processed. So why would anyone do that. Start with a good model and light it so much you cant see it anymore? ok, maybe. But how do they make the sunlight move. Sunlight is a key here. It has been warped by the object.
Other fields are present that take up most of the frame while it does a short blast. How or why does someone do that in CGI. All the pros go the other way and make it clean.
I have found nothing so far that screams CGI. Everything so far is saying a military craft in a death spin that was caught on tape. They lost the ability to hover. Some glitch to work out.
Deuem
Quote from: ArMaP on November 11, 2013, 12:09:36 AM
I "stacked the cards" for most of the video and the "cards" stacked from top to bottom, from left to right, but then they "moved" a little from right to left.
Considering that the clouds are moving from right to left at an unknown velocity, how can we know if the object is moving from right to left or vice-versa?
Very good Armap, You actually did try it and got the right answer, See it can be done! Basicaly now you should see the sprial in the drop and if you measure the craft in the drp it is staying close to the same size. This should tell us that it was dropping and moving a little away as it happened. Did you pick up the almost perfect corkscrew?
On clouds, yes they were moving but not very fast. Cloulds drift slow unless there is a storm and then they get pulled apart. These clouds have nice distintive formations that can be tracked frame to frame with just a little problem. One would have to do a standards on clouds vs wind speed to get beter results on how far to shift each frame.
But I can only guess if we agree on the flight path.
I am impressed that you actualy did the card stack and got the same answer. There is hope and maybe you might have climbed out of that box and thought over what Deuem was saying. It sounded funny till you did it. I would bet money on that. See, ole Deuem is not crazy, I can just see other ways at looking at the same thing and doing something with it.
Now you have the card trick in your pocket and can use it for other videos. Call it the "Deuem stack" I like that. No processing just true video work.
Now if you could only see the reaction of the clouds at the 1:20+ mark. My day would be complete.
When the craft moves from right to left, look right above where it used to be and follow the very faint clouds in the video. You will see that a swoosh of air disturbed them and they blew to the left. Like if you were to broom away dust. The broom goes first, the billow of dust is seen later. It is not instant. In that scene the clouds react later, as they should. Is that CGI?
Maybe I could do a gif on it if I find the time. It would take many hours to do it right but I am still hoping you can see it first. remember it is an after effect. Behind and above the craft. It is very faint but there. I think you will find it.
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on November 11, 2013, 12:43:21 AM
Very good Armap, You actually did try it and got the right answer, See it can be done!
I knew it could be done, I just didn't have the time during the week to do it. :)
QuoteBasicaly now you should see the sprial in the drop and if you measure the craft in the drp it is staying close to the same size. This should tell us that it was dropping and moving a little away as it happened.
It's possible, but I find it would be a great coincidence that the rate of descent would match the rate at which it was moving away. Not very likely, but surely possible.
QuoteDid you pick up the almost perfect corkscrew?
Not really, a 2D image (or sequence of images" cannot show if it was moving in a corkscrew or just from one side to the other, although a wider corkscrew would show difference in the distance to the triangle as it would move away and closer again.
QuoteOn clouds, yes they were moving but not very fast. Cloulds drift slow unless there is a storm and then they get pulled apart.
Not really, in most of the video the clouds are moving faster than the triangle, sometimes they move relatively fast when the wind close to the ground is not strong. Also, we can see two layers of clouds in that video, with the one closer to the camera moving (apparently) faster.
QuoteThese clouds have nice distintive formations that can be tracked frame to frame with just a little problem. One would have to do a standards on clouds vs wind speed to get beter results on how far to shift each frame.
The problem with the clouds is that they change shape and size while moving, that's why I said that we don't really have a
fixed reference.
QuoteI am impressed that you actualy did the card stack and got the same answer.
Are you impressed that I did it, that I got the same answer, or both? :)
QuoteThere is hope and maybe you might have climbed out of that box and thought over what Deuem was saying.
No boxes here. :)
QuoteIt sounded funny till you did it. I would bet money on that.
It didn't.
QuoteSee, ole Deuem is not crazy, I can just see other ways at looking at the same thing and doing something with it.
That's the most interesting part of group work, everyone has a slightly different way of seeing things, even if they sometimes appear to just agree with other people's opinions.
QuoteNow you have the card trick in your pocket and can use it for other videos. Call it the "Deuem stack" I like that. No processing just true video work.
Well, that's processing, manual processing but still processing. :)
QuoteNow if you could only see the reaction of the clouds at the 1:20+ mark. My day would be complete.
When the craft moves from right to left, look right above where it used to be and follow the very faint clouds in the video. You will see that a swoosh of air disturbed them and they blew to the left. Like if you were to broom away dust. The broom goes first, the billow of dust is seen later. It is not instant. In that scene the clouds react later, as they should. Is that CGI?
I don't think it's CGI, as I have been saying since the beginning, they are just clouds. :)
And I think the movement is natural and independent of the triangle's movement.
Just to make it easier, I made a short clip of that part, with added contrast to make the clouds more visible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UOYE6mUjDo
direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UOYE6mUjDo
download version: http://ssyoutube.com/watch?v=1UOYE6mUjDo
QuoteMaybe I could do a gif on it if I find the time. It would take many hours to do it right but I am still hoping you can see it first. remember it is an after effect. Behind and above the craft. It is very faint but there. I think you will find it.
I have seen it since the first time you alerted to that time in the video, but you said it wasn't the clouds. :)
When Did I say it wasnt the clouds?
In you 7 second clip I can see the clould on the top whisk away as an after effect. The ones on the bottom are just moving. The top ones move as a result of the swoosh, not the wind.
Quote
am impressed that you actualy did the card stack and got the same answer.
Are you impressed that I did it, that I got the same answer, or both? (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
BOTH !
Quote
Very good Armap, You actually did try it and got the right answer, See it can be done!
I knew it could be done, I just didn't have the time during the week to do it. (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
I would really like to believe that, But I dont think you would have done it on your own. I think you needed a push to do it. And now everyone knows this can be done and it is not that hard to do.
Can you post your results picture of the drop and then I will post mine and we can compare notes.
Draw a spine for craft to craft and see if you get the cork screw. It is not a lot of turns, just 1 or so. But I think it can be picked up fairly well.
The rate of descent should match the rate at which it was moving away if it is in a corkscrew dive. It would be almost perfect. The rates are both constant. At the end after the slight push and went the camera zoomed out, It just started to fall straight down. They then paniced and hit the warp button to get out of the fix they were in.
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on November 11, 2013, 01:55:04 AM
When Did I say it wasnt the clouds?
That was what I thought you meant with this post. (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=5618.msg77317#msg77317)
QuoteIn you 7 second clip I can see the clould on the top whisk away as an after effect. The ones on the bottom are just moving. The top ones move as a result of the swoosh, not the wind.
Well, that's just your opinion, but I am not going to ask you for proof of that. :P
QuoteI would really like to believe that, But I dont think you would have done it on your own.
I didn't say I would have done it on my own, I didn't thought of that. :)
QuoteI think you needed a push to do it. And now everyone knows this can be done and it is not that hard to do.
What is not possible is knowing the velocity of the clouds and, from that, make a fixed reference, what we are looking at is a moving reference.
QuoteCan you post your results picture of the drop and then I will post mine and we can compare notes.
Draw a spine for craft to craft and see if you get the cork screw. It is not a lot of turns, just 1 or so. But I think it can be picked up fairly well.
Tomorrow, it's already 2:06 AM here, I should be sleeping. ;D
QuoteThe rate of descent should match the rate at which it was moving away if it is in a corkscrew dive.
That would depend on the angle from the camera to the triangle, if it was too low we would see only the triangle getting smaller and bigger as it would move away and closer while doing the corkscrew, if the angle was too high we would see the triangle making a spiral movement.
Gotta say I'm liking the collaboration of sorts guys!
Brings out the best in each of you. This is how it's done 8)
Gold for each of you.
Ok, I'll go first. This was my first attempt at it.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/corkscrew.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/corkscrew.jpg.html)
See what you all think about it. The spline is there for reference of the crafts center line. On the way down it turned about 180 degrees and then turned back about the same. The craft never made a full rotation on its own. The jog in the bottom shows where it powered up for a cecond and skipped to the left then drifted to the right where it then went into more of a free fall straight down till they paniced and hit the warp drive to get out of the fall.
I recon they would have hit the ground in a minute or so, had they not done that. The entire tape shows to me that an acident was caught on tape of a craft that lost its hover ability and was in trouble falling to the ground, I think this is a millitary craft for sure. The white is the electrical field just like the A51 saucers.
Deuem
Well it sure would bring a whole load of "oh it's CGI" or "yeah adobe after effects" in the comments section from those trying to hide such tech from the masses!
It's actually a good ploy and I was swayed by the remarks even though I know nothing about Adobe after effects or CGI. So I'm guilty as charged Deuem.
Great that your dissecting this! There is more to this than first meets the eye.
It's interesting that you found 3 points of light on the craft. Fits with what's been reported in the past with these craft.
First daylight footage? One for the archives for sure.
Quote from: deuem on November 11, 2013, 11:32:59 PM
Ok, I'll go first. This was my first attempt at it.
Yes, that's what I got, although I stopped when the triangle has that fast movement to the left. I will post it later, now I'm going to eat some chestnuts. :)
Quote from: stealthyaroura on November 12, 2013, 12:17:02 AM
Well it sure would bring a whole load of "oh it's CGI" or "yeah adobe after effects" in the comments section from those trying to hide such tech from the masses!
It's actually a good ploy and I was swayed by the remarks even though I know nothing about Adobe after effects or CGI. So I'm guilty as charged Deuem.
Great that your dissecting this! There is more to this than first meets the eye.
It's interesting that you found 3 points of light on the craft. Fits with what's been reported in the past with these craft.
First daylight footage? One for the archives for sure.
With another member several years ago they put a UFO vid on line on Utube and it got all the same remarks, So we tried a test. I got the video first and worked it. Had my notes ready to go with back up work also ready. It was 1,2,3 upload and I was waiting. The instant it hit UT, I placed my notes first. Wow what a difference, all the good people came out of the wood work and rejoiced.
There were so many great comments that the poo slayers were not heard. They never even posted. So as far as I see it, he who posts first can change the entire thread good or bad.
Now Deuem does not care about what other people write because I have been through it so many times before. I know the people lurking on the side lines don't want to step in that bear trap and get insulted to death. They sort of need a point person that re-opens a door, then they will take that step.
It is a Psy game for sure. Who understands the game is the winner. But when a video like this rolls around I need to step up, no matter what. I do also understand that any video can be CGI. It is a question of how much effort they want to put into it.
There is a section that I was talking to Amy about [skype] trying to understand what they would have to do to CGI that effect. She told me it would take her weeks to do it right and even then the replacement pixels would not really match and might be able to be spotted. They would be out of color sync with the next one. Out of gradiant. Unless you spent antother 3 weeks fixing each one to be perfect. Yes it could be done but at what cost?
Some photos next. Deuem
What you see....
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/usee.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/usee.jpg.html)
What I see........
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Isee.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Isee.jpg.html)
What I see when they warped out. Now how does one CGI that. And do it in 5 minutes as they boost so well.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/thenHyperspace.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/thenHyperspace.jpg.html)
And that is a crop of the event. The actual lines went way off the crop. The program finds patterns. I see a full pattern of light here that radiated what 10 times the craft size. Is it CGI?
I don't think so. My judgements are made against my standards. I have no known standards that do this and also interfere with the atmosphere the way this one does.
Having fun yet?,
Deuem
A little silly Deuem note;
And for those who can't see what is going on, Yes I sit at my computer day and night drawing all those lines by hand. I go through 1 mouse a week..
Can you actually believe I have been told accused that I do this by hand? Just to fake people.
That gets an OMG!
Silly huh !
The run time for the new New Deuem Plugins is very quick, almost instant. The time I need depends on how much prep time is needed to get a photo to the program. This has now been done live on [skype] where people drop a photo and I process it and drop it back, within minutes. This quick responce will show anyone that I am not drawing the lines, haha.
But when I do a well worked photo it can take hours sometimes. To get the balance perfect takes a lot of art to numbers time. many times the real part is hiding and I have to wipe away the distraction to get inside. That takes time.
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on November 12, 2013, 01:30:13 AM
Can you actually believe I have been told accused that I do this by hand? Just to fake people.
That gets an OMG!
Silly huh !
Silly? That's more like damn stupid! And an insult ta boot :(
The Deuem process is a revelation ( nice choice of word lol)
For me it shows that there is "life" to the objects. That's some impressive work on the craft!
I do have a grasp on the Deuem process. Enough to be confident in saying that is no cgi.
WOW just wow 8) the tell tall 3 light configuration! We have a winner!!
Now it's really interesting. That needs copyrighting and a re-post on the tube ;)
Nice job. Oh boy the video footage!!!! Full Deuem!!!! ;)
That's made my night. Made me think too. Cool
Quote from: deuem on November 12, 2013, 01:08:30 AM
The instant it hit UT, I placed my notes first. Wow what a difference, all the good people came out of the wood work and rejoiced.
There were so many great comments that the poo slayers were not heard. They never even posted. So as far as I see it, he who posts first can change the entire thread good or bad.
I have that happening many times, in those cases, if I don't see anyone defending the other possibility I have to post it myself, to point that, even just as a possibility, it must be accepted. But it's usually too late for that, as any post will be drowned by the negative posts.
QuoteThere is a section that I was talking to Amy about [skype] trying to understand what they would have to do to CGI that effect. She told me it would take her weeks to do it right and even then the replacement pixels would not really match and might be able to be spotted. They would be out of color sync with the next one. Out of gradiant. Unless you spent antother 3 weeks fixing each one to be perfect. Yes it could be done but at what cost?
What kind of experience does she have? I have seen some effects done in AfterEffects in just some 5 or 10 minutes, the fact that someone would take weeks to do it doesn't mean that other person wouldn't take just some hours.
Quote from: deuem on November 12, 2013, 01:16:20 AM
What I see........
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Isee.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Isee.jpg.html)
This is what I see after some gamma adjustments.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img843/4070/0xls.png)
QuoteAnd that is a crop of the event. The actual lines went way off the crop. The program finds patterns. I see a full pattern of light here that radiated what 10 times the craft size. Is it CGI?
I think it's possible, if they added more than just the triangle and also added the glow around it, superimposing it on the video. That gradient would be picked up by the Deuem process.
Quote from: ArMaP on November 12, 2013, 02:09:52 AM
What kind of experience does she have? I have seen some effects done in AfterEffects in just some 5 or 10 minutes, the fact that someone would take weeks to do it doesn't mean that other person wouldn't take just some hours.
We were speaking of the cloud movement. I have worked with AfterEffects, but I do not believe there is anything in that program that could "fake" that cloud swoosh in 5-10 minutes.
Quote from: stealthyaroura on November 12, 2013, 01:50:09 AM
Silly? That's more like damn stupid! And an insult ta boot :(
Yea, but one gets used to it somewhat. If they only knew what to really look for they would shiite their pants. lol
The Deuem process is a revelation ( nice choice of word lol)
I like to think so, the only problem I have is, that I can't disect the photo as much as I would like too so I am still wondering what to do with it. It seems to work really well when run against standards but that is also a judgement. All in all it is the best I can offer for now. I still tweek it from time to time but would need another large cash flow to go to the next step to get out some math results. Maybe some day.
For me it shows that there is "life" to the objects. That's some impressive work on the craft!
Agreed, more real than CGI in my book...But I don't want to leave that option out. It is possible but with a lot of work or maybe they just get luky and blow by me. I am the first one to say it is possible. I do the best I can and I am sure so do they.
I do have a grasp on the Deuem process. Enough to be confident in saying that is no cgi.
There you go! I think there is enough in this video even without Deuem to bring it up a level and onto our boards and disect it. I wish we had a disect team as good as the inventors group. We almost started one on another forum but the negative vibes killed it. See I want to get to the bottom more than you do otherwise I would not do it at all. I try to put my money where my mouth is. How much do you think Deuem cost me to build? I figured it out at around 15,000 USD. So there is a new car in Deuem. Next level would be about 5 or more times that. At least and maybe a years work. [if luky]
WOW just wow 8) the tell tall 3 light configuration! We have a winner!!
Looks like a bingo moment. Can you see it in the original? Why would a CGI artist do that, just for me, Thanks. I see no reason for them to design so many levels to to plaster white all over it. On the cheap ones there is only a white blob....But yea, you could spend countless computer time and build it up step by step and tweek every pixel, but why?
Now it's really interesting. That needs copyrighting and a re-post on the tube ;)
Nice job. Oh boy the video footage!!!! Full Deuem!!!! ;)
I was on YouTube with zero results. UT wants fake work and the comments there are even worse. There was a time when you posted a swear word you got banned. Now anything seem to go. The pys guys win. Besides, unless i sell or give away an original the stuff you see is what I call garbage. It is less that 1/10 of the quality of the original. Maybe some day someone will get close but I say, even if I gave you the program the results would vary. It needs human tweeking and that is why some people don't like it. I like it just because of that reason. So even if it is hacked they cant do much. The key is still in my head and fingers. On sold Deuem I do place my © and on the new ones I have added my real signature. On some of the good ones there is an embedded gliff you can only see with a scope or mag glass.
That's made my night. Made me think too. Cool
That makes mine!
Quote from: ArMaP on November 12, 2013, 02:09:52 AM
[snip] as any post will be drowned by the negative posts.
I guess one persons negative is another persons positive. It is a point of view thing.
What kind of experience does she have? She meaning who? the person that took the video? And experience in what field, CGI? or baking cookies? On the video I recieved the original format and worked off of it. I saw no CGI ever and she does make great cookies also.
I have seen some effects done in AfterEffects in just some 5 or 10 minutes, the fact that someone would take weeks to do it doesn't mean that other person wouldn't take just some hours.
I guess the best answer to that is show me the money ! I now have After effects. I got it to try and run Deuem in full video mode. Ok the plugins worked but my computer just sat there and laughed at me. Say an areage single frame needs to be 25 to 75mb. Use 50 average. 50 x 1sec or 30 frames = 1,500 mb for 1 second x 60 seconds = 90,000 mb for a minute.. Right around there my computer went on strike. This video was over 2 minutes or over 180,000 mb. I think I will need a upgrade to run that. Even worse is, I don't know how to present 180,000 mb without losing the special high quality. I can only relate it to something like I max.
There is also no reason that it can't be done live if the equipment was in place, even in a camera. Wow what a world one would see with Deuem glasses. Move over Google....
Quote from: ArMaP on November 12, 2013, 02:17:50 AM
This is what I see after some gamma adjustments.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img843/4070/0xls.png)
I think it's possible, if they added more than just the triangle and also added the glow around it, superimposing it on the video. That gradient would be picked up by the Deuem process.
Your photo processed, Sorry it took so long, so many lines to draw. lol
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/ArMaPdone.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/ArMaPdone.jpg.html)
Now what do you see guys and gals. What is different between the 3 triangle engines. What story would you write. And the center engine is doing what?
Would a CGI artist alter the state of the 3 engines you cant even see? maybe. But why, you cant even see them the way the Deuem program does. Start with counting the 3 sets of rings.
Am I just fooling myself or is there something really there and you heard it here first. I would say this video needs to go to the next step and looked at by other pros. I would want the original not the UT post. I would want to interview the man and scout the location. Check the camera, check him, check, check check....
Deuem
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 12, 2013, 02:41:48 AM
We were speaking of the cloud movement. I have worked with AfterEffects, but I do not believe there is anything in that program that could "fake" that cloud swoosh in 5-10 minutes.
Thanks for the explanation. :)
As I have said before, I don't think the clouds are CGI (no need for that), only the triangle.
Quote from: deuem on November 12, 2013, 03:22:51 AM
I guess one persons negative is another persons positive. It is a point of view thing.
Unless they do not share your opinion about the Deuem process, in that case is always negative. :P
QuoteShe meaning who?
The person you had just mentioned, who else?
QuoteWould a CGI artist alter the state of the 3 engines you cant even see? maybe. But why, you cant even see them the way the Deuem program does.
Do not underestimate the hoaxer's ability or knowledge. Anyone knowing the type of "craft" people are looking knows what to do to fool them.
Quote from: ArMaP on November 12, 2013, 09:30:46 AM
Unless they do not share your opinion about the Deuem process, in that case is always negative. :P
No, only the people who after a year can't see what I am doing. Was there ever one time were I blasted someone for not liking what I do or seeing what I do. I think I have been as open to differences as one can be. You do give me the feeling that since you can't do it or bust it it is worthless. My feeling, not yours.
People should either like it or not like it, see it as it is or move on to other things. You read UT comments, Have I ever been like that? Should I? Should I call people ****'** stupid like they do there on UT. No way would I do that. I am not that kind of a person.
I do think that little snipit was rather rude of you but I consider the source. You seem to toss out these little spikes in the road when you start to lose your ground as it looks like here on this thread.
Seems that when your answer-less you go on the hunt instead of learning something new. Kinda of like you lost first place and now you have to defend the hill. I have also posted in my own writing that YES, this maybe CGI done very well but I can not prove it, Can You?
Please don't prove it with words. Words anyone can write..
The person you had just mentioned, who else? Then I guess I answered that. An Old member of another site thst helped me prove the UT slander routine.
Do not underestimate the hoaxer's ability or knowledge. Anyone knowing the type of "craft" people are looking knows what to do to fool them. You see, that is just a lot of words on a forum. We all need including myself abolute proof it is CGI. Until then all we can do is prod at it and see what the story is.
First of all AfterFX is not a 3D program so some one would have to design a rotating model in say 3d max. Design a motion path in another program and then layer it in somehow. After FX can not spin a 2d object to give it 3D THe object would have to be on the same plane all the time. Even in photoshop as far as I know this is true. Unless the newest versions are 3D, then I stand corrected.
But then you would still have to build a model and spin it and rotate it and tilt it. Not easy. This thing goes inside of one of the clouds. How do they alter the layers, with a frame by frame pixel by pixel cut in and out. Again hours and hours of work for a 2 minute UT video. Not a resume or Star Wars. So why?
I am beginning to think that most of the people who say BS or CGI have no idea of what CGI really is and could not reproduce even 5 seconds of some films. Otherwise they would. No different that what I do, They would belong to CGI forums and write threads on how they did something and present work to members. There are many camera Forums, Are there any CGI forums? They must sit around talking about how many people they screwed this week...nice people.. Bragging about something and doing something are 2 different things. Please come to the table with 100% proof it is CGI and I will listen and learn. Your turn........ And all I wrote was "One persons negative is one persons positive" One persons garbage here is anothers income" There are many opposites in the world. Deuem
Nice work guys.
I'm quite proud of myself, as I already gathered it was 'tumbling/falling' - and I had a strong supicion it was/is real.
Deuems, done a good job, and makes a strong point about the engines.
Of course, my upper hand was the fact I have saw a very similaiar UFO - think I may have breifly mentioned it before.
The one that was white/translucent, was rather big (I was observing from approx 4-5 miles away), it circled a large clock tower, in a 'carrier bag in the wind'/boomerang like way for about 40 mins - (or I walked away at that time at least)
As I say, if your still a UFO (sighting) virgin - just keep looking up, they're always there for those who have eye's to see :D
Sinny, daytime or night time?
Quote from: deuem on November 12, 2013, 11:09:08 AM
Sinny, daytime or night time?
Day time, on a rather 'fluffy' cloud, blue sky sort of day... 2012 I believe.
Interesting, I think that the only way we start to see colors is at dusk and later. When the nobel gasses light up in the day, the color is absorbed by the brightness of the sun. Even lightning looks white in the day time but colors out at night. So it leads me to believe you saw a Eltrogravitic powered craft similar to the one in this video. If this was at night it would be very colorful.
It equates to me like looking at fireworks in the daytime. Bla and no one wants to see them. I think this is why so many daytime UFOs are seen to be so white and maybe why, If you can see them they might be CGI. lol The ones you can see are the ones I have the most problems with finding any power source or atmospheric interference.
Everything that makes sence to me that we are working on here has some type of Electrogravitic/Eltromagnetic field . That field would need to be larger than the craft to work. That field needs to be very powerful. It is so intense that it has to mess with the nobel gasses. [read area 51 on these] I see no way around it. If it is possible to pick that wave up then we might get a fix on the event, I hope I do that to some extent. Again I may be as wrong as I think I am right but it is a dart board to start with.
Deuem
This is why we need a neon sign guy.he could get us closer to frequencies voltages etc.theres probly a simple chart some where.if we attack it from multiple directions.it should be more viewable.does anybody know a neon guy?
I have a theory that the thing has thre small corner thrusters and one large center thruster also three thrusters on the back tale end.the three on bottom cant handle the weight.the large one must not be working.so he uses the three on bottom to angle itself then uses the three on the backend to go forward.without the main thruster its probably very hard to keep aloft but not impossible.that would explain three corner bright light as those are maxed out to compensate.
Hi Robo, Area 51 has done extensive work in the nobel gasses. He even had me process all of them he could find. I say he is the Peggy expert there. What would you like to know about them and if it is too far off topic we can take it off line if u wish.
When we do them 1 by 1 they all glow different but they are very well mixed in the air so it is hard to figure out which one is excited or if they all are.
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on November 12, 2013, 11:05:11 AM
You do give me the feeling that since you can't do it or bust it it is worthless. My feeling, not yours.
Now that I understand what it does I'm not interested in doing it.
QuotePeople should either like it or not like it, see it as it is or move on to other things. You read UT comments, Have I ever been like that? Should I? Should I call people ****'** stupid like they do there on UT. No way would I do that. I am not that kind of a person.
I know (as far as I think I understand your personality) you're not, I was not talking about being negative to people that do not like/understand/don't see the usefulness of it, I was talking about you considering those actions as negative, and, as indicated by the :P was more of a joke.
QuoteI do think that little snipit was rather rude of you but I consider the source.
Sorry.
QuoteYou seem to toss out these little spikes in the road when you start to lose your ground as it looks like here on this thread.
No ground lost when we are only presenting opinions, and if if there was, I don't have any problem with admitting that I am wrong, when I see that I am wrong.
QuoteSeems that when your answer-less you go on the hunt instead of learning something new.
No hunting, I only hunt for knowledge, and in this case the only new thing was the "card stacking", which was a good idea, as I said, that I wouldn't have thought about.
QuoteThen I guess I answered that. An Old member of another site thst helped me prove the UT slander routine.
It looks like you ignored the text I quoted when I wrote that "What kind of experience does she have", maybe I misunderstood you.
QuoteYou see, that is just a lot of words on a forum. We all need including myself abolute proof it is CGI. Until then all we can do is prod at it and see what the story is.
Yes, it's just words in a forum, but when I think of making something I always think of the "target audiance", as you did when you presented ways of measuring the video without software tools. If I was making a video to fool people into thinking that it was a real UFO I would try to make something that would follow what most people are expecting, in this case a triangle with lights at each corner.
QuoteFirst of all AfterFX is not a 3D program so some one would have to design a rotating model in say 3d max.
I saw once a video showing how to make birds fly in AfterEffects, and it included changes in perspective, which works as a kind of 3D. In an object as bright as the triangle in the video we don't have real 3D perception, so we cannot see (at least I cannot) if it really rotates in all 3 axis or not.
QuoteBragging about something and doing something are 2 different things. Please come to the table with 100% proof it is CGI and I will listen and learn.
That's why I don't brag about anything, not even about the things I can do. :)
Apologies to Deuem and everybody else. :-[
Accepted.
I am really happy you did the card sack, I have never seen that before but I thought it was worth a try. I mean stacking clouds. Regular stacks are panaramas. But this proved very interesting and I am sure we will both do it again. Even if it is for nothing I did learn this card trick for clouds. If the UFO jumped with out the clouds jumpimg it should show foul play and poor motion tracking. So it is an option to keep in our researdh list of How toos'
Quote
It looks like you ignored the text I quoted when I wrote that "What kind of experience does she have", maybe I misunderstood you.
I got that part, but what she are you talking abot. The women who took the UFO video we tryed on UT? If it is her, she is just a normal every day person who was outside at night filming the moon with her new camera and spotted a UFO. Sort of like Sky does.At that time she had about 1/2 hour filming time. And had a very hard time posting the video due to the lack of computer experience. That can all be a lie but I trusted her. If there can be internet trust. If your talking about someone else let me know.
We need more members to tackle the CGI issue with some kind of proof. Got any ideas? What does the Alphabet crew use. They must have some nice toys.
Deuem
Oxygen argon and nitrogen at atmospheric pressure or at half pressure say 7lbs.psi at first shell of the electrons.what would the energy be neede and voltage for say 3 cubic meters.
These are the primary gasses in the atmosphere so they are the ones glowing.if we find the right voltage and frequency then we should be close on the power requirements needed to get an object to fly.
ive been burning through the youtube anti gravity .the two magnets has got me inspired right now .vry enlightening.
Ive also watched some high level physics vids that talks about the frequency.a sort of quantum surface very similar to liquid hydrogen at close to absolute zero.only this happens to the atmosphere and thats what holds the craft in place.
Robo, I just opened a new thread "Nobel gasses and UFOs" this topic can get very deep and it needs its own home. See you there, Recopy your post there if you wish.
Deuem
Quote from: ArMaP on November 12, 2013, 09:24:26 AM
Thanks for the explanation. :)
As I have said before, I don't think the clouds are CGI (no need for that), only the triangle.
Yes, ArMaP. The question is, what caused that swish if not a real craft? Wind? Did NOT look like that. It looked like localized interference. And specifically in response to the movement of the craft.
Amy, is it possble that we are looking at that with trained eyes and it is very difficult to pick up. That cloud is so faint that we are almost looking at pixels movinig, Maybe need to grab so frames out of his 7 sec video and measure it somehow or circle a start middle end frame..Yes I see the swish but I look for those things and think it is not natural and is a re-action. Thinking !
Deuem
Unsure, Deuem. I can say that the swish is extremely clear to Me. Hard to imagine Others not seeing it.
Yes, I would expect more answers like , "Yea I see it but I say it ts the wind" or "they added that in CGI also' , something, but we are getting nothing. HUM?
ROBO: Can you find out if we have any TR-3B Disection threads. If not start one and see if you can find any information on the engines.
Z: Can you locate any more white triangle TR-3B videos to compare.
Area 51: In Roswell some said it was the special radar thet knocked them down. Any info on what power or frequencies they used. One nulled out another deal. That might put a range for the older craft and the new ones stepped up a notch from radar frequncies, maybe another start.
PWM, Can 1 frequncy null another in flight. They do it with ear phones but I am not sure if it needs the sound.
Amy: Is there any way you could grab and circle the 3 frames from ArMaPs vid. start mid and end,
ArMaP: can you research where this video came from and is the origial obtainable from the guy who shot it or did he sell it. Your good at digging, go get them. Did he ever publish anything else, Does he publish a lot of CGI, what is his back ground. Clean or dirty.
Just for this one lets work as a team and see what we can dig up. We have a lot of experts here and more on the fence waiting for an assignment. Please all fence peeps, dig in where you can. Lets go into this one as it is a TR-3B or newer model and see where it brings us. If it is fake and we find real proof then the team did well. If it is real then maybe we can collectly figure out how it works and PWM or FB can model it for a test flight.
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on November 13, 2013, 12:55:05 AM
ArMaP: can you research where this video came from and is the origial obtainable from the guy who shot it or did he sell it. Your good at digging, go get them. Did he ever publish anything else, Does he publish a lot of CGI, what is his back ground. Clean or dirty.
I doubt that that YouTube channel will tell me where they got the video, but I'll see what I can do. :)
Quote from: deuem on November 13, 2013, 12:55:05 AM
Area 51: In Roswell some said it was the special radar thet knocked them down. Any info on what power or frequencies they used. One nulled out another deal. That might put a range for the older craft and the new ones stepped up a notch from radar frequncies, maybe another start.
D, it appears that the new (at the time) SCR-584 monopulse radar is what was used.
(http://www.nrl.navy.mil/content_images/monopulse2.jpg)
Portable models on flatbed trucks and RR cars were used.
(http://www.history.army.mil/books/30-17/notes/297.jpg)
I have photos of them camouflaged out in the Utah desert ready for an ambush.
(http://www.skylighters.org/photos/pamphlet/images/scr584.gif)
ArMaP, you are the master digger. The man with the sharp shovel. Go as far as you can, like Zs test. Where does this video bring you. Like was there any news in the papers that day, any one else report it to the police. Dig around the edges.
Area 51. Yea, why would you camo a site in the middle of the desert? Afraid that tumble weeds are going to see it. War Games? Hiding from Russian satalites? Making it difficult for Saucers to see and fly into a trap? All of the above?
Can you fill in the rough edges on this. Post those photos if you can and build a story around it.
I would like all of us to say for this time, "Yes they are real" [tr-3b] and then find where the holes are. Go at it like they do back-engineering. Just do back-researching.
What did the SCR-584 monopulse put out? A blend of frequencies or just a single one, pulsed. If it is single then we need to figure out what would it cancel. Hence we need the Inventors group and PWM type people.
Go team.......By the way this thread is in the "OPEN" section of Peggy and can be read by anyone on the WEB. If you are worried about something, then bring it in under the rug in a closed section.
Deuem.
(http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l595/A51Watcher/SCR-584-missile-tracking-1947_zps892bedde.jpg)
White Sands Proving Ground, New Mexico 1947
There's a breadcrumb for you lurkers who haven't signed up where you get to see the good stuff. 8)
Yea, It depends on how you read into that photo. They say missiles yet I see him working at the controls. One might think they are set up to see what comes up that valley. A picture has a 1,000 words in it. Which words can you find.
There are wires coming this way on the ground and 2 more antenas a Tee and whip.
Whats the difference between the slave and master radar?
One star means Army?
They planned on being there awile, they took the time and money to add a sidewalk of stepping stones
WSPG, White sands proving ground I guess, New Mexico. Can you locate that site on Google Earth?
A51, Do a real close up of the first dish. It is the only place in the photo that has a glimmer around it. Either meaning these things are running hot or they have been digitaly replaced. What do you think is going on. If heat rising then why nothing else?
Deuem
Phillip Corso stated the occcupants of the craft wore headgear that allowed them to operate the craft with their thoughts; also that fiber optics were in use in the craft...
the thought comes to mind that the radar pulse could have interfered with the control signal from the headgear or caused disruption with the fiber optics...
seeker
So if all it did was mess up the control systems they would hit the ground at full speed and not just drop. If that is the case then all they needed to do is a little shielding and they are in the air once more. That is after they figured out what the heck happened! By that time we had them and some crash sites. They would either seek peace or work the bugs out and come back another time when they are ready.
Maybe they under estimated what would happen. Hey the ants on this planet have what, crash! Its like taking the batteries out of a remote control. We're done... It used to be that everything you could do in a remote, you could also do by hand. Now we have a lot more functions on the remote than by hand and I guess they will drop all the reduntant hand controls in the future.
My A/C: I can not turn it on by hand. I would have to leave it on and unplug it. So imagine what time will do for that....
Maybe the Fiber Optics would be safe but anything electrical running at a certain frequency that the radar negated would just stop intantly. 6 little grays just stained their flight suits. Even worse might be if it scrambled the signals and now up is down. Crash!
Seeker do you know anything about the special missiles they said they used to shot several of these down.
Deuem
Engines have been my primary focus for years.the usa was afraid of russia attacking from mexico so they had high strength radar shooting south.thats what knocked out the roswell craft.there was strong storms at the time so that may have camouflaged the mic beam.
Monopulse means single pulse.it was probably very high power.very.it would burn up if it was left on continuous.so they would cycle it slow enough for cool down between pulses.my guess it was designed for long range.microwave during the daylight hours tends to bend downward.thats why most large microwave communication hops have two dishes .one above the other.one for day and the other for night.
The engines are most definitely nuclear powered.this is the reason that doe and nest are involved whenever there is a crash.
What happens after the engine is powered up is speculation.im beginning to think its two superconducting rings pressed together with a polarity of nssn.or snns.these rings were degelped at the super colider in dallas.the colider was a cover.then paul chu invented a material that became conductive at liquid nitrogen.this is about the time the tr3b was in design stage.early 90s.the main driver magnets are probably 20-25 feet diameter circle magnets.the smaller ones are probably 8-10ft.diameter.i found klytrons by egg yesterday.my guess these klytrons feed the magnets at the correct frequency.i once did researcj of eggs sister companies and hey all had high voltage mfg references.egg manages parts of area51.
I can get a rough drawing to scale in pretty close at 20 ft, main ring and 8 foot for the smaller ones. That would make the craft about 70 feet across any leg of a triangle. If I folow the lines and use the 8 foot rings as tangent points then add radius corners there it becomes 57 feet at the widest point.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/model1.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/model1.jpg.html)
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Model2.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Model2.jpg.html)
the rotation and tilt are off a bit but it fits rather well and if it is correct, it shows the field to be way outside the craft. About 16 feet on the sides and 22 feet on the corners. From the outside edge. So that is a funny find. the corners seem stronger that the sides.
d
Reports say 300ft. across.so it could be the light distorts the actual size of the engines.
Ok, Here it is scaled at 300 feet and keeping the engines sized the same.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Scaledto300feet.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Scaledto300feet.jpg.html)
d
Yep thats what i would surmise.to all folks who dont know.the engines are not align exactly because of atmospheric conditions.like a mirage in the desert.
Quote from: robomont on November 13, 2013, 10:16:02 AM
Yep thats what i would surmise.to all folks who dont know.the engines are not align exactly because of atmospheric conditions.like a mirage in the desert.
Also in addition, the original is in free fall and twisted in the air. Out of true front on view. Or bottom up view, Rpbo, Any more info on the 300 feet span. That is very large compared to the engine sizes. 300 foot circumfrence is Ok Thinking weight to power [if that even matters with these craft]
Keep thinking Robo.
Deuem
http://jagace2000.m.webs.com/site/mobile?dm_path=%2Fspaceinvaders.htm&fw_sig_site=44345666&fw_sig_session_key=d87aa63b56ed677197309a4aaa0386c5f7c59a1b99e419a7671c6d03781b5918-44345666&fw_sig_access_token=01b3a8627fd04d3a41c09a0d20878ee710934943&fw_sig_time=1384348123286&fw_sig_permission_level=0&fw_sig_premium=0&fw_sig_potential_abuse=1&fw_sig=b8735335394970e615e50567bfab05b3&fw_sig_api_key=522b0eedffc137c934fc7268582d53a1&fw_sig_is_admin=0&fw_sig_social=1&fw_sig_url=http://jagace2000.webs.com/&fw_sig_tier=0&fw_sig_permissions=none&fb_sig_network=fw#3212 (http://jagace2000.m.webs.com/site/mobile?dm_path=%2Fspaceinvaders.htm&fw_sig_site=44345666&fw_sig_session_key=d87aa63b56ed677197309a4aaa0386c5f7c59a1b99e419a7671c6d03781b5918-44345666&fw_sig_access_token=01b3a8627fd04d3a41c09a0d20878ee710934943&fw_sig_time=1384348123286&fw_sig_permission_level=0&fw_sig_premium=0&fw_sig_potential_abuse=1&fw_sig=b8735335394970e615e50567bfab05b3&fw_sig_api_key=522b0eedffc137c934fc7268582d53a1&fw_sig_is_admin=0&fw_sig_social=1&fw_sig_url=http://jagace2000.webs.com/&fw_sig_tier=0&fw_sig_permissions=none&fb_sig_network=fw#3212)
TR-3B Astra –
In 1995, at Nellis Air Force Base Test Range S-4 ( near Papoose Lake, Nevada ) the TR3-B ( a lenticular-shaped aerial vehicle ) was seen and reported to be between 300-feet and 500-feet in diameter.
Reportedly, the TR3B flies at speeds of Mach 15 + and reflects a bright blue grey color believed to be biological electro-chromatic 3-D Penrose tiling polymer material providing highly advanced stealth qualities.
TR3B is also believed to have carried the INTEL company Direct Orbital Communication & Intelligence Link Electronics ( DOCILE ) computer processor unit ( CPU ) system.
TR3B is believed to have derived partial funding from Strategic Defense Initiative ( SDI – Star Wars ) links with the super secret AURORA Program Office global security defense operations mission.
TR3-B is believed using a quasi-crystalline molecular property energy containment storage core driving a plasma-fluidic propulsion system employing combinatoric development of its Magnetic Field Disruptor ( MFD ) quantum-flux transduction field generator technology.
TR3B reportedly emits cyclotron radiation, performs pulse detonation acceleration, and carries EPR quantum receivers.
TR3B craft reportedly resembles a 'very large triangle' ( shaped ) air vehicle.
TR3B (aka) TR3-B (aka) TIER III B craft in no way resembled the TR-3/A MANTA air vehicle.
http://kentronintellectresearchvault.wordpress.com/tag/spaceship/
Intersestingly i came across what looks like a NASA doc whilst searching.
check it out.
https://archive.org/stream/TopSecretTr-3bAstraDocuments/Nasa-AsymmetricalCapacitorsForPropulsion#page/n0/mode/2up
Gold for you
Found this
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/TR-3B.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/TR-3B.jpg.html)
Thanx Robo.
Theres a ton of stuff here too.
https://archive.org/details/TopSecretTr-3bAstraDocuments
Elvis.
(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/alien00065_zpsb00116c8.gif)
Sorry, haven't seen all the thread yet, but this stands out;
QuoteThe UFO looks like it lost its floating field and could not remain level so they kicked in the main flight drive unit and took off.
yes it seemed to me also.
The camera panning left early MAY be an issue, but since the craft appeared to 'power up' before each jump (it does this twice, the first jump being short & uncontrolled, it simply spun through a U turn).
Seeing that it was 'pointing' left, and powering up for another jump, i find it reasonable that the filmer panned left.. :P
Here we see the difference between an impulse engine & a warp drive ;)
I remember pictures in Cramp's book from a UFO takeoff in France in the 50's that went so fast it took a huge lump of earth with it, LOL
There were also reports of 'mud falling from the sky' ::)
Kind of like a UFO pilot's 'wheelspin' that splatters your car with mud.......
This will need a pixel level examination to see if it's CGI or not, IMO it is real, i have seen many 'silent' craft here over the last 10 years.... ::)
..and that plan, hmmm.
Matrix will laugh when he sees that one, we can rotate steel disks faster than that!
A plasma could rotate at a million times a second, giving thousands of tons of thrust, so what's with the "reduces gravity by 89%" statement??
Pressure is another thing, you caneasily hold that pressure with a toroidial field, not by anything metallic, think about it... ::)
ETA: Gold, Elvis, for neat info & cute Gif's ;)
This craft can get confusing very fast. What I can say at this time is that there is a field around the craft that never seems to go away 100%. The 3 engines look to me to be sputtering. The power levels are not constant. If this craft is the old prototype model it should be at least 300 feet across and the 3 engines balance the plane out.
It looks like a leaf falling until it dropped straight down. Then it fell over on one side and we get a good bottom or top view. It is in this, "on their side" position that they warped out. Looks like they went into full power EG mode and picked a star. So does it have 3 different sets of engines? Hover engines[3] EG engine [1] for zero mass and then neclear jets on the rear for propultion [Qyt?]
Most UFOs have a hard time hovering in some spots near the Earth because of disruptive magnetic fields. We see them wobble or tilt to stay in one place. I guess the military planes are not up to that level yet and require assistance from leveling jets. The closer to the ground the more stable it should get. IMO. All large planes and birds have good ground effects.
So maybe the tech is a combo deal because they have not mastered the EG mass drive yet. Because of this, the craft just keeps on getting larger to make room for everything. They must have found a good balance of the power supplies to size at 600 feet.
I also think that when going into warp the entire craft is inside the "Zero mass field" Other wise parts should fall off from acceleration. The tail would go through the nose. So maybe in hover it can bring the mass field way down and even to zero to land. So do they use the EG mass field like regular planes use flaps? That can make sence.
I do not think they are using a free energy power supply, they must be using a very powerful neclear engine. Even Stan the man said he built them when he was younger so they have been around for 50 years.
Deuem
Excerpts from the
Speech of Edgar Fouché at International UFO Congress ( Summer 1998 )
"Finally, I've saved the best for last. The Operational model of the TR-3B [ TIER III B ].
The early information I gathered from interviewing my contacts and their closest friends who worked black programs resulted in the basic specifications of the TR-3B [ TIER III B ] Flying Triangle. I had this simple drawing by late 1990.
On the night of March 30, 1990 a Captain of the Belgium ( Belgique ) National Police decided to pursue incoming reports about a 'triangular' shape UFO. Two ( 2 ) radar installations, one a NATO defense group and the other a Belgium ( Belgique ) civilian and military radar verified the triangle UFO.
Excellent atmospheric conditions prevailed, and there was no possibility of false echoes due to temperature inversions. At 5 AM in the morning, 2 dispatched F-16 fighters spotted the Triangle on their radar screens that had locked onto the target.
Six seconds later the object speeded up from an initial velocity of 280 kilometers per hour to 1,800 kilometers per hour; at the same time descending from an altitude of 3,000 meters to 1,700 meters, then down to 200-meters, causing the F-16 radars to lose lock-on. This maneuver happened all in a matter of 1-second. The 40 G acceleration of the Triangle was some 32 gravitational forces higher than what a human pilot can stand.
Contrary to normal aeronautical expectations, no sonic boom was heard. This phenomenal game of hide and seek was observed by twenty [ 20 ] Belgium National Policemen and hundreds of other witnesses who all saw the Triangular vehicle and the F-16 fighters. The chase was repeated twice more during the next hour.
Belgians have made all information of this event public, unlike our U.S. government that only admits nothing and denies everything to do with UFOs – even when some are ours.
A TR-3B original photo was taken with a digital camera carried aboard, a special black operations C-130 cargo plane, by a U.S. Air Force Special Operations sergeant who took the picture from aboard the C-130 flying mission support for the TR-3B.
I've seen this picture personally and have interviewed several people who worked on the program. I'm sure of my facts and specifications.
From the 'original digital photograph' of the TR-3B, a 'computer graphic enhanced representation' – made using 3D graphic rendered software – hangs on the wall inside a 'black vault' at the AURORA Program Office. I am not at liberty to divulge further details about the digital picture except to say a friend took a great career risk taking it and showing it to me.
Jerald said he would never forget the sight of the alien looking TR-3B based at Papoose Lake, Nevada where the pitch black triangular shaped craft was rarely mentioned – and then only in hushed whispers – at the Groom Lake facility where he worked.
TR3B [ TIER 3 B ] flew over the Groom Lake runway in complete silence, and magically stopped above Area S-4 where t hovered ( silently for about 10-minutes ) silently in the same position before gently settling vertically to the tarmac.
At times a corona of silver blue light glowed around the circumference of the massive TR-3B. The operational model of the TR3-B is 600-feet across.
TR3B 'prototype' ( 200-foot ) and TR3B 'operational' ( 600-foot ) version crafts are code named ASTRA.
TR3B tactical reconnaissance version first [ 1st ] 'operational flight' was in the early 1990s.
TR-3A Manta [ TIER III A Manta ] is a subsonic reconnaissance vehicle shaped like a bat wing and is in no way related to the TR-3B.
The nomenclature for the TR-3B is unconventional and named thusly to confuse those tracking black budget Programs, Projects and rumors leaked to be purposefully confusing as most are in the aerospace industry where one would think there 'must be a relationship' between the TR-3A and the TR-3B, although there is 'no relationship'.
TR3B triangular shaped nuclear powered aerospace platform was developed under the Top Secret AURORA Program with SDI ( Strategic Defense Initiative – Star Wars ) and black budget monies. At least three [ 3 ] TR3B, $1,000,000,000 billion dollar +, were flying by 1994.
AURORA is the most classified aerospace development program in existence – with its TR-3B being the most exotic vehicle created from the AURORA Program – funded and operationally tasked by the National Reconnaissance Office ( NRO ), NSA, and CIA.
TR-3B flying triangle is 'not fiction' and was built with technology available in the mid 1980s and uses more reversed alien technology than any vehicle ever before, but 'not' "every" UFO spotted is one of theirs.
TR-3B vehicle outer coating is electro-chemical reactive, that can fluctuate from radar electrical frequency ( EF ) stimulation, causing reflective color spectrum changes from radar absorption.
TR3B is the first [ 1st ] U.S. aerospace vehicle employing quasi-crystals within its polymer skin used in conjunction with TR-3B Electronic Counter Measures ( ECCM ) that can make the vehicle look like a 'small aircraft' or 'flying cylinder' that also fools radar receivers into falsely detecting a either a 'variety of aircraft', 'no aircraft' or 'several aircraft placed in various locations'.
Electro-chromatic polymer skins can be uncovered performing research that points to stealth material properties.
A couple in Ohio spotted the Triangle in early 1995, was first spotted by a man indicating its orange ball of light and then triangle shape with three [ 3 ] bright spots at each corner. As it moved slowly southward they were awestruck by the enormous size. "The damn thing is real," he exclaimed to his wife, "It's the flying triangle." The man said it was the size of "two [ 2 ] football fields" – making it 200 yards or 600-feet across – same as the TR3B operational version craft.
From the collection of pictures, analysis and further refinement we now have a better schematic layout of the Top Secret USAF Flying Triangle [ TR 3 B ] seen by thousands that the U.S. Department of Defense ( DOD ) and U.S. government claims 'does not exist'.
A circular, plasma filled accelerator ring called the Magnetic Field Disrupter, surrounds the rotatable crew compartment, far ahead of any imaginable technology.
Sandia & Livermore U.S. National Laboratories developed reverse engineered MFD technology
The government will go to any lengths to protect this technology. The plasma, mercury based, is pressurized at 250,000 atmospheres at a temperature of 150 degrees Kelvin, and accelerated to 50,000 rpm to create a super-conductive plasma with the resulting gravity disruption.
MFD generates a magnetic vortex field, which disrupts or neutralizes the effects of gravity on mass within proximity, by 89 percent. Do not misunderstand. This is 'not' anti-gravity. Anti-gravity provides a 'repulsive force' that can be 'used for propulsion'.
The MFD creates a disruption – of the 'Earth gravitational field' – upon the mass within the circular accelerator.
The mass of the circular accelerator and all mass within the accelerator, such as the crew capsule, avionics, MFD systems, fuels, crew environmental systems, and the nuclear reactor, are reduced by 89%.
A side note to the Magnetic Field Disruptor development; one source that worked at GD Convair Division in the mid 1960s described a mercury based plasma that was cooled to super-conductive temperatures, rotated at 45,000-rpm and pressurized at thousands of atmospheres. This would be considered state-of-the-art technology even by today's standards, some 30 years after he worked this project.
He related that the project achieved its objective. Instruments and test objects within the center of the accelerator showed a 50 percent loss of weight, attributed to a reduction in the gravitational field. He had worked on MFD as far back as 1965 and was told by a senior scientist that the research had been going on for a decade. See: Convair, notes from Gravitics research and Gravity RAND article.
The current MFD in the TR-3B causes the effect of making the vehicle extremely light, and able to outperform and outmaneuver any craft yet constructed, except of course, the UFOs we did not build.
The TR-3B is a high altitude, stealth, reconnaissance platform with an indefinite loiter time. Once you get it up there at speed, it doesn't take much propulsion to maintain altitude.
At Groom Lake there have been whispered rumors of a new element that acts as a catalyst to the plasma.
Recently NASA and Russia have admitted breakthroughs in technology that would use a plasma shield for exotic aerospace vehicles. If you know anything about the history of classified black programs, you know that by the time NASA starts researching something, it's either proven or old technology. They are the poor stepchildren when it comes to research and development technology and funding.
With the vehicle mass reduced by 89% the craft can travel at Mach 9, vertically or horizontally. My sources say the performance is limited only the stresses that the human pilots can endure. Which is a lot, really, considering along with the 89% reduction in mass, the G forces are also reduced by 89%.
The crew of the TR-3B should be able to comfortable take up to 40Gs. The same flight characteristics described in the Belgium sightings and many other sightings. Reduced by 89%, the occupants would feel about 4.2 Gs.
The TR-3Bs propulsion is provided by 3 multimode thrusters mounted at each bottom corner of the triangular platform. The TR-3 is a sub-Mach 9 vehicle until it reaches altitudes above 120,000 feet – then who knows how fast it can go.
The three [ 3 ] multimode rocket engines mounted under each corner of the craft use hydrogen or methane and oxygen as a propellant. In a liquid oxygen / hydrogen rocket system, 85% of the propellant mass is oxygen.
The nuclear thermal rocket engine uses a hydrogen propellant, augmented with oxygen for additional thrust.
The reactor heats the liquid hydrogen and injects liquid oxygen in the supersonic nozzle, so that the hydrogen burns concurrently in the liquid oxygen afterburner.
The multimode propulsion system can operate in the atmosphere, with thrust provided by the nuclear reactor, in the upper atmosphere, with hydrogen propulsion, and in orbit, with the combined hydrogen\ oxygen propulsion.
What you have to remember is that the 3 multi-mode rocket engines only have to propel 11% of the mass of the Top Secret TR-3B. Rockwell reportedly builds the engines.
From the evolution of exotic materials, advanced avionics, and newer propulsion engines the stealth aircraft were born. Leaps in technology have been obtained with reverse engineering of Alien Artifacts as described in the newly released MJ-12 Revised Charter, signed during the Reagan [ Ronald Reagan ] Administration.
According to Jerald's account, the technology developed at Papoose far exceeded any known within the world scientific community. Jerald was in his late 50s when I first met him in LV. He had actually spoken to scientists who analyzed the Roswell vehicle and technology–technology that we can assuredly assume was developed from reverse engineering of recovered alien artifacts. The control of all Alien Artifacts, i.e. the research, the reverse engineering, and analysis of the Extraterrestrial Biological Entities (aka) EBE, were transferred to the super-secret laboratory, called the Defense Advanced Research Center ( DARC ), in Area S-4.
Many sightings of triangular UFOs are not alien vehicles but the top secret TR-3B. The NSA, NRO, CIA, and USAF have been playing a shell game with aircraft nomenclature.
Creating the TR-3, modified to the TR-3A, the TR-3B, and the Tier 2, 3, and 4, with suffixes like Plus or Minus added on to confuse even further the fact that each of these designators is a different [ Unmanned Aerial vehicle ( UAV ) ] aircraft, and not the same aerospace vehicle.
A TR-3B is as different from a TR-3A as a banana is from a grape. Some of these vehicles are manned and others are unmanned."
One thing i would change on that statement above is the engine.the super conducting magnet rings are cooled to liquid nitrogen temp.and the mercury plasma may be at a high level.250,000 atmospheres.thats 250,000 x 15psi=3,750,000psi.
I dont think its feasible to build a vessel that could hold that pressure and not be a weight issue.
I agree that it probly disrupts the gravity of whatever its bottom is pointed at.it would make sense that earth is 89% and other gasses around the craft are the other 11% including the moon.
Robo, you read my mind and let me write what I was told when I talked to PWM about it.
He said it has nothing to do with the walls of the tube. The gas fills the tube when the machine is off but once the cycle is started it is then pushed around by magnents and a field squezes the gas down to this pressure. The higher the field the more the squeze. So the tube could be anything that could hold the gas at sea level and have the magnets hang on it. Like a collider.
Just guessing here but if the tube was say, 2 feet in dia, the gas would be sent down to less than a pencils diameter. It would still do all of that twirling even in that size. A failure would just bring the gas back to normal size annd the ship would fall.
If this field was at 89% just to hover and it started to drop to say 50% then the ship would fall slowly because the 3 corner jets could not take the weight. They were having problems with them also. Once this craft goes over on its side it is like a turtle and cant get back up. Not a fighter jet! I guess this why they always stay level to Earth. At least at slow speeds. At high speeds you could use inertia to swing you around.
So it might just be that with that tube the magnet system is all the weight and not the tube or gas. They just play with the gas.
Deuem
If its gas jets.i dont think they are when it should be just as easy to make smaller circles.if the craft rolled over then it should be easy to roll it over using one or two corners.if in the air.
After thinking more.just like the two magnet theory.orientation didnt matter.so it may not matter with the craft.
What pwm said sounds close to correct.
If china pays you deuem for this intel.i better get a kickback.im sure pwm and elvis may wants something to.since china just bought detroit.ill take that off there hands.
A 3d animated rendering of that would be cool.any takers?
I agree that in full magnet mode it should not matter to the craft which way is up and the video does show that. They warped out while they were on their side. I think it matters when they are in hover mode only. That flying should be harder than warp. The wobble, The gravity and so on.
IMHO: If they were in Hover a few miles above that area and had a short circuit of some naure they would fall even on half power. They did something and got it under control for a second or two and then it failed almost 100% and went into more of a free fall. At this time if you watch the video, they kicked the nose around to the left and must have hit the backups and took off. Scotty, I need more power. Now Scotty, Now! Sounds familiar..
Follow the nose from the first jump to the last one and you will see that they do indeed turn the craft to point the nose to the left. So this craft is directional and must have rear thrusters as some have said. They are only using the magnetics to displace the weight. IMHO:
I really wish I had the Camera details. ArMaP, any luck on the research?
If the ship is that big.it should be easier to control than if it was a small fighter plane.plus im sure they have self leveling switch that could take control.maybe the control circuit that powers all the functions was shorting.loose lug on bus bar?
Quote from: deuem on November 15, 2013, 12:59:54 AM
ArMaP, any luck on the research?
No, the only reference for this case is this YouTube video.
It looks like there have been some sightings on that place (apparently, the name is wrong, it should be Wormerveer and not Wormeveer), in other years.
Yes robo, there are always ghosts in the machines. After all, ever a feather will fall to Earth. The more complex a toy is, the more that can go wrong.
Someone had asked me to look into the trialgle over Paris video. Ok I did. For me IMHO it is 100% garbage CGI. Not even 1 good field, just an overlay mix to the video. I processed about 10 frames and they were all the same. If you step frame the video there are a lot of duplicate frames and most of all in the end where it whites out, that is what it does. Goes white screen, not white field. Even a White gradiant will produce a field. A gradiant field but something. I will keep that book open but for now it is on the BS CGI shelf. On the shelf means the case is still open and not in the garbage. If any of you want to open it with other ideas, be my guest. And we can see the ship. Hum!
Quote from: ArMaP on November 15, 2013, 01:39:06 AM
No, the only reference for this case is this YouTube video.
It looks like there have been some sightings on that place (apparently, the name is wrong, it should be Wormerveer and not Wormeveer), in other years.
So why let that stop you, dig into the people that posted it, did into everything you can find, get the original. If you hit Dutch then let PWM help. Sharpen the shovel...Police reports, newspaper reports. Other vids or photos. Find a trail and blood hound it. Don't give up so fast.
How many Wormerveers are there? Can't be that many of them. Where do they live and so on.
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on November 15, 2013, 02:04:29 AM
So why let that stop you, dig into the people that posted it, did into everything you can find, get the original.
Who said I was stopping? :)
QuoteHow many Wormerveers are there? Can't be that many of them. Where do they live and so on.
As far as I understand it, there's only one Wormerveer, the place where this video was supposedly made.
Quote from: ArMaP on November 15, 2013, 02:18:12 AM
Who said I was stopping? :) My bad. Sorry! miss read u
As far as I understand it, there's only one Wormerveer, the place where this video was supposedly made. Ok, that should narrow the field down some.
Your killing me deuem.thats my favorite vid.
The vid has been copied like ten times on youtube.the original person even complained that others were stealing it and claiming as there.its even been relabled in one case as being over another city.to put something in night vision and then making the plasma ball expand twice plus using a new military style craft thats posted as a black plane makes me think its real.somebody went above and beyond to fake it if its a fake.
Robo sorry for the stake in the chest. The quality of that video is so poor that I can not get any thing to work. Even in some phone videos I can get stuff. That is why it is not in the Deuem Garbage yet. If you or any one can get the original or a copy of it not a tenth generation I will look at it again, no problem. I think I wrote before, that even in a copy of a copy if the fields are there they never go away, just get more distorted. When it whites out the screen it is the same thing they even do in star wars. they add a white frame. When run it looks like a burst or flash.
As of right now it looks like a model was filmed and they added all of the FX and layered into the sky.
Again this is my HO for what I have to work with now.....
A sneek peek just for you, I had trashed the workups but did 3 more for this post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No shine below from 4 of them. Not even 1 ring?
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/dt2.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/dt2.jpg.html)
This blast of power should have lit up the sky and it did nothing for me but get larger.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/dt.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/dt.jpg.html)
And this one is done with Balloons where every pixel is changed and nothing hides but looks bad.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Balloons.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Balloons.jpg.html)
Top work kids. I'm gonna do more digging when I get into work today.
Happy Friday.
(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/Marx_zps94c15427.gif)
are you still referring to the op video?
that thing is moving just like a kite.
Undo it's a mix of the op and a general dig into the Tr3b.
(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/alien00065_zpsb00116c8.gif)
Quote from: undo11 on November 15, 2013, 05:45:37 AM
are you still referring to the op video?
that thing is moving just like a kite.
Reply 101 & 102 are of the Paris video. All the rest should be from the OP. Kite as you call it.
Good chance its fake.guys a printer.if im correct .his name is scott kleven.hes on linked in.im having problems w linkedin.if some one would contact him.maybe invite him over.it would be appreciated.it sure would be nice to ask him whats up.
Quote from: robomont on November 15, 2013, 08:43:55 AM
Good chance its fake.guys a printer.if im correct .his name is scott kleven.hes on linked in.im having problems w linkedin.if some one would contact him.maybe invite him over.it would be appreciated.it sure would be nice to ask him whats up.
Robo, which triangle are you taking about, paris or netherlands
Deuem
After further thought.i think we may have really figured out anti gravity. I think we may really have it.
I may start a thread on this new design.im going to see what materials would cost.its functionality is very close to my previous design in many aspects.ie "first pegasus experiment" thread.theres already a couple of vids on yt that come close.the true test would be to post this theory on yt and see if it gets removed.the faster it gets removed .the more accurate it must be.lol
Belgium 1989
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRYjz3RaZcY
A little Belgium teaser Frame 1.34.376 Deuem DT Close up crop
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Video134376CloseupDT.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Video134376CloseupDT.jpg.html)
Deuem
Cool D. thats straight on my hard drive.
Pretty
Quote from: deuem on November 15, 2013, 01:22:53 PM
A little Belgium teaser Frame 1.34.376 Deuem DT Close up crop
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Video134376CloseupDT.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Video134376CloseupDT.jpg.html)
Deuem
Grooovyyy 8)
I'll touch this one more time...this is my opinion and everyone has one...
The video is fake. The clouds are real, the 'craft' is not.
There are four distinct flashes in the video.
The first, the 'craft' changes position, morphed like....(no reaction by the cameraman btw)
The second, no movement but a flash. (no reaction by the cameraman btw)
The third, no movement but a flash. (no reaction by the cameraman btw)
The fourth, a really nice flash burst that encompasses the 'craft' and then a fade out to the left..(over reaction by the cameraman)..
Upon zooming in with a blackout background, there are smaller pixels in a square around the 'craft' with larger pixels in the blackout background..hence an overlay...
The camera moves to the left an up 'before' the 'craft' moves..(this could be part of the stablization of youtube, if thats been done)...
That's my view of it...I find the lack of reaction by the cameraman on all the other flashes telling...
Peace
Rock 8)
If i was x special forces and use to fly on them to sabotage other countries and slit peoples throats while they slept to get villages to turn against each other.i would want to debunk every familiar craft i saw on the net.
Im not accusing you sarge of this in any way shape or form but i see it happen alot on the net these days and it gets very old after awhile.there are very few people on the net willing to spend thousands of dollars and 100s of hours just to get something over on someone.what is the benefit of making a bogus vid.there is none.only shame and embarassment would come of it when the truth was found out.
Explanation for Deuems engines?....
I agree with Sgt Rock. There's too much of a disconnect between the triangle thing and the rest of the video. Someone had a little fun patching this video together.
Quote from: robomont on November 15, 2013, 04:38:54 PM
If i was x special forces and use to fly on them to sabotage other countries and slit peoples throats while they slept to get villages to turn against each other.i would want to debunk every familiar craft i saw on the net.
Im not accusing you sarge of this in any way shape or form but i see it happen alot on the net these days and it gets very old after awhile.there are very few people on the net willing to spend thousands of dollars and 100s of hours just to get something over on someone.what is the benefit of making a bogus vid.there is none.only shame and embarassment would come of it when the truth was found out.
lol,,,thats a good one Robo...
I really don't think someone would spend hundreds of millions of dollars to research and build a craft for the purpose of flying in quietly to drop off SF's to slit peoples throats..lol...they can do that very cheaply now....
and to answer why would someone go to the trouble to make this vid as a fake?...BECAUSE THEY CAN...(great resume' addition to a job interview btw).. ::)
as far as the 'engines' go...I didn't say that the 'craft' was necessarily fake..it may have been an actual model with light sources built in to give off a heat signature...I don't know I didn't make the video...but I stated my reason why i believe the way i do and i haven't seen anything so far on this thread to change my mind...
Well then i challenge the naysayers to show a vid of a tr3b that 100%real or any ufo vid that is 100% real beyond a shadow of a doubt.its way easier to be a debunker than to be a verifier.a debunkers reputation very rarely gets hurt by debunking.it takes time and guts to say i believe its real.
Ok, Robo you win,,it's real.... :P ;)
I am having a bad day.kinda grouchy.
Deuem works real hard to nit pick these vids for us and then folks fly in and just take swipes at his work.if we are a real research group then thorough debunking should be the way we work.we are a team and i hold no sway one way or another.maybe i expect too much of my colleages but i expect it of myself as well.maybe i need a break .i try to be the best i can be.
I'll try not to fly in too often anymore ::) and I promise not to nit pick anymore... :P
I'm not a scientist, researcher or any other professional except 3d mechanical designer.
I give my opinion. Am I correct? I don't know, maybe, maybe not.
There was a time when I would get pissed at what I considered un-necessary or what I considered personal attacks.
not anymore...I take it or leave it...
Peace 8)
Rock
QuoteWell then i challenge the naysayers to show a vid of a tr3b that 100%real or any ufo vid that is 100% real beyond a shadow of a doubt.its way easier to be a debunker than to be a verifier.a debunkers reputation very rarely gets hurt by debunking.it takes time and guts to say i believe its real.
What does it matter? We HAVE been presented with REAL UFO pictures and we are all still here looking for evidence? Pictures are apparently NOT going to cut it as proof of anything. So I guess we need a working craft and an alien to explain how it all works. Pictures are a waste of time as anyone can fake a UFO sighting on camera.
Sg.would you be interested in making a design of our latest idea?
Sure
Quote from: robomont on November 15, 2013, 04:38:54 PM
what is the benefit of making a bogus vid.there is none.
This is at the end of the description of the videos posted on that YouTube channel:
Video Agency of Audio Color World own all distribution rights of the uploaded videos on our YouTube channel. If you like to use videos for uploads or commercial use please contact "info@videoagency.audiocolorworld.com
YouTube channels
xxxdonutzxxx,
O7TV and
SecretScienceTV also have that text.
That
SecretScienceTV has a video that I think may be relevant for this thread, the one below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXNMza8cu8c
Looking at several videos from those three (and I think there's at least one more) related channels makes me think of visual effects students.
The camera person movement doesn't seem natural in that video.
QuoteUpon zooming in with a blackout background, there are smaller pixels in a square around the 'craft' with larger pixels in the blackout background..hence an overlay...
Hi Sarge, Can you please explain what you mean by the Blackout back ground. I have no idea about that. Are you looking at the 1080 version? And Yes this video could be fake, I have said that all along but when I run these video workups they tend to drop out real fast. The paris one hit the trash bucket after 10 slides. This video fake or real is holding its own so far. There are many other things in the video that are very difficult to CGI. Almost impossible to do. The cloud swish is one. Dropping through the clouds is another.
So this video pushes us along a road of research and lets us open our minds to what is or could be real. Even if it is fake and we find that out 100% it has been a good test of what we do and later we can refine our research. We all know there are black projects 50 years ahead of what they show us. Maybe this is one.
As far as the camera man, sereral things are possible. He is cool under pressure untill the WOW moment. He filmed some clouds with a script in hand or maybe the audio has been replaced. For myself I would be option 1. Some people would panic and run. Or maybe he was up against a window and could not pan to the right anymore and would have lost it frame right in another few moments. I don't know. I don't know what camera he had. What was he viewing through, eye piece or screen.
It was hand held and the craft bounces all over the place with the frame. I did stabalize it but cant post it. It is locked to the frame, where ever the frame goes. This is not easy to do without a fixed object to relate to. A motion path would need to look like a zig-zag.
Deuem
Quote from: Flux on November 16, 2013, 01:17:07 AM
The camera person movement doesn't seem natural in that video.
So I ask back, what is natural for filming a UFO. Old old is he, The camera is shaking all over the place. Stabalize it and see. The frames go down by over 1/3 the original size and are bouncing wildly. His hands were shaking. A machine shake is constand and repeats. I found no repeat.
If a camera is hand held by 100 people all the films will be different. Even your heart beat will bump the frames. That is why we use tripods when we can to fix it. When they use tripods on UFO films everyone cries foul because it is fixed. A no win world.
So Flux, Do you have anything in your bag of tricks that can help?
Deuem
Quote from: ArMaP on November 16, 2013, 12:13:00 AM
This is at the end of the description of the videos posted on that YouTube channel:
Video Agency of Audio Color World own all distribution rights of the uploaded videos on our YouTube channel. If you like to use videos for uploads or commercial use please contact "info@videoagency.audiocolorwo­rld.com
Ok, why don't you go that route and see if they sell it and along with the sale maybe you will get the rest of the goodies. If fake how it was done. if real the camera mans contact information. Let us know how much it costs. That will be fun......D
Quote from: ArMaP on November 16, 2013, 12:13:00 AM
This is at the end of the description of the videos posted on that YouTube channel:
Video Agency of Audio Color World own all distribution rights of the uploaded videos on our YouTube channel. If you like to use videos for uploads or commercial use please contact "info@videoagency.audiocolorwo­rld.com
YouTube channels xxxdonutzxxx, O7TV and SecretScienceTV also have that text.
That SecretScienceTV has a video that I think may be relevant for this thread, the one below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXNMza8cu8c
Looking at several videos from those three (and I think there's at least one more) related channels makes me think of visual effects students.
When I do these they either go up a step or fall down the stairs. this one is falling down the Deuem stairs. In the 3 regular modes of Deuem I got nothing. Daytime, Mixed and Night time, so I had to go to Balloons to see what was going on. Balloons does every pixel. Nothing is left alone. I failed to find even one ring or any interference. This one is CGI in my book with out any question but you make up your own mind. Here are a few work ups, now don't let the cloud formation fields get you mixxed up.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Balloons1.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Balloons1.jpg.html)
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Balloons2.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Balloons2.jpg.html)
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Balloons3.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Balloons3.jpg.html)
The swoosh away. Ok this time they drew the swoosh in front of the craft.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Swoosh.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Swoosh.jpg.html)
Can you see where a few pixels were not fully blured away and stand out for me as dots. [in front of the craft] See, once they start to blur on white they lose where they are very quick. You cant see the dots in the photo But they are there......
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/SwooshwBalloons.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/SwooshwBalloons.jpg.html)
Anyways I usualy dont print fakes, but I guess I have to for this case or thread. I like you to see what I see. It would take them years of training to fix what they do so I guess I have time.
Again I write IMHO " This is my Deuem Book, it may be as right as it could be wrong" You should have your own book to judge with. It is the best I can do with what I have to work with. If Uncle China want to give me a few hundred million to work with I am sure we can get better at it.
There is a small chance Matrix and I might get together on his trip. He will be 4 hours away at the closest point. If he does come here I will process pictures with him and see what he says first hand.
I hope he wants to visit Avatar land and the floating mountains. And Deuem....
Your turn....
deuem
Found this one... all I have so far on it is
"First Triangle craft spotted 1965"
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_KdcYQIyEs0/UnBINKNssSI/AAAAAAAAHig/aAiSR9AGFdM/s1600/z+tri+lao.JPG)
Quote from: zorgon on November 16, 2013, 04:19:36 AM
Found this one... all I have so far on it is
"First Triangle craft spotted 1965"
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_KdcYQIyEs0/UnBINKNssSI/AAAAAAAAHig/aAiSR9AGFdM/s1600/z+tri+lao.JPG)
Ok, Z Bait dangeling out there for the Ole Deuem fish to bite... Hum food!
When I see these photos the first thing I do is to look for any fields. Now maybe that is a 60 watt light bulb hanging out of a model but I don't care about that yet. Is it dead or alive. 1 step up or down the research ladder.
This one goes one step up, it is not dead.What i see is different than what we see in the photo. Here is the first hot off the presses sample.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/ZBait.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/ZBait.jpg.html)
So it is a keeper and the bait worked well this time Z. Now we have to figure out if it is real or a real model. Let the games begin....
Your turn.....
Deuem
(http://s.nownews.com/1d/d6/1dd6aa25954cf7f7a8f8be6942f493b0.jpg)
Chinese... need translation :P
http://www.nownews.com/p/2013/11/01/1007788
Quote from: zorgon on November 16, 2013, 05:24:22 AM
Chinese... need translation :P
http://www.nownews.com/p/2013/11/01/1007788 (http://www.nownews.com/p/2013/11/01/1007788)
The title in Black says it was taken from the internet.
And that's where they should have left it LOL on this one, Silly Americans will believe anything.....
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/ChineseTriangle.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/ChineseTriangle.jpg.html)
Zero fields, I stop here.....
Quote from: zorgon on November 16, 2013, 05:24:22 AM
(http://s.nownews.com/1d/d6/1dd6aa25954cf7f7a8f8be6942f493b0.jpg)
Chinese... need translation :P
http://www.nownews.com/p/2013/11/01/1007788
That's from a video from the same guys, in this case the O7TV YouTube channel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18o3104BLmU
Direct link to YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18o3104BLmU
Download link: http://ssyoutube.com/watch?v=18o3104BLmU
I'm surprised it didn't 'flash' and zoom away...'OOHHH'.....
QuoteThat's from a video from the same guys, in this case the O7TV YouTube channel.
Ok so they also post what they think looks good. It does not yet prove the other video one way or another. Sarge os right, What no swoosh? Then what happened. Did it just stay there till they ran out of film. In a way it looks like a carnival balloon. I can't get the 720 right now, too much traffic...
deuem
I say it is a balloon..that's what it looks like to me.
Good Day, All!
Great thread, interesting Amsterdam vid. Astounding Deuem Processing. Here's some PV that reinforces the feeling that this isn't a CG addition.
The movement swishes do seem a bit showy, but one frame in the exit shows multiple shadows of the thing. Pretty hard to do as an addition.
Hope you're all well. 8)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZbmJdBKGCQ
Paulie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZbmJdBKGCQ
Nice work Paulie, great soundtrack too!
8)
Quote from: pschrier on December 03, 2013, 12:30:34 AM
Great thread, interesting Amsterdam vid. Astounding Deuem Processing. Here's some PV that reinforces the feeling that this isn't a CG addition.
What does "PV" mean? ???
QuoteThe movement swishes do seem a bit showy, but one frame in the exit shows multiple shadows of the thing. Pretty hard to do as an addition.
That's the good thing about using a computer, adding one it's as easy as adding many. :)
PS: why is the image quality so bad? It looks more like an animated GIF. ???
PV means Paulie Vision.
8)
Quote from: A51Watcher on December 03, 2013, 01:13:09 AM
PV means Paulie Vision.
8)
Thanks. :)
It's a little hard to remember all those letters. ;D
The master file is 17 Gigs, way too big to upload to YT. I adjusted contrast early in the original footage resulting in the pixelation. It's intentional. Make sure to choose 720 Resolution when viewing, it should limit the quality loss.
Here's an interesting four frame look at the exit of the thing.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/110407133@N05/11181610804/
Paulie
Hey, paulie is back, have a nice vacation?
there are many short sections of this vid that would be so time consuming to make I don't think anyone would do it. Either they got lucky or it is real. I do put this one over the 50% mark for sure.
Did you get a chance to find the fast cloud reaction at the 124 mark. Up and behind the craft. The Clouds react a second later and get swept away. Amy found it and we both agree that would be a very hard part to CGI.
The set of 4 is very nice and yes I see the trail. It did not vanish. It went off at a very high speed. Someone put the pedal to the metal...
Deuem
Quote from: spacemaverick on November 16, 2013, 10:50:09 PM
I say it is a balloon..that's what it looks like to me.
If you're talking about the AZ one, then yea. Balloon. [not hot air]
Hot air balloons light up the entire ski with Deuem.
Haven't seen anything that makes it anything more than an ROV with CGI added. Just like the one over the mountain in the Balkans. Nice resume' build for a movie job. IMHO. My son works for TurboSquib and they make these all the time.
Rock
Quote from: A51Watcher on December 03, 2013, 01:13:09 AM
PV means Paulie Vision.
8)
Greetings:
Welcome back, Brother Pauli.
Please grace us with your presence more often. ;)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/PauliVision_dec13.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Bluebird/lg50aa500a.gif)
tfw
Peace Love Light
Liberty & Equality or RevolutionFUKUSHIMA FALLOUT CLOCKElapsed Time since March 11, 2011, 2:46 PM - Fukushima, Japan (http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20110311T1446&p0=2155)
The World Must Take Charge at Fukushima (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=5453.msg74364#msg74364)
"In a time of universal deceit
telling the truth is considered a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
Quote from: pschrier on December 03, 2013, 12:30:34 AM
Good Day, All!
Great thread, interesting Amsterdam vid. Astounding Deuem Processing. Here's some PV that reinforces the feeling that this isn't a CG addition.
The movement swishes do seem a bit showy, but one frame in the exit shows multiple shadows of the thing. Pretty hard to do as an addition.
Hope you're all well. 8)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZbmJdBKGCQ
Paulie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZbmJdBKGCQ
WOW that is freaking epic!!! Haha I could not stop smiling LOL ;D
What a trip! Really shows the depth of the craft.
And that tune ;-) love it. Huge fan of the paulie vision. Nice job ;)
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on December 03, 2013, 03:40:38 AM
Haven't seen anything that makes it anything more than an ROV with CGI added. Just like the one over the mountain in the Balkans. Nice resume' build for a movie job. IMHO. My son works for TurboSquib and they make these all the time.
Rock
Ok, Can you ask him to make one and we will compare? Just need 30 seconds or so. they can leave out the screaming. Duplicate any part of this video. Someone needs actualy do what you said. This is the most common reply I see on UT but and the big BUTT, no one ever does it! They scream I can do that in 5 minutes. Ok, it took them that long to log in and write the comment, whats holding them up? Do it and let us compare a known to a guess. It would help us for sure. We have very few video standards to work off of that we actually know were faked. The rest are a guess and in the snake pit.
Deuem
Ok I'll ask. I'm just amazed everyone is so easily impressed. Look back on the thread for my original reasons why I believe this is a fake job. Not going to repeat myself. Nighty night. Work in about 6 hrs.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on December 03, 2013, 04:37:13 AM
Ok I'll ask. I'm just amazed everyone is so easily impressed. Look back on the thread for my original reasons why I believe this is a fake job. Not going to repeat myself. Nighty night. Work in about 6 hrs.
I had asked you about your original post and you never replied. There are 3 sections in the vid and the last one. The BIG PAN is not from the original it is a computer made pan. In the original the craft went out of sight and then the camera moved just a bit to the left. Since you never answered I don't know which section of the vid you are talking about. Did you ever watch the entire vid? I don't know yet. Maybe you just skipped to the end and made that call. People read your posts.
I for one am not easily impressed. We looked very deep into this video and come out with more qiestions than we went into with. On this vid, If we can prove it is fake, I will buy that. If we just say it is fake I won't buy that. Saying and doing are 2 different things. Doing something one is a researcher, Saying and agreeing is a sheep. This
sheep "Ram of Aries" likes more proof.
thank you for the "I will ask". I will wait for the sample, Maybe we can all learn something from it one way or another. And most of all, ask him if he can hide the 3 corner engines so you can't see them in the sample.
Deuem
" Paulie Vision" :) that's epic.
These craft have been seen by what 1000s of people but it's for to "out there" for it possibly be the real deal?
Give me a break. The chance of one getting filmed was bound to happen some time.
That's not to say it can't be faked but it seems like a hell of a lot of trouble has been gone through to get the shadows and the heat signatures from the engines/stablisher setup that only shows up under Deuem and a little in Paulie vision.
Let's see these CGI experts replicant it if it's so dam lame!
Quote from: stealthyaroura on December 03, 2013, 10:25:08 PM
These craft have been seen by what 1000s of people but it's for to "out there" for it possibly be the real deal?
Give me a break. The chance of one getting filmed was bound to happen some time.
The chance of being fake is even bigger, as the fakers usually look for what is "in fashion" at the time, the "fashion" now is triangular UFOs.
QuoteThat's not to say it can't be faked but it seems like a hell of a lot of trouble has been gone through to get the shadows and the heat signatures from the engines/stablisher setup that only shows up under Deuem and a little in Paulie vision.
Unless those aren't shadows or heat signatures. :)
Ya it's just so easy to brush it off as CGI, yes it might be CGI
And if it is whoever made it knows just what the researchers
would be looking for as evidence for it being legit.
So ether way it's actually impressive footage and were still no wiser about it.
Dam frustrating, but then that would be part of the point no?
Yes, there is a lot of truth in the UFO fashion show the CGI people are creating. What's hip today is old news in a week. They seem to come in waves. I like that word, waves. It has a nice ring with UFOs. For years I seem to be doing one type at a time. Triangles so far are on the light side. Harder to make I guess. More detail needed than a ball.
Many websites classify them by design. I classify them by fields and shape also. It might be as simple as to which Alien race is on tour this month. They might take turns. Go through a booking agency. Get in line to buy Earth space tickets. It could be all of the above.
This video is not a UFO that one would go and bet the house on at Vegas. It is one that has stepped over the 50/50 mark with enough information to work with and expand our groups skills. If a 100% real UFO ever does get filmed it should look something like this. So this vid is either a great fake, they got lucky [beginners luck] or it is real.
It has "The Right Stuff".
If you are making fake CGI vids you should study every frame in this video and do it for yourself. This video even has a story line. If you look for it. How many fakers do that? I could make a movie around the information presented in it, there is so much.
I can't do a lot of the video movie making I would like to but I did stabilize it in Adobe FX and it still looks good. Every thing in the frame stayed sound where as the outter frame was all over the place. The outter jump to box is over 50% of the original frame. Very typical for a shaking hand video. So the motion around the UFO was rock solid. Most of the time you can see the ufo jump around within the stabilized version and that is a killer of CGI work.
Maybe now that Paulie is back with us he can run a stable version and then go back in and stabilize the stable cut. I ran mine 3 times to get rid of any computer shake.
Deuem
Quote from: stealthyaroura on December 04, 2013, 01:40:07 AM
Ya it's just so easy to brush it off as CGI, yes it might be CGI
It's not just a question of "brush it off as CGI", it's a question of saying that, from what I see, it doesn't appear to be difficult to create with a computer and the right software.
And yes,
anything can be CGI, but that's not the point.
QuoteAnd if it is whoever made it knows just what the researchers would be looking for as evidence for it being legit.
That's the easiest part, they just have to take a look at YouTube, get some links to sites, forums and blogs, and see what people use as evidence, so they can do it the way the researchers expect it to be.
QuoteSo ether way it's actually impressive footage and were still no wiser about it.
Not that impressive.
QuoteDam frustrating, but then that would be part of the point no?
I suppose that's part of the idea of hoaxing things like this.
Quote from: deuem on December 04, 2013, 01:55:26 AM
If a 100% real UFO ever does get filmed it should look something like this.
Why do you say that? How can you (or anyone else) know it? ???
QuoteIf you are making fake CGI vids you should study every frame in this video and do it for yourself. This video even has a story line. If you look for it. How many fakers do that?
Some do. Some of the people doing this type of thing are movie students, so they do things professionally, preparing things to make the end result as believable as possible.
QuoteI can't do a lot of the video movie making I would like to but I did stabilize it in Adobe FX and it still looks good.
I used to use VirtualDub to do that, but after the upgrade from Windows 8 to Windows 8.1 it looks like something isn't working, that's why I didn't try to make a stabilised version. :(
QuoteDeuem: If a 100% real UFO ever does get filmed it should look something like this. ArMaP: Why do you say that? How can you (or anyone else) know it? (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/Smileys/default/huh.gif)
Very easy. A real one would need to land. knock on your/my door and ask ArMaP/Deuem to film it and go for a ride. Eveything else is second or third party information.
A 100% real UFO would be just that. No questions asked, not even by you. It's real, there it is, go touch it, kick the tires and smell the paint. Watch it, film it, fly in it. No different than any of our jet airlines. That to me is 100%.
Does that match what you think 100% is? i would have to see it, feel it, ride it for myself to get to that 100% mark. Everything else could just be a story we are shown. Until my real UFO shows up I am stuck in the world of percentages and making the best of what I have to work with. If I have to answer only yes/no, this one gets a yes for now! But asking a black or white question on a gray area is not fair to anyone. Besides, maybe an Alien made the video, like a home movie for his kids. lol
Deuem
Maybe it's a hologram :-[
I think it's impressive. The Usual CGI efforts are so obvious, very inanimate overly complicated and dead looking! this has so many subtle touches.
Quotemaybe it's a hologram
ArMaP:maybe.
I have processed holograms, way different than this one. they show up as scattered light and can see right through them. Good thought though!
Quote from: deuem on December 04, 2013, 03:09:35 AM
I have processed holograms, way different than this one. they show up as scattered light and can see right through them. Good thought though!
That was kind of tongue in cheek but that's interesting that you have worked one with Deuem.
So that's another possible theory sorted.nice one D ;)
Can I see it? :) (a worked hologram)
Quote from: stealthyaroura on December 04, 2013, 03:23:13 AM
That was kind of tongue in cheek but that's interesting that you have worked one with Deuem.
So that's another possible theory sorted.nice one D ;)
Can I see it? :) (a worked hologram)
This is a very good original to work from. It is from a live hologram show in Japan. She is a virtural rock star. I have watched the shows on video and they are incredable. Japan is doing live 3D animated holograms while the USA sleeps.
Here is the original I worked off of
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/3DrealHolograminJapan.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/3DrealHolograminJapan.jpg.html)
Processed in Deuem Daytime. Oh yea a lot of light going on there but no details inside. Maybe we should ask them to do a UFO for us and check it out.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Daytime-2.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Daytime-2.jpg.html)
Fantastic stuff they are doing, now if they can only fix Fukushima.....
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on December 04, 2013, 02:24:04 AM
Does that match what you think 100% is? i would have to see it, feel it, ride it for myself to get to that 100% mark. Everything else could just be a story we are shown. Until my real UFO shows up I am stuck in the world of percentages and making the best of what I have to work with. If I have to answer only yes/no, this one gets a yes for now! But asking a black or white question on a gray area is not fair to anyone.
I was not asking about the 100% thing, sorry for not being explicit about it.
I was talking about the "it should look something like this" part. How can we know how they should look?
I thought that answer would be perrr-fect for you, unless we actually get the 100% one I listed it will alwasy be a "this and that" guess. Less than 100%. Now, how educated or trust worthy that guess is. is up to each of us believe or not to believe.
For my self I am tring to build a library of educated guesses to work on figuring out what might be going on. So based on years of research, processing hundreds of photos, standards and wantabies, I think it is alright for some of us to make an educated guess. If it is in the air, something has to keep it there. Even sometimes a string or simple CGI. But everything is not CGI, there still is some swamp gas to deal with. ???
And I have said many times, I could be as wrong as I think I am right.
Saying all of that, the next step would be to find the guy who filmed it, water board him and get to the bottom of this vid. I think he will talk. :o ;) Maybe he owns a CGI shop or maybe he just filmed something wierd....I say there is enough in the vid to take it up a step if we could. Send in the UFO Hunters..
If I have a hundred cds of work I kept, then I would have had over a thousand if I kept all the ones I worked, discounted and tossed. I think I do my share of seperation also. call it debunking if you wish but I always try to start with a clean slate and see what happens and go from there. Later......
deuem
I just want to say, Deuem, that so far when You provide examples of the fakes, I see exactly what You mean. There is a cut somewhere that does not flow. The hologram was amazing in that it translated so clearly, all things considered. It didn't have a "cut" but was vastly different from any of the other stuff You have shown.
Information and it's order does come through that process of Yours. [smile]
I also agree that this footage is not fake - and I suspect it is "leaked," too.
Ya that hologram looks pretty darn dead in Deuem.
The blue beam thread got me thinking it.
I remember seeing the Tupac concert where they projected him on stage.
That was really impressive even on a screen so it must of been something to
see it with your own eyes.
Thanks D :)
Infact have a token of appreciation for going out of your way for a pal.
Yes on the cuts Amy, if you lok for them they are there, also see her hands are missing.
Stealth, I wanted to do something real not a movie Hologam that was added. I did see the Tupac while searching but could not find a clear shot like the girl above. If you have the CD, post a clear shot and I will run it for you.
Deuem
I only saw tupac hologram on the news Deuem, there are some tubes
but they look like mobile phone camera footage or similar poor quality.
I'm surprised hologram technology isn't more mainstream in today's digital age,where is my hologram projector phone? It's well overdue.
Quote from: deuem on December 05, 2013, 02:08:58 AM
Yes on the cuts Amy, if you lok for them they are there, also see her hands are missing.
I see clear edges to the holo, but not the "cuts" that CGI over a filmed scene gives. And I see Her hands...
Quotewhere is my hologram projector phone? It's well overdue.
..........Working on it........ :P
Getting back on topic, i have seen various 'stealth' craft being tested here, mostly in the north. I would classify most of these as 'drones' with 'wierd lights' on them, i have the feeling they are just playing with us, since you can now buy LED's in any wavelength,,, ::)
-PWM-