• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Well it sure ain't flares this time

A

Anonymous

Guest
Some bright lights-in-the-sky in the Pheonix area have most often been explained away as flares dropped by planes.

Not so sure about this most recent capture -if it's not a hoax that is, just so bloody hard to tell these days.

Pretty jaw-dropping though :shock:

http://www.rense.com/general65/aamz.htm
 
It definitely has peaked my interest! If it is real, then yes, it has definitely put paid to the flares theory. No flares act like that!

I'll be keeping an eye on this one with great interest.
 
Hmm, looks somewhat fishy to me...
 
again its lights in the night sky
why not during the day time ?
are they scared of the light...lol
 
Interesting footage and definitely couldn't be flares surely?
 
That's quite a light show. Alas, no idemntifiable objects near camera or object to establish scale. Could be a little model diorama for all we know.
 
>again its lights in the night sky
>why not during the day time ?
>are they scared of the light...lol

If this is real, then it is clear this was put on as a show. Seems reasonable that a stark display of LITS would be better seen, by more people, than during the day when the sky is often too bright to look at comfortably.

Sure 'they' (again IF this is real) could drop down to a lower altitude during the day and hence be better seen and filmed, but they might be more at risk from attack. Better to play safe at higher altitudes?
 
Who'd want to attack them, and why? And alititude wouldn't necessarily protect them from an attack.

To me this looks like some CGI stuff. It wouldn't be tricky to create.
 
"No flares act like that! "

Not dropepd flares no, but some expendable countermeasures can maneuvre, and the trend these days is for them to become virtually autonomous vehicles in their own right. Not sure why they'd do something like this though, unless they were just showing off and trying to spook the natives :D
 
>..Who'd want to attack them, and why? And alititude wouldn't necessarily protect them from an attack.

Try the Military-Industrial Complex. Alien revelation, with the associated collapse of governmental/religious controls on our minds is a good reason. And let's also throw in more-than-likely free-energy with no more oil profit and no more Military. These people have a vested interest in the status-quo remaining so. They will kill to maintain this.

Altitude offers a huge tactical advantage for an airborne when one has to get the hell out of it should a SAM be en-route. If Leonard Cramp was right about UFO's having such strong gravity fields about them that they can bend light around them (hence obtaining total or observer-selective proximal 'invisibility') then laser weapons are useless. But SAMs are real and altitude is the best safeguard.

>..To me this looks like some CGI stuff. It wouldn't be tricky to create.

I agree about the CGI thing, but only as I don’t know if ‘they’ can move in the air with the mechanical precision this video clearly suggests, perhaps they can. I do disagree with the latter comment about reproduction not being tricky as many have said that sort of thing, but never produced the goods to show their point.
 
That video is fake, IMHO

The camera shake exhibited in the foreground is not shown in the main subject.

The reolution of the 'distant objects' is all wrong.

The comentary is too staid.

The focus is on the horizon mountain range, the 'distant objects' should also be in focus.
 
SpaceParrot - what you've said perhaps assumes far too much about what UFOs may be (if anything at all). But faking this sort of thing isn't difficult - if someone chose to take the time to do so, none of what's in that video is beyond the capabilities of someone with enough time and inexpensive resources. Having worked in CGI myself for many years, such footage does have a somewhat dodgy look. The same can be said for still images that tend to crop up from time to time, whether it's UFOs, or cryptids, etc..
 
>..such footage does have a somewhat dodgy look. The same can be said for still images that tend to crop up from time to time, whether it's UFOs, or cryptids, etc..

Well I agree fully. But I'd still like to see a reproduction from one of the people who say they could do it. It would be a refreshing change to see someone got out of their armchair ;)
 
The precise tracking of the lights relative to the foreground
trees COULD be recreated by a software package called
"Commotion". Although the final zoom in (off the tripod)
caused some contention here in the video studio...

So we dug out the handheld video camera and concentrated
on zooming into a light switch 30 feet away. With the
"Steadyshot" feature turned off, the handheld zoom
actually followed a VERY similiar "pattern" to what was
seen on the UFO video. It was difficult to zoom-in on
an object that is somewhat far away AND keep it fully
in frame. Why did he take the camera off the tripod?!?

It could be a computer software creation... but it would
take a LOT of time and effort!

I'm impressed with this video... until further notice! ;)

FWIW
TVgeek
 
SpaceParrot - It's easier simply to size it up this footage for what it appears to be or not to be. I mean, think about it - what's more likely? That it's a fake, or that this display was real but somehow was only seen by a very small group of people in what is a large urban area? Given the lack of a national media furore, one assumes that no-one else in the Phoenix area saw anything. It's also lucky that the display seemed to be pointing in the particular direction of the witnesses (if the 'eye' shape of the lights' formation is anything to go by).

As for this being an armchair opinion - I'm a professional CGI artist and also have experience with CGI to video. Creation of this sort of footage is well within the grasp of anyone with the time, inclination and (fairly inexpensive) software/hardware to create it.
 
Yes...the camera shake is added in post editing after the animation has been done. The same with the blurring. It's highly consistent with cgi animation and the movement is very calculated.
It isn't all over the news and noone's gone on about how much has been made from it. Hmmmm....
 
could it not be a flock of geese flying over head catching the last remaining photons as the sun drops or reflecting the light from a cars headlights coming up hill. ;)
 
bothered

I am slightly bothered now by this sighting. I posted a message on the ufotheatre.com message board in reply to a link posted by a user called caio. I said that his video looked very convincing also. Now the messages have been removed. I don't think that this behaviour is right.
Is this proof that the video is hoaxed?

http://netzgame.com/upload/members/wahr ... rt2MP4.mov
 
I'm sorry but simple lights in the sky (these days) do not no matter how"good' cause any sort of "eureka". They are so easy to forge. I would really like a triangulation on something like the BOAC sighting of the 50's if my memory is still working. Or a group of blue or green "meteorites" swerving around the sky. from many perspectives. I must say as somebody on this thread said indirectly that with the amount of recording devices in the public domain there should be some pretty recent extremely good evidence for "UFO's, Flying saucers, etc" but from what I have seen it seems not. To mention the BOAC incident again, if it happened today you should expect a few(Possibly hundreds) pictures films etc from over a hundred foot baseline at least. Really for the increase in the ability of our recording devices we should have some excellent evidence but I do not see it and I do not hear of any extra MIB activity....... I realise that we are not dealing with natural phenomonon just because of what I have stated...What's it all about?
 
This footage has roundly been condemned as a fake on various mailing lists.

Hoaxers really P*** me off, whether they do it for financial gain or pseudo-intellectual piffle as their pet psycho' experiment


:evil:
 
Agreed, we have been conned. Bloody idiot Bessent, should be ashamed of himself.

taken from rense.com

Video Autheniticy Brought Into Question
08:00 PM Mountain Standard Time on Friday, June 17, 2005
By Scott Davis / 3TV producer

It's the amazing, new UFO video that captured attention worldwide and 3TV is the only broadcast medium in the world to have the photographer, Brian Bessent, in the studio.

But is the video real? That's what we set out to discover.

"This was northwest toward the White Tank Mountains," Bessent said. "I seen the light come on. I turned on my video camera and started taping."

That may be one of the few pieces of his story to withstand scrutiny.

Bessent claims he saw the first set of lights in the Valley's sky on June 5, 2005, during a late-night trip to Wal-Mart in southwest Phoenix. He says more lights appeared in formation and then faded away. He stopped the car, got out the camera and tripod and waited. Five minutes later, the lights were back. It is this 51 seconds of videotape that has become one of the most controversial "sightings" in recent history.

3TV soon learned that Bessent is a graphic artist and amateur filmmaker from Texas, visiting Arizona to help produce a DVD about UFOs. How fortuitous that he should be the only person to get this new sighting on tape. Bessent superimposed the date and Web site on his video, and uploaded it to www.ufotheatre.com. This Web site features dozens of UFO videos for sale or download, plus multiple still-frames from these videos to pique the viewer's interest. Bessent admits to creating banners and graphics for the Web site. What he did not tell us is that he is a registered user of Flash© animation by Macromedia.

During our initial interview, he insisted this new video is authentic.

"No, this is mine," he said. "It has nothing to do with anything like that. I think I was pretty lucky and I always thought if I kept my camera long enough, I'd come across something."

We pressed for more, and Bessent finally agreed to submit his original video and camera for testing at Village Labs in north Phoenix. Owner Jim Dilettoso has more than 25 years' experience dissecting unexplained videos and photographs. Prior to Bessent's arrival, Dilettoso told us there are two halves to such analyses.

"There's the personality side, the credibility side. Then there is the data side, where without opinion, we objectively extract data and compare that to our existing science database and draw conclusions."

Dilettoso and co-investigator Ken Liljegren from Spectrum Video and Film began to see problems on both sides. And so did experts in California, Mexico and Brazil, who undertook their own, independent analyses of the Internet clip and of Bessent himself.

Specifically, another video Bessent once claimed to be a fleet of UFOs later was discredited as simply a flock of birds. In Mexico, investigator Santiago Yturria found another web page from ufotheatre.com, which shows still images from the new video. This page, located in a sort of "memory file" at google.com, is dated May 28. Remember, Bessent claimed he shot the new video on June 5. There is some disagreement over this Web page and its origin.

Bessent has stated that Yturria misinterprets Google's method of saving or "caching" old files.

But as we awaited Bessent's arrival at Village Labs, Dilettoso and Liljegren turned their attention to the video clip Bessent provided us the previous week. Still not the original, but much closer.

Running the video through a vectorscope and waveform monitor reveals unusual characteristics in a number of technical indicators. The black level, white level, "pedestal", "back porch" and "blanking pulse" are markers that can read quality of a video as well as help determine whether a clip has been altered from the original.

Liljegren finds inconsistent black levels throughout the video. "When that happens, it raises more questions. I wish I could have the original tape front to back."

It was now five minutes past our appointment time. We called Brain Bessent's hotel room to make sure he was still on his way. No answer.

Dilettoso then began looking at the images on the video itself. "First of all, if it's in auto focus [as Bessent told us several times], why is there no continual adjustment that's going on even when the camera is moving?"

Then there's the noise. Grainy video in most, but not all of the picture. Dilettoso increases the contrast on the tape and a couple of things become apparent. "Out here where these little bushes and things are, it's very grainy. It's everywhere in the entire picture except one place." He points at the area where the light pattern is. "Right there."

Dilettoso finds that the area of the sky where the lights appear is much more uniformly black than the rest of the image. "The center object is very different from the outer objects," he says. "I've never had the opportunity to hold a camera in my hands where we could get a distinct white ball here, particularly one that would fly through and land there, where the outer objects aren't going to bloom and bleed over into the others."

Dilettoso gives us one final video indicator of a hoax: the date and Web site characters Bessent added to the tape. The color and shadowing are remarkably similar to several of the mystery lights.

And still, no sign of Bessent. We pack up our gear and head back to our studio, disappointed that he failed to show up. Turns out, however, that he did send an e-mail, which reads in part, "I think I have spent too much time on the UFO thing and get [sic] behind on my real life work. So I need to address some important issues before I have time to blow on UFOs."

Bessent apparently left for California, without telling his Arizona partner his plans or whereabouts.

So now, in addition to our very first question: "is the video real," we have a new one: why would a man with an authentic UFO sighting on tape back out of a detailed analysis that could validate the experience? Only one answer comes to mind.

We have not heard from Bessent since that email. We must assume he still stands by his story. In our initial interview, he denied any involvement in a hoax.

"The objects were there and people can say what they want, I just shot the footage that I seen, and that's what I was there to do when I seen it. I just got my video camera out and decided I was going to try to get the objects on tape. I've heard lots of UFO stories. I guess I got one now for myself."

With special thank-yous to Jim Dilettoso, Ken Liljegren, Santiago Yturria and Jerald Doerr
 
Hold on folks -- the debate still rages!
TVgeek

http://www.rense.com/general66/attck.htm

New Phoenix UFO Video
Attacks Criticized

From Bill Hamilton
[email protected]
AstroScience Research Network
Astrosciences.info
6-22-5

I have seen this debunking campaign before with the Phoenix Lights and Brian is under an onslaught. The White Tank Mountains have a history of genuine UFO sightings. I will try to contact Jim D. today. Jeff Wills supports the validity of the footage. Only computer analysis will tell us this story, so do not be quick to jump to conclusions... -- Bill Hamilton

The following is from videographer Brian Bessent is response to a tv report claiming his ufo video is a hoax:

Well, this time around things are a little more simple. Those channel 3 lamers bring in totally computer-generated graphics this time, and here is the LOWDOWN on that CRAP! (Not to mention the channel 3 debunking crew have resorted to personal attacks with fake background info on the shooter because they have NO evidence on anything, so they have to make it up.)

Until they come up with something real, it is truly a waste of time to comment. However, since they brought up some "new evidence" from someone claiming to be able to reproduce the actual video I shot, I'll show this latest debunking effort to be what it is: a silly lie told by silly people with simple computer skills. Check out the CHEAP 3D renders they are claiming are proof that my Phoenix video was hoaxed.

Now, lets examine their images. Hmmn...some cheap lights rendered in 3D...shot directly off a computer monitor. Also, the lights do not *flicker* at all like the real ufos did on my video which clearly demonstrates their work to be a cheap simulation. Notice the light in the middle. It looks like a round ball rendered with some high blurring to mask the cheapness of the effect. Also notice how "round" their center object is.

To make matters worse, these people can't even emulate the sony night shot effect that makes everything the same color. So, what they offer is a fake...a rendered ufo that is supposed to look like a ufo shot in Sony Night Shot added on to a blue sky. It's silly and a crappy job.. see it?

They could NEVER recreate anything that doesn't look fake. Also, they tape it right off a computer monitor. They are nothing much more than kids pretending to have the answer when they don't have anything but a fake video that looks fake to begin with.

Also, you notice something missing. Where is the second half of the video showing true color of the objects and the rapid camera movement along with the objects in perfect camera perspective? where is it, fake-makers?

They can NEVER emulate real video shot in Sony Night Shot in real clarity...and they can never make the second part of the video showing true colors of the objects. In the real video, the objects are constantly changing color from white to red to green and you can't notice it because unless you do a frame by frame its happening too fast for the human eye to see. Something else this deplorable 3D render could never reproduce.

We challenge the maker of this video and his debunking crew to come up with the second half of the video because since it was taken off the tripod, it will make it MUCH harder to even come up with a cheap rendering...which is exactly why they don't even try it.

So, once again, the supposed 'proof' is nothing more than a cheap fabrication...exactly what we expected it to be. The maker of this video claims to be able to reproduce the video exactly how it was made. It's a lie...and was shot off the computer screen which is an old hoaxing trick which went out of style in the 1980's.

All the news people will do is make up lies... here is a warning email I got from someone who claims to know Scott, the channel 3 tv producer.

From (anonymous)
Date 6/13/05 6:23PM

Scott is working with that guy who saw the Google cache to make your video look fake and he is calling everybody he can to do his best to make a news story that makes you look bad. I am warning you about it...and I know this because I see scott a lot in the studio. He has no intentions of showing anything accept the worst he can dig up on you, so don't let them get you in the corner.

_____

It seems the above email is true and correct. Santiago admitted joining the debunking crew only 2 days after the news story came out!

Also, its come to our attention that they are parading obviously computer-generated hoaxed videos around, and stamping the ufotheatre.com name on them! That's beyond childishness. Claiming that the San Saba ufos were a 'flock of birds' as well...and that it is a "known hoax"...that is is just birds in flight reverse. But they offer no proof whatsoever. Not a shred.

And you see NO MENTION of the Wise country orbs in these reports. Just another example of convenient censorship because they damn sure don't want anymore REAL videos to have to "recreate" or debunk.

So, once again the news channel is not telling the truth. And Santiago *recreated* the "goggle cache" which is plain idiocy considering Google never cached the image to begin with.

Moral of the story: if one debunker can't do the job, they join forces. It doesn't matter, really, because my video is quite real...and the ufos are still out there. Much as they'd like to, they can't change that. In fact, so many people in the US and elsewhere have seen these same kinds of ufos it's humorous. They exist. They are here. And they can be seen on my video anytime someone wishes to. -- Brian Bessent

------

Bill Hamilton
 
Back
Top