In all of your videos "proving" to debunk these extraterrestrial videos, you are assuming that the organization that filmed these had the technology of the mainstream, average Joe. They possibly had cameras and whatnot of a different level of quality, assuming the organization was incredibly secretive and required such. This is all based on the flaws of your thinking and not due to the under-skepticism on my part. Opinions are opinions.
@RainCrysis They could have used secret time travel technology to get a Microsoft font from 2005. They could have used special fx to make the footage look like it's produced with home studio software in 2011, etc. You can make up a long, complex storyline about why they'd do this (they prepare the mankind and leave some deliberate signs of hoax bla bla). This works for every fake video. But this way the ET story becomes just silly and much less plausible it was before these videos.
@toukoqouko They could have had a font very similar to the Microsoft one (I am 99% sure you do not know who created the font or what that person's influence was to create such a font of that nature). They could have used cameras that do not create scratches or distortions the way others of that time period do. I do not believe that the video is irrefutably genuine, but I cannot forthrightly claim its illegitimacy. In all, I believe and respect your perspective on this matter.
TOUKO QOUKO: Your intentions are dishonest starting by the "Title" of your videos, "LEAKED ZETA RETICULI ALIEN FOOTAGE"??!!
Your other video that you had crossed-linked First part reads:
"ALIEN GREY EXTRATERRESTRIAL ZETA RETICULI UFO"
It is very obvious, to the must retarded person, that it is purposely made, in order to attract viewers , none of them reads the magical word of what they ALL, are about..a very simple and poor "Analysis"...
Why didn't you at least, include the word analysis?
@ufopolitics You're down to criticizing the title, the view count, and the same old "why would they make these errors". You have nothing for my main arguments. There is absolutely nothing dishonest with the title. It tells what this video is about, that what titles are for.
@toukoqouko :WRONG!...Video Titles are to give a brief description about your video , an abstract, in order for viewers to decide whether hitting your channel or not, honest titles are not TRAPS to fall by "surprise and deception".Thinking that a new Leaked Zeta Reticuli Alien Video!!
I also saw your marked as spam comment in Ivan's Channel:
"some new analysis in my latest video"
toukoqouko 3 weeks ago
You dare to go into the user channel, to load an analysis declaring is fake?
@ufopolitics You can't be serious. You think the title is "dishonest" because it doesn't contain the word "analysis". Then you think it's also "dishonest" to say my video contains an "analysis". This is both funny and sad. But no, there is nothing dishonest about this video or its title. I'm not trying to mislead and deceive the public like you, for instance. On the contrary, I'm showing them who did, and how. Your desperate attempts suggest my analysis is strong and correct - thanks for that.
Our job here is as a "judgment call" uploaders , it is to outline our findings, show what we think, according to our expertise, through our video-analysis, whether from one side or the other, from a believer or a skeptic point, and then, let the people judge, vote or render an opinion.
If we are not sure of a statement, a fact, a technology... better find it before emitting a final judgment that could mislead our people into the wrong information.
Old film cameras did not have "Auto Focus", however they created blur or out of focus errors because of slow shutter speeds, versus capturing faster moving objects. If the shutter stays open for too long while the object moves this gives what you call here In-Out "Motion Blur" effect . It also depends on the battery voltage at the time of the filming to even slower speeds of the shutter, due to rolling film motor slower RPM's.
You should know by now that Motion Blur is due to slow shutter speeds and lack of the proper focusing and lens aperture. Therefore in older cameras, since they did not have the actual tech. related to Lithium-Poly or Ion Batteries or Brushless motors, their tendency to very low shutter speeds was very common for all of them.
That explains very clearly, why this old Russian video shows so much "Out of Focusing" and Blurring the E.T's that are moving..is not Motion Blur
If we account for the time the guy filming this video he had the camera running and trying to aim it to the proper direction, it could explain even slower shutter speeds than factory default, due to battery wear out.
It is simple, get a 35 mm still cam, set it on a tripod, set it to "Manual Shutter" with the proper remote activation for the trigger,have someone pass in front ,while the shutter is open
Develop it and watch a "Ghosting" image or what you call M.Blur
@ufopolitics Did you have a point? You just explained the well known motion blur effect, which you didn't understand at first. There has been nothing unclear about this to anyone else. If you have something relevant to ask or say about my video, say it. I don't think anyone is interested in your learning of photography basics.
@toukoqouko : Of course I have a "point"... The point is that your claims on this video about the "motion blur" or Out of Focus relates ONLY to new digital cameras and software editing effects, is completely Out of the Picture.
Old cameras render blurred images all the way back to the 60's and even before.
Also, the fact of finding duplicated frames without the "noise" or scratches is due to editing software trying to clean it through filtering. Software duplicates frames when you stretch them.
@ufopolitics Did I get this right? After several pages of your hopeless confusion with definitions ("I referred to Motion Blur , when applied to Software, Motion Blur, In Photography, which is a completely different story") your point is, that the elongated aliens weren't elongated because of motion blur, but just general out of focus? If that's your point, then it's extremely weak. It's clear that this is motion blur. Out of focus blur doesn't elongate moving objects directionally.
@toukoqouko : Now you are "jumping" to a different and completely New word..."Elongated" Aliens?...I have never mentioned this word, and I have not seen it or read it in ANY of your videos?
Ok, but now you are getting into deeper fields, that would get you in even heavier trouble to get out...
¿Are You claiming that the Aliens are "Elongated" (I understand you meant "Elongated Horizontally") because of Motion Blur effects?
Please answer this question before I proceed...and think it over, again
@ufopolitics: Wrong word I stated in previous comment, and I do not want to erase the comment , fix it and re post it because Touko Qouko will say a bunch of things that I am hiding my comments and bla,bla,bla... I meant "Elongated Vertically", not Horizontally.
@ufopolitics The word "elongated" appears on this video at 02:44 where I discuss motion blur. This is why I asked you to watch the video and read what it says before trying to disprove it. My impression was true: you totally missed central points of my video, because apparently didn't bother to read what it says.
@toukoqouko : You mentioned that the Aliens were "diagonally elongated" by motion blur /
Answer: It is normal, they are moving during the whole scene, no one of them is standing still, so, even if the cam did not move, they moved, therefore they will show blur through an old 1960's low shutter speed cam.
Frame: 2:54 "The Cam moved left, the aliens are still motion blurred diagonally, like in the previous frame/Obvious,the Camera Shutter was open those two frames,therefore capture blurred aliens
@ufopolitics You missed the point. Just think about it a bit more. If you're shooting moving objects, whatever way they move, whatever way you move the camera, whatever the shutter does, the blur appears in the direction of the relative movement between camera and objects. This doesn't happen on the alien video - the blur is independent of the relative motion. Again, this was explained on my video.
@toukoqouko : And thanks for taking your time to repeat it again here.
You have to play the original entire clip in slow motion (I did that many times in AE and AP) and then go into frame by frame analysis.
First part: an Alien passes in very first plane, just could see the upper black torso. That causes blurred focus of the other aliens in second plane(not "auto focus" here, just infinte missed for couple of frames)
The cam makes a sudden move toward the right (original video)...Cont.
@toukoqouko: It is obvious you have ever even attempted to "Add Motion Blur" into moving objects or to a virtual moving camera in a Good, professional Video Editor like Adobe After Effects or Premiere,I am convinced of that.
If you would have done it, you had realized this programs are so smart that this errors will not show up "randomly and wrongfully" like you want to state, but according to the cam and objects displacement being as close as possible to reality,to the point you won't notice
@ufopolitics You're still missing the point. The effect seen on the video is perfectly explained by this setup: 1) an original clip with the aliens walking, with realistic motion blur, 2) added camera shaking for a more authentic feel. This produces motion blur independent of the camera movement; motion blur in the direction that is different from the motion direction. Yes, this error appears with state-of-the-art software, too.
@toukoqouko : In order to conduct a "Fair" judgment analysis, both arguments should be brought over. Of both possibilities, being real or fake, Both possibilities dissected into higher levels of analysis.
Do you think, given the possibility of a constructed CGI video here, that whoever build it, knowing 3D animations so incredibly good as to pass for many as a real video (check out the comments at Ivan's profile from CGI users) . That this advanced user is going to make those silly errors?
same here, im working in cg, i showed this to my colleagues and everybody thinks this is real ....
GreenShadedThing
If it is CG, which is very unlikely, then it was MoCap. It's obviously real.
I showed my work colleagues, who are a mix of Special FX, visual FX and creature FX technicians, artists and designers. They were at a loss as to what it is and fell very silent. Quite a feat, considering they are a group of jaded, cynics.
My boss is a visual effects and model effects supervisor, he knows his cameras. His very experienced opinion is that it is video footage of an analogue projector.
@ufopolitics This is just an anecdote. I can equally well say that my boss said that "ufopolitics" doesn't have a boss because he's unemployed. How much weight do this kind of statements have in your opinion? Is this really all you've got?
@ufopolitics Nice story, thanks for that. Even if you had a million special fx colleagues who can't find an error, it does nothing to nullify the various errors I and others have found. Their incompetence doesn't make these fakes real. Secondly, you didn't know what motion blur is, so it seems very unlikely you'd work with special fx professionals (except maybe delivering their pizza?)
@toukoqouko : Motion Blur seems to be... the One and Only field you know about ...related to animation and editing videos...can you speak of something else? Like Character Rigging, Skinning process, 3D Modeling, Constraining Joints in skeleton, Key framing, In between frames, Animation Curves....Linear Animation...ghosting...I mean, there are so many topics in the CGI Industry shown on this videos, that just remaining in a single, just editing effect out of thousands results very tedious !!!??
@ufopolitics You're doing it again. Copy-pasting terms you think seem technical and advanced. I already said I'm presenting the most accessible, reproducable, and checkable facts. This video is already quite long. You're free to analyze any of those topics, but as we already know it's a hoax, it's more or less pointless waste of time, much like responding to your comments.
@toukoqouko : Hahahaha...Copy and Paste terms?...I could teach you Animation ,Modeling, Dynamics, Texturing.... in the best of the best softwares, friend,...like MAYA or 3D Studio...Go Google them
However and unfortunately...even if I spent thousands of hours teaching you all about this great programs...and even you being able to learn everything to the top (point that I find difficult because you still don't know about motion blur, after I had spent so much time trying) But ,"supposing" you would have reach the top of the top in the experience on all those programs.
You still need to be an "Artist" to create excellent videos and good taste animations, and that I can not teach you, sorry
@toukoqouko : There is some tech you need to know Touko, about old cams, the shutter and the film rolling mechanisms were independent from each other, although they were synchronized , meaning, you could be rolling the frames while the shutter could've being open for two-three frames, therefore,exposing the sensitive celluloid film to longer exposure times, capturing a blurred Alien.
This old cams had different speed set ups, but they had to be set manually, and remember, this was a hidden cam..
@toukoqouko :"My argument about the motion blur doesn't depend on the technology"?? What technology, 'cause you cite the motion blur related to new technology in software, as it is applied here?
@ufopolitics The basic concept of motion blur doesn't depend on the mechanical/technical details, it appears with all kinds of cameras. In all cases relatively moving objects leave a trail. The trail is formed in the same direction as the camera/object relative movement, no matter how old or new the camera was or if there is autofocus or not. The inconsistency is clear and easy to see. This all was explained. It's getting rather time consuming to re-explain everything again and again to you.
When you have a very short piece of film, and you want it to last longer, there is a tool to stretch the footage...What does it do?...it duplicates the frames in an evenly fashion, passing them through a post-processing stage where it cleans it and filters it. For example, in Adobe Premiere you could stretch a footage up to 150% without getting the flickering, just by grabbing the track end with the tool and dragging it.
Point is, your claim is not valid to claim is fake.
@toukoqouko : Also in your own video answer here you claim bad spelling of two (2) words of a Russian video translated to English...your point is to ridiculize the video, but still does not proves it is fake.
The original video had just a few frames, he stretch it to gain a bit more time= duplicate frames
The original video was filmed with an old camera from the sixties,= slow shutter speeds=blur objects constantly while capturing.
Your claims are too weak to state that this videos are fake.
It results in an insult to the intelligence of your visitors.
A better approach is to just cite the "possible" mistakes you've found and let the public decide.
Don't "jump the gun" and steer people to believe what you think, by adding comments to ridiculize the sightings or the events like a dis-crediting campaign does in this fields.
@ufopolitics Please, before trying to refute my conclusions, watch the video, read the text. The terms and concepts are very basic, but if you're not familiar with them, check Wikipedia again. It seems to me you missed the point about motion blur, or added scratches, shaking, and other effects. It's all explained there, so you'll probably need to watch it again. If you find an explanation for the effects other than hoax, let us know.
@ufopolitics "Motion Blur is directly related to shutter and focusing speed" is wrong. The references I linked certainly don't agree you here. Maybe you're trying to obfuscate your earlier mistake. The concept of "focusing speed" exists only with autofocus and has nothing to do with motion blur. If you think I'm wrong about motion blur, give me a link to the definition, article, anything. Otherwise I must conclude you're making things up because you can't find any weakness in my analysis.
@toukoqouko : Because Motion Blur is a combination of two words, where the main word we are looking for is Blur, first you must find its meaning. Just search "Optical Blur Definition"(directed to photography of course, otherwise will get all kind of Ophthalmologists opinions) ...will see the following:
"Blur= Degradation of an image formed by an optical system as a result of lack of focusing"
And I recommend not to "keep concluding" 'cause you are getting worst with your huge audience...
@ufopolitics I know what these basic terms mean. Changing the word and concept won't help you - motion blur still has nothing to do with focusing. Your word trick in trying to hide your mistake is pathetic and sad. It's like claiming "false money" is valuable, and using the definition of "money" to prove that. You left out the first word because you were wrong, and hope no-one notices? You know you made a mistake but don't want to admit it. Your evasion attempt is, again, dishonest.
@toukoqouko : I don't understand you...I am trying to help you in your frustrated search for Blur-Related to Focusing...I found it , and now you are -again-calling me "dishonest".
Even a Kindergarten kid, if I presented this definitions, like I helped here... would say I am absolutely right...
Blur=Lack of Focusing
Motion Blur= Lack of Focusing in Motion, or by moving the Camera or the Objects to be photographed!!
It is very simple Touko.
I understand now it is too hard for you as school was?...
@ufopolitics I've screenshotted these most pathetic pieces of idiotism you've blurted out so far, in case you want to hide them, too. I'll keep it as a reminder of how low people can go in cognitive dissonance and desperation when they can't accept the truth. I hope I will never be in such a situation. It looks like my videos are important to ufo believers - so important you're prepared to go that low and try these sad tricks. I hope most of them are more honest than you.
@ufopolitics Motion blur doesn't mean lack of focusing. You're making up your own meanings for words because you desperately want to find a weakness from my analysis and hide your mistakes. It's not hard to find the definition of "motion blur". In fact you've seen it and copy-pasted it here from Wikipedia. It said nothing about focusing. If you go that low, why would anyone believe a word about your analysis? And why would we believe an "expert" who doesn't know the meaning of an everyday term?
@toukoqouko : Then how could I expect that you get the main issue about debunking a complicated and clever video like this??
Or the Jerusalem UFO's Videos?
You bring over Audio Tracks errors, mistakes, now editing errors...when you do not know the def. of blurring or motion blurring??
To become a serious Debunker You must do much better than this simple analysis, looking for misspellings when everybody knows it was a Russian original video translated to English .
"Motion Blur is "supposedly" originated by camera movement"...Negative!
Motion Blur occurs whenever focusing mechanisms fail to locate an object in the screen point of interest area. So, not necessarily the camera have to move, but also the object being filmed or the area being filmed.
1960's Cameras did not had auto-focus, but they were set to infinite and yes blur occurred whenever a sudden object will come to fist plane while camera was filming a background point.
@ufopolitics Motion blur has nothing to do with focusing. It results from the blurred objects moving in relation to the camera. Check Wikipedia. About focus: if it's fixed to infinite, it won't "react" in any way to sudden or slow objects. Focus on these videos is constantly changing.
@toukoqouko : ¿"Motion blur has nothing to do with focusing."??...Ok, Mr. Touko Qouko, for ur knowledge, motion blur is a new digital age terminology, and it is completely based on what was called before "Out of Focus" on old manual celluloid filming cameras. Old cameras had an adjustment of the lens to adjust the focusing to the selected object...the background was then Blur, or the same meaning previously called "Out of Focus".
@ufopolitics Sorry but you're clearly wrong again. Google Scholar has scientific papers with the concept and term "motion blur" written before 1970. There's nothing unclear about the terminology. This raises some concern that even though you keep mentioning a lot of technical sounding terms, you might not know what they mean, either. Motion blur has nothing to do with focus adjustment. Again, check Wikipedia.
@toukoqouko: Motion blur is the apparent streaking of rapidly "moving objects" in a still image or a sequence of images such as a movie or animation. It results when the image being recorded changes during the recording of a single frame, either due to rapid movement or long exposure.
Therefore NOT only the Camera have to move to obtain Motion Blur.
Motion Blur (in cameras not software) is a FAILURE , an ERROR of the Focusing System to keep up with the Object moving speed vs the shutter speed.
In old cameras the shutter speed was very low compared to new age cameras, that is why they were set to infinity as default. Reason why this old cameras will show blurred-out of focus images whenever unpredicted objects will show in first planes.
@toukoqouko : Blur=Out of Focus have absolutely nothing to do with moving or not the camera, you may have it on a steadily solid mounted tripod, mess with the lens and get the blur effect, talking about a manual, old type celluloid film cam, and even with an adjustable-lens new age digital cam.
If You mount a cam on tripod, set it to a Low Capturing Speed -Shutter and a fast object passes by...it will capture a "motion trail" of the object and will be "blurred or the same, out of focus...
@toukoqouko : I do not have to check any Wiki...I know how Optical Effects and Photography works my friend, in any type of cams, from old fashion to state of the art digital...
As well as all the professional Digital Effects Software...
You need to learn a bit about the electronics of the new cameras also...related to how the auto-focus works.
I wonder why must of the so called "Debunkers" only deal with the "piece of cake" effects, like audio, motion blur or frame repetitions...Why they do not go into the fields of "3D Animations, Perspective, Lights, Shadows, Volumes, etc,etc?
Have you all ever figured out why?
I will love to read about the E.T's...how were they "created"...and uploading some videos where they (the Debunkers) will show us all their expertise in "re-creating" this scenery...
@ufopolitics Firstly, despite your rhetoric, hey're not piece of cake for you. You don't know the basic term "motion blur" means. Secondly, it's obvious that we highlight the most checkable and accessible evidence first. Sure, feel free to go to as much detail as you like. Unfortunately, those details can reveal nothing that would somehow nullify the evidence of faking.
@ufopolitics This scientific article: OLOF BRYNGDAHL and ADOLF LOHMANN, "Holographic Compensation of Motion Blur by Shutter Modulation," J. Opt. Soc. Am. 59, 1175-1178 (1969) is about motion blur and was published in 1969. You insist that motion blur is "new digital age terminology" and has to do with focus. Even most hobbyists know the term. This is in line with your previous denial of obvious facts.
@toukoqouko :I referred to Motion Blur , when applied to Software, Motion Blur, In Photography, which is a completely different story, exist as long as there was a Camera.
You, in this video are referring to Software Motion Blur...Right?
@ufopolitics Your first comment: "Motion Blur occurs whenever focusing mechanisms fail ..." so you were clearly talking about photography. Sorry to say, but trying to obfuscate this simple point and pretend you meant something else shows your dishonesty. That also explains how you can go on advocating these hoaxes week after week.
@toukoqouko :Don't go that fast getting to your "conclusions".
Motion Blur occurs in both, Software and Photograph, however they are not created the same ways, and it is obvious I was referring to photo there. Now You stated in your video WRONG concepts: Motion Blur occurs because of camera movement only=Wrong!
Motion Blur in Photography is due to lack of mechanisms in capturing the proper speed/frame- focusing systems , that is so here or wherever.
@ufopolitics Nowhere on my video I state "motion blur occurs because of camera movement only". You apparently have to change my statements in order to find something to criticize. The text on my video says "the blur is supposedly caused by camera movement" and the annotation at that point "to be exact, relative movement between camera and the blurred objects." There's nothing wrong about that, nothing ambiguous, nothing unclear. This is all common knowledge.
@toukoqouko: Further on You said "Motion Blur have nothing to do with Focusing"...that shows your knowledge-Expertise about Cameras, Filming and Photography as good as those in a plant...
However, you dare to built a video based on all those "Out of Wikipedia and Google" consultations, and that is ridiculous!!
Far from proving nothing, it is also a misinformation to the public about many facts of filming.
@ufopolitics Motion blur has nothing to do with focusing. You still seem to have wrong ideas about it. I've shown you Wikipedia explanation which you even copy-pasted here. The article doesn't mention camera focus, because that has nothing to do with motion blur. You're now removing your erroneous comments to hide your ignorance. Again this shows you're not (only?) ignorant, but dishonest. It should be clear for anyone reading this now that you're not trying to find the truth, but to hide it.
@toukoqouko : Motion Blur is directly related to shutter and focusing speed, if you set-calculate those parameters to the right output, there will not be motion blur. is it is simple photography.
I erased a comment 'cause I posted by mistake with an unfinished statement, but you are trying to play dirty here by adding "erroneous comments to hide my ignorance"...then calling me "dishonest"
you make me laugh, it is obvious your desperate to make your already on video statements prevail...
@ufopolitics You've got stuck on the definition of an everyday term, that even hobbyist photographers know. You've filled the whole first comment page with your confusion about motion blur. You haven't been able to point out any error or weakness in my analysis, about motion blur or anything else. Changing my statements, hiding your own comments that were nonsense, pretending there are "two motion blurs" and you happened to mean the other. That isn't honest debate.
@wqui2if This out of focus effect appears in all of Ivan's videos, most of which weren't supposedly hidden cameras. From the car scene we know it wasn't in the original footage, but a later addition. There's nothing here that would indicate a netting. The view isn't obscured by the supposed netting (or whatever) at any point. Instead it's a continuously changing, uniform defocus, exactly the type that modern post-processing software produces.
Regarding the fact that there were scratches on the font It could all be recorded with a device maybe a cell phone of a projector screen. That would also explain the projector sound and the black outlines that are blurry.
@wqui2if Re-recording from a projector screen is the only "working scenario" that would even begin to explain the effects we see (apart from faking). I think I stated this about two months ago and have repeated it numerous times. It does nothing to explain how the scratches are neatly clipped along the edges of the digits.
This made me want to investigate this further. Most people form their opinion directly without doing any investigation. So this will probably not change anyone's mind and will just strengthen the feeling you have that this is fake. Why you share this I dont know. But I am glad for it cause now I have something to look into. Thanks!
You don't need such a study every single idiot can see that is fake, what do you thimk that army use such a shit equipment for recordind such a important issue, give me a break.I just don't understand what is the point of of these people who upload such a thing..
@igorkostelac I think the remaining believers are a small hard-core group who have been able to kill their inner common sense, so arguments like yours just bounce off. There are probably some who can benefit from this level of analysis.
@toukoqouko I hope that you don't think thamy comment is about on your video, I benn talking about the original video that you unveil as a hoax.so my comment is not against your work it's was against the persons who upload the "original" video
0ql0nd0n 0qv0lc0m 0qbacch10wr0nsk1 0qsk0wr0nsk1 0qput1n 0qlen1n 0qgl0nass 0qurussi1a go to youtube put in russian national anthem with lyrics flick it is the 2 square thank you john joseph peter johnny skowronski jr 45dubois street newburgh orange county new york 12550 everoporate human kind everoporate all nations all goverements we are here we are so comming whom we on behalf of the universe we are hear we are comming we are whom has never been accordance thank you are the best
The main arguments supporting the authenticity seem to be "it looks real" and "why would someone fake something like this". "Circlemakers" might give you some idea about the possible motivations. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with money. Hoaxers might think it's some kind of art, or just "making world more interesting". I think Ivan's videos may be a relatively minor effort when compared to some of the crop circle hoaxes.
In all of your videos "proving" to debunk these extraterrestrial videos, you are assuming that the organization that filmed these had the technology of the mainstream, average Joe. They possibly had cameras and whatnot of a different level of quality, assuming the organization was incredibly secretive and required such. This is all based on the flaws of your thinking and not due to the under-skepticism on my part. Opinions are opinions.
RainCrysis 1 month ago
@RainCrysis They could have used secret time travel technology to get a Microsoft font from 2005. They could have used special fx to make the footage look like it's produced with home studio software in 2011, etc. You can make up a long, complex storyline about why they'd do this (they prepare the mankind and leave some deliberate signs of hoax bla bla). This works for every fake video. But this way the ET story becomes just silly and much less plausible it was before these videos.
toukoqouko 1 month ago
@toukoqouko They could have had a font very similar to the Microsoft one (I am 99% sure you do not know who created the font or what that person's influence was to create such a font of that nature). They could have used cameras that do not create scratches or distortions the way others of that time period do. I do not believe that the video is irrefutably genuine, but I cannot forthrightly claim its illegitimacy. In all, I believe and respect your perspective on this matter.
RainCrysis 1 month ago
Show us more Zeta footage please...
darthbozo 4 months ago
TOUKO QOUKO: Your intentions are dishonest starting by the "Title" of your videos, "LEAKED ZETA RETICULI ALIEN FOOTAGE"??!!
Your other video that you had crossed-linked First part reads:
"ALIEN GREY EXTRATERRESTRIAL ZETA RETICULI UFO"
It is very obvious, to the must retarded person, that it is purposely made, in order to attract viewers , none of them reads the magical word of what they ALL, are about..a very simple and poor "Analysis"...
Why didn't you at least, include the word analysis?
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics You're down to criticizing the title, the view count, and the same old "why would they make these errors". You have nothing for my main arguments. There is absolutely nothing dishonest with the title. It tells what this video is about, that what titles are for.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko :WRONG!...Video Titles are to give a brief description about your video , an abstract, in order for viewers to decide whether hitting your channel or not, honest titles are not TRAPS to fall by "surprise and deception".Thinking that a new Leaked Zeta Reticuli Alien Video!!
I also saw your marked as spam comment in Ivan's Channel:
"some new analysis in my latest video"
toukoqouko 3 weeks ago
You dare to go into the user channel, to load an analysis declaring is fake?
Not dishonest?
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics You can't be serious. You think the title is "dishonest" because it doesn't contain the word "analysis". Then you think it's also "dishonest" to say my video contains an "analysis". This is both funny and sad. But no, there is nothing dishonest about this video or its title. I'm not trying to mislead and deceive the public like you, for instance. On the contrary, I'm showing them who did, and how. Your desperate attempts suggest my analysis is strong and correct - thanks for that.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
Our job here is as a "judgment call" uploaders , it is to outline our findings, show what we think, according to our expertise, through our video-analysis, whether from one side or the other, from a believer or a skeptic point, and then, let the people judge, vote or render an opinion.
If we are not sure of a statement, a fact, a technology... better find it before emitting a final judgment that could mislead our people into the wrong information.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
Touko Qouko:
A Class about vintage Cameras:
Old film cameras did not have "Auto Focus", however they created blur or out of focus errors because of slow shutter speeds, versus capturing faster moving objects. If the shutter stays open for too long while the object moves this gives what you call here In-Out "Motion Blur" effect . It also depends on the battery voltage at the time of the filming to even slower speeds of the shutter, due to rolling film motor slower RPM's.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
(Cont. Vintage Cams)
You should know by now that Motion Blur is due to slow shutter speeds and lack of the proper focusing and lens aperture. Therefore in older cameras, since they did not have the actual tech. related to Lithium-Poly or Ion Batteries or Brushless motors, their tendency to very low shutter speeds was very common for all of them.
That explains very clearly, why this old Russian video shows so much "Out of Focusing" and Blurring the E.T's that are moving..is not Motion Blur
ufopolitics 7 months ago
(Cont. Vintage Cams II )
If we account for the time the guy filming this video he had the camera running and trying to aim it to the proper direction, it could explain even slower shutter speeds than factory default, due to battery wear out.
It is simple, get a 35 mm still cam, set it on a tripod, set it to "Manual Shutter" with the proper remote activation for the trigger,have someone pass in front ,while the shutter is open
Develop it and watch a "Ghosting" image or what you call M.Blur
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics Did you have a point? You just explained the well known motion blur effect, which you didn't understand at first. There has been nothing unclear about this to anyone else. If you have something relevant to ask or say about my video, say it. I don't think anyone is interested in your learning of photography basics.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : Of course I have a "point"... The point is that your claims on this video about the "motion blur" or Out of Focus relates ONLY to new digital cameras and software editing effects, is completely Out of the Picture.
Old cameras render blurred images all the way back to the 60's and even before.
Also, the fact of finding duplicated frames without the "noise" or scratches is due to editing software trying to clean it through filtering. Software duplicates frames when you stretch them.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics Did I get this right? After several pages of your hopeless confusion with definitions ("I referred to Motion Blur , when applied to Software, Motion Blur, In Photography, which is a completely different story") your point is, that the elongated aliens weren't elongated because of motion blur, but just general out of focus? If that's your point, then it's extremely weak. It's clear that this is motion blur. Out of focus blur doesn't elongate moving objects directionally.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : Now you are "jumping" to a different and completely New word..."Elongated" Aliens?...I have never mentioned this word, and I have not seen it or read it in ANY of your videos?
Ok, but now you are getting into deeper fields, that would get you in even heavier trouble to get out...
¿Are You claiming that the Aliens are "Elongated" (I understand you meant "Elongated Horizontally") because of Motion Blur effects?
Please answer this question before I proceed...and think it over, again
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics: Wrong word I stated in previous comment, and I do not want to erase the comment , fix it and re post it because Touko Qouko will say a bunch of things that I am hiding my comments and bla,bla,bla... I meant "Elongated Vertically", not Horizontally.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics The word "elongated" appears on this video at 02:44 where I discuss motion blur. This is why I asked you to watch the video and read what it says before trying to disprove it. My impression was true: you totally missed central points of my video, because apparently didn't bother to read what it says.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : You mentioned that the Aliens were "diagonally elongated" by motion blur /
Answer: It is normal, they are moving during the whole scene, no one of them is standing still, so, even if the cam did not move, they moved, therefore they will show blur through an old 1960's low shutter speed cam.
Frame: 2:54 "The Cam moved left, the aliens are still motion blurred diagonally, like in the previous frame/Obvious,the Camera Shutter was open those two frames,therefore capture blurred aliens
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics You missed the point. Just think about it a bit more. If you're shooting moving objects, whatever way they move, whatever way you move the camera, whatever the shutter does, the blur appears in the direction of the relative movement between camera and objects. This doesn't happen on the alien video - the blur is independent of the relative motion. Again, this was explained on my video.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : And thanks for taking your time to repeat it again here.
You have to play the original entire clip in slow motion (I did that many times in AE and AP) and then go into frame by frame analysis.
First part: an Alien passes in very first plane, just could see the upper black torso. That causes blurred focus of the other aliens in second plane(not "auto focus" here, just infinte missed for couple of frames)
The cam makes a sudden move toward the right (original video)...Cont.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@toukoqouko: It is obvious you have ever even attempted to "Add Motion Blur" into moving objects or to a virtual moving camera in a Good, professional Video Editor like Adobe After Effects or Premiere,I am convinced of that.
If you would have done it, you had realized this programs are so smart that this errors will not show up "randomly and wrongfully" like you want to state, but according to the cam and objects displacement being as close as possible to reality,to the point you won't notice
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics You're still missing the point. The effect seen on the video is perfectly explained by this setup: 1) an original clip with the aliens walking, with realistic motion blur, 2) added camera shaking for a more authentic feel. This produces motion blur independent of the camera movement; motion blur in the direction that is different from the motion direction. Yes, this error appears with state-of-the-art software, too.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : In order to conduct a "Fair" judgment analysis, both arguments should be brought over. Of both possibilities, being real or fake, Both possibilities dissected into higher levels of analysis.
Do you think, given the possibility of a constructed CGI video here, that whoever build it, knowing 3D animations so incredibly good as to pass for many as a real video (check out the comments at Ivan's profile from CGI users) . That this advanced user is going to make those silly errors?
ufopolitics 7 months ago
SOME COMMENTS:
same here, im working in cg, i showed this to my colleagues and everybody thinks this is real ....
GreenShadedThing
If it is CG, which is very unlikely, then it was MoCap. It's obviously real.
I showed my work colleagues, who are a mix of Special FX, visual FX and creature FX technicians, artists and designers. They were at a loss as to what it is and fell very silent. Quite a feat, considering they are a group of jaded, cynics.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
MORE COMMENTS:
My boss is a visual effects and model effects supervisor, he knows his cameras. His very experienced opinion is that it is video footage of an analogue projector.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics This is just an anecdote. I can equally well say that my boss said that "ufopolitics" doesn't have a boss because he's unemployed. How much weight do this kind of statements have in your opinion? Is this really all you've got?
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : Hahaha...those are comments from Ivan's real and original video...Just Capied and paste so you could read them..
And, No, I do not have a Boss, not 'cause I am unemployed, but 'cause I am the CEO of my own Company...
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics Nice story, thanks for that. Even if you had a million special fx colleagues who can't find an error, it does nothing to nullify the various errors I and others have found. Their incompetence doesn't make these fakes real. Secondly, you didn't know what motion blur is, so it seems very unlikely you'd work with special fx professionals (except maybe delivering their pizza?)
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : Motion Blur seems to be... the One and Only field you know about ...related to animation and editing videos...can you speak of something else? Like Character Rigging, Skinning process, 3D Modeling, Constraining Joints in skeleton, Key framing, In between frames, Animation Curves....Linear Animation...ghosting...I mean, there are so many topics in the CGI Industry shown on this videos, that just remaining in a single, just editing effect out of thousands results very tedious !!!??
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics You're doing it again. Copy-pasting terms you think seem technical and advanced. I already said I'm presenting the most accessible, reproducable, and checkable facts. This video is already quite long. You're free to analyze any of those topics, but as we already know it's a hoax, it's more or less pointless waste of time, much like responding to your comments.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : Hahahaha...Copy and Paste terms?...I could teach you Animation ,Modeling, Dynamics, Texturing.... in the best of the best softwares, friend,...like MAYA or 3D Studio...Go Google them
I bet you have no idea...
ufopolitics 7 months ago 2
However and unfortunately...even if I spent thousands of hours teaching you all about this great programs...and even you being able to learn everything to the top (point that I find difficult because you still don't know about motion blur, after I had spent so much time trying) But ,"supposing" you would have reach the top of the top in the experience on all those programs.
You still need to be an "Artist" to create excellent videos and good taste animations, and that I can not teach you, sorry
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : There is some tech you need to know Touko, about old cams, the shutter and the film rolling mechanisms were independent from each other, although they were synchronized , meaning, you could be rolling the frames while the shutter could've being open for two-three frames, therefore,exposing the sensitive celluloid film to longer exposure times, capturing a blurred Alien.
This old cams had different speed set ups, but they had to be set manually, and remember, this was a hidden cam..
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics My argument about the motion blur doesn't depend on the technology. See my previous comment.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko :"My argument about the motion blur doesn't depend on the technology"?? What technology, 'cause you cite the motion blur related to new technology in software, as it is applied here?
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics The basic concept of motion blur doesn't depend on the mechanical/technical details, it appears with all kinds of cameras. In all cases relatively moving objects leave a trail. The trail is formed in the same direction as the camera/object relative movement, no matter how old or new the camera was or if there is autofocus or not. The inconsistency is clear and easy to see. This all was explained. It's getting rather time consuming to re-explain everything again and again to you.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko Points II
When you have a very short piece of film, and you want it to last longer, there is a tool to stretch the footage...What does it do?...it duplicates the frames in an evenly fashion, passing them through a post-processing stage where it cleans it and filters it. For example, in Adobe Premiere you could stretch a footage up to 150% without getting the flickering, just by grabbing the track end with the tool and dragging it.
Point is, your claim is not valid to claim is fake.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : Also in your own video answer here you claim bad spelling of two (2) words of a Russian video translated to English...your point is to ridiculize the video, but still does not proves it is fake.
The original video had just a few frames, he stretch it to gain a bit more time= duplicate frames
The original video was filmed with an old camera from the sixties,= slow shutter speeds=blur objects constantly while capturing.
Audio? The audio tracks were added, so what?
Letters? Added...
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : Conclusion:
Your claims are too weak to state that this videos are fake.
It results in an insult to the intelligence of your visitors.
A better approach is to just cite the "possible" mistakes you've found and let the public decide.
Don't "jump the gun" and steer people to believe what you think, by adding comments to ridiculize the sightings or the events like a dis-crediting campaign does in this fields.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics Please, before trying to refute my conclusions, watch the video, read the text. The terms and concepts are very basic, but if you're not familiar with them, check Wikipedia again. It seems to me you missed the point about motion blur, or added scratches, shaking, and other effects. It's all explained there, so you'll probably need to watch it again. If you find an explanation for the effects other than hoax, let us know.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@ufopolitics "Motion Blur is directly related to shutter and focusing speed" is wrong. The references I linked certainly don't agree you here. Maybe you're trying to obfuscate your earlier mistake. The concept of "focusing speed" exists only with autofocus and has nothing to do with motion blur. If you think I'm wrong about motion blur, give me a link to the definition, article, anything. Otherwise I must conclude you're making things up because you can't find any weakness in my analysis.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : Because Motion Blur is a combination of two words, where the main word we are looking for is Blur, first you must find its meaning. Just search "Optical Blur Definition"(directed to photography of course, otherwise will get all kind of Ophthalmologists opinions) ...will see the following:
"Blur= Degradation of an image formed by an optical system as a result of lack of focusing"
And I recommend not to "keep concluding" 'cause you are getting worst with your huge audience...
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics I know what these basic terms mean. Changing the word and concept won't help you - motion blur still has nothing to do with focusing. Your word trick in trying to hide your mistake is pathetic and sad. It's like claiming "false money" is valuable, and using the definition of "money" to prove that. You left out the first word because you were wrong, and hope no-one notices? You know you made a mistake but don't want to admit it. Your evasion attempt is, again, dishonest.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : I don't understand you...I am trying to help you in your frustrated search for Blur-Related to Focusing...I found it , and now you are -again-calling me "dishonest".
Even a Kindergarten kid, if I presented this definitions, like I helped here... would say I am absolutely right...
Blur=Lack of Focusing
Motion Blur= Lack of Focusing in Motion, or by moving the Camera or the Objects to be photographed!!
It is very simple Touko.
I understand now it is too hard for you as school was?...
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics I've screenshotted these most pathetic pieces of idiotism you've blurted out so far, in case you want to hide them, too. I'll keep it as a reminder of how low people can go in cognitive dissonance and desperation when they can't accept the truth. I hope I will never be in such a situation. It looks like my videos are important to ufo believers - so important you're prepared to go that low and try these sad tricks. I hope most of them are more honest than you.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : DUE TO PUBLIC DEMAND: ??!! 299 views minus mine entries...???
F?cking audience bro!!
So, Your next video analysis would be about a fly, heard in the background, your best shot to proof this videos are fake?
Or would it be that one of the Aliens scratched their head and they are bold, therefore it is all a Hoax??
What would be next please for Your Huge Popular Demand!!?
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : It is very simple, once you got the "right definition" of Blur to know what Motion Blur means...
If Blur means basically "Lack of Focusing" from an Optical System, then, Motion Blur means "Lack of Focusing while in Motion"
Easy, right?
Keep learning, you will never end...
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics Motion blur doesn't mean lack of focusing. You're making up your own meanings for words because you desperately want to find a weakness from my analysis and hide your mistakes. It's not hard to find the definition of "motion blur". In fact you've seen it and copy-pasted it here from Wikipedia. It said nothing about focusing. If you go that low, why would anyone believe a word about your analysis? And why would we believe an "expert" who doesn't know the meaning of an everyday term?
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : Then how could I expect that you get the main issue about debunking a complicated and clever video like this??
Or the Jerusalem UFO's Videos?
You bring over Audio Tracks errors, mistakes, now editing errors...when you do not know the def. of blurring or motion blurring??
To become a serious Debunker You must do much better than this simple analysis, looking for misspellings when everybody knows it was a Russian original video translated to English .
ufopolitics 7 months ago
"Motion Blur is "supposedly" originated by camera movement"...Negative!
Motion Blur occurs whenever focusing mechanisms fail to locate an object in the screen point of interest area. So, not necessarily the camera have to move, but also the object being filmed or the area being filmed.
1960's Cameras did not had auto-focus, but they were set to infinite and yes blur occurred whenever a sudden object will come to fist plane while camera was filming a background point.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics Motion blur has nothing to do with focusing. It results from the blurred objects moving in relation to the camera. Check Wikipedia. About focus: if it's fixed to infinite, it won't "react" in any way to sudden or slow objects. Focus on these videos is constantly changing.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : ¿"Motion blur has nothing to do with focusing."??...Ok, Mr. Touko Qouko, for ur knowledge, motion blur is a new digital age terminology, and it is completely based on what was called before "Out of Focus" on old manual celluloid filming cameras. Old cameras had an adjustment of the lens to adjust the focusing to the selected object...the background was then Blur, or the same meaning previously called "Out of Focus".
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics Sorry but you're clearly wrong again. Google Scholar has scientific papers with the concept and term "motion blur" written before 1970. There's nothing unclear about the terminology. This raises some concern that even though you keep mentioning a lot of technical sounding terms, you might not know what they mean, either. Motion blur has nothing to do with focus adjustment. Again, check Wikipedia.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
Comment removed
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@toukoqouko: Motion blur is the apparent streaking of rapidly "moving objects" in a still image or a sequence of images such as a movie or animation. It results when the image being recorded changes during the recording of a single frame, either due to rapid movement or long exposure.
Therefore NOT only the Camera have to move to obtain Motion Blur.
Motion Blur (in cameras not software) is a FAILURE , an ERROR of the Focusing System to keep up with the Object moving speed vs the shutter speed.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics So you went to Wikipedia after all. Thanks for copy-pasting it, but I know what motion blur is, you didn't.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
In old cameras the shutter speed was very low compared to new age cameras, that is why they were set to infinity as default. Reason why this old cameras will show blurred-out of focus images whenever unpredicted objects will show in first planes.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : Blur=Out of Focus have absolutely nothing to do with moving or not the camera, you may have it on a steadily solid mounted tripod, mess with the lens and get the blur effect, talking about a manual, old type celluloid film cam, and even with an adjustable-lens new age digital cam.
If You mount a cam on tripod, set it to a Low Capturing Speed -Shutter and a fast object passes by...it will capture a "motion trail" of the object and will be "blurred or the same, out of focus...
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : I do not have to check any Wiki...I know how Optical Effects and Photography works my friend, in any type of cams, from old fashion to state of the art digital...
As well as all the professional Digital Effects Software...
You need to learn a bit about the electronics of the new cameras also...related to how the auto-focus works.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
I wonder why must of the so called "Debunkers" only deal with the "piece of cake" effects, like audio, motion blur or frame repetitions...Why they do not go into the fields of "3D Animations, Perspective, Lights, Shadows, Volumes, etc,etc?
Have you all ever figured out why?
I will love to read about the E.T's...how were they "created"...and uploading some videos where they (the Debunkers) will show us all their expertise in "re-creating" this scenery...
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics Firstly, despite your rhetoric, hey're not piece of cake for you. You don't know the basic term "motion blur" means. Secondly, it's obvious that we highlight the most checkable and accessible evidence first. Sure, feel free to go to as much detail as you like. Unfortunately, those details can reveal nothing that would somehow nullify the evidence of faking.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@ufopolitics This scientific article: OLOF BRYNGDAHL and ADOLF LOHMANN, "Holographic Compensation of Motion Blur by Shutter Modulation," J. Opt. Soc. Am. 59, 1175-1178 (1969) is about motion blur and was published in 1969. You insist that motion blur is "new digital age terminology" and has to do with focus. Even most hobbyists know the term. This is in line with your previous denial of obvious facts.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko :I referred to Motion Blur , when applied to Software, Motion Blur, In Photography, which is a completely different story, exist as long as there was a Camera.
You, in this video are referring to Software Motion Blur...Right?
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics Your first comment: "Motion Blur occurs whenever focusing mechanisms fail ..." so you were clearly talking about photography. Sorry to say, but trying to obfuscate this simple point and pretend you meant something else shows your dishonesty. That also explains how you can go on advocating these hoaxes week after week.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko :Don't go that fast getting to your "conclusions".
Motion Blur occurs in both, Software and Photograph, however they are not created the same ways, and it is obvious I was referring to photo there. Now You stated in your video WRONG concepts: Motion Blur occurs because of camera movement only=Wrong!
Motion Blur in Photography is due to lack of mechanisms in capturing the proper speed/frame- focusing systems , that is so here or wherever.
Consult a professional about this.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics Nowhere on my video I state "motion blur occurs because of camera movement only". You apparently have to change my statements in order to find something to criticize. The text on my video says "the blur is supposedly caused by camera movement" and the annotation at that point "to be exact, relative movement between camera and the blurred objects." There's nothing wrong about that, nothing ambiguous, nothing unclear. This is all common knowledge.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
Comment removed
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@toukoqouko: Further on You said "Motion Blur have nothing to do with Focusing"...that shows your knowledge-Expertise about Cameras, Filming and Photography as good as those in a plant...
However, you dare to built a video based on all those "Out of Wikipedia and Google" consultations, and that is ridiculous!!
Far from proving nothing, it is also a misinformation to the public about many facts of filming.
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics Motion blur has nothing to do with focusing. You still seem to have wrong ideas about it. I've shown you Wikipedia explanation which you even copy-pasted here. The article doesn't mention camera focus, because that has nothing to do with motion blur. You're now removing your erroneous comments to hide your ignorance. Again this shows you're not (only?) ignorant, but dishonest. It should be clear for anyone reading this now that you're not trying to find the truth, but to hide it.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : Motion Blur is directly related to shutter and focusing speed, if you set-calculate those parameters to the right output, there will not be motion blur. is it is simple photography.
I erased a comment 'cause I posted by mistake with an unfinished statement, but you are trying to play dirty here by adding "erroneous comments to hide my ignorance"...then calling me "dishonest"
you make me laugh, it is obvious your desperate to make your already on video statements prevail...
ufopolitics 7 months ago
@ufopolitics You've got stuck on the definition of an everyday term, that even hobbyist photographers know. You've filled the whole first comment page with your confusion about motion blur. You haven't been able to point out any error or weakness in my analysis, about motion blur or anything else. Changing my statements, hiding your own comments that were nonsense, pretending there are "two motion blurs" and you happened to mean the other. That isn't honest debate.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
@toukoqouko : I can not believe You still do not understand it!
No, I never said Motion Blur= Lack of Focusing!!
I said Motion Blur= Lack of Focusing -in Motion
Jeesus!!, Now I understand it was so hard for you to pass some school grades!!
ufopolitics 7 months ago
Just wondering if you think its a hoax in the first place then how come your still analysing this footage ?
britelite2657 8 months ago
@britelite2657 I'm not analyzing it further. I just had some "unreleased results" from the earlier days and thought I'd sum them up.
toukoqouko 7 months ago
In the family vacation clip 'debunk' you spotted a in and out of focus effect and cameras back then had no autofocus so therefore you think its fake.
Maybe the camera lens was behind something in the video? like a piece of netting or something to disguise the fact that a camera was being used.
wqui2if 8 months ago
@wqui2if This out of focus effect appears in all of Ivan's videos, most of which weren't supposedly hidden cameras. From the car scene we know it wasn't in the original footage, but a later addition. There's nothing here that would indicate a netting. The view isn't obscured by the supposed netting (or whatever) at any point. Instead it's a continuously changing, uniform defocus, exactly the type that modern post-processing software produces.
toukoqouko 8 months ago
The 12 frames per second could be because the video was on a reduction of framerate as shown in this video here: /watch?v=9DfJp5CgHTg
wqui2if 8 months ago
@wqui2if Yes, we know it's in 12 fps so there is a reduction of frame rate. This isn't an answer, it's the question.
toukoqouko 8 months ago
Regarding the fact that there were scratches on the font It could all be recorded with a device maybe a cell phone of a projector screen. That would also explain the projector sound and the black outlines that are blurry.
wqui2if 8 months ago
@wqui2if Re-recording from a projector screen is the only "working scenario" that would even begin to explain the effects we see (apart from faking). I think I stated this about two months ago and have repeated it numerous times. It does nothing to explain how the scratches are neatly clipped along the edges of the digits.
toukoqouko 8 months ago
This made me want to investigate this further. Most people form their opinion directly without doing any investigation. So this will probably not change anyone's mind and will just strengthen the feeling you have that this is fake. Why you share this I dont know. But I am glad for it cause now I have something to look into. Thanks!
wqui2if 8 months ago
So is your theory that this third clip is cgi or puppets?
wqui2if 8 months ago
You don't need such a study every single idiot can see that is fake, what do you thimk that army use such a shit equipment for recordind such a important issue, give me a break.I just don't understand what is the point of of these people who upload such a thing..
igorkostelac 8 months ago
@igorkostelac I think the remaining believers are a small hard-core group who have been able to kill their inner common sense, so arguments like yours just bounce off. There are probably some who can benefit from this level of analysis.
toukoqouko 8 months ago
@toukoqouko I hope that you don't think thamy comment is about on your video, I benn talking about the original video that you unveil as a hoax.so my comment is not against your work it's was against the persons who upload the "original" video
igorkostelac 8 months ago
0ql0nd0n 0qv0lc0m 0qbacch10wr0nsk1 0qsk0wr0nsk1 0qput1n 0qlen1n 0qgl0nass 0qurussi1a go to youtube put in russian national anthem with lyrics flick it is the 2 square thank you john joseph peter johnny skowronski jr 45dubois street newburgh orange county new york 12550 everoporate human kind everoporate all nations all goverements we are here we are so comming whom we on behalf of the universe we are hear we are comming we are whom has never been accordance thank you are the best
mrsserpentmissurussi 8 months ago
The main arguments supporting the authenticity seem to be "it looks real" and "why would someone fake something like this". "Circlemakers" might give you some idea about the possible motivations. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with money. Hoaxers might think it's some kind of art, or just "making world more interesting". I think Ivan's videos may be a relatively minor effort when compared to some of the crop circle hoaxes.
toukoqouko 8 months ago
Nice work.
Asymmatrix 8 months ago