The "string" does not lead to the same part of the structure in these two photos.
These are the two instances where it is most visible. I'd agree that in the second it is more visible in the video than in the still. I agree that the image is "macro blocked," it is possible that this or something is creating an intermittent string where there is not one. Though, it also would be possible that this is obscuring a physical string except in a few instances where the zoom is high and the string particularly visible. (As always, having original files might be useful.)
My objection to the idea that the "string" is an artifact of the video quality is that it only shows up in high zoom (when a string would be most strongly visible), it shows up in the same spot relative to the object and similar strings don't seem to show up anywhere else -- if I'm wrong on that last, and I might be somebody chime in and point them out elsewhere.
Circumstantial supporting evidence is that the object spins as though it were on a string, spinning one way, stopping, spinning the other. It also seems to bob around in the same spot, in a visual gap between the clouds, for about a minute and a half before moving off to the left comparatively quickly -- not impossible for a balloon, drone, spaceship or whatever, but also consistent with "hold it there, where I can see it between the coulds for a bit, then drag it away."
I think it does in the video -- there seems to be sort of a bright line and a dark line component to the "string," assuming the real string, if there is one, to be sort of where their average position is, to me it looks close enough to the same spot on the object, given the admitted problems with image quality. The black "string" in my two images might indeed lead to the same spot if it comes to the object off to one side of the "cowl," but I don't think that is likely as it would be hard to balance it unless it is not symmetrically weighted, which would seem odd.The "string" does not lead to the same part of the structure in these two photos.
Does it? It hangs, if it is hanging, consistently throughout, as a hanging object would. If I wanted it to hang vertically, I'd pick a hanging point where that happened, and add some weight to the bottom as needed. On the other hand, a balloon in the vagaries of the wind might be more likely to tumble about, as in your video where they are down in the ground turbulence. Of course, a balloon might not tumble, especially if it has a string under it weighting down one end. But I don't see a hint of string below it anywhere in the vid. Only above.This also leads to questions of center of gravity and how the thing would hang.
Or small and closer. I'll concede it looks further away than if it was hanging, say, from a fishing pole.-Look at this section of the video. The camera zooms out until the image of the object is so small that it becomes invisible due to lack of resolution. It's awfully far away, high in the sky.
I don't know. One way to allow for it to be shorter it would be to run a horizontal string between two points on buildings or trees or something, out of frame l and r, and then drape the "hanging string" over that -- but that's just how I'D do it, I don't see anything in the video to shed light on what THEY did, if they did anything. But I do note that when they zoom in, they always keep the UFO very tight to the top of the frame, which would keep a horizontal string out of sight, IF there was one.How long is this string?
Addressed above, not sure what a fiddle-dee-dee is. ^_^What's it hanging from? A fishing rod? Fiddle-dee-dee. Trees? Where?
Or a shorter distance, the closer it is. I also wonder if, by stepping left, a potential hoaxer could use parallax to help on that move. But that again is how I'D do it... don't know if they did it.The thing then drifts to our right quite a distance.
I'd wondered about a drone. Given how far out they zoom, though, it would have to be on a very long string, depending on how big the object is. Again, this is easier to account for the smaller it is. I don't have a good sense of how big it is. I've been thinking of it as being a few feet tall, based on thinking it was a balloon. But if it is NOT a balloon, it may be bigger or, for a "thing on a string," smaller.The thing from which it is suspended must also be moving? What? A drone maybe.
The less so the lower the center of gravity, I'd think. But there might at least be a little "list to the right" as it is drug right. If cameraman stepping left is helping with the apparent move, that would account for at least some of the lack of "being dragged lean." And the closer it is, the more slowly it could be dragged right for the same angular distance covers, so slower "relative wind."But if the suspended object were being dragged through the air instead of moving with it, the air resistance would make it move strangely.
It looks to me as if (with open side facing us) both pictures have the string to the right side, not front-and-back, with possibly a thing like a fishhook protruding a little bit to the left of center. And since we don't know how the weight of the object is distributed, we can't tell whether it is deliberately positioned to make it hang evenly.The "string" does not lead to the same part of the structure in these two photos.
Top photo: String farther back
Bottom photo: String farther forward.
Then I'm afraid I don't understand the point of your post?I had linked that one in my post .
Then I'm afraid I don't understand the point of your post?
I thought you were commenting on the fact that the UFOVNI video linked forward to the not-yet-appeared blog post, but your point is that there's an even older video (from a presumably different source) that has been removed? And I don't see a link to the UVOVNI video.
CLASSIFIED CHANNEL Sep 7, length 1:59 (109,682 views in 2016)
UFOVNI Sep 8, length 2:17 (13,869 views in 2016)
The re-upload that @Max Phalange posted earlier (the one with the string) has the "classified channel" watermark.
TPOM are from Hawaii as I recall.What I was saying is that the video dated on the 7th from Classified Channel, says the source link is OFOVNI which didnt get posted until the 8th.
Which is odd
BTW, it is odd that the blog to note the source email of the video and posted about it on 11 Sept 2015, was called thirdphaseofsun. Spanish blog, with a name oh so close to thirdphaseofmoon
Could be a strange coincidence for sure .
I wonder what nationality background thirdphaseofmoon have , out of curiousity
They are American (cousins with the surname Blake) from what I understand, they would use a variety of made up sources for hoaxes, they would also do both full on hoaxes and misrepresentation of videos (made up source stories/selective edits/relabelling/intentionally low resolution) etc.originally, ie natively?, ie what is their background. Are they from a spanish background?
Where does it say that?What I was saying is that the video dated on the 7th from Classified Channel, says the source link is OFOVNI which didnt get posted until the 8th.
Which is odd
Where does it say that?
OVNI means UFO in Spanish and French ( objeto volador no identificado / objet volant non identifié ).
Look at this dated the 7th Sept : https://web.archive.org/web/20160310042313/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHyvfErhKAk
Look at where it says Link original:
That links to this dated the 8th Sept
They are idential twins. Their names are Blake and Brent Cousins. I only know because we just discussed them in a recent ufo thread. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/recycled-ufo-video-2012-tictacs-over-the-pacific.12325/They are American (cousins with the surname Blake)
That's assuming these screenshots were not processed. There are various "AI Image Sharpener/Sharpening" products available online; they basically involve the AI "guessing" at the missing information to achieve a pleasing looking result.The original video must have been much less compressed, since this screenshot from thirdphaseofsun shows a lot more detail
True, although grain/noise in the sky hasn't been smoothed away as you might expect. This Japanese blog has full-frame grabs from the original "UFOVNI" upload which appear to have at least slightly better quality: http://13shoejiu-the.blog.jp/archives/51804715.htmlThat's assuming these screenshots were not processed. There are various "AI Image Sharpener/Sharpening" products available online; they basically involve the AI "guessing" at the missing information to achieve a pleasing looking result.
Any time anyone uses those tools it make me sigh, the algorithms are totally unsuitable for forensic analysis.That's assuming these screenshots were not processed. There are various "AI Image Sharpener/Sharpening" products available online; they basically involve the AI "guessing" at the missing information to achieve a pleasing looking result.
Assuming competence is always a risk.. You'd still have to upscale then add the logo at 1080p. The centre logo is possibly an attempt to avoid others cropping but still show the subject.True, although grain/noise in the sky hasn't been smoothed away as you might expect. This Japanese blog has full-frame grabs from the original "UFOVNI" upload which appear to have at least slightly better quality: http://13shoejiu-the.blog.jp/archives/51804715.html
Also the "Classified Channel" version has a their logo watermarked right across the centre of the image, which is barely visible in at the quality of the available version — it wouldn't make sense to add a watermark then encode the video so poorly that it's illegible (you can only really tell it's there when scrubbing back/forward through the video).
Plus their regular logo in the top left is horrible mess. YouTube had 1080p60 support by mid-2015, I have my doubts that someone running a commercial YouTube channel would be uploading such poorly encoded videos.
The guides I've seen assume good quality video that's amenable to tracking.I don't know how to do it but, is it possible to stabilise across the wider scene the part where the object seems to descend? @Mick West are there any guides for stabilising like this that you could recommend? I have the After Effects trial.
Most likely. In the video you're looking at there's a high-pitched "hey look at me I'm a spooky alien" noise that runs for 30 seconds from 00:11 to 0:41 and loops again for 30 seconds from 0:51 to 1:21. There's also a specific combination of wind noise and background chatter that repeats at 00:06, 00:24, and again at 1:03. Also, the traffic noise from 0:45 to 0:51 is repeated again from 1:25 to 1:31. I didn't check to see if the birds also repeated or looped, seemed like more work than it was worth tbh. In any case the audio track seems pretty heavily manipulated, maybe composed of at least three, possibly four separate tracks (birds, wind and background chatter, traffic noise, and a spooky alien track), each of which loops or repeats at some point, it seems to me anyways.Most likely there's been replaced audio in the UFO videos.