Mexico City UFO footage - CGI in 1997?

[PaulPRMI]

Was it possible to digitally alter video in 1997? I can't seem to think of any other possible explanation other than some sort of CGI. In the comment section of that video, some people claim to have seen this in person .


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H6sEbDLb1o

 

[Mick West]

Was it possible to digitally alter video in 1997?

Yes. While 1997 might seem like a long time ago, it was also the year the heavy CGI films like Titanic came out. More to the point it was also the year the Special Editions of Star Wars were released, which incorporated CGI into the original live action (and miniature models) of the 1980s films. These were vastly more complex compositing things than the little UFO video above, for example this Jabba the Hut (top video) was all made in CGI in 1997 and composited with existing footage.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Br0R5kMzwM

 

[Trailblazer]

Wow, this is a blast from the past. This is probably the first UFO video I ever saw on the internet. I remember thinking it was a pretty shoddy fake even back then.

 

[PaulPRMI]

Wow, this is a blast from the past. This is probably the first UFO video I ever saw on the internet. I remember thinking it was a pretty shoddy fake even back then.

Is there anything in particular that stands out as being an obvious sign of a hoax?

 

[Mick West]

It has been discussed a lot over the last 20 years. Basically it could be a hoax, and really that seems like the simplest explanation. Consider that the person who "discovered" the video and the witnesses was Jaime Maussan
Source: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8s579_historic-ufo-over-mexico-city-augus_tech

Maussan has basically been pushing stories that seem fake for the last 20 years, the most recent one being this:
https://www.metabunk.org/hoax-three-fingered-nazca-mummy.t8841/

(That's Maussan in the back)

 

[Trailblazer]

Is there anything in particular that stands out as being an obvious sign of a hoax?

For one thing it shows a classic "flying saucer" shape, and the whole "saucer" image comes from a misinterpretation of the Arnold UFO sighting back in the 1940s, so that immediately makes it suspicious IMHO.

Then there's the very unnatural and asymmetric wobbling motion. Ok you could argue that if it was an alien ship it might have an alien motion, but it just looks wrong.

I accept that those reasons are pretty subjective, but I also recall that there was analysis of the video which showed that while the buildings exhibited motion blur due to camera shake, the "UFO" did not (or at least did not to the same extent), suggesting that the UFO was not present in the scene as filmed.

I think the analysis was published in the MUFON journal but I don't have a link right now.

 

[Mick West]

Here's the original video:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvfdXTjB2NI

 

[Mick West]

There's a detailed investigation of this case here, tracking down who made it.
http://lamat-realidad-alterna.blogspot.mx/2015/11/el-ovni-de-las-lomas-el-autor-revelado.html

Now we know who is the author of the video known as the UFO of Las Lomas, a character who remained in an anonymity convenient for just over 18 years. There is no doubt now that Ignacio Ocampo Valles is the creator and he was a creative employee of the company of Virtual Advertising ..... And what is more likely ?, What does a graphic animator record a real unidentified flying object? Or that simply with his resources and talent, he was able to make one of the most controversial videos in the history of the UFO phenomenon? ... The obvious will always be what tip the balance to the simplest theory.

 

[deirdre]

I think the analysis was published in the MUFON journal but I don't have a link right now.

https://issuu.com/disclosureproject/docs/mufon_ufo_journal_-_1998_10._octobe


page 9.

 

[Mick West]

This cropped up again on Twitter today, so I made a stabilized version where you can clearly see what Jeff Sainio discovered.

 

[Mick West]

And here's some UFO CGI from 1997

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckMvpbNdb80

 

[FatPhil]

This cropped up again on Twitter today, so I made a stabilized version where you can clearly see what Jeff Sainio discovered.

View attachment 66237

Repeated non-physical jerk: stationary to steady speed almost instantaneously, with no period of steady (basically, finite) acceleration to attain that steady speed.
If that had happened to a real craft, everything inside that craft would be smashed against the back wall as the craft darts off forward. That's not "advanced technology", that's "really bad driving". (Edit: and let's not forget, the whole thing's wobbling anyway, everything's constantly being flung up and smashed down repeatedly! Worst clown car ever! (maybe they're sent here to entertain us?))

(I suspect the script I wrote for analysing the drop of WTC7 elsethread could be adapted to extract a horizontal slice from this video over time too, so that the first, second, and third derivatives could be extracted, if anyone has the patience.)

 

[Scaramanga]

Was it possible to digitally alter video in 1997?

It's pretty shoddy quality for 1997. Here's the quality level on a pretty basic cam even in 1992...from my personal videos...