(Recycled) UFO Video: 2012 TicTacs over the Pacific

SkyPhenomena

New Member
UPDATE: Mar 6 2022
[This video is NOT new, and was first posed in better quality in 2012 on a channel that commonly posted fake videos]


I wanted to start a dialogue on this newest video to come to light.

Who: Anonymous, who says he "received the video", presumably from someone anonymous to him
What: TicTacs similar to those described on the Nimitz (or birds)
When: March 15 2012
Where: Vaguely described as "over Pacific Ocean"

Original: Source: https://youtu.be/svdhtxlqZII

  • The first minute is very fuzzy
  • At 0:46 he turns around to see a road & car
  • Edit: At 0:56, the video repeats. The same car can be seen in the final second of the original video.
  • Starts to get clear video at 1:00
  • The most clear part is at 1:17

Stabilized Videos:



Mick West initial reply:

Source: https://twitter.com/MickWest/status/1500447553615138817?s=20&t=3ypaxYnwT3lKWDcqs-mZdg




This is probably the best video of "TicTacs" I have seen. I wanted to hear some different possibilities of what is happening here. It is my opinion the scene itself is real and the objects are not CGI. Is the horizon we see the true horizon? Some of the objects are way above the horizon line. My best guess is birds flying toward the camera or hovering in the wind with expanded wingspan (again, looking at the camera) and occasionally diving. None of the 5 observables for sure. I wanted to get some pros opinions. I am new here so apologies if I broke any rules.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Short, shaky, low quality video with leading references/terms like "tic tac" and "Nimitz" in the name of the video on YouTube.

No chain of custody, no initial attempt to share original video or metadata.

All highly suspect, let's get the original video file with metadata posted somewhere and we can take a look. Otherwise there's not much to go on.
 

SkyPhenomena

New Member
What about the video suggests this? They are very simple shapes, very easy to add.
Keep in mind I am very inexperienced, if you disagree with this I'd love to know. But previous CGI's I have seen (like the triangle craft added to the ship a few months ago) do a poor job of keeping the object still in relation to the environment around it. When you stabilize them they are pretty obvious. If this is CGI it does a good job of keeping it true to the source video. The video is extremely shaky and the objects do a very good job staying still/smooth in relation to the horizon. The shake cant be understated, it is wildly moving all 30 frames each second. Also some frames of the video are more blurry than other frames. This is a common thing, I'm sure there's a name for it. The objects get blurry on the same frames and with the same intensity as the environment during those blur frames.


Short, shaky, low quality video with leading references/terms like "tic tac" and "Nimitz" in the name of the video on YouTube.

No chain of custody, no initial attempt to share original video or metadata.

All highly suspect, let's get the original video file with metadata posted somewhere and we can take a look. Otherwise there's not much to go on.
The length of the video is unfortunate for sure. As for the rest (low quality, tic tac description, random person) that is about what I would expect from a random person uploading a real video. Not saying it is aliens, I still prefer the bird theory. But I do not expect the average person to have a tripod handy (or even know to anchor themselves) or know what to do with the video besides just upload it to youtube. The only suspect things to me is why it gets attention now after a decade, and why they stopped filming when they did (right when it was getting good presumably). However, I would expect that to happen more than I would expect them to hand it over to someone like Jeremy Corbell for example. I also agree its unfortunate there is no original video file with metadata.
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
So the proposed story is:

- someone was driving along a coastal highway
- they pulled over to check out the view
- it just so happened to coincide with a bunch of unusual airships flying over the water
- they pulled out their camera/phone but for some reason have an inability to hold it steady
- they wiped the sound from the video and uploaded it to Google Drive
- they waited ten years and then shared it with a YouTube channel that had one previous video posted 8 months before
- the owner of that channel say there's no other details though there must be (metadata, Google account info, file properties, etc)

Does that sound about right?

I would trust Mick's nose on this one. It doesn't look like birds to me. The story is dodgy. It's got CGI fake by someone wanting to build their YouTube channel written all over it.

Also, is the licence plate on the car obscured by motion blur or has it been done in a video editing program? If the latter that would be telling.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
the camera is moving so much and the focus is so fuzzy, I wouldn't be surprisde if ghe white spots are something close by not moving fast, like plants or insects

on the other hand, adding camera shake is a staple technique to hide edits
 

SkyPhenomena

New Member
So the proposed story is:

- someone was driving along a coastal highway
- they pulled over to check out the view
- it just so happened to coincide with a bunch of unusual airships flying over the water
- they pulled out their camera/phone but for some reason have an inability to hold it steady
- they wiped the sound from the video and uploaded it to Google Drive
- they waited ten years and then shared it with a YouTube channel that had one previous video posted 8 months before
- they say there's no other details though there must be (metadata, Google account info, file properties, etc)

Does that sound about right?

I would trust Mick's nose on this one. It doesn't look like birds to me. The story is dodgy. It's got CGI fake by someone wanting to build their YouTube channel written all over it.

Also, is the licence plate on the car obscured by motion blur or has it been done in a video editing program? If the latter that would be telling.
I don't think anyone has claimed a story, but it's safe to assume this version is a strawman story. Why not a hike? Or if driving maybe he saw them before he pulled over? That is honestly irrelevant to me, but your version seems to intentionally be the least-likely circumstances. If you have any source on that story then we can address how unlikely that is.

You make excellent points about the sound being wiped and about the license plate though. If the license plate is edited that would be very telling indeed, and the missing sound is suspect at best. It's interesting to me you think it is CGI. That is why I am here though, for the opinions & dialogue.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Also if we are to believe that the zoomed part of the video contains more information than the non-zoomed part then there must be a much higher quality version that this person has and chose not to upload.
 

SkyPhenomena

New Member
Also if we are to believe that the zoomed part of the video contains more information than the non-zoomed part then there must be a much higher quality version that this person has and chose not to upload.

You have made two excellent points that stab holes into my bird theory and anti-CGI theory. I would react "agree" but I'm afraid I'm not sure how :p
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
This black line down the the right hand side appears at around 00:46.23

Note this is coincidently at the exact same frames that the video ends (during the zoom part)

Possible signs of being done in an editor and slight layer alignment issues.

1646589990820.png
 

Rory

Senior Member.
I don't think anyone has claimed a story, but it's safe to assume this version is a strawman story. Why not a hike? Or if driving maybe he saw them before he pulled over?

Indeed: it's my interpretation and specualtion of what I think the most likely story is. I'm not sure strawman applies here - I'm not arguing against the story - but I'd be happy to adjust any of it.

For me I find it useful in things like this to ask what the full story is. Eg, it's not just "Bush did it" but the entire scenario of what that would mean.

It could have been a hike or he could have seen something while driving and then pulled over, true. No probs adding those in. I don't think it changes much.

It's interesting to me you think it is CGI.

Mick has an uncanny knack of calling these things from the off. And in light of jarlrmai's posts I'd bet even heavier on it now.
 
Last edited:

JMartJr

Senior Member
They look a lot like sunlight glinting off of the sea-swell (waves) to me, they seem to propogate and appear/disappear like dazzle off of a sea-swell. The immediate objection would be that some show up above the horizon -- unless we're seeing another false horizon" here as in:
false horizon.jpg images.jpg


The video shakes too much for me too feel sure of anything, and the "stabilized and enhanced" video will not play, says it has exceeded it's allowed number of views, but that was my first reaction. I find CGI less likely, as I'd expect somebody faking a UFO to make the UFO at least pop out from the bg more than these do. I agree that camera shake is a common tool to hide defects in compositing and the like, but the amount here seems excessive for that purpose. To me, anyway.

(Amusing side note: I had more trouble than expected trying to find an image to illustrate the false horizon effect -- until I included "fata morgana" in the search term, at which point false horizons incorrectly identified as fata morgana showed up in droves!)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
If the license plate is edited that would be very telling indeed, and the missing sound is suspect at best.
why would you need to remove sound to edit the video? wouldnt you just put a flashing light overlay over the video line?

it 'could" be a smudged [temproary] plate number, but it could also be something like
1646592831597.png

it could also be like a mexican design.. the writing on the grill seems weird to me. logos are usually fatter and even if it says something like "twincam" the letters arent very high. and there are alot of 'south of the border" peoples in california. or maybe even canadian? (although i imagine canadians more uniformly use plates on the front of their cars...but maybe not.)


i dont know if its cgi or just weird light reflections or dust in/on the lens, but they look nothing like tic tacs or UFOs to me.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
If I understand correctly he's saying they're not horizontal in the sense that they would be if they were there in reality - ie, they don't stay parallel with the actual horizon - but that they're horizontal to the original video frame (not the stabilized one).

It's kind of like there are two layers: the one with the sea which sways from side to side and the one with the shapes, which always stays level.

Almost as if it had been added on after. ;)

(Again, if I'm understanding it correctly.)
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
If I understand correctly he's saying they're not horizontal in the sense that they would be if they were there in reality - ie, they don't stay parallel with the actual horizon - but that they're horizontal to the original video frame (not the stabilized one).

It's kind of like there are two layers: the one with the sea which sways from side to side and the one with the shapes, which always stays level.

Almost as if they'd been added on after. ;)

(Again, if I'm understanding it correctly.)
thanks. that's what i thought too.
 

386

Member
In all frames all the objects are perfectly aligned to the crop of the video, this seems unlikely.

I noticed the lack of movement on the roll axis too, even on the horizon. It could be on a cheap tripod, or a camera/camcorder well pressed to the face. Something about the pan to the car just doesn't make me think somebody allegedly holding a phone out.

Edit: Looks like it was just lots of people (in the usual places) claiming that one of the only things we know is that is that it was recorded on a phone in 2012. However, I can't find anywhere of that actually being confirmed, just random claims.
 
Last edited:

JMartJr

Senior Member
Looking at the "original" video in the first post, the first bit and the second (labeled "zoomed," commencing around 53 secoinds in) bit -- I may not understand what's happening here. But, if I am following, and the "zoomed" part is supposed to be the first part again, but digitally "zoomed," then it does indeed look like somebody's added "UFO"s not in the first version.
IF that is the case, I'd plop my money on "somebody saw some whitecaps or reflections off of swells, wasn't sure what they were seeing, thought it looked cool, videoed it, got home and watched the video that was not as cool as they'd hopedt and then either they or somebody else added some more persistent "objects" for the second bit of video.

why would you need to remove sound to edit the video?
Possibly to remove things like "Well, I think that's just whitecaps or something, thought it was a UFO fleet for a minute, ha! Hey, you know what would be cool, let's add some tictacs in Blender and see if we can fool folks." Or similar conversation that contradicts this being genuine video of genuinely unrecognized objects.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Just want to clarify the aligned UFO objects bit.

What I mean is that if we add a grid to the video like below, in every frame I can find the objects align with this grid in the horizontal.

Meaning the obects align with the camera angle perfectly, even though the camera is not steady at all

1646598424184.png
 

Rory

Senior Member.
So bearing that in mind can we make a list of possible explanations?

1. It's fake
2. The objects were exactly mimicking the sway of the camera in real time purposefully
3. The objects were matching the sway of the camera in real time coincidentally

Any others?
 

SkyPhenomena

New Member
But, if I am following, and the "zoomed" part is supposed to be the first part again, but digitally "zoomed," then it does indeed look like somebody's added "UFO"s not in the first version.
This is correct. If you're curious of the timeline, you can see the car at 0:46 again in the final second of the original video
 

386

Member
Somebody found a better quality version posted in 2012 (probably where the recent uploader got it from). No source or details of course, but it's easier to analyse with the extra detail.

 

Ann K

Active Member
They look a lot like sunlight glinting off of the sea-swell (waves) to me, they seem to propogate and appear/disappear like dazzle off of a sea-swell. The immediate objection would be that some show up above the horizon -- unless we're seeing another false horizon" here as in:
false horizon.jpg images.jpg
I noticed from the first part of the video, before zoom, there is a cloud deck over the near part of the water, but a patch of brighter sunlight in the distance where the light first appears. I can well believe that the photographer got a bright gleam from a white ship, or even from a wave crest or a leaping dolphin. But the later multiple images seem to be in a sort of formation, then leap about wildly, making me think of reflections in one or several layers of glass that's got some unevenness to it.
 
Last edited:

Easy Muffin

Active Member
The higher quality video offers a clearer view of the car's number plate. I got a match for a 1989 Dodge Ram 50, registered in Hawaii County, HI. This might have been shot somewhere on the island of Hawaii then.

Model example from Wikipedia:
800px-Dodge-Ram-50.jpg
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Somebody found a better quality version posted in 2012 (probably where the recent uploader got it from). No source or details of course, but it's easier to analyse with the extra detail.

Third Phase of Moon, known hoaxer...

They are all aligned to the video horizontal in the TPOM video as well
 
Last edited:

FatPhil

Senior Member.
Third Phase of Moon, known hoaxer...

They are all aligned to the video horizontal in the TPOM video as well

Looks like the streaks are not "out there" where the background is at all. In particular, their movement is barely correlated to that of the background, and they seem clearer when the background is most out of focus, which implies they're either something reflected in, or simply on, glass in the nearground, or just a completely separate layer composited on. Either would be an attempt to deliberately mislead.

I also think the correct "stabilised" video to provide is one which stabilises the background, not the objects, as that will best help us evaluate the movement of the streaks to see whether they're obeying the laws of physics as they allegedly fly through Air 1.0.

I'm perfectly happy to have the claimants back themselves into the "breaks the laws of physics" corner, because their extraordinary claims are only backed up with crappy LIZ "evidence" that equally supports a dozen contradictory things too.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Looks like the streaks are not "out there" where the background is at all. In particular, their movement is barely correlated to that of the background, and they seem clearer when the background is most out of focus, which implies they're either something reflected in, or simply on, glass in the nearground, or just a completely separate layer composited on. Either would be an attempt to deliberately mislead.

I also think the correct "stabilised" video to provide is one which stabilises the background, not the objects, as that will best help us evaluate the movement of the streaks to see whether they're obeying the laws of physics as they allegedly fly through Air 1.0.

I'm perfectly happy to have the claimants back themselves into the "breaks the laws of physics" corner, because their extraordinary claims are only backed up with crappy LIZ "evidence" that equally supports a dozen contradictory things too.
Yeah stabilising against the background would be interesting, unfortunately I don't have access to the tools.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Wow this is all over Reddit UFOs there are posts with my analysis just copy pasted into an image as well..

@Mick West might be worth a video from you given the prominence this one seems have got, coming back from the dead and all.
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
Wow this is all over Reddit UFOs

You're not wrong: looks like half the current /r/ufos threads are about this video.

There's some good info about the exact location and how the original posters are known hoaxers.

An archive of posts by those claiming it's "the best UFO video they've ever seen" or "the best CGI they've ever seen" (!) would be fun.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
The higher quality video offers a clearer view of the car's number plate. I got a match for a 1989 Dodge Ram 50, registered in Hawaii County, HI. This might have been shot somewhere on the island of Hawaii then.
it is a hawaii license plate. and the Cousin brothers are from Hawaii. Their truck is in one video
33.jpg

But browsing their videos in that time frame is fun, i counted
27 light overlays
3 with the "light array" look (one says over washington dc, but there's palm trees :) )
10 obvious balloons with colors and foil showing
15 fishingpole dangling things. (things we can see well, not distant blurry things).

I think they are a ufo satire channel. They aren't even trying to make things look real.


edit: to add dc hyperlink which i did apparently save
 
Last edited:

Ann K

Active Member
Made a timeline scrub video with grid on in PS

That's the best one I've seen. And with @Easy Muffin making a license plate ID suggesting they might be in Hawaii, is it possible they're a pod of breaching whales, appearing and disappearing as they surface? I know, they look much too fast for that in the initial footage, but is it being shown to us at a different speed, not real time?
 

Rory

Senior Member.
is it possible they're a pod of breaching whales, appearing and disappearing as they surface?

Seems pretty clear - probably beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt - that the shapes were added in using some video editing program.
 

purpleivan

Member
I took a crack at producing a stabilised version of the zoomed in portion of the video, but due to the amount of rapid movement of the camera, the results weren't great. I made two versions, each with different levels of stabilisation creating different crops of the video.

The section of the source video (The one from Third Phase of the Moon) used was that I between 01:04 and 01:23.

Stabilised version.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4e_5lw5u9w


More stabilised version.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnKqwfI0rfs
 
Top