Been asked by many (at another forum) about the supposed low flying craft that ends by entering the trees. And since the site seems to be a hot potatoe, I stayed up all last nite doing a bit of frame by frame analysis on it.

It is listed on the site as "Australian UFO Wave 2006: Sighting #25" and the link for watching the video is here:

http://www.australianufowave.com/ufo25a.html

Here is the quote on the site about it:


DATE: 9.7.06
LOCATION: Picton, NSW
WITNESSES: One witness.
OTHER DETAILS: This object was seen approaching at great speed, but was no longer visible once it passed behind the tree.The witness has stated that the object was silent - the aeroplane that can be heard on the tape was a conventional aircraft off to the East (which was also seen and filmed by the witness).

This is analogue video shot on an old camera, and converted to digital. The conversion process is far from perfect, and the original tape is much clearer (when played directly through a TV). Watching the video frame-by-frame the object appears to be changing shape as it moves, or perhaps rotating. It has been suggested that the object's rapid movement could result in this visual distortion. We will attempt to get a better quality conversion in the future.


Many of you have already had a chance to read about the analysis on the UFO that Flies over the Family in the Car thread and pretty much have already a grasp of how the Hoaxer's are using "CG" along with a staged event, so I'll save everyone the technical dribble and get right to it.

This one is quite a bit differant though. Every time I watched it, something about it didn't seem right especially when the sun's reflection hit it.. Why was it only reflecting that top section I kept asking myself? Also, why was the craft's nose tipped up so much, was it coming in for a landing somewhere? Well that didn't make much sense. This one also doesn't have the appearance of being staged (perse').

So I continued going through the 500 plus frames, one at a time. I did this for many-many hours and did notice a little rough changes in the darker portion on the bottom of the craft, but that could've been again something to do with angle and sun reflection.

After going frame by frame on my 30+ plus times when I accidently hit the reverse button and watched the footage in reverse...Thats when it hit me.. We were seeing a reverse flight of a jet with a heavy composite build-up (CG) around the bottom of it...

When you remove the black composite,, you can see the jet,,, even a red FAA strobe firing off in 2 frames...

Now I did a real simple and rather sloppy job on the cover-up of the black CG Composite using the available blue sky for the fill, so keep in mind,,, I'm dog-gone tired right now and just want to go to bed...

At least now we know why there was the sound of the conventional jet mentioned in the report...LOL

So in summary.. Videotape a jet coming out of the trees heading to the left zoomed in. Follow the jet and zoom-out. Take footage add dark composite CG shading, and reverse the footage to run backwards... Wah-La!

dude very impressive and well thought out..........well done

proved me wrong i just thought it was a model

Good eye and great analysis. I'm looking forward to your future posts.

Great job.

This is an update:

I've painstakingly removed all the CG from the footage and present it here, it's about half of the hoax footage without any masking or CG. Had to do the removal and clean-up on every frame first blocking the CG, and then refilling the area with the sky as it was supposed to be. Then I placed each frame back into it's proper flying sequence. It's not as smooth as i'd like, but it's decent

And I've removed the links as I was wrong in my technique,,,, see post below
http://rapidshare.de/files/29450185/HOAX-25_No-CG.wmv.html

Mate that is some seriously good detective work, well done, your presence here is very welcome.

Yeah dude your presence here as Dundee say's is very welcome

Good job

The recent Australian "ufo wave" videos are now admitted to be a hoax (or rather an "immersive artwork") funded by the Australian Film Commission.

Details of the relevant "immersive artwork" project are given on the website at the link below:
http://australianufowave.com/

I think this episode shows that the ufological community (including this Forum) _really_ needs to make more of an effort to get to grips with the basic principles of Computer Generated Imagery (CGI).

A discussion is needed which steps back from _individual_ sightings and talks about the _basic_ methods of producing hoaxed footage using software such as Adobe After Effects. I've said this a couple of times before, but...

All the best,

Isaac Koi

And now I need to hang my head in shame people..... SIGH!

When your wrong (partially,,) your still wrong... sigh

Well people, I was partially wrong in thier technique of the jet! Although correct in most of the videos being fake... my analysis on number 25 was off base.. Just went to the site, and now they have a explanation for the hoax's. They claim that only 2 of the videos are supposed ufos and all the rest were staged to fool the public.

And it turns out I was wrong in what I thought was a reverse shot of a jet.
It is a jet but flying in the opposite direction that they cropped the wings off....

Even tho I was correct in it being a hoax, I don't feel that justifys my wrong conclusion on how they probably did it.

I was fooled by their technique.

This is a lesson to us all, especially to me, that even when you think you know how something is done, there is probably a twist in there that one is unaware of.

My apologies!

And this is what they say:

TECHNIQUES

All the clips (except two), were shot on a Sony HDV camera. Two were shot on an old analogue camera, and converted to digital.

Background plates were usually shot with a tripod, and then a UFO was added, before camera shake and motion blur were applied. In some cases optical distortion and simulated lens blur were used to enhance the effect.

The clips were edited in Final Cut Pro, and the effects work was carried out with After Effects Pro 7.0. The alien in Sighting #30 was created with Poser 6.0.

Some of the UFOs (such as the spheres) were computer generated (in Vue Infinite and Cinema 4D), but most were created by shooting real-world light sources, such as streetlights and car headlights.

Three actors appeared in Sighting #31, and actors were used throughout the project to provide audio.

Details of techniques used for the sightings are include throughout the archive, and more details are found in the PROOF page.

i dont care dude you were on the right track

anyone who took the time could see they were hoax's but how they were done is a diffrent matter

and you came bloody close

i actually feel for the people who thought they were real

Which goes back to another post I stated that the UFO word is used for anything and not what it originally meant, a craft that was possibly from another world with charachteristics that defy many physical earthly states.

Most UFO sightings are by people who never look up at the sky, (underline the most) do not know what aircraft look like from a distance and assume that everything is a UFO .

A true UFO can never be identified can it!!!!!!How could you identify something which can mix with earthly craft and be misidentified as such...

Therefore the word UFO really can only be used for a true UFO-that which cannot ever be identified.

Which goes back to another post I stated that the UFO word is used for anything and not what it originally meant, a craft that was possibly from another world with charachteristics that defy many physical earthly states.

Most UFO sightings are by people who never look up at the sky, (underline the most) do not know what aircraft look like from a distance and assume that everything is a UFO .

A true UFO can never be identified can it!!!!!!How could you identify something which can mix with earthly craft and be misidentified as such...

Therefore the word UFO really can only be used for a true UFO-that which cannot ever be identified.

Which goes back to another post I stated that the UFO word is used for anything and not what it originally meant, a craft that was possibly from another world with charachteristics that defy many physical earthly states.

Most UFO sightings are by people who never look up at the sky, (underline the most) do not know what aircraft look like from a distance and assume that everything is a UFO .

A true UFO can never be identified can it!!!!!!How could you identify something which can mix with earthly craft and be misidentified as such...

Therefore the word UFO really can only be used for a true UFO-that which cannot ever be identified.

Which goes back to another post I stated that the UFO word is used for anything and not what it originally meant, a craft that was possibly from another world with charachteristics that defy many physical earthly states.

Most UFO sightings are by people who never look up at the sky, (underline the most) do not know what aircraft look like from a distance and assume that everything is a UFO .

A true UFO can never be identified can it!!!!!!How could you identify something which can mix with earthly craft and be misidentified as such...

Therefore the word UFO really can only be used for a true UFO-that which cannot ever be identified.

Which goes back to another post I stated that the UFO word is used for anything and not what it originally meant, a craft that was possibly from another world with charachteristics that defy many physical earthly states.

Most UFO sightings are by people who never look up at the sky, (underline the most) do not know what aircraft look like from a distance and assume that everything is a UFO .

A true UFO can never be identified can it!!!!!!How could you identify something which can mix with earthly craft and be misidentified as such...

Therefore the word UFO really can only be used for a true UFO-that which cannot ever be identified.

Of course. as soon it is identified it isn't a UFO anymore...

This forum is fugged up can`t hardly log on tonight.

Ah at last...

Could you please do us the service of doing whatever analysis you can on these scanned copies of photo in now defunct UFO magazine UK.

http://www.thenorfolkincident.com/mohave_boomerang_1985.dwt

><