Re: Digital photo of reptilian?
r...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
Hi back, Greg, and thank you for posting.
> I'm a graphic designer in boston, recently moved from NYC.
Did you see the World Trade Center in person on September 11, 2001?
> I am going to call them Jim and Andy.
I thought you said only one of four of your friends ("he") was behind
the clip. Perhaps you just meant the more CGI half of the team.
When they told you they were doing this did they indicate they wanted you
to keep it secret?
> I was not part of the actual production of these.
Okay, but still, maybe you know the published text of the cover letter, or
of the "Our Take" section, that accompanied the ufo clip ("Sci Fi Happens
in New York, NY"?) Are they perhaps still accessible at sci.com/happens,
like the WTC UFO clip is, if one just knows what url to type in? Perhaps
you could get your friends to pass along such a url (the cover-letter and
Our Text page for this ufo clip)?
Did your friends either decide, or support the decision, to yank the ufo
clip from the "happens" page?
> they run their own company now and I seriously doubt they do much for
> free.
I wonder if there's any amount of money that could get them to reveal
their identites and show how they made the ufo clip. Since you stress
how this thing has taken on a life of its own I'm sure you agree that I
would not be the only person willing to pay good money to see such
a documentary. Gladly $50 from me at least. Triple that for the DVD.
Do your friends put any of the "happens" clips on their resume, like
Barbara Sicuranza does?
>> Why did SFC take down the "fake" ufo clip but they still leave up
>> the "fake" other three clips?
>
> I can't speak for SFC.
Do you know when the ufo clip first or last aired, or when it first or
last appeared on the "happens" page?
>> What is your and/or their assessment of
>> 1. this anti-"fake" opinion based on matching pixelations?
>> http://www.realufos.com/wtcopinion.shtml
>> and
>> 2. this anti-"fake" opinion based on edge-finding in one particular
>> frame?
>> http://thewebfairy.com/whatzit/wtcufo.htm
>
> uh, I guess these people really wanted to see something.
Uh, they write about what they FAILED to see.
1. failed to see differing pixelation between the ufo and the
"background" that it was purportedly "dropped onto"
2. failed to see edges on the allegedly manipulated object.
Do you have any opinion on the specifics of the pixelation or edge
issues discussed at those links? I assume that as a graphics designer
you know more than I (a layman) about digital video.
> It was a PRANK
It is an ongoing LIE, if your account is true. Your account is that
this series of clips pitched as "FOOTAGE OBTAINED" by SFC, are actually
MOVIES MADE by SFC.
> to get people interested in SFC and science ficiton and ufology.
What does DELIBERATELY DECEIVING PEOPLE have to do with honest
entertainment, or with the honest study of unidentified objects? Are
viewers supposed to like SFC for lying to them? I'm not getting the
"pitch" here at all. Either we're not supposed to find out the clips
are fake, or else we're supposed to find out we're being lied to and like it?
> I think they
> DID put something on their website or magazine about sending in more
> paranormal videos,etc. But they needed these 4 to start the ball
> rolling.
"Response to our public call for submissions have been phenomenal, but only
a few have managed to really convince us that SCIFI HAPPENS"
http://www.scifi.com/happens
So besides lying in saying the clips are footage obtained by SFC, SFC
also wants people to WASTE TIME trying to become the next aired
submission? And being lied to and being led to waste my time are supposed
to make me as a viewer feel, like, INSPIRED by SFC, to take up more
interest in honest science fiction or in honest ufology?
> I don't know how many videos were ever submitted... or used, for that
> matter.
Three are up there now, and we know of the fourth, the ufo clip, which
was actually the first one posted. You think maybe others have been
withdrawn too?
> the guy from Blondie is claiming he filmed this?
Yes, it's in his blog, lemme know if you can't find it by googling. One
of Walter Sickert's posts in this thread has the url. Are you
confident (based presumably on the word of your friends Jim and Andy)
that Chris Stein had nothing to do with the ufo clip?
> these were short promo spots shot quickly, not Orson Welles.
Shot so quickly that they had time to make them look so real. Shot so
quickly that its pixel degradation upon magnification matches that of the
rest of the scenery. Shot so quickly that it blurs and blends
perfectly really.
Shot so quickly that they had time to make the ufo
1. creep from behind the left tower to between the towers
2. freeze when the woman looked right at it (but didn't see it yet)
3. wait 'til the woman turned around again
4. creep from between the towers to behind the right tower before the
woman looked at it again.
Shot so quickly that they bothered to make one fleeting frame depict the
ufo's rear end scrunching up like a caterpillar as it nervously
decided exactly when to dart away from the towers.
Shot so quickly that they added more internal squeezing and
shape-changing while it was hovering far away, right before charging
the helicopter.
Shot so quickly that in another one fleeting frame they had time to insert
a morass of fine subtle random shading detail inside the ufo which shows
up only on magnification.
Shot so quickly that they had time to give the thing wings and make it
move like a bird during its final ascent.
Shot so quickly that they had time to add a realistic contrail.
Do your friends have any comment on the coincidence between their
ultrafast birdlike ufo and the ufo's in the 9/11 footage which
appear ultrafast and/or birdlike?
> > What were we the viewers supposed to think that word was?
> > "Advance?" "Advanced?" "Events?" "Finance?"
>
> again, the viewers were supposed to be inspired to discuss.
Were we supposed to notice the ufo creeping between the towers? That was
too subtle for me until I read about it from someone else. Also is the
white streak supposed to be a second ufo, moving down left diagonally from
the top left corner of the left tower toward the streets? Some
people interpret it that way but to me it's pretty clearly just sun-glint
through the curved, moving helicopter window.
> YOU come to your own conclusions.
For now, I only have enough info to repeat my conclusion that the story
SO FAR, of the clip's alleged FAKENESS, is WOEFULLY INCOMPLETE and FAILS
THE SMELL TEST.
> These were meant to inspire discussion, which they are doing. But, I
> don't think anyone involved expected THIS much detailed work on these
> things!
Well if we were NOT supposed to notice details like the creeping behind
the towers and the internal scrunching and the tiny random shading
details (which some have likened to alien faces) and the birdlike
movement, WHY were such details PUT IN?
> you're reading wayyyy too much into this.
I'm just asking the explanation to make sense. Why hire a PILOT to be
an ACTOR? Or was the whole helicopter ride CGI too?
>> Was the clip made before 9/11?
>
> yes.
What an amazing coincidence to put a dramatic unexpected flying object
right between the same impact altitudes at the same towers where
unexpected flying objects would prove so dramatic themselves on 9/11.
> I think in 1999 or 2000? I can't remember which.
I have seen dates of 7/24/2000 and 7/24/2001 ascribed to it.
>> The ufo looks REAL, sir. It looks THERE.
>
> yeah, don't they?
Unlike our ability to corroborate your claim that the ufo was faked.
> If someone with a few computers can get this many people in a huff, what
> can a larger group (governments, corporations, hollywood, etc.) do
> with BIGGER computers?
Maybe holograms of airliners?
Ray Ubinger
http://governyourself.com
r...@duke.edu
> Do your friends have any comment on the coincidence between their
> ultrafast birdlike ufo and the ufo's in the 9/11 footage which
> appear ultrafast and/or birdlike?
ps
Also do your friends have any comment on the coincidence between
their contrail-leaving, flattened-egg-shaped ufo and these similar ones in
1. Begium 1955
http://tinyurl.com/ywvmp (six versions, darker/lighter, bigger/smaller,
of same photo)
or
2. New Jersey 1956
http://www.ufocasebook.com/oceancitynewjersey.html (explanatory text
and detail of photo)
http://www.ufocasebook.com/oceancitynewjersey.jpg (full photo)
?
Ray Ubinger
http://governyourself.com
greg
> > nice to meet you ray. my name is greg.
>
> Hi back, Greg, and thank you for posting.
>
> > I'm a graphic designer in boston, recently moved from NYC.
>
> Did you see the World Trade Center in person on September 11, 2001?
no, thankfully I was out of town.
> > I am going to call them Jim and Andy.
>
> I thought you said only one of four of your friends ("he") was behind
> the clip. Perhaps you just meant the more CGI half of the team.
yes, sorry about that.
>
> When they told you they were doing this did they indicate they wanted you
> to keep it secret?
nobody told me to keep it a secret.
>
> > I was not part of the actual production of these.
>
> Okay, but still, maybe you know the published text of the cover letter, or
> of the "Our Take" section, that accompanied the ufo clip ("Sci Fi Happens
> in New York, NY"?) Are they perhaps still accessible at sci.com/happens,
> like the WTC UFO clip is, if one just knows what url to type in? Perhaps
> you could get your friends to pass along such a url (the cover-letter and
> Our Text page for this ufo clip)?
I have no idea about this. My friends are, again, long gone from SFC
and have moved on to other things. This is all, at best, a vague
memory to them, I'm sure.
>
> Did your friends either decide, or support the decision, to yank the ufo
> clip from the "happens" page?
they had nothing to do with that.
> > they run their own company now and I seriously doubt they do much for
> > free.
>
> I wonder if there's any amount of money that could get them to reveal
> their identites and show how they made the ufo clip. Since you stress
> how this thing has taken on a life of its own I'm sure you agree that I
> would not be the only person willing to pay good money to see such
> a documentary. Gladly $50 from me at least. Triple that for the DVD.
> Do your friends put any of the "happens" clips on their resume, like
> Barbara Sicuranza does?
I bet there might be some legal/contractual elements that forbid them
to do this. But, honestly, I don't know for sure; just a guess on my
part.
> >> Why did SFC take down the "fake" ufo clip but they still leave up
> >> the "fake" other three clips?
> >
> > I can't speak for SFC.
>
> Do you know when the ufo clip first or last aired, or when it first or
> last appeared on the "happens" page?
No.
> >> What is your and/or their assessment of
> >> 1. this anti-"fake" opinion based on matching pixelations?
> >> http://www.realufos.com/wtcopinion.shtml
> >> and
> >> 2. this anti-"fake" opinion based on edge-finding in one particular
> >> frame?
> >> http://thewebfairy.com/whatzit/wtcufo.htm
> >
> > uh, I guess these people really wanted to see something.
>
> Uh, they write about what they FAILED to see.
> 1. failed to see differing pixelation between the ufo and the
> "background" that it was purportedly "dropped onto"
> 2. failed to see edges on the allegedly manipulated object.
>
> Do you have any opinion on the specifics of the pixelation or edge
> issues discussed at those links? I assume that as a graphics designer
> you know more than I (a layman) about digital video.
I'm not a MOTION graphics person, so I can't comment on this, except
for what I told you about it being generated with computers.
> > It was a PRANK
>
> It is an ongoing LIE, if your account is true. Your account is that
> this series of clips pitched as "FOOTAGE OBTAINED" by SFC, are actually
> MOVIES MADE by SFC.
if you say so.
> > to get people interested in SFC and science ficiton and ufology.
>
> What does DELIBERATELY DECEIVING PEOPLE have to do with honest
> entertainment, or with the honest study of unidentified objects? Are
> viewers supposed to like SFC for lying to them? I'm not getting the
> "pitch" here at all. Either we're not supposed to find out the clips
> are fake, or else we're supposed to find out we're being lied to and like it?
it was a commercial to sell a product. "deliberately deceiving people"
is the NORM in advertising. selling a "lifestyle" is also the NORM.
The product in the commercial is about the kind of person you NEED to
be, NOT the product itself. YOU should know that! If you don't, go
read some McLuhan or something.
>
> > I think they
> > DID put something on their website or magazine about sending in more
> > paranormal videos,etc. But they needed these 4 to start the ball
> > rolling.
>
> "Response to our public call for submissions have been phenomenal, but only
> a few have managed to really convince us that SCIFI HAPPENS"
> http://www.scifi.com/happens
>
> So besides lying in saying the clips are footage obtained by SFC, SFC
> also wants people to WASTE TIME trying to become the next aired
> submission? And being lied to and being led to waste my time are supposed
> to make me as a viewer feel, like, INSPIRED by SFC, to take up more
> interest in honest science fiction or in honest ufology?
>
> > I don't know how many videos were ever submitted... or used, for that
> > matter.
>
> Three are up there now, and we know of the fourth, the ufo clip, which
> was actually the first one posted. You think maybe others have been
> withdrawn too?
>
> > the guy from Blondie is claiming he filmed this?
>
> Yes, it's in his blog, lemme know if you can't find it by googling. One
> of Walter Sickert's posts in this thread has the url. Are you
> confident (based presumably on the word of your friends Jim and Andy)
> that Chris Stein had nothing to do with the ufo clip?
yes.
> > these were short promo spots shot quickly, not Orson Welles.
>
> Shot so quickly that they had time to make them look so real. Shot so
> quickly that its pixel degradation upon magnification matches that of the
> rest of the scenery. Shot so quickly that it blurs and blends
> perfectly really.
SHOT quickly. The CGI most likely took a bit longer.
> Shot so quickly that they had time to make the ufo
> 1. creep from behind the left tower to between the towers
> 2. freeze when the woman looked right at it (but didn't see it yet)
> 3. wait 'til the woman turned around again
> 4. creep from between the towers to behind the right tower before the
> woman looked at it again.
>
> Shot so quickly that they bothered to make one fleeting frame depict the
> ufo's rear end scrunching up like a caterpillar as it nervously
> decided exactly when to dart away from the towers.
>
> Shot so quickly that they added more internal squeezing and
> shape-changing while it was hovering far away, right before charging
> the helicopter.
>
> Shot so quickly that in another one fleeting frame they had time to insert
> a morass of fine subtle random shading detail inside the ufo which shows
> up only on magnification.
>
> Shot so quickly that they had time to give the thing wings and make it
> move like a bird during its final ascent.
>
> Shot so quickly that they had time to add a realistic contrail.
>
> Do your friends have any comment on the coincidence between their
> ultrafast birdlike ufo and the ufo's in the 9/11 footage which
> appear ultrafast and/or birdlike?
no comment.
> > > What were we the viewers supposed to think that word was?
> > > "Advance?" "Advanced?" "Events?" "Finance?"
> >
> > again, the viewers were supposed to be inspired to discuss.
>
> Were we supposed to notice the ufo creeping between the towers? That was
> too subtle for me until I read about it from someone else. Also is the
> white streak supposed to be a second ufo, moving down left diagonally from
> the top left corner of the left tower toward the streets? Some
> people interpret it that way but to me it's pretty clearly just sun-glint
> through the curved, moving helicopter window.
>
> > YOU come to your own conclusions.
>
> For now, I only have enough info to repeat my conclusion that the story
> SO FAR, of the clip's alleged FAKENESS, is WOEFULLY INCOMPLETE and FAILS
> THE SMELL TEST.
Fine.
> > These were meant to inspire discussion, which they are doing. But, I
> > don't think anyone involved expected THIS much detailed work on these
> > things!
>
> Well if we were NOT supposed to notice details like the creeping behind
> the towers and the internal scrunching and the tiny random shading
> details (which some have likened to alien faces) and the birdlike
> movement, WHY were such details PUT IN?
creativity.
>
> > you're reading wayyyy too much into this.
>
> I'm just asking the explanation to make sense. Why hire a PILOT to be
> an ACTOR? Or was the whole helicopter ride CGI too?
I never said the pilot was an actor. But, the pilot was probably
clued-in to what they were doing and proded to improvise a bit. That
improvisational stuff makes things seem more real.
> >> Was the clip made before 9/11?
> >
> > yes.
>
> What an amazing coincidence to put a dramatic unexpected flying object
> right between the same impact altitudes at the same towers where
> unexpected flying objects would prove so dramatic themselves on 9/11.
yes it was a coincidence. weird how things work sometimes, eh?
>
> > I think in 1999 or 2000? I can't remember which.
>
> I have seen dates of 7/24/2000 and 7/24/2001 ascribed to it.
then you answered you're own question.
>
> >> The ufo looks REAL, sir. It looks THERE.
> >
> > yeah, don't they?
>
> Unlike our ability to corroborate your claim that the ufo was faked.
look, make what you want of this. I'm telling you what I know WITHOUT
getting my friends in possible contractual trouble here. Take what I'm
saying with a grain of salt, if you want.
>
> > If someone with a few computers can get this many people in a huff, what
> > can a larger group (governments, corporations, hollywood, etc.) do
> > with BIGGER computers?
>
> Maybe holograms of airliners?
sure. maybe moon landings and presidential elections. or maybe nothing
at all.
greg
>
> Yes, it's in his blog, lemme know if you can't find it by googling. One
> of Walter Sickert's posts in this thread has the url. Are you
> confident (based presumably on the word of your friends Jim and Andy)
> that Chris Stein had nothing to do with the ufo clip?
I think you need to re-read his blog concerning this! I just found it,
and he spells it out rather obviously. He had NOTHING to do with this
and is not claiming anything to the contrary. His WIFE was the actor
on screen. She lists it in her resume, etc.
http://www.blondie.net/chris_stein_20030508.shtml
In fact, Mr. Stein's tone and exact words refect everything I have
said about this promo spot: it's a commercial, and made with computer
effects.
r...@duke.edu
>> "Our Take" section[?]
Greg writes:
> I have no idea about this.
Just today I learned of the Internet Wayback Machine. For everyone's
info here is how the scifi.com/happens page looked when the ufo clip was on
it on June 15, 2001:
http://tinyurl.com/28bdt
or
http://web.archive.org/web/20010615150525/http://www.scifi.com/happens/ufoletter.html
Early BBS comments on it date from Oct 2000, so the 15Jun2001 date
is apparently just the random date the search machine saved the page on.
The clip itself is no longer working at that page, so here is its working
link again:
http://www.scifi.com/happens/happens_1_big.mov
(Quicktime format)
Actually the Wayback link isn't working at the moment either, so here are
the complete texts of the Letter and "Our [SciFi's] Take":
"SCIFI guys,
"I saw your ad and realized i HAD to send this in. On July 24, I went on
a helicopter ride over Manhattan with a friend of mine (NOT my
current boyfriend, so please don't print my full name, thank you) and we saw
a lot more than we paid for! We are still trying to figure this one out!
We saw a blimp while we were up there, so when we saw this thing we thought
it was another blimp, and so did the captain, but then it kind of
floated really quick. Then it kind of turboed right past us making this
really loud jet sound!!!! Obviously we were all kind of freaked out at
the time, but in the end it felt like whoever was flying it was kind
of goofing around with us. It definitely seemed more like some kind of
weird airplane than a UFO. Anyway, we have mostly just been showing the
tape around to our friends and it freaks everybody out! What I'm wondering
is, is it worth anything to you guys? Make me an offer, this would be
perfect for whatever you're doing. Are you doing some kind of show like
that old show with SPOCK about bigfoot and UFOs or something?"
"OUR TAKE: UFO freaks are going to have a field day with this one.
Although many flying disc sightings are attributable to blimps,
balloons, clouds, reflections, meteors, or heat distortions, a small
number are attributable to prototype aircraft - a notion the submitter
even mentions possible.
"More prototype aircraft are spotted and reported mistakenly as UFOs
every year, and UFOs are such a historically popular concept that more
than one ambitious person in the past has attempted to manufacture them.
It seems entirely probable that some agency has finally been successful,
given that even the Nazis were secretly experimenting with flying discs as
far back as World War II.
"The thing that strikes me as most clever about this craft is its
camoflauge; it really moves like and appears to be a blimp, a common
sight over New York. If I were a pedestrian, I probably wouldn't even
look twice. However, when it moves, it glides so rapidly that the naked
eye cannot easily track it... A very clever idea on the part of the
designers, whoever or whatever they are, and a perplexing piece of
footage which merits much closer examination."
> I bet there might be some legal/contractual elements that forbid them
> to do this [reveal their identities and document how they made the clip].
Yet you say they told you about it, and with no request that you keep
it secret. In fact didn't you say they even let you hang around the
studio some while they were doing it? Since Barbara Sicuranza seems to
be getting away with publicizing her involvement in it (on her resume),
I suspect your friends are allowed to do the same. Maybe you could ask
them, they might even cut you in on the take.
>> It is an ongoing LIE, if your account is true. Your account is that
>> this series of clips pitched as "FOOTAGE OBTAINED" by SFC, are
>> actually MOVIES MADE by SFC.
>
> if you say so.
YOU say the clips are definitely NOT obtained footage. SFC says they
ARE obtained footage. YOU say SFC KNOWS that's not true. Ergo YOU say SFC
is LYING.
> "deliberately deceiving people" is the NORM in advertising.
I thought false advertising was illegal.
>> Do your friends have any comment on the coincidence between their
>> ultrafast birdlike ufo and the ufo's in the 9/11 footage which
>> appear ultrafast and/or birdlike?
>
> no comment.
Have you seen the 9/11 ufo's I'm talking about? What about the photos
I posted, from Belgium 1955 and New Jersey 1956, of flat-egg-shaped
contrail-leaving ufos? Did Jim and Andy borrow from ufo photo archives?
>> [I]f we were NOT supposed to notice details like the creeping behind
>> the towers and the internal scrunching and the tiny random shading
>> details (which some have likened to alien faces) and the birdlike
>> movement, then WHY were such details PUT IN?
>
> creativity.
With no expected audience?? But now that some people have finally
noticed these fine details, your friends have moved on to other things
and have no interest whatsoever in publicly enjoying the appreciation for
all their hard work?
Ray Ubinger
http://governyourself.com
r...@duke.edu
>>
>> Yes, it's in his blog
Greg writes:
> I think you need to re-read
I admit I'm confused. It doesn't help that he writes:
"there's barbara ... being photographed from behind by her 'husband'
or whatever"
and that the Cover Letter says:
"with a friend of mine (NOT my current boyfriend, so please don't print
my full name, thank you)"
And wait another minute. The date of the 'copter film seems to be
24Jul2000, by the scifi.com archive. At that time, Barbara and Chris
were already married:
What gives?
"Barbara and I wrote a couple messages early on" in the scifi.com BBS
system, Chris Stein says. Somebody please post those if you can find them?
Thanks,
Ray Ubinger
http://governyourself.com
r...@duke.edu
> things. This is all, at best, a vague memory to them, I'm sure.
It is such impressive work. I can't point to a realer-looking piece of
CGI, ever, can you?
I would like to ask them whether or not I'm seeing that one frame right.
I mean the frame with the supposedly reptilian/alien quasi-face-like
pattern of shading (noticeable on magnification). It is the frame
right BEFORE the TWO frames that seem closest to the helicopter.
Right/left arrow keys work as frame-byframe in Quicktime.
What I'm wondering about in this frame, besides the level of shading
detail which shows up on magnification, is the seemingly weird FRONT END
of the craft.
In this one particular frame, I'm sensing that maybe the front end of
the craft is FORKED, with top and bottom extending farther forward, in
long lobes, than the middle. Do you see what I'm talking about? It
looks to me like the skyline is visible in the "front middle" area,
BETWEEN upper-front and lower-front "lobes" where the craft is
"forking forward". The craft in this frame strikes me as more c-shaped
than oval. But a really flat c, kinda like
__
(((__
Is that intentional? Am I maybe just seeing it wrong? Is it really just
its normal solid-egg/oblong shape in that frame?
Can you empathize that we who don't know Jim and Andy would be very eager
to see a full expose on the clip's fakeness? Since you agree it
looks impressively real, can you see how we on the outside would yearn for
a proof which you on the inside don't need since (according to you) you
were there and knew the guy who faked it?
> I bet there might be some legal/contractual elements that forbid them to
> do this.
Are you still in touch with them? Could you possibly please try to get
them to entertain some questions through you?
>>>> http://www.realufos.com/wtcopinion.shtml
>>>> http://thewebfairy.com/whatzit/wtcufo.htm
>> Do you have any opinion on the specifics of the pixelation or edge
>> issues discussed at those links? I assume that as a graphics designer
>> you know more than I (a layman) about digital video.
>
> I'm not a MOTION graphics person, so I can't comment on this, except
> for what I told you about it being generated with computers.
Can Jim or Andy please explain to you how they got the pixelation
degradation to match so well, and got the blurring to blend so
realistically, and got the edge to seem to dissolve?
> selling a "lifestyle" is also the NORM.
> The product in the commercial is about the kind of person you NEED to
> be, NOT the product itself.
Were we the audience expected to believe the clip was authentic, or not?
Were we expected to search for proof of fakeness? To find it? Yes or no?
Is there any particular element or elements of fakeness-evidence which
we should regard as incontrovertible? Or is it supposed to be so good that
no one can ever prove it's fake?
>> Why hire a PILOT to be an ACTOR? Or was the whole helicopter ride CGI
>> too?
>
> I never said the pilot was an actor.
Okay.
> But, the pilot was probably clued-in to what they were doing and proded
> to improvise a bit. That improvisational stuff makes things seem more real.
But the woman's lines were scripted, because she's a professional actress?
Could you possibly help us identify the pilot-actor or the helicopter
company?
Did you say`d explicitly that Jim or Andy was the cameraman/director?
I'm thinking you did but I'm not sure.
>> What an amazing coincidence to put a dramatic unexpected flying
>> object right between the same impact altitudes at the same towers
>> where unexpected flying objects would prove so dramatic themselves on
>> 9/11.
>
> yes it was a coincidence. weird how things work sometimes, eh?
Have you talked with Jim or Andy since 9/11? I wonder what their reaction
to this coincidence was. Did they feel spooked at all, by their
own accidental prescience? Are they glad the clip is no longer posted
at scifi.com/happens?
Ray Ubinger
http://governyourself.com
greg
<snip>
> > I bet there might be some legal/contractual elements that forbid them
> > to do this [reveal their identities and document how they made the clip].
>
> Yet you say they told you about it, and with no request that you keep
> it secret. In fact didn't you say they even let you hang around the
> studio some while they were doing it? Since Barbara Sicuranza seems to
> be getting away with publicizing her involvement in it (on her resume),
> I suspect your friends are allowed to do the same. Maybe you could ask
> them, they might even cut you in on the take.
of course they told me. they're friends. it was JUST a job at the
time. NOW, however, I find your tone a bit too serious for me. And to
be safe, I want to avoid exposing my friends names, etc., as I have no
idea WHAT their contract said with SFC.
Barbara Sicuranza, from what I can see of her site, isn't getting much
milage out of this. It appears she has way bigger things on her
resume! MY friends do these short spots continuously for a living.
They've been doing them for YEARS. To list them all would simply be
silly and pointless. IF someone wants to hire them, they send that
person a 10-15 minute demo reel of the best of what they've done. THAT
is their "resume". To send someone a 4 hour tape of 30 second spots
dating back 15 years is not the best way to win a client over.
> >> It is an ongoing LIE, if your account is true. Your account is that
> >> this series of clips pitched as "FOOTAGE OBTAINED" by SFC, are
> >> actually MOVIES MADE by SFC.
> >
> > if you say so.
>
> YOU say the clips are definitely NOT obtained footage. SFC says they
> ARE obtained footage. YOU say SFC KNOWS that's not true. Ergo YOU say SFC
> is LYING.
Again, it's an AD for the Sci FI Channel. FI standing for FICTION.
> > "deliberately deceiving people" is the NORM in advertising.
>
> I thought false advertising was illegal.
it IS. but, look around you: do you NOT see ads telling people that
owning a product will give them a lifestyle? I seriously doubt anyone
could succeed in any legal case against SFC concerning these ads. It's
just too silly.
> Have you seen the 9/11 ufo's I'm talking about? What about the photos
> I posted, from Belgium 1955 and New Jersey 1956, of flat-egg-shaped
> contrail-leaving ufos? Did Jim and Andy borrow from ufo photo archives?
I have not seen them, and I don't know what they "borrowed" or were
inspired by when making these spots.
> >> [I]f we were NOT supposed to notice details like the creeping behind
> >> the towers and the internal scrunching and the tiny random shading
> >> details (which some have likened to alien faces) and the birdlike
> >> movement, then WHY were such details PUT IN?
> >
> > creativity.
>
> With no expected audience?? But now that some people have finally
> noticed these fine details, your friends have moved on to other things
> and have no interest whatsoever in publicly enjoying the appreciation for
> all their hard work?
exactly. WHY does someone HAVE to claim their work or art as theirs?
Do you know of art movements like Dada or Surrealism? Or the DIY Punk
movement of the 70s and 80s? Why can't someone make "art" and let it
become part of the landscape? Why does it need a name on it? Can't an
artist make art with out being and egomaniac?
greg
> > things. This is all, at best, a vague memory to them, I'm sure.
>
> It is such impressive work. I can't point to a realer-looking piece of
> CGI, ever, can you?
I've never SEEN a real UFO, so it (the clip) only looks good to me,
not "real" per se.
<snip>
> Can you empathize that we who don't know Jim and Andy would be very eager
> to see a full expose on the clip's fakeness? Since you agree it
> looks impressively real, can you see how we on the outside would yearn for
> a proof which you on the inside don't need since (according to you) you
> were there and knew the guy who faked it?
I can totally empathize. But, again, I really don't want to stir
anything up with them contractually, so I'll leave it at that.
>
> > I bet there might be some legal/contractual elements that forbid them to
> > do this.
>
> Are you still in touch with them? Could you possibly please try to get
> them to entertain some questions through you?
Yes, I see or talk to them rather frequently. They've both said that
this isn't worth talking about openly. It was just a job. Plus, I
think they are rather perversly enjoying all this debate.
> >>>> http://www.realufos.com/wtcopinion.shtml
> >>>> http://thewebfairy.com/whatzit/wtcufo.htm
> >> Do you have any opinion on the specifics of the pixelation or edge
> >> issues discussed at those links? I assume that as a graphics designer
> >> you know more than I (a layman) about digital video.
> >
> > I'm not a MOTION graphics person, so I can't comment on this, except
> > for what I told you about it being generated with computers.
>
> Can Jim or Andy please explain to you how they got the pixelation
> degradation to match so well, and got the blurring to blend so
> realistically, and got the edge to seem to dissolve?
they don't want to comment at all.
> > selling a "lifestyle" is also the NORM.
> > The product in the commercial is about the kind of person you NEED to
> > be, NOT the product itself.
>
> Were we the audience expected to believe the clip was authentic, or not?
>
> Were we expected to search for proof of fakeness? To find it? Yes or no?
>
> Is there any particular element or elements of fakeness-evidence which
> we should regard as incontrovertible? Or is it supposed to be so good that
> no one can ever prove it's fake?
it's supposed to make you question it, period. To which you are doing
fine.
>
> > But, the pilot was probably clued-in to what they were doing and proded
> > to improvise a bit. That improvisational stuff makes things seem more real.
>
> But the woman's lines were scripted, because she's a professional actress?
professional actors improvise all the time. it's not a big deal,
especially if asked.
> Could you possibly help us identify the pilot-actor or the helicopter
> company?
it was simply one of those helicopter tours around manhattan.
no more details are remembered.
> Did you say`d explicitly that Jim or Andy was the cameraman/director?
> I'm thinking you did but I'm not sure.
sorry, in my mind I haven't really associated those names to the real
people very clearly. I haven't said who did what.
> >> What an amazing coincidence to put a dramatic unexpected flying
> >> object right between the same impact altitudes at the same towers
> >> where unexpected flying objects would prove so dramatic themselves on
> >> 9/11.
> >
> > yes it was a coincidence. weird how things work sometimes, eh?
>
> Have you talked with Jim or Andy since 9/11? I wonder what their reaction
> to this coincidence was. Did they feel spooked at all, by their
> own accidental prescience? Are they glad the clip is no longer posted
> at scifi.com/happens?
>
again, I speak with them frequently. they have no reaction to the
alleged UFOs seen at the WTC on 911. And they have no feelings about
the clips whereabouts on the web today.
r...@duke.edu
> I would like to ask them whether or not I'm seeing that one frame right.
Greg answers that Jim and Andy have no comment at all about their work.
Still, Greg and others, I would like to know whether YOU see these
'forked lobes' I'm talking about. If so, do they look more intentional to
you or more like a trick of the light?
Here again is my fuller description of the anomaly I'm talking about:
> I mean the frame with the supposedly reptilian/alien quasi-face-like
> pattern of shading (noticeable on magnification). It is the frame
> right BEFORE the TWO frames that seem closest to the helicopter.
> Right/left arrow keys work as frame-byframe in Quicktime.
>
> What I'm wondering about in this frame, besides the level of shading
> detail which shows up on magnification, is the seemingly weird FRONT END
> of the craft.
>
> In this one particular frame, I'm sensing that maybe the front end of
> the craft is FORKED, with top and bottom extending farther forward, in
> long lobes, than the middle. Do you see what I'm talking about? It
> looks to me like the skyline is visible in the "front middle" area,
> BETWEEN upper-front and lower-front "lobes" where the craft is
> "forking forward". The craft in this frame strikes me as more c-shaped
> than oval. But a really flat c, kinda like
>
> __
> (((__
>
>
> Is that intentional? Am I maybe just seeing it wrong? Is it really just
> its normal solid-egg/oblong shape in that frame?
Ray Ubinger
http://governyourself.com