Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - DrDIl

Pages: [1]
1
I don't see anything wrong with any of these. I don't find anything suspicious about the stillness of the trees. Actually, in one of his clips there is some movement of the trees. The other clips were doubtless taken on very still nights.
The bright streaks are, I would say, a  mixture of aircraft, meteors and satellites. There is definitely an aurora there, too.
So I'd say that everything the photographer claims for these sequences is true.

Hi Ian, it’s been a while and it’s great to see you posting here!! ;)


Cheers.

2
HOAX! / Re: HOAX! - 'Dudley Dorito' - March 26th 2012
« on: May 17, 2012, 02:27:00 PM »
The YouTube user "xxxdonutzxxx" filed a copyright infringement claim on my video and it was taken down.  Since I strictly follow Fair Use laws, I filed a counter-claim to get the video back. 

<snip>
Did you hear back about this HK?

And promised -belated- post:

http://blog.ufo-blog.com/2012/05/another-dudley-dorito-hoax.html


Cheers.

3
HOAX! / Re: HOAX! - 'Dudley Dorito' - March 26th 2012
« on: April 29, 2012, 11:33:02 AM »
Meh, I was just about to Blog about this and realised it had been taken down, the small excerpt that was used surely constitutes ‘fair use’ and so it’s an absolute disgrace that a take-down can be implemented so easily.

(Thanks HK for your efforts especially the added explanation, it's appreciated).

What really needs to be done is that YouTube should be upholding it's guidelines and penalizing users that file a false claim. For example, if someone files a claim against me and gives me a strike and then I file a successful counter-notification, then that user should receive a strike. Three strikes and they're out!

Good idea or better still if someone wants a video such as this (highlighting flaws) taken down then unless the original unedited video file can be supplied then everything CG should be forced to be labelled as such along with a prominent notice on the uploaders account. I’m not sure it would constitute false advertising exactly but it’s certainly a grey area and essentially YouTube is facilitating deception by allowing videos such as this to remain not only unquestioned but they're also allowing the hard-work of those that do question them to be taken down so effortlessly.

Of course I still intend to write about it and I will also include the video but now the uploader will also be named & their recent questionable actions highlighted.


Cheers.


4
Leslie Kean has posted a follow-up article on Huffington Post, but there aren't any additional videos:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-kean/update-on-chilean-ufo-vid_b_1424008.html?ref=weird-news

I wish some of them would get a hold of HOAXKiller's analysis to see what they'd have to say.
An update to the update(!):

http://blog.ufo-blog.com/2012/04/kean-chile-ufo-update-early-conclusions.html


Cheers ;D

5
HOAX! / Re: 'Dudley Dorito' - March 26th 2012
« on: April 20, 2012, 03:23:39 PM »
Sorry I have been away and busy the past couple weeks.  I had debunked this when it was first released, but I never finished the video to explain my debunk.  Anyway here it is:



The video shows obvious chroma keying mistakes.  Parts of the sky that should have been keyed out were not, and so they were displayed on top of the UFO.

Moving this to the HOAX forum.

Thanks for that HK (although I’m going to have to slow it down to see what you mean!!)


Cheers.

6
HOAX! / Re: 'Dudley Dorito' - March 26th 2012
« on: April 13, 2012, 01:27:18 PM »
I was searching online for something unrelated and happened across a thread about this at everybody’s favourite CT forum:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread824209/pg1

Seems as if no-one was able to definitively debunk it although I still can’t shake the feeling it’s CG.


Cheers.

7
Berrow Beach IFO? UK UFO, Burnham on Sea - April 1st

Thought I’d share this and see what the general consensus was (I wrote it a couple of days ago). When I first saw it and for all it was posted on April 1st (the day I wrote this) I don't think it was a purposeful attempt at deception by the website that posted it, however it seems a little strange that the image that shows the most detail was the one that was posted at a much smaller size, here's the article:
________________________________________

Quote
Walker appeals for help in solving UFO mystery over Berrow beach

(Originally posted on April 1st, 2012)


A walker has appealed for help in identifying a mystery object seen hovering in the sky above Berrow beach during the past week. Beach walker Ken May photographed the circular, black object several hundred metres over the sands near the Berrow beach car park.


"The object hovered silently over the beach high up in the sky for about 20 seconds before rising upwards, quickly moving inland and vanishing from view - it was quite eerie. I've used the beach here for many years and have never seen anything like it. I managed to take two quick photos and would be interested to hear from anyone who spotted anything similar in the area on Thursday evening at around 6.30pm."


Source: Burnham-On-Sea.com
________________________________________

As soon as I opened it up with graphics software the similarities between the object and a children's toy were striking to say the least. Here's the two objects cleaned up & zoomed in a little:



________________________________________

It reminded me straight away of one of the many propeller style toys that are currently available, well either that or a Frisbee of some description but due to the slightly conical shape of the object in the smaller image then I suspected a toy similar to the following:



Obviously as there are just so many of these and similar shaped toys on the market an exact match isn't always possible, the following is a related image search from Google:


________________________________________

And so whilst I don't necessarily think the toy used in the next example is the exact object that was used it is more than suitable for comparative purposes, here's the toy and the image I used of it:


________________________________________

Here's the toy placed next to the object(s) for a direct comparison with the original image being highlighted in red:


________________________________________

And finally the reason I suspect that the images are so different in structure is that one was taken during the ‘launch’ of the toy (or alternatively the angle it was thrown at) and the other one is a side-on view after the toy had levelled out (or thrown straight across the field of vision) which would also be consistent with the motion blur that is evident. I overlaid the two images and then using the horizon as a guide proceeded to blend the two images and then animated it, I think this helps to understand the point I’m trying to make:


Which when coupled with the object being centred in both shots then it certainly implies that this was a staged event and I believe that when considered along with the witness account is more than enough to warrant a little caution, i.e. "hovered silently over the beach high up in the sky for about 20 seconds before rising upwards, quickly moving inland and vanishing from view[/i]."


________________________________________

To be honest, and personally speaking, the only aspect of this report that didn't indicate a hoax was that usually the witness doesn’t offer a name instead preferring to remain anonymous. However, and having said that there’s no reason to accept as an absolute certainty that the name supplied was genuine or even if it is genuine that this is anything other than a pre-emptive April fools prank.

All things considered and without any further information I’m doubtful that the witness account is an honest representation of what occurred.....


Cheers.


8
HOAX! / Re: 'Dudley Dorito' - March 26th 2012
« on: March 29, 2012, 02:03:00 PM »
Right off the bat, it's never a good sign when a video has a "jump cut" edit. At the very beginning of this video there is an edit after the camera is pointed at the ground and before the trees are shown. This is an immediate giveaway that the video was certainly run through some sort of processing software.

Thanks for that HKF.

DrDil,

Thanks for posting that, and glad to see you on the forum!

<snip>

DrDil, did you mean the Himalayan video instead of the Amsterdam one?  The Himalayan one is also made by "xxxdonutzxxx" who made the video in your first post.

Thanks HK it’s good to be here. I went back and double-checked and you are of course right. I had that many windows open at the time I must have got mixed-up although I was sure a seen that  ‘7th Area’ was associated with both.

The ‘original’ Dudley Dorito reports (2007 until now) never contained images or video, well they did but they were the ‘usual suspects’ of triangular craft that generally get posted with every BT report and were subsequently misattributed to the Dudley Dorito which was then perpetuated across the internet.

Same old, same old…..


Cheers.


9
HOAX! / HOAX! - 'Dudley Dorito' - March 26th 2012
« on: March 28, 2012, 12:37:44 PM »
This is from one of the usual suspects at YouTube (ties to the Amsterdam video debunked earlier).

It’s a new video (26th March 2012) from the UK and involves an alleged UFO I’ve researched several times over the last few years, can be seen passing behind individual tree branches but I haven’t had a chance to open it up yet and check for bleeds or masking errors:



Thought you may find it of interest as it just hit the MSM in the UK, first time the report has been accompanied by a video though.

There was another video floating about (pardon the pun) a few hours ago but I don’t know if it was similar as not long after Gather.com posted it the YT video was ‘removed by user’.


Cheers.

Pages: [1]