Author Topic: HOAX! – UFO Sighting Filmed Over East London UK July 2011  (Read 3991 times)


  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 133
    • View Profile
HOAX! – UFO Sighting Filmed Over East London UK July 2011
« on: December 27, 2011, 11:30:28 PM »
Another UFO video was uploaded to YouTube, supposedly from London, on July 24th 2011.  It shows what seems to be 3 small objects flying in a triangular formation. After analyzing the video I have found several issues that, to me, proves the video is another CGI hoax.  It might even be the work of a serial hoaxer(s).

Here is the original:

One of the first issues with the video that I couldn't help but notice is the camera movement/shake.  It does not seem real to me at all. For me it is very easy to spot fake camera movements, but for others I can see how it would be difficult. The camera shake argument is a hard one to discuss, and a hard one to understand for most, but I will try my best to explain and illustrate this to everyone.

In order to study the camera's movements, I motion tracked an object in the view, and I added a particle emitter so that it can emit small red particles as it moves, and create a path.  Here is the analysis of the entire video:

Here is a few things you can see from this motion analysis:

1) There is no camera rotation/roll.

When I motion tracked the video I also tracked the rotation/roll. However, there seems to be ZERO rotation/roll in this video. One thing you should see in the analysis video is that I added a black reticle or crosshair or "+" at the point I motion tracked. If the camera rotated/rolled 45 degrees then the "+" would become a "x".  If you watch the crosshair through the entire video you will notice the lines of the cross always remain perfectly parallel with the edges of the video, and the cross does not rotate/roll.  There is only up/down and left/right camera movements (X and Y), and not rotation.  This is evidence of 2D simulated (fake) camera motion. 

It is nearly humanly impossible to hold a camera perfectly level and still shake as much as seen in the video.  It is just not realistic.  Your fingers, wrist, elbow, and shoulder all need to be perfectly locked into place for there to be zero rotation/roll, and that just does not happen.  Most hoaxers add a little rotation/roll to their fake camera shake, but this hoaxer seemed to have skipped that step and only added 2D X and Y movements.

2) The camera movement has a constant rate.

If you watch the red line being created in the analysis video you might notice how it just keeps going at a constant rate.  It is like a runaway train with no brakes. There is no moments of rest or stability, and even the most horrible camera operator has a few moments of rest and stability. 

However, about every other second there is a small burst of speed, but that is only when the starting point and the end point of the current camera movement is far apart from each other.  Every time the camera movement seems to speed up you mark the starting point, and when the speed slows back to normal you mark the end point. You will notice the two points are always far apart when the burst of speed happens. There is never a short distance burst of speed, only long distance bursts in speed. That observation is evidence that the camera movement is computer generated using "key frames".

To explain, when you animate something using key frames, you have a start frame, and an end frame.  The distance between the two key frames in the timeline determines the speed of the animation.  So if you have two key frames 1 second apart on the timeline, and you have a point A and point B that are 1 inch apart, then the animation will take 1 second to travel 1 inch.  If you move the points A and B to be 2 inches apart, but the key frames are still 1 second apart on the timeline, then the animation will move 2 inches in 1 second, and it will appear to move faster.  That is what is happening with the short bursts of speed in the UFO video's camera movement.  It seems the key frames are at a fixed distance apart (which is normal for randomized wiggler scripts), and the only thing changing is the points A and B (current position and end position, which is normal for randomized magnitudes). So when points A and B are further apart, the speed of the camera movement seems to increase.  I hope you understand that.

3) The camera path is extraordinarily curvy.

Generally, real camera shake is not very curvy.  It is a lot of back and fourth scribble.  If you watch the camera path in the analysis video you can see a lot of arcs and curves, almost like the camera operator is on a boat in the ocean. Every time the camera motion changes direction it is an arc.  At a few points the camera actually travels the same arc path more than once (with a very small difference), while still possible, it is just improbable.  Most of the time the movement is really smooth and fluid in the video, and this is just not natural.  Most camera shake is caused by small muscle movements which are generally not very smooth, and are more of a pulsation, not constant curvy motion.  The curvy motion is also evidence of key frame animation.  You can set options to adjust the smoothness of each curve between each key frame change.

4) There are sudden changes of direction at timed intervals.

While the camera is moving along a certain curve or path fluidly, a sudden change of direction will occur right in the middle, and this happens constantly at timed intervals (every second).  Either the camera operator has a neuromuscular disease that operates on a clock, or this is caused by the computer generated randomization of camera movements.  While the camera is being animated to go from point A to point B, the computer gets a new command to deviate towards another direction, and causes a sudden change. I found these deviations happen at a fixed rate, and it is evidence of it being computer controlled.

In Adobe After Effects there is a function called "The Wiggler" and it is often used to randomly generate camera shake movements. You can change the wiggle rate (deviations per second), and the magnitude (max distance to travel), and other parameters like how smoothly each deviation occurs.  It appears the video is set to randomly wiggle about 2 times per second, and the magnitude is randomly changing no more than 300 pixels. The smoothness of each deviation is not enough, and that is what I detect in the video.

5) The main camera movements remain in a small fixed area.

Besides the long red streak that is created in the beginning of the video when the camera zooms in, the rest of the red line is within a small fixed area.  Even after the UFO leaves, the camera operator seems to never even try to move the camera outside of this small fixed area.  He/she doesn't even seem to try to center the UFO in the view.  This is a very common occurrence when people use scripts like "The Wiggler" which indicates a fixed maximum magnitude setting.  If they set the max magnitude to something like 300 pixels, then the camera will move randomly within a 300 pixel radius, and never move more than 300 pixels in any direction causing what we see in the video.

There are other things to note about the camera movement, but the fact that there is zero rotation, it's a fixed rate (except during large movements), and there is sudden changes at timed intervals, suggests that it is FAKE camera movement. 

Why would someone need fake camera movements?

That is easy to explain...  It is just one of many methods for adding a fake UFO to a video with the least amount of effort.  You could do it two ways;

A) Film the empty sky with real camera shake.
B) Film the empty sky with zero camera shake.

Method A is the hardest and most time consuming, and it is subject to tracking errors. In order to add a fake UFO into the video you would first have to track the camera shake movements, then apply that tracking to the UFO so that it looks like it is in the video.  Sometimes the motion tracking isn't good enough, and unless you spend a lot of time to fix the tracking errors, the video doesn't turn out too good. Then people like me will notice the motion tracking flaws.

Method B is easier but doesn't look as real.  They film the empty sky with a camera on a tripod, or fixed in place, so there is no camera shake movements.  This makes it really really easy to add a fake UFO because you don't have to do any motion tracking.  However, the video looks staged and fake because you have a fixed camera filming a UFO.  So, people add fake camera shake in order to add some realism, to hide the fact the camera was on a tripod or fixed. There are several ways to add fake camera shake, and most of the ways are easily detectable if you know what to look for.

I am 100% certain that the hoaxer of this July 24th London UFO video used method B.  They filmed the empty sky with a fixed camera, added the UFO, then added fake camera movements.  I am 100% certain the camera movements are fake, and this video is a hoax.

Here are a few other things that I find suspicious about this hoax:

The way the UFO disappeared is common for amateur hoaxes.
The UFO seems to just reduce it's scale/size and the transparency just increases.  This is a very common technique to make a UFO disappear into the sky.

There is no sound on the video.
UFO videos without sound are very suspicious. UFO investigators like my self like to hear the reaction of the witness.  I also like to hear the environment sounds for engines, or other evidence.  People who remove the sound usually are hiding something.

There is a black border around the video.
The black border around the video is usually a sign that someone increased the dimensions/resolution of the video in an external video editor program.  It's rare for a black border to appear all the way around like it does straight from a camera.

The UFO is not centered in the view.
The fact that the UFO is not centered in the view is common for fake UFOs.  The hoaxers will film an empty sky, so they have no real target to point at.  Then when they add the UFO later, they for some reason just don't center it in the view (maybe they think it adds realism, I don't know).

The YouTube user claims it is a cell phone camera.
The YouTube user also claims the video is from a cell phone camera.  Well, most cell phone cameras use digital zoom. It takes the image that is being captured and digitally increases the size of the pixels like you would increase the size of a digital image on your computer.  This causes the zoom to increase in increments, and not smoothly.  In the UFO video there appears to be a smooth zoom.  This smooth zoom indicates the camera has an optical zoom.  Optical zooms actually move the position of lenses with small motors in order to increase the size of the view.  There is <em>very</em> few cell phone cameras that have optical zooms.  I highly doubt the hoaxer has the right model.  I asked the hoaxer what model cell phone he has, but he has not answered yet.

The YouTube user only has 1 video.
The YouTube user also has only 1 video uploaded.  This is common for hoaxers. They create a new account to drive-by-post their hoax video, and remain anonymous.

The YouTube user added the video to YouTube's "People & Blogs" category.
This is where the speculative conspiracy begins.  In the last hoax I covered, UFO over Hollywood, both videos from the hoax were submitted to the "People & Blogs" category of YouTube, and that is an odd choice of category I think.  The idea that both videos from that hoax, from two seemingly different people, were added to the same category, made me believe that it wasn't two different people but the same person.  Now, this hoax video I am discussing is in the same category...  It makes me think the UFO over Hollywood and this UFO in London are related, and probably from the same hoaxer(s).

This is where it gets weird.  The other hoax I covered, UFOs Over London Friday 2011, has evidence that one of the videos was created by an employee from "The Mill", a well known special effects and graphics company. If you look at the contact information for "The Mill" you will see they have three main locations;  London, Los Angeles, and New York.   Well, their location in Los Angeles is right next to Hollywood!  They are literally only a 5 minute drive away from the location of the UFO over Hollywood video!   This is just speculation at this point, but, could employees from "The Mill" in both Hollywood and London locations be involved in these hoaxes?  It sure seems possible to me.

Anyway, one thing is for sure, the UFO discussed in this post is a HOAX.  The camera shake in the video is completely fake. The UFO itself is lacking definition, and the UFO's animation and departure from the video is laughable...
« Last Edit: February 15, 2012, 07:46:20 PM by HOAXKiller1 »


  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: HOAX! – UFO Sighting Filmed Over East London UK July 2011
« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2017, 12:05:11 AM »

I read this about 2-3 times were under the impression that it is something that is really useful.