I am going to tell you why, from a film editor's perspective
and my friend who works in Special Effects here in Hollywood, why again
the Phoenix UFO would be extremely difficult to hoax:
1. The UFO moves consistently in the video frame with
the hand-held movement of the video camera.
2. To create a fake UFO, you need to add an effects vide
layer that sits on top of the real background footage layer.
3. When the camera is hand-held and has jerky movements,
the UFO layer has to move exactly and consistently with those movements.
That is extremely difficult to match.
4. Then the camera zooms in on the UFO. As the camera
zooms, in the second layer would also have to zoom the same, in tandem
with the camera movement. This is very difficult for a special effects
Guru to duplicate.
5. As the wind blows, there is a light pulsing from the
UFO caused by wind and dust in the atmosphere: the same reason stars twinkle.
6. As the camera goes in and out of focus from the auto-focus,
so does the UFO. That means you also have to match this.
Because there are so many factors to match in this hand-held
video, and so few people who know how to do this, and considering most
special effects Gurus stay away from bad camera movement to do multi-layering,
I think we are looking at an object (UFO) that was actually there, up in
the sky, when the video was shot.
Futher to the comment made by David Sereda:
I am a Digital artist and my background is in the film
industry. Although i now concentrate on 3d Visualization, i have many times
in the past created digital video special effects for may projects both
of small and medium budget. I do not claim to be a 'Guru' in this field,
but like all graphics processes, there are the basics that always apply.
It is possible with £10,000 worth of software and
equipment, to produce amazing quality effects and i have had to do so on
many occasions where budget constraints meant us being creative with the
small amount of resources we had.
I would like to add to Davids comments and elaborate on
why i feel he is correct on many points.
1, The main software packages that would be capable of
producing excellent visual effects at a reasonable cost are 3d max, illusion,
Combustion, after effects and a few others. Flash would be the last package
that i would even consider in this situation. It is a vector graphic package
and in my opinion is not flexible enough to readily create what we have
seen. It is possible, but its like trying to trying to peel potatoes with
a scalpel ! There are much better tools for the job.
2, These packages now use a form of technology roughly
known as pixel tracking. This is where the movement of the whole image
is locked to a certain pixel on the screen. The image is them moved around
in the same motion as the pixel selected. This could quite easily create
footage that appears to be shaky and hand held.
3, The idea is to put all of your extra video layers on
a steady piece of footage and then afterwards apply the pixel tracking
modifier. The whole thing then appears as one shaking image. This take
time and skill to perfect. Its easy to apply to small bursts of footage
e.g 4 or 5 seconds, but becomes more tricky as you use longer scenes. Again
its all possible but it takes a lot of skill and time.
4, Whether this video is fake or not, the image is of
wonderful quality. On a small budget (£50,000-is) this could be created
and refined in a week or two. The main issue to me however is its overall
rhythm, smoothness and natural feeling. This takes EXTREME skill and in
my opinion is far to realistic to be produced with the usual array of domestic
If this has been faked, then Brian Bessent should be hired
immediately by a high level effects house. If this is real, then i'm sorry
Brian you will have to stick to the day Job !
- Further Analysis ...
- UFO Researcher
- I have done some analysis on this controversial footage
and it appears that it is genuine footage and not hoaxed.
- Please read my analysis and you will see how these conclusions
- The footage was stabilized and digitally zoomed so that
a close look at the first part of the event could be closely studied.
- Following the open debunking of this footage and of Brian
Bessent personally, I further analyzed the footage that was stabilized
and found (at least) two more crucial details that further prove this footage
genuine and not animated.
- 1. There is OBVIOUS "MOTION BLUR" of all the
illuminations in the cluster that is only possible when the camera moves.
This is undeniable proof that the objects were actually video taped as
- Download this stabilized clip from the above link and
take a close look at the following frame numbers:
- 48, 51, 52, 243, 273, 288 - this is "Motion Blur".
- 2. There is a "GLOW" or "HUE" overlaying
the cluster of objects. This is green which fits the infrared camera setting.
This can only happen if caused by an overall "Illumination Glow"
resulting from the other self illuminated objects in close proximity.
- All this is only gathered from the section of video when
camera is on the tripod.
- I have looked VERY hard to find ANY instance of hoaxing
or falsifying of this video sequence. And HAVE FOUND NONE.
- I feel you have been wrongly persecuted and defamed by
some of the UFO community in this case, and an OPEN apology is in serious
- I would support your footage based on my VERY thorough
analysis in a court of law if necessary.
- Barry Taylor
- UFO Researcher
AstroScience Research Network
I have seen this debunking campaign before with the Phoenix Lights and
Brian is under an onslaught. The White Tank Mountains have a history of
genuine UFO sightings. I will try to contact Jim D. today. Jeff Wills supports
the validity of the footage. Only computer analysis will tell us this story,
so do not be quick to jump to conclusions... -- Bill Hamilton
- The following is from videographer Brian Bessent is response
to a tv report claiming his ufo video is a hoax:
- Well, this time around things are a little more simple.
Those channel 3 lamers bring in totally computer-generated graphics this
time, and here is the LOWDOWN on that CRAP! (Not to mention the channel
3 debunking crew have resorted to personal attacks with fake background
info on the shooter because they have NO evidence on anything, so they
have to make it up.)
- Until they come up with something real, it is truly a
waste of time to comment. However, since they brought up some "new
evidence" from someone claiming to be able to reproduce the actual
video I shot, I'll show this latest debunking effort to be what it is:
a silly lie told by silly people with simple computer skills. Check out
the CHEAP 3D renders they are claiming are proof that my Phoenix video
- Now, lets examine their images. Hmmn...some cheap lights
rendered in 3D...shot directly off a computer monitor. Also, the lights
do not *flicker* at all like the real ufos did on my video which clearly
demonstrates their work to be a cheap simulation. Notice the light in the
middle. It looks like a round ball rendered with some high blurring to
mask the cheapness of the effect. Also notice how "round" their
center object is.
- To make matters worse, these people can't even emulate
the sony night shot effect that makes everything the same color. So, what
they offer is a fake...a rendered ufo that is supposed to look like a ufo
shot in Sony Night Shot added on to a blue sky. It's silly and a crappy
job.. see it?
- They could NEVER recreate anything that doesn't look
fake. Also, they tape it right off a computer monitor. They are nothing
much more than kids pretending to have the answer when they don't have
anything but a fake video that looks fake to begin with.
- Also, you notice something missing. Where is the second
half of the video showing true color of the objects and the rapid camera
movement along with the objects in perfect camera perspective? where is
- They can NEVER emulate real video shot in Sony Night
Shot in real clarity...and they can never make the second part of the video
showing true colors of the objects. In the real video, the objects are
constantly changing color from white to red to green and you can't notice
it because unless you do a frame by frame its happening too fast for the
human eye to see. Something else this deplorable 3D render could never
- We challenge the maker of this video and his debunking
crew to come up with the second half of the video because since it was
taken off the tripod, it will make it MUCH harder to even come up with
a cheap rendering...which is exactly why they don't even try it.
- So, once again, the supposed 'proof' is nothing more
than a cheap fabrication...exactly what we expected it to be. The maker
of this video claims to be able to reproduce the video exactly how it was
made. It's a lie...and was shot off the computer screen which is an old
hoaxing trick which went out of style in the 1980's.
- All the news people will do is make up lies... here is
a warning email I got from someone who claims to know Scott, the channel
3 tv producer.
- From (anonymous)
- Date 6/13/05 6:23PM
- Scott is working with that guy who saw the Google cache
to make your video look fake and he is calling everybody he can to do his
best to make a news story that makes you look bad. I am warning you about
it...and I know this because I see scott a lot in the studio. He has no
intentions of showing anything accept the worst he can dig up on you, so
don't let them get you in the corner.
- It seems the above email is true and correct. Santiago
admitted joining the debunking crew only 2 days after the news story came
- Also, its come to our attention that they are parading
obviously computer-generated hoaxed videos around, and stamping the ufotheatre.com
name on them! That's beyond childishness. Claiming that the San Saba ufos
were a 'flock of birds' as well...and that it is a "known hoax"...that
is is just birds in flight reverse. But they offer no proof whatsoever.
Not a shred.
- And you see NO MENTION of the Wise country orbs in these
reports. Just another example of convenient censorship because they damn
sure don't want anymore REAL videos to have to "recreate" or
- So, once again the news channel is not telling the truth.
And Santiago *recreated* the "goggle cache" which is plain idiocy
considering Google never cached the image to begin with.
- Moral of the story: if one debunker can't do the job,
they join forces. It doesn't matter, really, because my video is quite
real...and the ufos are still out there. Much as they'd like to, they can't
change that. In fact, so many people in the US and elsewhere have seen
these same kinds of ufos it's humorous. They exist. They are here. And
they can be seen on my video anytime someone wishes to. -- Brian Bessent
- Bill Hamilton
- AstroScience Research Network
- "I don't see the logic of rejecting data just because
they seem incredible." Fred Hoyle
- I wanted to let you know I read the new report by Bill,
and I did think the footage was real at first, but after the news 3 story
I now think we should wait for the master to be tested before we say what
we think about it.
- you can add this to Bills story that way people know
what I think about it.
- Jeff Willes
- Video Autheniticy Brought Into Question
- 08:00 PM Mountain Standard Time on Friday, June 17, 2005
- By Scott Davis / 3TV producer
- It's the amazing, new UFO video that captured attention
worldwide and 3TV is the only broadcast medium in the world to have the
photographer, Brian Bessent, in the studio.
- But is the video real? That's what we set out to discover.
- "This was northwest toward the White Tank Mountains,"
Bessent said. "I seen the light come on. I turned on my video camera
and started taping."
- That may be one of the few pieces of his story to withstand
- Bessent claims he saw the first set of lights in the
Valley's sky on June 5, 2005, during a late-night trip to Wal-Mart in southwest
Phoenix. He says more lights appeared in formation and then faded away.
He stopped the car, got out the camera and tripod and waited. Five minutes
later, the lights were back. It is this 51 seconds of videotape that has
become one of the most controversial "sightings" in recent history.
- 3TV soon learned that Bessent is a graphic artist and
amateur filmmaker from Texas, visiting Arizona to help produce a DVD about
UFOs. How fortuitous that he should be the only person to get this new
sighting on tape. Bessent superimposed the date and Web site on his video,
and uploaded it to www.ufotheatre.com. This Web site features dozens of
UFO videos for sale or download, plus multiple still-frames from these
videos to pique the viewer's interest. Bessent admits to creating banners
and graphics for the Web site. What he did not tell us is that he is a
registered user of Flash© animation by Macromedia.
- During our initial interview, he insisted this new video
- "No, this is mine," he said. "It has nothing
to do with anything like that. I think I was pretty lucky and I always
thought if I kept my camera long enough, I'd come across something."
- We pressed for more, and Bessent finally agreed to submit
his original video and camera for testing at Village Labs in north Phoenix.
Owner Jim Dilettoso has more than 25 years' experience dissecting unexplained
videos and photographs. Prior to Bessent's arrival, Dilettoso told us there
are two halves to such analyses.
- "There's the personality side, the credibility side.
Then there is the data side, where without opinion, we objectively extract
data and compare that to our existing science database and draw conclusions."
- Dilettoso and co-investigator Ken Liljegren from Spectrum
Video and Film began to see problems on both sides. And so did experts
in California, Mexico and Brazil, who undertook their own, independent
analyses of the Internet clip and of Bessent himself.
- Specifically, another video Bessent once claimed to be
a fleet of UFOs later was discredited as simply a flock of birds. In Mexico,
investigator Santiago Yturria found another web page from ufotheatre.com,
which shows still images from the new video. This page, located in a sort
of "memory file" at google.com, is dated May 28. Remember, Bessent
claimed he shot the new video on June 5. There is some disagreement over
this Web page and its origin.
- Bessent has stated that Yturria misinterprets Google's
method of saving or "caching" old files.
- But as we awaited Bessent's arrival at Village Labs,
Dilettoso and Liljegren turned their attention to the video clip Bessent
provided us the previous week. Still not the original, but much closer.
- Running the video through a vectorscope and waveform
monitor reveals unusual characteristics in a number of technical indicators.
The black level, white level, "pedestal", "back porch"
and "blanking pulse" are markers that can read quality of a video
as well as help determine whether a clip has been altered from the original.
- Liljegren finds inconsistent black levels throughout
the video. "When that happens, it raises more questions. I wish I
could have the original tape front to back."
- It was now five minutes past our appointment time. We
called Brain Bessent's hotel room to make sure he was still on his way.
- Dilettoso then began looking at the images on the video
itself. "First of all, if it's in auto focus [as Bessent told us several
times], why is there no continual adjustment that's going on even when
the camera is moving?"
- Then there's the noise. Grainy video in most, but not
all of the picture. Dilettoso increases the contrast on the tape and a
couple of things become apparent. "Out here where these little bushes
and things are, it's very grainy. It's everywhere in the entire picture
except one place." He points at the area where the light pattern is.
- Dilettoso finds that the area of the sky where the lights
appear is much more uniformly black than the rest of the image. "The
center object is very different from the outer objects," he says.
"I've never had the opportunity to hold a camera in my hands where
we could get a distinct white ball here, particularly one that would fly
through and land there, where the outer objects aren't going to bloom and
bleed over into the others."
- Dilettoso gives us one final video indicator of a hoax:
the date and Web site characters Bessent added to the tape. The color and
shadowing are remarkably similar to several of the mystery lights.
- And still, no sign of Bessent. We pack up our gear and
head back to our studio, disappointed that he failed to show up. Turns
out, however, that he did send an e-mail, which reads in part, "I
think I have spent too much time on the UFO thing and get [sic] behind
on my real life work. So I need to address some important issues before
I have time to blow on UFOs."
- Bessent apparently left for California, without telling
his Arizona partner his plans or whereabouts.
- So now, in addition to our very first question: "is
the video real," we have a new one: why would a man with an authentic
UFO sighting on tape back out of a detailed analysis that could validate
the experience? Only one answer comes to mind.
- We have not heard from Bessent since that email. We must
assume he still stands by his story. In our initial interview, he denied
any involvement in a hoax.
- "The objects were there and people can say what
they want, I just shot the footage that I seen, and that's what I was there
to do when I seen it. I just got my video camera out and decided I was
going to try to get the objects on tape. I've heard lots of UFO stories.
I guess I got one now for myself."
- With special thank-yous to Jim Dilettoso, Ken Liljegren,
Santiago Yturria and Jerald Doerr
- Comment from the Webmaster
- Correction: It appers the
TV station was provided with an AVI file, not an MPEG file, to examine.
This is still a digital copy of the original and is not the same as the
original video TAPE itself. The crew noted that the material they examined
had Brians superimposed date and "Ufotheatre.com" -- according
to Brian, only the digital version had this imposed on it. The original
VIDEO TAPE naturally would NOT have this graphic overlay which marks it
as Brians/Ufotheatre.com's property. The MPEG had this same graphic overlay.
It should be noted that the tape WAS NOT EXAMINED. They merely had the
MPEG movie! Examination of the original tape is vital and Brian has assured
us that he will make that tape available for examination. It should also
be noted that Santiago Yturria splattered the internet with claims of a
hoax based upon a Google cache problem -- Brian, at UFOtheatre.com, had
accidentally named some new files with an old series title and his image
server placed the new images in places at his site they should not have
been. Google relies on the server for images, if they are available, it
doesn't store them. So it appeared UFOtheatre had some pages with the new
UFO images on OLD ads for a DVD of UFO sightings. I own that DVD and know
the newest AZ footage is not on there. And lastly, Brian being a videographer
and licensed Flash© owner should not exclude him from participation
in attempts to capture UFOs on video. Flash© is not THAT sophisticated
of an animation tool, though it will make one heck of an ad banner.
- We all want the truth here. Brian, last I spoke with
him, was ready, willing and able to present his materials for examination
and is attempting to recoup a little from being called a liar and fraud
by a great number of people in the UFOlogical community.
Brian has answered this article here http://www.ufotheatre.com/debunking/nobunk.htm
We all want the truth. We need to keep an open but skeptical mind, but
not rush to calling someone a fraud based on very little analysis or evidence.
- Watch here for the latest rebuttals and results.
- Another interesting item:
Directly below where the object appears on the video, there is a vast array
of antenna on the top of the mountain. Curious, at the very least.