- UPDATE 11-5-97
One of the key criticisms of my theory on how the video could have been
hoaxed revolves around an erroneous concept expressed by Brit Elders in
her 11-1-97 "Elders Update On the Mexican UFO Video Analysis"
wherein she states:
-
- "If this footage is hoaxed, then
sophisticated computers and programs were employed. However, the suggestion
that has been posted on this site that the material was first composited
then filmed off of a monitor screen is inaccurate. Anyone who has attempted
to film a monitor or television knows that the scan lines of the camcorder
and the monitor do not sync. This was verified, not only by first hand
observance, but by one of our consultants, an engineer with several years
experience at NBC."
-
- In response, I received this illuminating
email today, 11-5-97, from Joe Murgia <Ufojoe1@aol.com> which corroborates
my original contention:
-
- This is correct if you're talking about
consumer camcorders. Fortunately or unfortunately, the newer professional
models of camcorders (Specifically Sony Betacam) have a feature that lets
you, with the flick of a switch, make the scan lines disappear. This is
a great feature that videographers have been asking about for years. To
verify this, call up Sony and they should be able to confirm this.
-
- Obviously this doesn't help prove the
video fake or real but it shows that forgery may have been possible by
shooting the video off of a television screen.
-
- I work for the City of Tampa's Government
Access Television as a producer/director and have 10 years experience in
television. If any of you ever need a videographer/producer/editor for
any shoots, email me. I'm very serious about my work and I put out high
quality material.
-
- Feel free to contact me for any further
information.
-
- Sincerely,
-
- Joe Murgia
-
-
- (Note: I have added A NEW COMPUTER ENHANCEMENT
of the Mexico City craft at the bottom of this article. -Liz Edwards)
11-1-97 Statement by Liz Edwards
-
- I wish to thank everyone who has responded
to my preliminary analysis and report on the Mexico City UFO video. Your
input and thoughts are greatly appreciated. My research is continuing and
there will be further postings. I agree with all researchers of good faith:
the truth is essential. It is in our best interest to have neither debunking
techniques nor UFO fanatacism involved in the formation of our beliefs.
-
- As inhabitants of this beautiful, troubled
planet, we need to remain mutually supportive to prevent being seduced
by anyone, or any group, who may have the power through finance or high
office to try.
-
- At this time, I continue to stand behind
my work as posted. Any future discrepancies I find will also be posted,
regardless of my own personal findings. What we are told, how we perceive
things, and the conclusions we reach are processes which should be surrounded
and supported by having ALL possible research information available for
everyone to consider. This information should come from as wide a source
base as possible.
-
- We are living in fantastic times, fraught
with intrigue. Now, more than ever, we need to be aware of not only how
we think, but of the effects of our thoughts and statements upon those
around us and the public at large. If we are to survive, we must pool every
resource in order to continue to grow intellectually, on both a collective
and individual basis. Without thorough inquiry and questioning we will
be herded mentally into a stuper of ignorance.
-
- My research is not being done for fame
or recognition but from a simple desire for the truth to be revealed as
expediently and efficiently as possible. We deserve no less than all the
relevent and legitimate data in this matter. After that, we are free to
think and choose and believe what we want. This is not a case of 'defending'
or 'promoting' a piece of video tape; it is a group search for reality.
-
- We must insist on the best and most complete
information and analysis available to make our life's decisions, for these
decisions not only shape our todays but can lead us into the future with
greater understanding, confidence, and inner peace.
-
- Thank you,
Liz Edwards
I Wonder Productions
As an avid investigative researcher and an artist I have a particular interest
in the vast realm of the knowledge we are given today and, so, I wonder.
-
- What is real and what isn't? Through
the miracle of the computer, limitless visual and sensory horizons have
been opened to us. On the other hand, this new genie can also be led to
do things that are less than genuine. So effectively, in fact, it is almost
to the point now that we are sometimes forced to question what we perceive
as 'reality' itself, so seductive to our senses, and analysis-resistant,
can some of these computer spawned and enhanced creations be.
-
- Listening to Sightings.com on the radio
on Sunday, October 5, with Jeff Rense, I was more than excited when he
had longtime UFO researchers Lee & Brit Elders on as guests recently.
They have deservedly earned great fame and respect as the key chroniclers
of the massive and continuing waves of UFO sightings in Mexico which began
during the 1991 solar eclipse as ancient Mayan and Aztec legends had predicted.
The Elder's three videos showing but a few hundreds of the thousands of
Mexican sightings are landmarks in UFO research.
-
- The big news, of course, was the less
than 30 seconds of daylight video of a UFO allegedly taped by an anonymous
source in Mexico City on August 6, 1997. The tape made its way into the
possession of Mexican researcher-journalist Jaime Maussan who sent a copy
to Lee and Brit, with whom he has worked closely for years.
-
- During the show with Jeff, the Elders,
and computer analyst Jim Dilettoso, emphasized that nothing from the video
would be released until complete computer analysis, from several sources,
had been completed. Apparently, Jaime Maussan had other ideas and went
on Mexican tv and aired the video to a vast audience South of the border.
As you have seen on Jeff's website, at least one person taped the television
broadcast and four 'video grabs' from it began appearing on the internet.
-
- Taking one of the freeze frames (ufomex3.jpg)
into a program that I use to examine graphics , I was able to enhance the
picture. I was able to raise the ufo into be more visible status and with
more definition. It was my determination there was nothing corrupt or that
had been added to this graphic, and so I happily sent it to Jeff at Sightings.com.
The picture looked authentic and believable. That enhancement is available
for viewing from the linked Headline on the site.
-
- I was so intrigued with these spectacular
shots that I didn't stop there, however, and continued to work with the
stills of the ufo. I was also spurred on knowing that top scientists were
doing their own examinations which further underscored the importance of
these pictures.
-
- On October 17, 1997, using my own formula
and techniques, it became clear, to me at least, that one of the four pictures
appeared to be very different. This particular shot reacted to my experiments
in a peculiar way and produced something unusual which set off warning
lights. If you look at this enhancement, you see a 'star burst' of pixels.
I had no explanation initially but since then have come to a couple of
important and compelling conclusions.
-
- A few days after my discovery, the video
itself began appearing on the internet offered via a huge download of almost
4 megabytes. Several UFO researchers sent the download to me and were raving
about the stunning images in it. And it is an amazing piece of video. As
I examined it I wondered who had made it available. When you access the
download, there is no identification of the source....the download just
starts moving. This also intrigued me as I remembered that Mexican investigator,
Jaime Maussan, reported the video had first come to him via "anonymous"
sources. As I probed and searched in an effort to identify the source of
the internet download, I learned many things.
-
- This is what I now believe has happened.
Please realize that this is a preliminary conclusion at this time and my
investigation continues. We all want the truth. We deserve the truth...whatever
it may be. Moreover, we should NOT be deceived by today's wondrous technology.
-
- 1. First of all, we have a film sent
anonymously to Jaime Maussan. This alone is highly suspicious. If YOU had
taken the greatest daylight video in history, which could result in substantial
financial gain, not to mention world notoriety and a place in UFO history...would
you turn it over and hide? Would you lurk behind the scenes while others
took your work and good fortune and profited and enhanced their reputations?
I doubt it.
-
- 2. Second, there are the enhanced pictures.
You can see some definition in the first one and this has drawn attention
to some of the famous Meier photos. The enhanced 'star burst' picture shows
detail in pixilation that is questionable, and raises doubt about authenticity.
3. Certainly, the fact that eyewitnesses to the Mexico City daylight video
are said to now be available for questioning is a very important factor.
However, when one considers that, in a city of over 30 million people,
only "10" witnesses have been located so far, more questions
are raised. Remember, this is a city which has been the scene of perhaps
thousands of UFO sightings since 1991. Further, it is a city in which tens
of thousands of Mexicans with camcorders have been taping thousands of
these objects both day and night for years. Therefore, one wonders why
this huge craft wasn't reported to have been seen by thousands, if not
tens of thousands of residents?
-
- 4. Fourth. I have been able to discover
that the Mexico UFO video download is tagged from an unidentified source
site which is owned by a company that is TOPS in the field of 3D COMPUTER
GAME PROGRAMMING. This is very strange. I will be talking to this company
by phone on Monday morning and will question them about how they got tagged
with the video, and why it is being offered from an unidentified source
site.
-
-
- 5. Fifth. At this time we are reviewing
other UFO photos some of which are similar to some of the famous, or infamous,
Billy Meier photos. It has been brought to my attention that they may be
the same type craft as the Mexico City image. Extensive comparisons to
these other pictures are currently being made and we will be posting them
shortly.
-
- Now, here is how I think the Mexico UFO
video could have been produced:
-
- 1. Take the video footage of Mexico City
with the apartment buildings in the foreground. 2. Place that footage into
a high-powered state of the art computer game graphics program. 3. Immerse/insert
the ufo into the Mexico City scene. 4. Code the graphics program to make
the UFO "move". 5. Directly from the computer, copy the now UFO
animated scene onto a videotape. 6. Take the tape and play it on a tv.
7. Use a camcorder and record the footage directly off the screen of the
tv monitor. And, voila! You have a genuine "UFO video" which
would show NO electronic,technical, or graphics discrepancies under subsequent
analysis! That is why the Mexico City video has shown no discrepancies!!!!!
-
- I want to repeat, these are only my preliminary
findings as of Saturday, evening, 10-25-97. It is up to each of you to
consider these issues individually. The main purpose here is that we find
the truth. That is what I am trying to do. I would prefer the Mexico City
video to be real, but I refuse to be hoaxed by today's technology which
is capable of some fantastic feats of deception.
-
- The UFO research community has been scored
and ridiculed too many times for its beliefs, and it is dead wrong to assume
that all UFO sightings are fakes or erroneous identification of various
flying objects and 'natural' phenomena. For the UFO research community
to be burdened now with a video that is manufactured but believed to be
genuine is something that cannot be accepted or tolerated.
-
- My special thanks to my colleagues Kent
Steadman, of Steadman Graphics, for his expertise in so many areas; and
to Dave Zidek for his remarkable technical computer support.
-
-
- Liz Edwards
I Wonder Productions
What is this? This picture almost speaks
for itself. During the process of computer enhancement, a very visible
double-pixelation on the side of the Mexico City UFO appeared. It is in
such a position that it might actually be blocking or covering something
underneath it.
-
- If you look closely at my earlier 'Starburst'
enhancement of a frame from the video (see above), you can identify this
exact same blocking pattern! It is outlined by a perimeter of reddish pixels
which 'frame' the area in question which appears blue. In this newest treatment,
I have highlighted the 'blocked' area of the UFO in yellow for easier visual
indetification.
-
- Important: I'd would also like to note
that in none of the 16 Mexico City UFO pictures that I have worked on to
date have I used 'embossing' as a technique or enhancement tool at any
time during my>analysis. In every single frame - all 16 - the UFO carries
this identical, strange dramatic 'block' or covering on it...which just
might be there to mask or hide something. But what?
-
- So far, I have not been successful in
identifying what might lie underneath this pixel block but its presence
raises a great deal of suspicion and speculation. My research continues.
Liz Edwards
- I Wonder Productions
-
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Jim Dilettoso <jim@villagelabs.com 12-23-99
-
-
- Hello Liz Edwards,
-
- I have just come across your analysis of the Mexico City
Footage. <http://www.eagle-net.org/phikent/nov.html HOAX
-
- It is very interesting and commendable that you put the
time and effort that you did.
-
- A few things to point out.
-
- 1. The footage that you analyzed went through a number
of generations of processing.
-
- 1. Original footage (1) transfered to make copy(2) for
Jaimie Maussan 2. Copy (2) was then edited in the Broadcast master(3) which
was aired by Televisa. 3. The Transmission equipment makes a new RF composite
signal (4) 4. Transmission signal (4) was then received by some party who
recorded it (5)
-
- All of the transfers are done with broadcast equipment
which will not only process the time-base of the signal (vertical interval,
IRE, color,blanking pulse etc) but process the visual image including contrast,
edge definition and luminence.
-
- The resultant image is drastically different from the
original image on the videotape that was in the camera.
-
- The recorded image (5) was then digitized, compressed,
and placed on the net. Which is apparently the image that you have examined.
-
- As you may know, the process of compression into an AVI,
MPEG, or M-JPEG file, deal withs contiunous tone, same color regions in
a peculiar way. It creates "blocking".
-
- All methods of DCT (Discrete Cosine Transform) have
trouble in quantizing same color areas. Black, blues, grey areas become
blocked, particularily in areas near a non-anti-aliased line. Such as
the edge of a disk shaped object, against a grey sky.
-
- The point of the story: I believe that you have discovered
the nature of the beast of "compressed" video, not a 'smoking
gun' proof of a super-imposed image.
-
- I have been involved in image processing and supercomputers
since the 1970s. Working on special effects, flight simulators, medical
and mining imaging. I have much equipment available as well as expertise
'in-house'.
-
- We examined the vertical interval and time-base of a
digital copy of the original video.
-
- There was no evidence that the signal had ever been processed
electronically.
-
- If two images were to be 'super-imposed' then the 2 source
signals, whether digital or analog, would have been phase aligned and genlocked,
the resultant signal would have characteristics of the time-base processing.
There is no such evidence of signal processing.
-
- Should you ever be faced with the issue of "testing"
images that come to you in compressed form, JPEG included. You should
avoid making sweeping conclusions based on the use of PhotoShop or PaintShop
effects filters.
-
- No offense intended, I hope none is taken.
-
- Sincerely Yours,
-
- Jim Dilettoso
-
-
-
|
Homepage