Talk:Home video captures alleged UFOs in Haiti

OR

I first heard the report on the radio on WBEN 930 AM. I then went to LiveLeak and watched it to decribe the events. Nothing on the website of WBEN yet. Also I read into the threads that is posted as the first source, AboveTopSecret.com to get the NPOV of the calim it is CGI. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 09:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't an "alleged UFO" a tautology? Unless the allegation is that they were something more specific than unidentified flying objects... Or if it's supposed to mean that the video could be CGI shouldn't the title read "Home video allegedly catches UFOs in Haiti", or something? Better yet, how's this news anyway? As long as it's indistinguishable from a CGI prank, it shouldn't be taken seriously IMO. Strongly suggest removing, this kind of stuff just undermines Wikinews. 88.112.226.95 13:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A featured story?!? You have got to be kidding me. 88.112.226.95 15:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Clips from the film: this is a rather poor quality hoax

hi everyone, i know that in the northern hemisphere it's holiday time, but surely this is a bit ridiculous as a wikinews story. Am i really the first person to have looked at the video and opened it up?

• wget http://cdn-69.liveleak.com/liveleak/14/media14/2007/Aug/10/LiveLeak-dot-com-104868-13ae.flv
• mkdir ufoimages && cd ufoimages && mplayer -vo jpeg LiveLeak-dot-com-104868-13ae.flv
• use w:xzgv to browse through the individual images
• use the w:GIMP to zoom in and/or change the colour map

• zooms on images 560, 660 and 190 are here: http://samizdat.axxs.org/184

This image says nothing to disprove anything. Frankly, I don't know how you did what you did, but for all I know, your photo editing program altered any real evidence. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You do know how i did what i did. i described it above precisely, except for the image viewer (xzgv) and zooming/cutting out method (gimp), which i've pasted up here from below. mplayer is a w:free software program in the sense of the GPL (cf the GFDL) so you can easily reproduce the exact process i used. mplayer is not a photo editing program. However, i did use the w:GIMP to change the scale and zoom in and then cut out a close up. This is not a highly interventionist process. i'm sure you could use it with non-free software such as photoshop if you wished. The only image modified in any significant sense is the one where i indicated i changed the colour curve (and it's fairly obvious). Boud 08:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• image 660 is here: http://samizdat.axxs.org/184#id185 in the original (liveleak version) and i've changed the colour curve for version http://samizdat.axxs.org/184#id186

Again, nothing here to tell me that you prove a hoax. And same as above, I don't know that your editing program changed the image. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Try looking up the definition of w:free software. i used free software. You can use the software yourself and you can read the source code and you can legally analyse and discuss how the software works. Boud 08:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the rectangular shapes in image 560 could conceivably be part of the flix engine/flash compression used by liveleak or the author (the first few hundred bytes of the file state "FlixEngineWindows_8.0.8.2 (www.on2.com)"), though decide for yourself from the version with the changed colour curve.

But 660 clearly shows "simulated" rectangles pasted into a smooth sky. and 190 show high resolution patches (rectangles) in the flix engine/flash version of the video (the one on liveleak) which seem to be unusually badly inconsistent with the low resolution (big pixels) background relative to closeups of other flash videos. (comment updated Boud 09:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

This analysis, of course, counts as original research, but anyone with a w:GNU/Linux system can make the same analysis him/herself.

Boud 23:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you prove any of this? One we have one photo in the article, not the whole video. The Video is only linked in the article. I am NOT an expert in video and I asked other on other Wikimedia projects to analyze the footage if they were experts or such. No one is or has at least shown me documentation that they are experts opr qualified to examine a video. I m not prepared to accept your alterations of the images as fact and I am also not saying the video is fact. But no one, yet has proven 1) That it is a hoax, although it likely is, prove it. I call on qualified individuals to analyze the video. Not a beginner. If you are not qualified then I see no reason to believe your actions are true. 2) People keep saying this is an "viral" ad for Halo 3. Prove it. Show me some links or documents. Do not come here and spam wikinews with the movie title because it make it look like you are advertising the film. I never once said that these are UFOs. I never said they were not. But until I credible evidence of a sort, from qualified individuals, then none of those images above mean a thing. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There are three different images extracted from the video on http://samizdat.axxs.org/184. i have not altered the images except for the one image with a changed colour curve and for zooming in and cutting out. 1) The sequence of steps i described is fully described and repeatable with publicly available w:free software. 2) Whether or not it's a viral ad is not something i've put in the article. i really haven't got the foggiest. It could easily be just someone having a bit of fun, or it could be the CIA testing to see how gullible wikinews people are and to know what sort of quality they need in fake movies in order to achieve objectives of US foreign policy through propaganda methods. But these are just wild speculations, i haven't put them in the article. 3. i didn't write the movie title - you're getting confused between me and someone else. Have a look at what i've reverted: the key word is "suggested" - it's not a formal proof. Boud 08:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Use w:xzgv to browse through the individual images and the w:GIMP to zoom in and/or change the colour map. i have no idea if non-free software like photoshop can do the same things, but w:free software (as in free speech) certainly makes analysis easy.

Here's another image: http://samizdat.axxs.org/184#id188 The "distant" ufo in the bottom-right hand corner really looks a bit ridiculous in this zoom, and the sharp boundary between pasted sky and background sky under the big ufo really doesn't look terribly convincing IMHO... If this is viral advertising for some CGI rather than someone just having good fun, then the CGIers still need to do a bit more work... Boud 01:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Viral Advertising

I heard this was viral advertising for halo 3, could someone look into this?

Many say that. But yet no one on Wikinews, Digg, YouTube, or LiveLeak have provided anythign to suggest that it is an ad. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Proof?

I am reposting what I said above.

Can anyone prove any of these claims? For one, we have one photo in the article, not the whole video. The Video is only linked in the article. Do not go discrediting Wikinews for somethnig we are only reporting on and we also NEVER said it wasn't a hoax. I am NOT an expert in video and I asked other on other Wikimedia projects to analyze the footage if they were experts or such. No one is or has at least shown me documentation that they are experts or qualified to examine a video. I m not prepared to accept your alterations of the images as fact and I am also not saying the video is fact. But no one, yet has proven 1) That it is a hoax, although it likely is, prove it. I call on qualified individuals to analyze the video. Not a beginner. If you are not qualified then I see no reason to believe your actions are true. 2) People keep saying this is an "viral" ad for Halo 3. Prove it. Show me some links or documents. Do not come here and spam wikinews with the movie title because it make it look like you are advertising the film. I never once said that these are UFOs. I never said they were not. But until I credible evidence of a sort, from qualified individuals, then none of those images above mean a thing. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, there are sources. There are links and videos all over. Thus IS news, and IS written according to Wikinews:Style guide. So please do not add tags to articles without stating why on the talk pages. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As i said above, the steps for doing the analysis using w:free software are listed above. If you have any of the standard GNU/Linux binary distributions, you can install these packages in a matter of a few minutes if you have a reasonable internet connection. No great expertise is needed to do this. BTW, it's not me who quoted a particular title for the viral advertising hypothesis.

On the topic of proof, i don't see any proof whatsoever that the video is from Haiti except for the title. Something like "Home video catches alleged UFOs in palm tree cloning grove allegedly in Haiti" would probably be better, since it would reflect the fact that the palm trees are essentially clones of each other in the projection plane of the film. Maybe a link to palm tree cloning experiments in Haiti would also increase the credibility of the story. Boud 10:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I stated above that I would expect a qualified individual to make a determination. Are you qualified? There should be a second opinion from someone with a history of editing image manipulation software pages on Wikipedia - e.g. people who maintain the Gimp page. Or from someone who has the expertise and qualifications to make an analysis. I am not ready to believe an analysis "by an occasional wikinews reporter." DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Also...No offense to you or your reporting skills, but you are just as an uncredible source as the person who made the video. If there are more qualified persons to make a credible judgment, I am all ears. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

DragonFire1024, the man has clearly stated the process he used, and the freely available tools he used, to make his analysis, so claiming he isn't the expert you want to hear from is entirely besides the point. He's not making an obscure "expert" claim, he is simply saying what he saw an how he judged it. And I think everybody now understands that you don't believe his judgement, so you can stop repeating that. In fact, I suggest we all try to be constructive. If you need help reproducing the analysis, just ask. There are plenty of open-source experts here :) Just my $0.02. Dusik 14:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Alleged UFO equals UFO

UFO means Unidentified Flying Object, which means it's something flying, but we don't know what. Saying it's an alleged UFO means it's allegedly unidentified, but we know it's unidentified. - 171.159.64.10 19:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely true. There is a high probability that this video could be faked, in that case there wasn't actually a UFO, the video just alleges that to be the case. Adambro 20:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)