From the webmaster
6-25-5

 

This sighting and video has stirred very high emotions on all sides. Contrary to the accusations and inflammatory rhetoric tossed about by various debunkers, Rense.com has not represented this footage to be 'authentic' in any way, shape or form. We have merely presented it to the public at large -- we deliver, you decide. We have made a defense of certain facts or errors in order to keep the record straight. Unlike those willing to rush to judgment and condemn the photographer on the least of evidences, we choose to wait until the original video tape has been examined and analyzed. Until then, this remains, like all other UFO reports at this website; offered for the edification and interest of our visitors, and nothing more.

 

Those who wish to characterize Rense.com in a bad light are self evident in their lack of intelligence and reason. Bombarding us with emails calling us "liars" and "hoaxers" is, at best, childish. Those who seek the truth of a matter do so with patience and reasonable deliberation. We welcome all viewpoints and opinions regarding this sighting and have attempted to present a balanced report with all views accompanying. But those who wish to see us convict the photographer of a fraud before it has been proven so are in the wrong, and represent the worst element of UFOlogy -- if indeed any of them are even legitimately a part of that body of truth seekers.

 

------

 

 

Original Report:

 

We taped, quite possibly, the clearest and most amazing sequence of strange lights in the skies above Arizona on Sunday night at 10pm. My girlfriend and I were driving to the local Walmart (blarg) to do some browsing of Chinese goods and to the right in the sky above the mountain appeared a huge formation of lights. So, we decided to stop and try to get them on video.

 

Just as we thought we were too late, the large light reappeared and soon others started appearing and began flying down from the sky and joining in a formation of lights. It was simply amazing to witness and even more amazing is that this kind of event has finally been caught on video.

 

The video is jaw-dropping and the objects are clearly-taped. The camera was on the tripod during the first few seconds of taping and it caught the lights appearing and flying down perfectly.. I decided to turn on the higher zoom of the camera, so I removed it from the tripod and changed settings...and began taping again.

 

This time, I was zoomed in much closer to the objects. Very shortly after, they started flying back up in the night sky and disappearing...or just winking out. All of it was videotaped, and this time NOBODY can ever say that flares are all that are flying up around here in Phoenix. Brian/Ufotheatre.com

Comment
David Sereda
6-12-5

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.

Sincerely,
David Sereda

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 level technology.

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 !

Regards,
Anna Lovatt

Further Analysis ...

Barry Taylor

UFO Researcher
6-19-5

 

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 were reached.

The footage was stabilized and digitally zoomed so that a close look at the first part of the event could be closely studied.

http://home.manyrivers.aunz.com/sting1946/arizona.htm

 

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 stated.

 

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 need.

 

I would support your footage based on my VERY thorough analysis in a court of law if necessary.

 

Regards,

Barry Taylor

UFO Researcher

Australia

 

 

Comment
Bill Hamilton
AstroScience Research Network
6-22-5

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 was hoaxed.

 

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 it, fake-makers?

 

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 reproduce.

 

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 out!

 

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 debunk.

 

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

http://www.astrosciences.info/

"I don't see the logic of rejecting data just because they seem incredible." Fred Hoyle

 

Comment
Jeff Willes/UFOgrapher
6-23-5

 

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.

 

Thanks

 

Jeff Willes
www.ufosoverphoenix.com

 

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 scrutiny.

 

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 is authentic.

 

"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. No answer.

 

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. "Right there."

 

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

6-18-5

 

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.

The photo above depicts South Mountain in Phoenix, AZ. Yes, that is an antenna array in the photo. Local radio stations use South Mountain for elevation for their towers. This can be seen in any city that has mountains in the immediate area. It saves a lot of money on tower construction.

Best Regards,
Tom Garrett

Thanks, Tom - ed

Comment
From Marc Spess
6-21-5

Hi Jeff,

I read what David Sereta posted on your site in response to the Phoenix footage. He is right in saying it is a hard thing to do, it definitely would take a lot of effort to pull off. It also takes a lot of practice tries, but - in today's internet age you can do it. You can also do it for free with all the illegal file sharing programs out there. All you need to do is figure out what program you want to use, then use a file sharing program to look for it. Once you find it you then download it and your on your way for no cost. This is what people are doing these days who make videos with special effects.

The next thing you do is look up tutorials for your now free program to show you how to use the program to pull off your hoax. If you have lots of free time which most younger people have these days, you can pull this off. Here is a detailed site which explains using such software:

http://www.thepixelfarm.co.uk/content.aspx?Content=story3.htm

That took me about three seconds on a google search to find.

Here are only two programs that can either be illegally downloaded for free, cost $80.00 if your a student or several thousand if your a commercial company:

http://www.xtfx.co.uk/products/pftrack.htm

http://www.realviz.com/3d_camera_tracking_software.htm

It really isn't as hard as David makes it out. All the tools available in Hollywood are available to the home consumer.

What struck me as fake immediately when I saw the footage was the grain. It's everywhere, except the first frame of the video the pin light that comes out of nowhere is very bright and concentrated with no grain. My first gut feeling is it is fake. Just the fact that this person is known for creating videos similar to this should make anyone suspect it's fake. If it is real I would make some copies and hand the original video over for someone to look at, and I can tell you this won't happen if it's not real.

If you still don't know what is possible at the home user level make sure to download the Star Wars Revelations fan film movie off of the net here: http://www.panicstruckpro.com/revelations/ This free to watch movie shows off some of the best home made effects ever. You won't believe what can be done, it makes the UFO footage look like kid's stuff.

German Attempt To Recreate UFO Video

Stills from video: http://cmath.free.fr/signes/wahrufopart2MP4.mov
Movie by Warheit

This footage is being passed around the net as proof that Brian's UFO footage could have been faked. Sure -- it's possible. But is it true? When examining this clever recreation, one should note that it is actually nothing like Brian's video.

First, Brian's video footage is in the pitch black of night using NightVision on his camcorder. This recreation/fake is shot at what looks like dusk when there is still light available and not with NightVision at all.

Second, the UFO in the recreation/fake appears almost translucent, ghostly, like a projection or overlayed image. Brian's object is significantly more substantial.

Third, notice the difference in brilliance, not merely in contrast, but actual luminescence being produced by these lights/objects in Brians video vs the dull, washed out lights in the recreation. This is largely a result of Brian's use of NightVision which will cause any really intense light to bloom and appear extremely strong compared to surrounding object or lights (if any are visible, in this case, only some shrubby trees in the foreground are visible). The sheer intensity of the lights in Brians video suggests that the UFO is not a product of post-production digitial manipulation, but a real reaction in the camcorder to extremely powerful lights effecting the NightVision's imaging process.

Finally, the ability to recreate a UFO sighting on film or video does not mean the original was indeed fake.