"UFO Over Temple Mount in Jerusalem" [discussion and analysis of multiple videos HERE]

Nice one Digitalf. Nice observations. Now you have pointed it out the background isn't moving which does tie in to using green screen and therefore likely camera stabilisation. I notice no changing/flashing lights in the BG... not unlike video 3.

And to those who think I'm a debunker: I will debunk hoaxes.... they do no truth seeker any good.

reply to post by digitalf


Now that's pretty decent hunting there digitalf;

Here's the image on ATS Media:



So if this, it's counterpart, and the other (3rd) video were made using similar manipulation techniques, all from YouTube account with no prior content with join dates spanning years. Then this could be a proper sting operation organised with a purpose.

What that would be other than lulz I can't think - but it's starting to take shape as a provable hoax now.

EDIT: Forgot to add - Is it possible that the files over at Weizzman Institute of Science's SPINE Workshop on Micro-batch Protein Crystallization were taken at random or do you think it's possible someone involved with them created this?

-m0r

reply to post by flyingfish

the key to changing the image was motion blur, but i used vibrance, color balance, brightness/contrast and hue/saturation as well.

the image is not an exact match - now that i've worked on it I can see differences, but hopefully the image manipulation contributes something to to the thread.

i'm not going out of my way to debunk - i was just curious to see if an image could be used in this way following the debunking of the third video from a static image.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aba5c84957d1.jpg[/atsimg]

3RD Video!

Originally posted by m0r1arty
EDIT: Forgot to add - Is it possible that the files over at Weizzman Institute of Science's SPINE Workshop on Micro-batch Protein Crystallization were taken at random or do you think it's possible someone involved with them created this?

I'd say this is some poor blokes holiday snaps I've hijacked - nothing more

reply to post by Analyzing


This is also fake, even more so.
Here's what I think happened:

After the original video (and it's counterpart) made it to ATS, and failed to convince many people; the "Counter Intelligence" operation behind their manufacture rush jobbed the third.
They even thought they would get away with using a source image from wikipedia!

This, even though well organised, is just one huge blunder from the hoaxers.

The important thing is that this, as with most "news" stories, is intended to distract us from another important issue. (which is likely the USA and Israel's involvement in the Egyptian protests).

Ok well, here is the final nail.



Like I said in my first post.... the parallax is all wrong.

In case it hasn't been posted yet:



It's simple really, the only proof is for a UFO close-up to be filmed in daylight on an old-school handheld camera that records on tape. Untouched tape footage, play it on a TV, record that. You can't alter tape footage AFAIK.

Take note of the ascension of the orb at :55 in the First video and the ascension at :44 in the "Third" video.

The orb hovers in both videos for just around 22 seconds.

reply to post by myster0

I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that the third video was one of two things; An attempt to discredit the first two vids as a hoax, which they succeeded or an attempt to prove the first two vids were real, which was a major fail.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


Nice work!
Well that seals it for me.
This video should be thrown in the hoax bin
Can someone out line all the flaws in this hoax and wrap this up in a cozy well written debunking.
MR Mask where are you!

Originally posted by csimon
I was looking at this thread titled "UFO Over Temple Mount in Jerusalem?" and was ready to comment when it suddenly went "404" on me. At any rate I thought the footage was interesting. After a little search it seems that the source isn't usually reliable.

At around frame :50 the orb descends onto the city. At around frame 1:23 the orb shoots out of camera shot. After that there seems to be some red flashing up in the sky. Might just be cheap camer anomily not sure.

Your thoughts on why the thread went missing and/or the video footage.

edit on 29-1-2011 by csimon because: Sorry about the embedding issue.

 

MOD NOTE: The thread was trashed because we do not allow the source ANW to be used here. Please read this thread for more info. If the source is used....the thread will be trashed. Always best to find another source that does not use ANW as their source.

edit on January 29th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: edited title to better reflect the topic.

With great disappointment I have to say the video is fake. The man, the tree, the wall in front of the man all move independently from each other. If you stop the video exactly when the flash appears you can see the wall that they used to "key" and splice the separate images. In front of the man near his left hand is a white light that disappears the second the UFO does. My conclusion is that they used a "green screen" and dobbed two or more videos together and that's all it is, primitive but effective. Too bad, at first I was hoping it was true.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
Ok well, here is the final nail.

Seems pretty conclusive it's a hoax.

Be nice to get the background image and have someone recreate it for the giggles - but yeah - it's a done deal.

-m0r

BTW: How did you get that battery to move all by itself- that was magic!!

-m0r

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

 

Nice work!
Well that seals it for me.
This video should be thrown in the hoax bin

Can someone out line all the flaws in this hoax and wrap this up in a cozy well written debunking.
MR Mask where are you!

What? did you even attempt to recreate the scene by super imposing the image on to the image of the video???

I think not. Show us some proof.
NM - I will do it.

This could be the image used in the video with a little processing to soften it and make it look like video:

How do you embed images in the forum?

Since the thread on the third video has been shut down...

If the first two were the real deal, and it was your job to discredit them, the easiest way would be to introduce a video like this third one and then later expose it as a fake.

The media... which has totally ignored the originals, would then be directed to plaster headlines of the forged version all across the globe.

People would see that the one video was hoaxed and immediately walk away from the first two.

Mission accomplished.

I don't buy this third one. Sorry.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
Ok well, here is the final nail.

Like I said in my first post.... the parallax is all wrong.

LMAO... The problem is he is not moving.. He's standing in place..

If you stand in place and change your angel of view all of the cubes go the same direction...




Nice touch at the end with all the sheep..

Originally posted by gmax111
LMAO... The problem is he is not moving.. He's standing in place..

His camera is moving side to side! That is all I did in my example was move the camera. Face it, the parallax is all wrong. When they composited the city in the scene they didn't apply a parallax effect, they simply motion tracked the wall and tree, and locked the city layer to it. Their motion track was crap too because the wall and tree are low light. That made the city horizon bounce around independent of the wall and tree slightly.

It's quite obvious now that you have no idea what you are talking about.

-As for your last posts... when they added the "Temple Mount" label on the video, they didn't use ANY tracking.. They just applied a logo and it is sitting on top.

The high definition video is no different from the "original" video you had me analyze.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

Ok that's all good gift but the real question I have for ya is... how much for one of them sheep in the vid?

Originally posted by kroms33
Thus far – from what the people trying to debunk this event and video have produced, means absolutely nothing. What is even more shocking to me is the failure to look for instances of chroma keying – which would absolutely, without a doubt prove the video is a hoax. This has not been done, until now.

This is the same type of logic that caught Arthur Conan Doyle when he thought faeries were real. He thought he was smarter than a couple of young girls, and therefore that he knew *all* the ways this could be done. If I animate a ball between my fingers and do it some random way ... just because you can't tell how I did it *exactly* doesn't mean you should believe it.

For starters ... news programs use a switcher which applies keying directly to the video signal. If it's a crappy cable channel and they don't have anything resembling a globe caster or something it's going to end up with spill on it, and it's going to be hard edged. News people just don't care if it looks real or not. The method of doing a VFX matte pull is totally different.

Generally you make a first matte - a hard centre core matte to stop any tearing or 'antsing' (image looks like it crawling) in the centre of the image. Then you make a nice soft happy edge matte. That alone will give a better result than a switcher for realism puposes because you can then whack a multiply/color adjustment to pull out or hue adjust the spill. Because it's only a single shot as well any colour pulled out of the character at the front won't matter since you can't compare his shirt color to a prior shot and clearly the whole thing is compressed and messy giving lots of excuses for stupid things.

I don't neccessarily care about the process used personally. There's lots of matte pulling methods and things.

You can pull a matte from a web video/mobile phone video. There's nothing stopping you. Turn it into a TIF sequence and go nuts. In fact this shot is ideal for it. Could use a luma key, channel shifting, roto tracking, painting on alpha channel, reintroducing paint objects etc ... The shot is perfectly designed for matte pulling and painting. No little things like fingers and things that stand out. Shot is murky ... at most a couple of frames of painting to pretend the light pulls up extra details. Just us a mix of techniques and voila ... You can actually apply tracking data to roto lines so it's not even like you would have to do it frame by frame. Or hells you could just use the spill edge matte and correct it to a dark color or gradient to pretend its part of the person.

There's plenty of ways of artificially compressing a video. Plus reintroducing any shapes into this video is real simple cos it's so murky and crap. There's actually a jpeg compression plugin which does this stuff for you - NSR (no skill required)

It's set up like a VFX shot. It's set up to be simple. What were they doing there? Just standing in nice places for filming of UFOs? Conveniantly standing in ways that make easy roto and such?

It bothers me that some persons think they can break out the googles and become VFX experts! There's people who discuss this stuff who have been doing it for ten or more years. I'm no one special, but I don't need to googles my answers or techniques.

You're welcome to hit me in private message, and I can show you some work if you really like. There's nothing special about recreating this stuff I assure you.