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

Originally posted by laymanskeptic
SO what have we established so far?

-Parallel lines will always appear to be parallel, unless they only appear parallel from a certain angle and not absolutely parallel in space.

-when the BG is the target, FG moves opposite the direction of the viewer's motion
-when the FG is the target, BG moves the same direction of the viewer's motion
-rule only applies to translation motion from viewer, not rotational motion like pan and tilt

-cameras exhibit a number of artifacts related to its image capture method
-post production exhibits a number of artifacts too
-the anomalies that we see... camera or post prod?

I would think it better to say that the things pointed out as suspicious in the video thus far have been proven to be both possible with a real video and a fake, so we are back at square one.

My biggest source of suspicion at this point is the flash. The one part of the video that has screamed out at me the entire time is how fake the flash looked. I think audio analysis and scrutiny of that flash are next on my agenda. Other than that, I'm just going to rewatch it a few more times and see if I spot anything.

I never expected to learn so much in this thread, but it has been a remarkable experience thus far.

Originally posted by Mr Mask

Originally posted by WhizPhiz

SNAP!

You don't even know that this further shows and displays what I am telling you.

Look at the background...see the gridded squares that make up said background. Look at those squares "moving and changing depth and perspective in relation to the moving camera eye".

Now look at the entire city in the UFO clip failing to do this at all.

Look at each and every point in the distance of the UFO clip "not reacting to the change in perspective by remaining stagnant and unaltered to the change in camera positioning".

That is impossible.

And if one more person calls anyone here "stupid", I can only say that I will do my best to see you receive proper education on the T&Cs.

Please "try" to keep disagreement on a civil level.

TY.

MM

MM

Mask,

I think you are forgetting that you are looking at a stabilized video. They aren't moving because they have been forced still with editing. In the original, they do move.

What you just said was exactly my first thought too, then I felt kind of foolish remembering that of course the skyline isn't going to move, it's the reference point for the AE stabilization!

He's right, the wall won't remain parallel when the perspective changes because the wall is at an angle.

Originally posted by WhizPhiz


lol, this is quite funny...you're still trying to push the explanation which we have just proved wrong!! Can't you get that through your head? There is nothing wrong with how the background moves!!!

Your video actually proves "with example" what you are saying it disproves.

But it seems you think it does the opposite.

MM

reply to post by WhizPhiz



Maybe you have poor depth perception because that is not what im seeing. And the "morphing" of the guy with a cell phone, his lower body that is quite odd. You offered your opinion and interpretation however no proof. But if you care to enable the hoax have fun with that.


A UFO Lands in the middle of the city on top a national landmark and 2 men see it yet nobody else

A Notorious hoax site breaks the story yet another vantage point turns up only to be a hoax

An original video that will defy the laws of physics ... some people will believe anything and will chase their own tale

To no end

reply to post by Dramier


Sir...is it possible that you or another poster here, can show any evidence of the lights in the city growing closer to each other and farther apart due to perspective movement?

Is it possible to show the lights in the city responding in a way that coincides with the physical laws that demand them to grow closer together and farther apart as the angle of the optical eye moves ?

I am saying that this doesn't happen and that- even if the background "was digitally stabilized" those lights would not remain "unmoving and in a constant stabile distance from each other as the camera's eye changes its relative positioning"

Meaning....any movement of the camera's eye will result in "every aspect of the video changing perspective, relative to each by the "laws of perspective".

This is an artistic issue as much as it is a physical law.

The city doesn't move at all in relation to the camera's position in the perspective plain.

And that is impossible.


MM

Originally posted by Dramier

Uhhh...ha...ha...

lol, this is quite funny...you're still trying to push the explanation which we have just proved wrong!! Can't you get that through your head? There is nothing wrong with how the background moves!!! And as for the parallax thing I posted a video showing how that can easily occur. I don't know who is being selective here...but it definitely isn't me.

*insert snide remarks here*

Thanks for taking the time to do that rendering. Just when I thought I was dropping that video in the recycling bin, I find myself back in AE and PS yet again.

I don't think analyzing the UFO itself will turn anything up since it seems to be too clean, and the usual suspects have been eliminated. I think I will take another look at the audio. I have no class today so after some sleep I can tackle it.

Nice work!

I think we may get somewhere when we try to analyze the ufo in the cellphone footage (Video 2). Notice the jello effect, which is a result of the rolling shutter method of image acquisition common to cellphone cameras and DSLRs. The scene behaves like jello because the camera is moving and not all the pixels are captured at the same time - it's captured line-by-line, so we get this effect.

The point? You can also see this effect on the orb around 3 seconds before it stops at the bottom. Were the hoaxers smart enough to take into account the scene's wobble and so made a decision to also apply a wobble effect also to the superimposed orb so it blends with the scene? (not just positionally but also in terms of SHAPE)

Is there an effect on AE, PS, Motion, 3DS, or whatever program, that will simulate this wobble/jello?

SO, regarding video 2 (cellphone footage):

Whole footage shows jello effect. (Lookup "rolling shutter" in wikipedia)
Which includes the orb itself - meaning the orbs distortion in shape and position is consistent with a camera using a rolling shutter method (common to cellphones and DSLRs)

If this was fake, how do we proceed to replicate this?

Do we track the motion of the wobbly background then superimpose the orb using the tracking data?
Do we apply shape and path distortion to the orb so it's consistent with the whole wobbly shot?
How do we do this? Is there a "jello" or "wobble" plugin of sorts?

Is motion tracking designed to handle wobbly footage for the purpose of simulating a wobbly cellphone?

Originally posted by DevilDog0311
So... about that third video....

Has the idea ever crossed anyone's mind that its really really late to be doing a tour of the city of Jerusalem.... I mean 0100... are you kidding me? Who does large group tours at 0100?

edit on 31-1-2011 by DevilDog0311 because: (no reason given)

Just off the top of my head.....

Tourists from the other side of the planet who haven't adjusted to the opposite time zone? Jet lag?

Tourists who don't want to go out in the hot sun all the time.

Tourists who have been out to dinner and some nightspots and want to have a look at the fully floodlit dome of the rock while it is lit at night.

Where does the mention of group tours come from? Maybe its just a look out where people gather to look. Like the same with the Eiffel Tower, Sydney Opera House, Statue of Liberty.

reply to post by Mr Mask

reply to post by Dramier


Sir...is it possible that you or another poster here, can show any evidence of the lights in the city growing closer to each other and farther apart due to perspective movement?

Is it possible to show the lights in the city responding in a way that coincides with the physical laws that demand them to grow closer together and farther apart as the angle of the optical eye moves ?

I am saying that this doesn't happen and that- even if the background "was digitally stabilized" those lights would not remain "unmoving and in a constant stabile distance from each other as the camera's eye changes its relative positioning"

Meaning....any movement of the camera's eye will result in "every aspect of the video changing perspective, relative to each by the "laws of perspective".

This is an artistic issue as much as it is a physical law.

The city doesn't move at all in relation to the camera's position in the perspective plain.

And that is impossible.


MM

Are you referring to the fact that objects very far away appear to respond less to perceiver motion than objects close to the perceiver? Sort of like the moon or a distant mountain appear to stay in the same place no matter how fast you run?

I've been following this thread for most part of the day (finally reached the last page) and I have sure learned a lot from it.

Layman has been mentioning this jello effect for a few pages now and no one seems to want to address his/her questions. I am curious for the answers to his/her questions just as much as s/he is.

I'm not very educated in video editing and such that has been discussed. Can anyone recommend some resources for me to become more educated? Please PM me. I know I can do the research myself but if someone could point me in the right direction, so I can then do further searching for myself, it would be much appreciated.

Cheers

Originally posted by laymanskeptic
Is there an effect on AE, PS, Motion, 3DS, or whatever program, that will simulate this wobble/jello?

The object is undulating in brightness or whatever a bit anyway.

You have animations driven by keyframes, graphs, scripts ... can be done with something as little as a pen flick, something as basic as wiggle (1, 1), and other various methods. There are also large numbers of temporal plugsins etc ... raptor, monster, genarts, tinderbox, trapcode ... piles and piles of random plugins. The animation could be done with a flick of a pen or track wheel to spike a graph. It's also incredibly easy to corner pin etc ... in AFX which again would recreate that effect on a larger scale. You also have pluggies and virtual cam tools to recreate motion blur in a procedural way.

I think the object is small enough that it could've been entirely unintentional, though if it was planned it wouldn't surprise me either.

I think people here vastly under estimate what someone with zero skill and a bit of time on their hands can accomplish.

Jog over to videocopilot.com and check out what the AFX kiddies are up to.

As for attention to detail ... generally I'll grain and lens match ... also mimick the shutter speed and apeture/Fstop - apply all this to a virtual camera which can then keep all my new imagery consistent. Can easily use a grid to match lens distortion. When I want to do shakey cam I'll film a square of card and motion track a handicam and apply that to my virtual cam.

The level of effort shown in this comp is not special.

reply to post by Unknown Soldier

A UFO Lands in the middle of the city on top a national landmark and 2 men see it yet nobody else

A Notorious hoax site breaks the story yet another vantage point turns up only to be a hoax

In all fairness, you have a good point. Soon after I realized the 3rd video was a definite hoax my suspicions about these first two are growing. But it is still good footage regardless, and we must consider a previously mentioned possibility - the 3rd video was made with the purpose of being found out as a hoax, in an attempt to discredit the first two which are in fact genuine. I'm not trying to prove this is aliens, that's obviously quite impossible from the footage alone, but nor am I aiming to prove this a hoax. I'm simply aiming for the truth, it's that simple. And "debunkers" are usually the main people who get in the way of that objective with the half-baked theories and derailing attempts, attempting to get the thread labeled a hoax before and real discussion gets to take place. However, when I see a proper attempt of debunking a claim, and it includes facts and science - I listen, and I listen well.

Originally posted by WhizPhiz

Originally posted by zezba9000
I'm not sure as to where the conversation is right now & I have to go to bed, but I did make this video for this forum & YouTube, so i'll post it now.

www.youtube.com...

Very well done dude! That settles it..."case closed".

I want to embed this for you also:

SNAP!

reply to post by Mr Mask

 

Alls one needs to know is that IF THERE IS FOREGROUND MOVEMENT it is 100% IMPOSSIBLE for the horizon-line and the background to detach from that movement and react in a way that breaks the laws of physics and the rules of perspective.

I bet you regret writing that whole stupid rant now Masky...

edit on 1-2-2011 by WhizPhiz because: (no reason given)

If you raise or lower the camera or move it side to side then the perspective changes as this video proves.
In the UFO video there is no movement up, down or side to side as the camera appears to be stable as if attached to a tripod. Yet the wall moves independant of the horizon. This could be due to video artifacts or very poor video compositing.

Originally posted by laymanskeptic

Are you referring to the fact that objects very far away appear to respond less to perceiver motion than objects close to the perceiver?

Not less...none at all.

No relative change in perspective what so ever. Not even a twinkle or a single pixel's worth of movement.

Sort of like the moon or a distant mountain appear to stay in the same place no matter how fast you run?

Yes...like that. But in this case we are talking about an entire city within a short distance from the camera's eye.

MM

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
"debunkers" are usually the main people who get in the way of that objective with the half-baked theories and derailing attempts, attempting to get the thread labeled a hoax before and real discussion gets to take place. However,

Riiiiight...debunkers get in the way.

Nevermind the thousand+ hoaxes proven to be hoaxes here on ATS by debunkers. Sure...your stance seems legit.

Along with your rude comments and calling folks names.

Bad.

when I see a proper attempt of debunking a claim, and it includes facts and science - I listen, and I listen well.

Actually, i've watched you disagree with basic scientific principles by refuting them with irrelevant subjects and examples that were not even pertaining to the evidence being suggested by these "debunkers".

But hey...yknow...you are helping here...right?

Sure.

MM

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
However, when I see a proper attempt of debunking a claim, and it includes facts and science - I listen, and I listen well.

With all due respect ...

I think you're perhaps not asking the right questions at times, and sometimes just ignore the information that a person is giving you.

You say facts and science ... It's pretty difficult to distill large amounts of information about light etc into a forum post. I can't imagine someone having the time to spill out a well referenced document debunking most videos that come out. Just to debunk something very basic to a level which you're demanding would require an awful lot of documentation; not to mention bringing a bunch of readers up to date on two to five years of education and technique very quickly. Would you be willing to do that???

You don't have to trust people's experience, you don't have to go along with what they say ... but you can at least respect that they do have some knowledge of what they're talking about and take it under consideration and be nice about it.

Yes, proof of being able to fake an event easily is not neccessarily proof of it being fake. Yes, bad compression can make it a little more difficult at times. Yes, sometimes cameras produce things that sometimes look fake but are not (like flat digital cameras sometimes make the background look un-natural and imposed).

But if you weigh it up here ... You have three videos. One clearly fake. Two which are not advanced in terms of VFX. Poor supporting evidence, and a lot of Arthur Conan Doyle defense ... So a person may be specifically incorrect about the technique. Say a person confuses paper mache with sculpting - does it make it real? It's probably still a matte pull, it's probably fake, the lighting in my opinion is simple.

I dunno you're welcome to ask me whatever you like, and I'll try and answer to the best of my ability, but most people ask for the kind of detail you only know when you're retiring from a life time of working in film and television.

reply to post by Mr Mask

Riiiiight...denunkers get in the way.

Nevermind the thousand+ hoaxes proven to be hoaxes here on ATS by debunkers. Sure...your stance seems legit..

No...the "debunkers"...and that's not a shot at your spelling there, I mean those who are obviously just not even willing to accept any possibility other than those which are already set in stone inside their mind. Those who think they know some science but are obviously lacking...those who simply want to see threads removed or stamped as hoax without any discussion...those who essentially distract from the REAL debunkers and the more solid cases they are trying to present. Because I WANT to see what they think about it, and what their possible explanations are. Then I will either agree with the sound reasoning or find flaws in it. This all helps me to know whether the subject at hand is hoaxed or is real. And more than anything I want to determine that one thing. I happen to feel like a fool when I later realize I've been believing in a fantasy, a hoaxed event, I simply don't like it.

Along with your rude comments and calling folks names.

Bad

I think you're just mad I called your rant stupid. Seriously though, I'm sorry for making those remarks, it was uncalled for, I just found it pretty funny how hardcore you guys were going on about the background, and than this random dude pops in with a video that brings it all crashing down...

reply to post by WhizPhiz


Fair enough i guess we will have to agree to disagree. It is a very well done HOAX imho. As long as it is in Micheal Cohen's hands it loses credibility automatically in a way. Now had the witnesses come forward and been open about this and had gone to a legitimate UFO researcher or if we had some collaboration that would be one thing. This video itself like I said does not match up and Mask explained it better then i could. I am hearing on other sites the creator of the film is admitting all the videos are false but that is so far a rumor. So far Mr Ben David is exclusive to ANW and Cohen. Im repeating myself here but these pose serious problems. These are the things that raise my concern not so much the footage itself. If it is too good to be true it probably is.

reply to post by Pinke


I just find it awesome that, the hoaxters (if it turns out to be a hoax) took into account the imperfections of the rolling shutter method so the orb would look distorted too along the way. The orb distortions (and even the focal length changes) amazingly matches the rest of the overall scene jello.

Pardon me for being impressed with the hoaxter, but I think the execution of video 2 is good attention to detail, especially executing simulations of camera technology imperfections. Not just jittery hand held effects, but the effects resulting from camera jitter in combination with a rolling shutter.

Follow up question for my future reference (I hope you don't mind): in general how difficult would it be to create a foolproof hoax involving putting an object (e.g. a CGI rabbit) onto a MOVING landscape footage that was shot NATIVELY IN INTERLACED mode, where the resulting hoax footage should also be interlaced. The requirement would be that, while possible to fake, it be foolproof.

Originally posted by WhizPhiz

No...the "debunkers"...and that's not a shot at your spelling there,

I'm typing in a dark room on a black keyboard. Thugh I am the first to admit I am bad at spelling, I think we both can easily tell that the "B" key is next to the "N" key" and...well...never mind...

I mean those who are obviously just not even willing to accept any possibility other than those which are already set in stone inside their mind.

What I am saying is not just set in my mind. It is set in the laws of physics and has been detailed in hundreds of publications since as far back as the 13th century and understood as far back as the 4th century.

It is also demanded that any artist master and understand the 15 standing laws of perspective. Laws that the first two clips plainly break three of.

Those who think they know some science but are obviously lacking...

This coming from the guy who repeatedly ignored or misconstrued what was meant by saying "perspective is broken in these clips" and then continued to to present unrelated evidence to defend his point.

Ok.

those who simply want to see threads removed or stamped as hoax without any discussion...

Actually, there as been over 30 pages of discussion here, with more than a handful of coffin nails hitting this "out of the hoax park".

Yet you claim it is a lack of understanding on behalf of debunkers that is the culprit every time.

It surly can't be anyone "misunderstanding" basic scientific laws that govern visual perspective.

Right?

those who essentially distract from the REAL debunkers

Ahh! I see now.

Those telling you that the basic laws of perspective that are taught and understood in highschool are not "real debunkers".

Those showing you evidence and going as far to make videos to show you the fact of the matter freely and of their own time are FAKE debunkers?

Sir, in all due respect- you have time and time again applied subjects unrelated to what people are telling you to the things they are telling you.

Someone points out that perspective is broken (something impossible) and you post a video proving this very aspect of perspective law...and smile and say it proves you right.

Someone points out that the clip show two separate plains of perspective acting independently of each other (again, impossible)- and you call it "stupid ranting" or say it has to do with image lag or edge smoothing (both things that do not result in such anomalies).

Someone points out the fact that the flash of light disobeys the basic laws of light as understood by science, and you ignore it or say "nuh uh".

Fair enough...just know I do not agree with you since I've personally spent my life trying to understand perspective and lighting and the laws that govern it. Nowhere can I claim I am flawless in understanding these things, but reading your posts it seems you are being newly introduced to such subjects.

But do I call your views stupid?

No.

and the more solid cases they are trying to present. Because I WANT to see what they think about it, and what their possible explanations are.

Nobody is stopping you or anyone else from adding t this thread and sharing your views and opinions.

Yet you have more than once demanded others stop doing so, and also directly/indirectly insulted them.

Not cool sir.

Then I will either agree with the sound reasoning or find flaws in it.

Can't wait to see you start doing that.

This all helps me to know whether the subject at hand is hoaxed or is real. And more than anything I want to determine that one thing. I happen to feel like a fool when I later realize I've been believing in a fantasy, a hoaxed event, I simply don't like it.

We are similar in that sense.

I think you're just mad I called your rant stupid.

Mad? No... disappointed that you find it acceptable to break the T&Cs time and time again, and yet when its pointed out to you, instead of FIRST apologizing - you make a funny face and say something like this quote above.

I've reported that post and will not feel satisfied until it is removed or edited.

You are not to call anyone's posts "stupid" on this site.

Even if they are...and "trust me" I know how hard it is to deal with someone being stupid around here while you try to make them understand something simple.

Seriously though, I'm sorry for making those remarks, it was uncalled for, I just found it pretty funny how hardcore you guys were going on about the background, and than this random dude pops in with a video that brings it all crashing down...

I find it hilarious how that video actually proves what I am telling you, but you think it supports your stance on the matter.

But-

Thanks for apologizing. It was uncalled for indeed, and I personally won't tolerate anyone calling me or my fellow "deNunkers" (or their rants) stupid without seeking to correct it.

I also apologize for our sour interactions here.

Right now I am currently looking for a way to locate and commune with an expert on video and perspective to weigh in on this case.

I must admit, I have no idea how to find this type of person. But I feel darn confident that once one is found- he/she will tell you exactly what I am telling you.

The reason I feel so sure is that this basic behavior of perspective is taught in high school and in all art schools throughout the entire world.

Like I said- its rudimental.

MM