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

"http://www.tudou.com/v/Velc-Y8BBKE/v.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="opaque" width="480" height="400">


www.tudou.com...

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
I will update you with more soon

stay tuned for my opinion

With baited breath.

Glad to see we don't have an armchair critic in the house tonight. Paradigm2012 will sort all of this out beyond any doubt. You just watch!

-m0r

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
I can't help but think that the dude/dudes/people/girls who made this fake video are laughing thier asses off right now as they troll all the typical UFO boards and see people seriously discussing what is an obvious fake.

The fight to make this real, the video gurus coming out of the closet to do so, the believers crying it can't be faked......the skeptics ddragging out their video knowledge.....blah! Why bother?!? The answer as to whether this holds an water can be pretty much concluded without even a hint of video knowledge.

Guys, IGNORE THE DARN VIDEO. Let focus instead on the MAJOR things that are missing from this. Any takers? Can you smell what IngoreTheFacts is cooking?

Wasting time debating a video with this content is a joke. There are far to many thing to discuss about it before you even have to get involved with armchair "analysis" of the video to begin with.

Time to stop using our computers and start using our heads around here more often.

For me it is just a matter of pleasure derived from a certain level of analysis. One can do this on any level one chooses. But for our community to succeed, this would require the help of others doing it on other levels: political? sociological? psychological? biological? mathematical? etc. choose your weapon.

So I value the other levels of analysis that other people put in this discussion. For example what you just pointed out - "things which are missing", is a valuable insight I would not come up with at first thought, but you bringing it up adds dimension to my thoughts, so thank you, for keeping things in balance.

Anyway, I just can't help but be impressed with video #2. Not so much with video #1. Forget about video #3 coz it's trash.

reply to post by Crayfish

Originally posted by Crayfish

The laws of physics can be broken in unedited digital video:

Wow...I need to wonder if people are intentionally confusing what I am saying or if I am failing to communicate it correctly.

Do you see that this video is "not" doing the same thing that is happening in the UFO clip?

Do you see that this "morphing" (a well known anomaly even to amateurs like me) is NOT breaking the laws of physics. It is morphing the image with no discretion between the objects in the foreground and background, nor does it "detach and realign the foreground onto a new plain of perspective" or "intelligently decide what is the foreground and what is the background"

This is wobble due to CMOS (something I explained many pages ago).

Further more- this effect (commonly called "jello effect") is very common and usually happens when the camera is attached to a moving surface like a vehicle.

From the wiki- titled Rolling shutter

Wobble. This phenomenon is most common in hand-held shots at telephoto settings, and most extreme in cases when the camera is vibrating due to being attached to a moving vehicle. The rolling shutter causes the image to wobble unnaturally and bizarrely. This is often called the jello effect.

It uniformly distorts the entire frame as stated in my post many many pages ago where I detailed this effect along with many other CCD/CMOS anomalies common in sensors failing or malfunctioning.

Now when I say I am an amature- it doesn't mean I'm alien or unaware of these common anomolies. As I said- I've been working with film on an almost daily/weekly/monthly basis for about 25 years.

I have encountered CCD/CMOS failures many times in my adventures, as have my friends - hence the many times we have had to rent triple CCD cameras for proper quality in many of our film projects.

Point being- what you show here is NOTHING RELATED to the UFO clip's problem where the camera has intelligently decided to seperate the foreground from the background, perfectly along its edges as if cut out on photoshop with a lasso tool.

This is yet another case of someone displaying a very well known digital anomaly and claiming it is doing "what tis UFO clip does".

Your clip's perspective is still intact and obeying the laws of perspective. It simply is morphing into a blurry mess. Nowhere does the car "lift from the background and then become a new perspective plain on its own".

Sorry, film dosn't work that way.

And your video doesn't either... because it is suffering from CCD sensors doing what they do when they fail to capture images correctly.

It is also doing this (in your vid) because of the car's intense shaking/movement- as is the case behind most "digital wobble".

I'm sorry, but this effect you show has nothing to do with a foreground being surgically detached from the background and then becoming active on an entirely new and unrelated plain of perspective to the city behind it.

Please tell me that makes sense because I have explained this effect about three times now as people keep pointing towards it as a possible explanation.

MM

wow you need to move on. It's fake, get over it!

Originally posted by laymanskeptic
Each wobble and shape-distort of the orb is in accord with the overall jello of each frame all throughout the video. And since each frame will have a unique "distort grid", any software used to hoax this must be aware of what that distort grid should look like based on what the frame looks like, including the dark parts, and then apply that grid to the composited orb. An awesome feat of pattern reconstruction for a software to do IMO.

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

Will get to your interlaced bunny in a minute ...

But this isn't actually that hard at all. There's clear motivation and measurable conditions which would cause such a thing and therefore it's not just possible to recreate you can do it in a procedural way literally using corner pinning or liquify (from memory from AFX) or any number of lens match pluggies or temporal effects. You can also motivate the action off a horizontal or vertical track.

You could use the difference of the tracking points to calculate a number. Apply that to your distortion. Toy with it a bit to get the balance right by using a fraction of that number applied to whatever tool you were using. There are also tools and methods to remove the 'jello' effect therefore it stands to reason there are other many manual ways to recreate it.Bit of maths and a bit of effort. Might have to remove and reintroduce grain depending on the methods used (grain might get stretched or something) as well and the camera and such ... but this is all pretty normal stuffs.

However, even if one of us sat around making a tutorial for it we would be back at ... 'yeah, okay so you can fake it, doesn't mean it's fake!' territory. Waste of time.

Your CGI bunny question is a bit random ... probably border off topic. A general knowledge check or curiosity? I'll PM you some information about it. //Shrug.

Stay tuned I am still working hard at my computer pushing buttons and clicking my mouse.


in the meantime:

1. The wall is not defined and sharp enough to use is as a comparison to the horizon in background. The person who did the original foreground/background comparison did not know what they are doing and/or they are inexperienced.

a) to determine a scientific "wall to background" Parallax study first you need uncompressed data and a defined wall LEDGE, not a data lossed mid-range focus, in which you had to adjust the brightness/contrast yourself in order just to see it.

b) the wall ledge is too blurry, pixelated, distorted to put a defined line across

2. Another error in your analysis is forgetting to notice the light in the upper right corner that is the light source of the wall and off the mans shirt.

a) Those of you so called ATS image experts actually claimed that it must be a hoax because the mans shirt is not lit by the city lights. NO kiddo it is lit by the light in the upper right corner.

Originally posted by eddyclay2
"http://www.tudou.com/v/Velc-Y8BBKE/v.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="opaque" width="480" height="400">


www.tudou.com...

I lost track of this thread a bit but iv seen 3 videos now including this one. Is this real or what? or are all these different people in on the hoax?

Originally posted by SomeCheesyUsername
wow you need to move on. It's fake, get over it!

All the evidence points towards it being REAL.

Glad I could help you.

Originally posted by BruceWayne

As I have said there is most definitely something iffy with the footage. I am leaving it at that because there are so many different factors that would affect the final youtube result and to do a full analysis would drive me mad.
We don't have the original video for instance... but I digress.
Is not the point here that this would have been reported on by all those witnesses who saw a celestial event of miraculous proprtions occurring over one of the most sacred places on the earth have made it onto the news somewhere apart from ANW?

Sorry to quote myself, but after 50 pages on the technical possibilities of how this could have been done it must be considered that other avenues of investigation should be pursued. There are too many variables!
Having said that great fun thread.
And please stop posting the third video like it's just come to light!!!

The Parallax study is flawed. It has been debunked.

the Parallax in the video is just fine

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by SomeCheesyUsername
wow you need to move on. It's fake, get over it!

I have to agree.

I've said my peace and will leave this discussion now.

But first i'd like to add other reasons that should lead anyone to "consider" this a more-than-likely hoax.


1) Find one "other" clip of Jerusalem with no cars, planes or other things in it. I've watched so many night clips of this place in the past two nights- and all show these things. Things this clip seems to lack except for a few blinking lights.

2) No reports from anyone even though it happened over a area populated by over 700,000 people.

3) Attached to a well known hoaxer's site where he claims he had a psychic vision to "go find this clip on youtube".

4) No testimony from the camera man or anyone in the city.

5) A light flashes bright enough to illuminate the entire city, but fails to illuminate the entire city.

7) This picture here of the exact area shows two lights both observable in the UFO clip, but the one of on the right is "a UFO" only in the clip. In the picture it is a stationary light of the same color and (possibly) position as the UFO.
PIC

8) No media reports even though the same area reported shooting down a UFO last month.

9) The foreground clearly moves independently from the background (had to throw it in one more time).

With that said- enjoy your thread and be civil.

Mask out.

Salute.

MM

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by laymanskeptic
Each wobble and shape-distort of the orb is in accord with the overall jello of each frame all throughout the video. And since each frame will have a unique "distort grid", any software used to hoax this must be aware of what that distort grid should look like based on what the frame looks like, including the dark parts, and then apply that grid to the composited orb. An awesome feat of pattern reconstruction for a software to do IMO.

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

Will get to your interlaced bunny in a minute ...

But this isn't actually that hard at all. There's clear motivation and measurable conditions which would cause such a thing and therefore it's not just possible to recreate you can do it in a procedural way literally using corner pinning or liquify (from memory from AFX) or any number of lens match pluggies or temporal effects. You can also motivate the action off a horizontal or vertical track.

You could use the difference of the tracking points to calculate a number. Apply that to your distortion. Toy with it a bit to get the balance right by using a fraction of that number applied to whatever tool you were using. There are also tools and methods to remove the 'jello' effect therefore it stands to reason there are other many manual ways to recreate it.Bit of maths and a bit of effort. Might have to remove and reintroduce grain depending on the methods used (grain might get stretched or something) as well and the camera and such ... but this is all pretty normal stuffs.

However, even if one of us sat around making a tutorial for it we would be back at ... 'yeah, okay so you can fake it, doesn't mean it's fake!' territory. Waste of time.

Your CGI bunny question is a bit random ... probably border off topic. A general knowledge check or curiosity? I'll PM you some information about it. //Shrug.

Thanks I feel a little more comfortable knowing that it can be done with a bit of effort.

Looking forward to the answer to the bunny question. It's not really random. Here's why:

I was just imagining a scenario where we are given DV tape purportedly containing UFO footage. If that were untouched and fresh from the camera, I would NOT expect to detect any generation loss in the footage (we can detect it right? SInce we know what DV footage should look like? especially if there is motion). But I would imagine the bunny hoaxing problem to involve deinteracing the raw footage, compositing in the CGI bunny (progressive?), then export it as interlaced again, is this method correct? But this would create detectible generation loss right?

Analogously I was trying to see if there will be some detectible telltale losses in video #2 if it went through a similar process of using an anti-rollingshutter plugin (i found one from the foundry), then composite the orb, then apply an artificial rolling shutter (put the jello back in), but then this artificial shutter would then have to distinguish between camera movements versus in-frame object movements to apply the rolling shutter effect properly wouldn't it? Can we detect from video #2 if such a thing was done to it? Gen loss?

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
The Parallax study is flawed. It has been debunked.

the Parallax in the video is just fine

www.youtube.com...

One more thing...to you sir-

No...it hasn't. In fact it has been supported even more by people posting legitimate examples of typical wobble.


Now what was it you said about "arm chair debunkers"?

Don't answer...just enjoy your irrelevant examples of an anomaly that doesn't explain (nor is it related to) what is happening in this clearly edited video containing two plains of perspective.

Back to finishing my comic...salute.

MM

I am the person who uploaded the original footage, eligael see my introduction thread

Originally posted by eligael
I am the person who uploaded the original footage, eligael see my introduction thread

Can you give us details please, like what did you shoot it on what processes occured between shooting it and upload onto YT etc

reply to post by Mr Mask


Mr Mask im done arguing with you about this subject. It seems like your just trying to fight you way out of the corner.

Answer this one question..

www.youtube.com...

In this video watch his upper body, It stays relative to the background.. But his legs wobble around with the wall..

Why does it appear that his body is shape-shifting?


Without the image stabilization that hoax killer did his body mimics the roll bars of the atv..

These splinters are really starting to hurt, but that’s only to be expected from sitting on the fence.

I've followed this from the start, and we have great points made from both camps. Whatever these videos are (the first two, not the still image one lol) they have brought a smile to my face and have reignited the buzz of this forum on ATS.

I'd like to say thank you to all that have posted (and are still posting).

It's up there with 'Stargates Are Real', 'UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!!', and the good old 'Infamous Turkey UFO'.

Now, can somebody please find my UFO clip I've been searching for, for 8 years???

D.

Nobody has been able to debunk this.

It appears they just want it to go away.

When you can't debunk something why not just say. It's real.

and move on....