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

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

Hi eligael,

Intriguing video. Would you be willing to give us access to the original, raw footage?

reply to post by eddyclay2


How in the world did the guy claiming to be the filmer of this footage manage to get banned already? I saw his introduction thread and then it was 404'd before I could read it!? WTH??!!

Originally posted by gmax111
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..

Corner? Fight? Its strange how I feel there are folks here fighting to grasp at straws that are not relevant to the problems with perspective in this clip.

I feel as if people are just posting well known camera effects of CCD/CMOS failure and saying they cause film to separate into two distinct plains. But we all know how I feel about that- so I'll answer your question.


I assume you are seeing "wobble" in the footage filmed for the top overlay in this video. Now notice how it is not effecting anything in the back ground in the same manner.

With that, I'm out.

Enjoy the rest of this thread. Once it is proven or disproved, my thoughts will remain here to remind you where I stood.

Good day.

MM

reply to post by Dramier

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

He didn't do the rendering, it was a programmer I invited to the thread who made the video and the software to show how this can happen.

reply to post by Paradigm2012


Believe me when I say I wish it was real, but Im afraid these hoaxes do more to damage the UFO community than anything else.

It is a hoax- and not even a very good one. Basic compositing. Nothing to do with parallax this or parallel that. Just 'an introduction to layers, lesson 2' in the 'how to do post production A-Z'.

You guys just need to move on- the skeptics are loving this, and are using it to de-value genuine footage.

Originally posted by laymanskeptic

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?

Sorry I just saw your PM about the bunny: It appears in the method (nondestructive) you outlined there will not be any losses, which is perfect. But that causes my above analogy to fail LOLz. Anyway, it appears we can only go so far to inspect a youtube video. Can't go any further.

But thanks I learned a lot!

I'll see if I can pull off the method you outlined =)

Originally posted by laymanskeptic
From this analogy 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?

Oh I see ...

It starts to get complex. You really would need something to compare it to, and you would need to be quite intimate with the plug-in. Like how could you tell without access to the original equipments and such?

As stated in your PM, you could separate the fields which is different from just deinterlacing into a progressive comp. The more pluggies and automated done for you things you use the more chance of a mess really. The more you do it manually the more safe it would be.

It really depends how the footage is treated through the work flow, too. It's getting late where I am, and it's a pretty complex question in a lot of ways. If it was stored in 16 or even floating point it would help ... no major color adjustments, stuck in an intermediate ... you keep a lot of that color anyway. It's usually the whites that go first for example.

Not 100% sure about phones but DV tape etc ... is stored in YUV space. Y is luma. You can check your value of your luma in IRE (institute of radio engineer but it's also a scale) which is measured in percentage. You can check this in a waveform. A lot of editors and things stay in RGB format which doesn't allow values above 100 ... but this is a black black image. On youtubes. It may also have been an RGB format already coming from a phone.

If it was a big well exposed image it would be easier to tell, but really what values were going to be recorded by that imagery in the first place? Most of it is 0 (black) and some of the whites may have already started at 255. Not much datas.

If someone was really really inclined you might be able to work it out if you got the settings etc off the phone ... and compared the foreground plate to the background to look for odd adjustments and such. You could then check lighting conditions etc ... Also need to know what phone it is and take reference footage and stuff, and probably want the original plate if they didn't compress it well for the tubes.

I haven't actually taken the footages into a program to look, but really you wouldn't expect much data anyway. It's kind of hard to tell what went missing when it was a bit rubbish in the first place. If it was an okay camera with perhaps 10 stops of range it may be much easier. I've had shots from other people given to me and looked on histograms etc ... and noticed they've made adjustments that have done things I don't like or taken values away, but again I had better reference and often in a long project I work with the same formats and things for extended periods of time. So with lots of experience with a format and equipment you can notice things people have done.

Perhaps there is some other genius person that can do this without the original images/equipments, but for a Pinke it would require lots of research and reference to work out. Images like this ... even if mathematical stuffs is applied and shows a problem ... who will believe it?

I go back to my faery example ... Some people ... how do you know how faeries/ufos react to video? It can always be an argument along with the 'arm chair image experts' argument. So some folks just always gonna believe, and some folks always gonna be disrespectful.

Sleep time!

For what its worth..

www.unexplained-mysteries.com...

Hello i am eliyahu, the person who originally uploaded the jerusalem ufo video youtube.com/user/eligael Myself and my friend filmed in the early hours of saturday morning (between 1 and 5 past 1am to be exact) a shining huge orb like object which hovered for about 10 minutes, when we filmed it, it seemed to only about 30 seconds later descend above the temple mount where the western wall is on one side, the dome of the rock the other - both amongst the most sacred places in the world for islam and judaism, it hovered there for less than ten seconds before emitting a flash on the ground underneath, and shooting up directly at the speed of light. after this, there was a load of spinning red lights in the sky, flickering ferociously at each other, this lasted about 30 seconds.

On a very positive note my friend caught some really good footage of the same thing descending earlier, roughly about 25 minutes before we were filming, and he caught it spliting into three orbs and shooting up and down, but no flash that time. He hopes to be getting that uploaded and i will let you know when so.

Originally posted by Thunda
It is a hoax- and not even a very good one. Basic compositing. Nothing to do with parallax this or parallel that. Just 'an introduction to layers, lesson 2' in the 'how to do post production A-Z'.

Then show us where those layers were blended, or show how the jello effect can't be responsible for the perceived independent motion of some regions of the video.

Some of us like to have satisfactory proof that something is a hoax rather than rely upon circumstantial evidence or misunderstandings. There are many videos out there that are easy to prove as hoaxes, but this doesn't appear to be one of them. A good example is the third video which everybody now accepts is a fake that was inspired by the first two.

What is the best piece of evidence you have that this is a hoax?

reply to post by gmax111


Errr... seems that the guy that apparently filmed this is now making some worrying statements...if this is actually the person.

eligael

Alien Embryo

Group:
Member Posts:
4 Joined:
Today, 02:02 PM Posted Today, 02:43 PM

are any of you familiar with the pleadians?

reply to post by dsm1664



Yes could be a setup for another Hoax video..

or to draw attention to something else..

are any of you familiar with the pleadians?

Can't wait for this , seems as it could be a trail for the next installment
The new Billy Meier ?

Anybody can start an internet account and call themselves Elilijah


Any internet posts by Ellijah after the date of the video, are suspicious as it could be some kid pretending to be Ellijah.

pushing a mouse and keyboard is not a skill
anyone do it

Originally posted by Paradigm2012

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.

Funniest thing said during this entire thread lol


Really?

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier

Originally posted by Paradigm2012

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.

I chuckled at that too, also, can someone explain to me why there isn't a flash in

or is that a 'product of the camera' .... Like the guy being out of sync with the background. ^___^

reply to post by gmax111


This was my line of thought...

Let's say that the first two videos were real.

What's the easiest way to stop to it in its tracks? Debunk it.

How do you debunk something that is real? By creating a fake video that links to the original videos.

Then the final nail in the coffin, create posts by the alleged video shooter, making outlandish claims.

Hmm..

"I thought the first two videos looked real, but that third one is so fake. And now he has "Alien Embryo" next to his name, and says they are Pleadians!!! hahahahahah another muppet creating hoax videos - Case closed!!!"

Not saying this is the case, but this is what I'd do to stop it.

reply to post by dsm1664


Well that explains it

The GFOL are up to old tricks again i see.

Originally posted by gmax111
For what its worth..

www.unexplained-mysteries.com...

Thanks for posting that good find

Lets hear "eligael 's " side of the story shall we?

reply to post by Unknown Soldier


That thread's been removed.

Before it went, members of that site accused this poster of being another one of it's members called "Elliot".

Maybe they checked the IP's and found it was.

Elliot is still looking for ET...lol

reply to post by ufoeyes


Aliens are realbelieve

Originally posted by dsm1664
reply to post by gmax111

 

Errr... seems that the guy that apparently filmed this is now making some worrying statements...if this is actually the person.

eligael

Alien Embryo

Group:
Member Posts:
4 Joined:
Today, 02:02 PM Posted Today, 02:43 PM

are any of you familiar with the pleadians?

edit on 1-2-2011 by dsm1664 because: sp

LOL! Some of these kids are crazy!