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

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by JPhish

 

JPhis, watch this video:

1: Camera shake is fake.
2: Camera zoom is similar to digital editing zoom.
3: Lighting can all easily be created.

They filmed a video with a tripod no zoom, no shake, and that made it easier to add the UFO in with the lights. They later added in fake zoom and fake shake to make it seem more realistic, and not planned. (since everyone knows fake ufo's are easy to make with a stable video).

edit on 2-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)

Okay, I'll have a go at it with your 3 observations:
1. Go outside when it is cold and try holding the camera completely still, or better yet show me what "real shake looks like".
2. Man some cameras are better than others and have a way better zoom that shows better clarity, these are teenagers. The one used in the analysis clearly was of a higher quality.
3. Can you or anyone else you know create another illusion for all of us to see exactly like it, oh and let's not forget the reflection off the dome itself.

reply to post by believerofgod


You quite obviously didn't watch the video.....

I hate when people reply without watching the video...

reply to post by digitalf


I'm aware that video 3 is a hoax and have been for sometime after it was released. However my focus is on what is being said in the israeli news broadcast. I don't know how many times it can be said.

Originally posted by gmax111
If you can call some of your debunking efforts absolute proof of HOAX, which is extreme in my honest opinion..

Then...
HERE IS ABSOLUTE PROOF OF FACT! ...Just to be as extreme.

You state the background and foreground are two separate images? How is it that not once in the entire video was the foreground really illuminated until the flash. Where would this data come from if this flash didn't really happen? There is no other place in the video to extract the pixels to create the top part of the wall as that data not present due to lighting problems..

Animated Gif:

Is this a serious question?

I ask because you have said you know "some technical stuff" abut video editing, and I only know about basic editing and nothing about special effects.

But anyways...are you serious?

If you gave me this footage in single frames, in numbered order by file name, and gave me about- I dunno a week- I could easily do all that to the wall. Heck, I could actually put the back ground layer behind the foreground layer, add that crappy lighting effect (I'd do a better job actually on the light, cus that is just sloppy and fake looking) and I would also add a UFO and a flying elephant if you wanted.

Thing is...It would have to be frame by frame editing- and it may have an old school true-cell animation look to it. I don't do video effects, but I promise you I can do you some magic in photoshop and have been using it since CS1 (back then just called CS).

If you think you just stumbled onto a "stumper" I'm afraid you are wrong.

If what you are pointing out is child's play to a photoshop guy- I can only assume one of my AE friends would find it as simple, or simpler.

In fact...this answer seems so easy, I'm wondering if I'm misunderstanding you.

Are you actually asking me how one can add a lighted effect to a dark wall?

MM

Originally posted by digitalf

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by gmax111

 

gmax... the flash effect was layered on top of everything.... That is why light is on top of the guy, wall, etc.... some reason the missed the tree.

I also find it odd that the back of the guys shirt lights up - bottom right blue shirt - given the light source is in front and his back would have been in shadow.

Its been suggested that if there is a stone wall of the same white rock behind this guy, and the flash was bright enough some light may have been reflected back from the wall behind

Not 100% sure about this video yet, but the shaking and zoom do seem independent of this persons body.. which could go to contradicting your statement of simulated shake and zoom..

reply to post by DakmindAK

ok understood - i didn't see the post you had removed so I assumed you were posting Vid 3 as the real deal
I stand corrected .. your question has been answered a couple of posts above this one.
edit - oops quite a few more than a couple, quick posting tonight ... www.abovetopsecret.com...

The video in the OP is a [HOAX] because of... What???

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by believerofgod

 

You quite obviously didn't watch the video.....

I hate when people reply without watching the video...

One of the best posts in the entire thread, and worthy of being a signature in itself!

I laughed.

MM

So it seems that Israeli media has only reported on video 3 which is the obvious hoax being used as possible disinfo in regards to a cover up, as they blatantly ignore videos 1-2 and 4. Why is this? Has anyone found any Israeli media reports any video other than video 3?

reply to post by Ashtrei


That theory is bunk because right between the lit background and the lit jacket is a dark edge. That edge can not exist in reality, especially if light is shinning in front of, and behind. The lighting proves it is fake.... I said that in my first post on this topic, and it will remain true.

Second.. the intensity is far too bright to be a reflection off a wall. It would have to be a mirror.....

Originally posted by cripmeister
The video in the OP is a [HOAX] because of... What???

jury still out i reckon - although look at the animated gif in this post www.abovetopsecret.com...
and then cast your eye over the back of the guys blue shirt. Should it light up when the light source is in front of him. One of many anomolies in video 1 (the OP Video).

Originally posted by DakmindAK
So it seems that Israeli media has only reported on video 3 which is the obvious hoax being used as possible disinfo in regards to a cover up, as they blatantly ignore videos 1-2 and 4. Why is this? Has anyone found any Israeli media reports any video other than video 3?

Good point, youd think the 4th video would be more spectacular to show.
but they only show the obvious fake

Originally posted by gmax111
Not 100% sure about this video yet, but the shaking and zoom do seem independent of this persons body.. which could go to contradicting your statement of simulated shake and zoom..

What?

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by Ashtrei

 

That theory is bunk because right between the lit background and the lit jacket is a dark edge. That edge can not exist in reality, especially if light is shinning in front of, and behind. The lighting proves it is fake.... I said that in my first post on this topic, and it will remain true.

Second.. the intensity is far too bright to be a reflection off a wall. It would have to be a mirror.....

Im not so sure, but this question then remains, why, if it were a hoax, would they add a reverse flash that lights up the guys back ? why do that ?

Originally posted by digitalf

I also find it odd that the back of the guys shirt lights up - bottom right blue shirt - given the light source is in front and his back would have been in shadow.

I'd find it odd if the back of his shirt did NOT light up. A flash that bright would likely be reflected by objects behind the man; like a car, for example.

reply to post by Mr Mask


Mr Mask, do it then, take screen shot 1, or one of any of the darkened screen shots, preferably one before the white light is fully descended. AND, create the lighting effects on the wall and add the data back into the wall thats not present to begin with.. Here's a hint, Fullscreen the youtube video and press print screen key..

Stop being a sheep and prove something......

And i dont know why you are constantly trying to prove yourself.(arrogance in my opinion, no offense) I have not once said i am this or that in this thread until now, but i've been using PS since photoshop 7 which came before the CS(aka PS8) line was even released.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by believerofgod

 

You quite obviously didn't watch the video.....

I hate when people reply without watching the video...

I did, and I asked you to recreate such and event, or show me what a "real" shake looks like as opposed to a "fake" shake, which in reality would really mean nothing to be honest. Now from what I gather you are going here, and correct me if I am wrong, is that you believe the first 2 clips are fake, so now you are trying to break down the 3rd. Right or wrong?

Originally posted by digitalf
jury still out i reckon -

Well thread is now in the [HOAX] forum so I guess the jury came in with a verdict

reply to post by Ashtrei


...because obviously they are not the best artists in the world, nor the best physics experts on light, probably not too bright either.

That was an easy one to answer.