UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

reply to post by Quartza


I already proved you wrong when I made this video just for you:



The reason you can't see the guys legs is because there is a mixture of real camera movement AND fake camera movement. The camera pans upwards in reality, and shakes around with fake camera shake.

This should be very easy to understand.

The HOAX is DEBUNKED. The vertical and horizontal mirrored edges are a perfect 90 degrees from each other, the lines represent the REAL video edges. Everything outside of the edges was computer generated to fill in the gaps created by fake camera movement.

The fake camera movement is confirmed not only by evidence of motion tile, but also evidence of incorrect parallax. The two pieces of evidence not only support each other, but have been proven...

It's a hoax... it's over... .and if you don't want to believe it, then don't. You will just be made a fool in the end.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

The parallax issues were caused by fake camera movements.

Sir, did you know that fake camera shake effects are a 2D effect. Hows does that effect the parallax of a video that is already recorded.


And dont tell me that the VFX artist forgot to lock down the foreground and background togther. Thats total BS (note to others: this was on his assumption that the foreground and background where separate elements composited together)

Originally posted by Quartza
Sir, did you know that fake camera shake effects are a 2D effect. Hows does that effect the parallax of a video that is already recorded.

If the camera was actually shaking in reality it would effect the parallax. Since the camera shake is fake, this explains why there is no parallax in the video.

That should be obvious...

It's funny, I prove you wrong and you don't acknowledge it, you just jump to a new question.

Originally posted by Quartza
(note to others: this was on his assumption that the foreground and background where separate elements composited together)

Yes, that was my assumption to explain why there was no parallax. But now that I know for a fact the camera shake is fake, this explains why there is no parallax. Also , the background is a static looking image and nothing is changing that also led me to believe the background was separate. Do I still think the background was separate? It's still possible.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

Correct me if I'm wrong: Your video doesn't explain the mirroring we see in the original at the bottom.

reply to post by supermari0


You are wrong... it does... but the video I created used a semi-stable source video.

If you watch the first 10 seconds of the video, you can see the camera was moving down and to the left. If this movement was quicker and more noticeable, then when I added the fake camera shake it would create the same exact issue you see in video 1. You can still see it if you pay attention and look at it frame by frame, you will see the lights sucking into each other on the bottom and left like in the original video.

-edit-

Actually I'm wrong, it would be opposite. Instead of the lights sucking in towards the edge, they are moving outwards from the edge. If the source video was moving up and to the right it would match the ufo video perfectly.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy

Originally posted by Quartza
Sir, did you know that fake camera shake effects are a 2D effect. Hows does that effect the parallax of a video that is already recorded.

If the camera was actually shaking in reality it would effect the parallax. Since the camera shake is fake, this explains why there is no parallax in the video.

That should be obvious...

this explains why there is no parallax in the video.

thats right there never was, so there never could of have been any parallax errors.....hmmm

Any such noticeable change in parallax would require much more chagne in camera position

Whether you believe the videos are a hoax or not, the analysis of them on ATS is one of the reasons I have visited this site over the years. I've never been able to find it anywhere else. Long may it continue, I just hope one day we get a video that no one can debunk!

Originally posted by Quartza
thats right there never was, so there never could of been any parallax errors.....hmmm

Any such noticeable change in parallax would require much more chagne in camera position

Wrong... Stick your thumb out in front of your face. Close one eye. Then move your head around. If you look at your thumb, the background will appear to move in relation to your thumb. That is parallax.

The point of this video was to use the lines to measure parallax. If you notice the top line passes through the guys neck, and it always stays there no matter how the camera moves. The line doesn't move up or down in relation to mans neck. That is ZERO parallax.

Yet, the camera is shaking around..... this means the camera shake is fake...

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


The mirroring only affects the hypothetical background footage assuming it's a composited video, right? Wouldn't you agree that the mirroring is also visible on the person in the foreground as i pointed out earlier?

reply to post by supermari0


The background and foreground are one image/video that is slightly moving. That one slightly moving image/video is also being moved around by fake camera shake. This fake camera shake caused the edges of that one image/video to be seen in the viewport, so motion tiling was used, and created the mirror effect on the foreground and the background.

That should answer your question...

I got to run now. See ya. Have a nice hoax.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

The background and foreground are one image/video that is slightly moving. That one slightly moving image/video is also being moved around by fake camera shake. This fake camera shake caused the edges of that one image/video to be seen in the viewport, so motion tiling was used, and created the mirror effect on the man and the background.

There is no mirror effect on the man! Where do you see that?

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


If it's one video, not composited, and we are only talking about motion tiling for a camera shake effect than it just doesnt fit:



Why does the mirrored edge "eat away" the video at the bottom? I would expect something like that if we were talking about stabilization, not an artificial camera shake. Does anybody else see a problem with this? Or am I missing something here?

reply to post by Quartza


Look closely at the clip posted above.. the shades on his clothing disappear, mirroring what's above the line. At least that's what i see (You have to take compression artefacts and the general lack of detail due to the poor lighting into account.)

reply to post by Quartza


The bottom of the mans jacket is mirrored. Everything outside the white lines are mirrored. Look close, you will see it.

reply to post by supermari0

Originally posted by supermari0
If it's one video, not composited, and we are only talking about motion tiling for a camera shake effect than it just doesnt fit:

That one video could still be a composite. They could have added camera shake to a composite. We are only talking about motion tiling for a camera shake.

Originally posted by supermari0
Why does the mirrored edge "eat away" the video at the bottom? I would expect something like that if we were talking about stabilization, not an artificial camera shake. Does anybody else see a problem with this? Or am I missing something here?

You are missing something...

You are missing the fact that the one video has real camera movement. Like I said, it is a mix of real camera movement and fake camera movement. The reason the bottom edge "eats away" the video is because the one video was slightly panning upward. They added fake camera shake to a video that was panning upward.

It was also slightly moving to the left, that is why the mirrored "building" or lights on the horizon slightly move inwards like this: img40.imageshack.us...

Get it? Got it? Good?

reply to post by supermari0


That theory has been debunked. Does anyone ever get away from their computer just to step outside and get exercise or something, or is your whole life only behind your computer.

Are we nearly there yet? .... move along, nothing more to see.

On a side note I'd just like to say we need detail! Not amorphous blobs! You'd think with all the mega-pixel mobile cameras about we'd be seeing some by now, but I can only think of that Turkish series as a good example.

reply to post by Quartza


No he was missing the fact there was real camera movement mixed with fake camera movement.

The last 7 pages were full of questions, not issues, created by people who don't understand what is being explained to them.

Since it appears that you will never be able to understand, I can see that you are wasting my time. Time that I willingly gave to you for free just to help you see... The time wasted for sure...

reply to post by Paradigm2012


No, nothing was debunked except this HOAX.

I get outside, in fact on Friday I went to my local motocross track and raced. Then I came back to finish debunking this dumb hoax.

Anyway.... have fun being fooled by CGI images... I'm really going this time. LATER

For the first time in my few years here I am concerned ATS has been infiltrated. It is easy to do with the right type of money and other economic tools, threats and such. Negligence at best. But how can people peddle such bad science a child can see issues with? Many here are completely aghast at this threads horrible tone, play-science and spun ignorance.

No one seems to really be managing these threads. I think I lost ATS as a source of grass roots discussion. Really disappointed in the staff and in particular Springer. Not denying, but now seemingly cultivating ignorance.

A dark day when ignorance rules.

ZG