UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

Originally posted by Marsoups
reply to post by pezza

 

Oh come on guys, I know this is a waste of a reply, but honestly the first 100 pages are all filled with diagnosis , chin stroking, a bit of bickering, bad theories and what else.. Come on, it's a forum!!! Some people don't have two or three hours to kill on the 'making of'.

Since you have read it all and have the know-how , I don't see it a blight on your time to briefly explain what was said. It's not like the first post in the thread has got all the meat in it.

hey there marsoups,

im not sure what post you are replying to, unless you are fed up with me in general

so what now it is a hoax again? Wasn't the challenge for someone to re-create a video of that caliber, anyone done that yet?

Originally posted by filosophia
so what now it is a hoax again? Wasn't the challenge for someone to re-create a video of that caliber, anyone done that yet?

It's a matter of taste - you either have it or you don't but here's 10 mins of using a product I've never touched before (That includes creating the sounds and effects):



-m0r

Originally posted by time2fly

Originally posted by pezza
hi there time2fly

I provided a scientific analysis of the 4th video here that in my opinion is 100% bullet proof

www.abovetopsecret.com...

in summary, if a burst of light high up in the sky, having the most direct line of site to the most amount of terrain in the image, and is also about 10x brighter then any light in the video, and that light does not reveal any new features in the underexposed regions of the image, you really need to question what the role of light is in our universe.

Very good analysis. So I looked at the video again, and

1. I do see clear reflections on distinct objects outside the realm of the burst. These are so good, that I truely see no tampering here. I may be fooled, but it's very elaborate work then. I will try to upload a side/side example later.

2. On top of that, remember that a sudden light burst (or camera flash) immediately changes the digital camera f-stop, similar to a contracting pupil, balancing out the exposure. Thus, the overall luminance in the picture stays the same, but the distribution changes: dark pixels at the edge, which - as you correctly stated - should appear lighter due to the light burst, are actually darkened due to an increase in the f-number. Remember that a camera always tries to even out the exposure. You can test this by slowly moving your video camera into the sun. So your explanation is very good, but I'm pretty sure the output of a video camera cannot be described by linear functions.

thanks for the kind words. I see where you are coming from. But the fact that zero new information is revealed about the terrain (and emphasis on *zero*) tells me the light is 100% synthetic. I even went to the extent of characterising/parameterising this effect on not just one feature in the image but systematically to the entire image. Thats a bit heavy and over the top for a site like ATS but i think was worthwhile for some here that may want to take their debunking skills past qualitative only based assessments and occums razors. So it has some value i think and i was even prepared to deploy the software i developed as an open source package for anyone to use. But to my dissapointment not one person asked or U2U'd me for copy (or to call my bluff ). So i was a little bit saddened by that. But thats ok, this thread was moving like a freight train. Well, i guess the horse has bolted now and im not going to finish that project off. Work is quite busy at the mo, ironically because asia are having their chinese new year holidays.

Oh, on top of that, the light burst in all 4 videos were pretty much described by an 8th degree gaussian function with pretty much the same parameters. For that to be possible for 4 separate cameras from 4 different vantage points is absolutely hideous.

oh, and i will add one more thing, I would have loaded that program with some cracking easter eggs

hopefully a gap comes up soon to knock it off

Just another hoax pulled off by a bunch of punk teenagers. Reading through the past few pages i find myself shaking my head. People really are desperate and will believe anything no matter how fake. Goes to show the PTB is doing a helluva job keeping the ignorance flourishing. A series of hoax videos taken over a google photo and some video FX and people swear it's the holy ghost. Just wow believers get a grip it's stupid hoax move along and get a life.

Originally posted by filosophia
so what now it is a hoax again? Wasn't the challenge for someone to re-create a video of that caliber, anyone done that yet?

im not sure, there is another thread dedicated to that specifically

if one was really busy and wanted to do it in say 5 minutes I would do the following;

1) get an image of one of those vantage points without any UFO
2) apply the 8 degree gaussian function at centre coordinates of your choice

that would get you a pretty good faked image. To make a video

3) add camera shake and some noise and a streak.

Also, i think quite a few pages back I gave a 15 point method that was really obnoxious. If you are in need of a laugh go and find it

reply to post by time2fly

: I don't think you ever edited extraterrestrial anomalies

True

on top of that I think we both don't know enough about the pysical possibilities out there, especially if it could be of alien nature.

Very True

Yours is a personal assumption, a very good one at best, but it's not "proof" in my understanding of the meaning.

Mine is not an assumption but a Theory. Theories (in the scientific sense) cannot be proven. They can only be verified/demonstrated by experiments that you can replicate (Verifiability). But they can also be disproven when an observation happens that contradicts what the theory predicts (Falsifiability).

What I offered is not proof. It's a Theory. Mathematical theorems CAN be proven. Logical propositions CAN be proven. A theory, on the other hand, can only be verified and falsified, NOT proven. No theory can. Scientific theories by their very nature cannot be proven.

However theories are based on educated guesses and OBSERVATIONS. The 8 frames I showed everyone is proof of an observation. These observations are used, along with EXISTING KNOWLEDGE of technology, to come up with the Theory that video#4 is a hoax. It is not a hypothesis, it is greater than a hypothesis - It is a theory, based on very consistent observations I have made in my daily interactions with these video artifacts.

True, it's all about light interference with a man-made computer chip, but having experience in one field does not automatically extend to all other possible physical explanations.

I apologize but here goes another round of credential waving (I find it funny that I keep on needing to do this): My education (since age 14 up to age 26) was sponsored by science institutions and academic institutions, not just one but 5 different overlapping times - Iv'e been a scholar for 12 years - these are highly competitive scholarships requiring batteries of cognitive tests and exceptional academic records. My experience extends from the sciences all the way to the arts.

The science behind image acquisition is not that difficult to understand.
The science behind objects interacting with image sensors is not hard for me to understand.

but be careful with early conclusions.

Thanks for the advice. Rest assured these conclusions are well thought of and based on sound science.

It's ok to apply Occam's razor in our earthly physical realm, but in this case the simplest theory just may not be accurate enough. None of your (and my) knowledge may be good enough to explain this phenomenon,

To say that Occam's Razor means "the simplest theory" is incorrect. It means that the theory that uses the least number of new assumptions while still sufficient to explain a set of observations tends to be correct. That's what Occam's Razor means.

just like an Indian tribe may hear the voice from a radio and assume there is a man in the box, but would never conclude the existence of transmitted radio waves.

Let's use this example. He would have to assume that a man can be that small to fit inside a radio. That would be his best educated guess, based on what he knows. But he would have to verify the implications of that. What happens when he opens a radio and doesn't find a little man? He opens all radios and doesn't come up with little men. His theory is inadequate to explain the phenomenon. That's the time when he should start making new assumptions about the nature of reality - new hypotheses. Then the cycle begins.

In our case here, there is no necessity to assume new things - there is adequate information to explain said phenomena.

Originally posted by m0r1arty

Originally posted by filosophia
so what now it is a hoax again? Wasn't the challenge for someone to re-create a video of that caliber, anyone done that yet?

It's a matter of taste - you either have it or you don't but here's 10 mins of using a product I've never touched before (That includes creating the sounds and effects):


-m0r

sorry, i think the title of that youtube video is wrong. It should be "28 UFOs over Jeruslam"

Originally posted by laymanskeptic
In our case here, there is no necessity to assume new things - there is adequate information to explain said phenomena.

Couldnt be better said. Ive enjoyed your posts, keep up the good work.

I might comment on the credential thing here. ATS is unique in that it seems to result in a thread enviroment that has very little stratification, in other words, its a level playing field. Credentials can be thrown out the window pretty much and people can come here and become anyone they want. Kind of reminds me of that main character in that movie 21, where the famous card counters from MIT went to vegas and raked in millions. Not only did they get the loot, these MIT geeks became anyone they wanted to be when they were in vegas away from home. Rock stars, bankers, etc. I really enjoyed that concept.

I personally think some people come here wanting to be scientists. Perhaps some are high school level kids wanting to see what it is like to engage as a scientist with adult contributors. If these kids exist (and my theory is correct), i hope you do pursuit careers in science and engineering. Its a great industry to work in, great people. And now is probably the best time in quite a while to forget economics, business, law etc and do science. Or maybe you can spoil yourself and do it all

On closer inspection, unless they added a few lights, the picture I said was used for clip 4 is wrong.

Unless a few lights have been added.

Perspective is correct, but a few lights do not line up even when stretched or skewed.

Thought I'd come and admit my wrongness.

But clip one's image is still the one I pointed out.

MM

Originally posted by pezza
sorry, i think the title of that youtube video is wrong. It should be "28 UFOs over Jeruslam"

I believe the Pledian 5 Mark 4 Interdimensional Space Craft only appears to be 28 seperate UFOs in our dimension

Ergo the confusion about how they appear identical in Mississippi whilst not being identical or indeed in Mississippi.

-m0r

I'm sorry guys but I've been following this thread and the one before for some time, I've been away for a bit recently though. Can someone tell me why this got moved to the HOAX bin? Proven to be a fake or what?

Originally posted by LiberLegit
I'm sorry guys but I've been following this thread and the one before for some time, I've been away for a bit recently though. Can someone tell me why this got moved to the HOAX bin? Proven to be a fake or what?

Yes.

It was proven that clip one had digital editing where the sides of the clip were artificially "mirrored", amongst other things.

Here is a clip explaining it completely.



MM

Go to google maps , type in Armon hanatziv-then look for yemin Moshe-then confrim that the windmill is in the Yemin Moshe-also bear in mind that the view of the old city from Armon hanatziv is the side . Check Google and it is exactly there. You thought-what could the chances of a structure so symetrical be on the edge of a video you a sure is hoax.

The Motel listed above is in that exact spot and it the reason for a symmetrical area of the video in which you used to try and debunk the entire case.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7ec9cb9eb9dc.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/14b9d823ece2.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6de3fbeff7cb.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3fc7ea167a00.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Paradigm2012


And does the hotel also break and move on a hinged center like the mirrored tile in the video?

By the way, heres a vantage point from the UFO clip clearly showing the hotel is not there.
HERE


Stop lying to people.

reply to post by Paradigm2012


Oh great, another inaccurate video that believers will latch on to and use to think they debunked certain claims....

Sorry your video is 100% wrong, because you can see the lights converge like a mirror:

Debunk debunked!

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by Paradigm2012

 

Oh great, another inaccurate video that believers will latch on to and use to think they debunked certain claims....

Sorry your video is 100% wrong, because you can see the lights converge like a mirror:

Believers debunk debunked!

edit on 7-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)

I proved that is a building. You cannot make up your own facts.

Now that I proved its a building you need to explain how the building can move?

Its obviously pixelation, 4th gen data loss compression,

your GIF is only 1/1000 of a second long.

any cellphone video, youtube video will have the blurring you just posted

its called pixelated artifacts from 3rd generation FLV video

I proved its the building

and you cannot deny that

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


Logic tells us that we must now deal with the facts. Deal with the fact that the symetrical lights are a symetrical building, and not motioned tiling.

Facts don't lie!

Because its now officially that I proved its a building.

Logic tells us that there must have been some camera data loss and artifacts causing a tiny pixelation on the sides.

HA HA HA its now officially a building

you can't make up your own facts