UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

reply to post by faustus


No, all 200 pages do not constitute 'evidence of the debunk'. I should know, seeing as I contributed a fair bit of dialogue in those 200 pages. My contributions were oriented so as to call attention to the fact that regardless of the apparent conclusiveness, being SCREAMED repetitiously by the debunkers (you, Moriarty, and many others are doing that here too), there were too many unanswered questions arising from (for example) consistencies between the videos, in terms of correlations between videos 1,2 & 4... Also relevant are consistencies within the videos themselves, such as the lighting intricacies - as pointed out by Skeptic Overlord on pg 136 of this thread.

Despite the 'majority decision', I now feel very comfortable with remaining open to the possibility that the Jerusalem UFO incident was real. I believe it may be one of the most conclusive proofs of UFO activity ever to have been captured on film, hence the zealous, fanatical approach exhibited by many on this site and elsewhere to debunking it.

A coordinated and savage disinfo campaign has been run from the outset, aimed at discrediting any and all who are open to the reality of the incident.

As I mentioned in my first contribution after Skeptic Overlord's on pg 136, I witnessed a clear and extremely obvious UFO in the skies above my home town last night, exhibiting characteristics and movements very similar (near-identical) to the Jerusalem UFO. I now know that I do not need to have the 'majority decision' with me in favour of the reality of the event - to me, my mind is made up. That is not 'fundamentalism' - and by the way, you are abusing that word. Believing a point of view in opposition to the majority is NOT fundamentalism. If it were, then every person on this website would be justifiably considered a fundamentalist by the rest of society. As we both know, people on this site are not necessarily fundamentalists of any order.

I will stand by and offer comments every now and then to insist that the matter is not closed, despite the efforts of certain people and interested groups who wish to bury this incident as a 'hoax'. Have you seen the latest photoshop application? Audio-visual technologies are so advanced now, that it is within the realm of possibility that a hoax video could be equal in standard to a real one - equally that a real video could have enough naturally arising 'issues' to lead people to believe it was hoaxed.. If the agenda was serious enough, a 'reverse-debunk' could be achieved with almost any video detailing an event like this, I'm sure of it.

This case remains unresolved.


It is my opinion that the craft witnessed over Jerusalem

was in fact a real UFO, of terrestrial or extraterrestrial

origin.


It was not a 'clear and obvious hoax', though the

possibility of it being an incredibly well-composited

hoax perpetrated by a skilful group of unknown people

with an agenda obviously remains.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
If you watch my tutorial above, and look at the similarities in the lighting, I think it's fair to say that the technique is pretty easy to do...

While not difficult, you didn't replicate the effect. You added a glow, not a lighting effect.

Bet you don't get answered again Mr Skeptic Overlord. Why was this put in the hoax bin again?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


So you are saying there is major differences between these two images?

Also, SO, have you see this?
www.youtube.com...


reply to post by Slipdig1


This is why:

www.youtube.com...

ATTENTION!

This is a very large thread! Please be mindful of how you post, and aware that very-large quotes -- and nested-double-quotes -- make it very difficult for newcomers to navigate and read the topic.

Please trim your quotes! Edit down the quoted material to only the salient points needed for your response. Do not quote entire posts... and the quotes within those posts.


Thank you.

Originally posted by BenCambell
reply to post by mirare

 

However, I'm still open concerning video four as I would like to see it debunked on technical grounds, and so far this hasn't been done yet. The explanation about the flash that it doesn't reveal more detail is first not true and second even if it were, would not prove anything as a lot of videos with flashes don't reveal more details. It really needs a more thorough analysis.

Has been debunked scientifically by quite a few people in this thread. And if you don't belive it, read up on histograms in wiki, download a halfway decend software (I did it with the freeware version of CodedColor.com), and COMPARE PIXELS until you get bored. There are no, and I repeat NO differences in a frame before and during the flash, except already contained texture which was brightened by some algorithm, probably the L part of HSL. Just because your eye does not see it in the before frame, doesn't mean it's not there. Once again see my screenshot and DO IT YOURSELF !!

Originally posted by returnee

Originally posted by DeboWilliams

The audio in 1 and 2 are the exact same audio, except the audio in the 2nd has had the volumes tampered with to make it seem like it's from HIS camera (make the main guy sound like he's far away and the other guy sound closer to the mic).

I agree that this particular audio analysis is essential to do ,but to me it's just another 50/50. Most of the audio would match the 'real' event. Small piece could be hoaxer's error.
I believe that it is certainly possible that you get this phaenomena even from real recordings considering the directional effect of the mouth, the recording devices and also the reflections of the sounds. I think that washing any audio from a similar clip can prove 'tampering'.

Unfortunately this is not the case.

All of this can be dismissed with common sense, let alone advanced knowledge of how audio works.

Reflections? they are outside, nothing enough for reflections to play the HUGE impact that would be needed to support this, IE their not facing a brick wall.

Directional effect of mouth?
Guy A mouth is facing forward
Guy B mouth is facing forward
Guy A is, for example, 20 db in Guy A video, Guy B is 10 db in Guy A video
Guy B is, for example, 10 db in Guy B video, Guy A is 10 db in Guy B video
Guy B cannot be the same volume in both videos, he would be louder in his own video, since he is closer to his mic

This is what happens after they both say WHOA, in video 2 you can hear this happen with the loud spike in sound

It does NOT matter what the recording devices are. If you are 10 feet away from 1 recording device (mind your facing the OPPOSITE direction), and 2 feet away from another (which is placed in front of you), you SIMPLY CANNOT BE LOUDER IN THE ONE THAT IS 10 FEET AWAY.

WHY oh WHY is this so hard to understand. If you cannot, or ANYONE ELSE cannot understand this, then you do lack the critical thinking needed to comprehend ANY OTHER DEBUNK here, PERIOD.

This would also explain why said people are just blindly dismissing all the debunk claims, with nothing to back it up.

Now, as far are all the other debunks, thats another story, but the AUDIO in 2 is INDEED a altered copy of video 1. This is not my opinion, this is what it is, a copy.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by Kali74

 

That is just the thing... the lights are NOT realistic. I was being sarcastic. The lights in the UFO video can be replicated near perfectly with a couple steps in Adobe After Effects, and trust me, Adobe After Effects does not just add realistic lights... When it adds a light it just increases the brightness and contrast of existing lights in the video.

The point I was making is that the UFO video has completely fake lights... There is nothing lit up that wasn't lit up... there is no stronger shadows... there is nothing.... it's a simple 3D light added on top of some pixels. It just increased brightness and contrast of pre-existing pixels and pre-existing lighting.

There is no way Adobe After Effects, with just a few clicks, could replicate real lighting. With a few clicks, I was able to replicate the UFO lighting.... That means the lighting is completely fake as well.. and probably made with the same exact process.

Thank you, that's what I'm trying to say all the time.

I have the feeling all halfway competent people have already left this chat, and what remains are a few kids crying and fighting because someone took away their toy. It's sad - people, pleeease stop clinging to this BS like a religion and get on with your life. Lets wait for some real footage. Don't worry, they're out there, so be patient.

Mr.Mask, although your video to debunk the Kids vid (#4) is nice, it's got image quality problems and I've still trouble to follow your analysis. I would like to see it better and I cannot find the "original" image you're talking about on the net.

If you could provide a link to that image and probably the warped/resized modification you made to match the video, free from compression in full size, please?

Also, how do you explain the interlaced camera artifacts when the camera turns away from the image, if that was a static image with CGI and artifical camera shake?

This video cannot be shown often enough:
www.youtube.com...

Or do you want to wait for another week and 150 thread pages until NO WITNESS surfaces. Believe me, no one will, so get on with your lives and don't wast any more time here. I will do the same. Bye

Henning

at least one thing is for sure about this event

on one hand its opened up a lot of peoples` minds, but at the same time if it is a hoax it dampens the ufo credibility in my mind

Originally posted by QuantumDisciple
As you said, hoaxers tend to over do it.
...
I do not dismiss the possibility that a couple of kids with mad skill and serious time could have made this.

There appear to be subtleties in the video (I say "appear" because the available resolution makes it impossible to be certain) that would be typical of an artists eye, or at least a professional with experience in the software -- if the fourth video is a hoax.

The most important subtlety, not mentioned in my initial analysis, the stability of the "object" relative to the scene. Camera motion/jitter is barely .2-.4 degrees between frames, and never more than 1 degree in any one direction (indicating a stable hand). It's very difficult to convincingly add a stable object in post-production with motion/jitter that slight... unless the source material is 30fps HD at the least.

Originally posted by RexTheNavigator
I mean why would a filmaker be driving around Filming?

It's much more common than you could imagine. "B-roll" footage can sometimes be the most valuable asset in a filmmaker/videographer's tool chest.

This is the first I've read that the creator may have industry experience.

Originally posted by mirare
have you looked at the full un-edited version, as I think the piece needs to be looked at as a whole. To me it seems clear that the quality of footage filmed in the car is much better than the quality taken once the witnesses exit the car.

I haven't seen it. Was there more light inside the car? That would be one possible explanation of the better quality.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
I added two extra CGI flashes to the video:

While good, your added effect does not compare with what is seen in the video. The original is at top, yours is at the bottom of the above comparison. The original "flash" as a lens-flare artifact, and has a more pronounced effect on the ground below it (including reflections in the street) -- yours is more of an added broad glow (with possible overlay effect as it slightly alters the colors), which "appears" brighter than the original, but has less effect on the area under the "object."

Originally posted by time2fly
I compared two frames before and during the flash, and there is NO indication of previously unlightened objects.

The original scene is dark, with existing bright lights below the "object." While it's possible that the potential hoaxer created a feathered mask for altering the curves of the histogram, the uneven result would be difficult (but not impossible).

However...

There appears to be reflective surfaces not visible (or barely) before the flash, that are visible during the flash, or are magnitudes brighter than the increases seen on other bright areas. The two frames above both received the same amount of increased brightness/contrast, in an attempt to see if histogram tweaking could reveal something in the dark that could have been enhanced -- in those highlight spots (via the green circles), there appears to be no light on those objects before the flash.







If this fourth video appeared on its own, without the other three, I'd say we have a decent video of an interesting event... but not fully convinced it's a genuine UFO. With the other three videos (of more-easily debunkable quality), this fourth is automatically considered dubious.

Now, it's possible that the "event" was discovered, and fakes made it online before a possible genuine video, but probably unlikely.

Running ATS for years, and having experience with digital photo/video software since the first version of QuickTime, my opinion is either the fourth video is a well-conceived fabrication, or documentation of something interesting... and, if seen without the other three, I'd place an 85% probability it's a post-production fabrication -- even with all my comments to the contrary above and previously. I don't think the video represents a UFO over the temple. (to be clear)

Originally posted by werner76
Mr.Mask, although your video to debunk the Kids vid (#4) is nice, it's got image quality problems and I've still trouble to follow your analysis. I would like to see it better and I cannot find the "original" image you're talking about on the net.

If you could provide a link to that image and probably the warped/resized modification you made to match the video, free from compression in full size, please?

Also, how do you explain the interlaced camera artifacts when the camera turns away from the image, if that was a static image with CGI and artifical camera shake?

Let me answer you with a quote from MM on his video (page 124):

Originally posted by Mr Mask
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

Link to post

It's video footage of the city, imo. There's quite some movement going on.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


In regards to that last animation you showed, I can't agree with you on that. Your monitor must be calibrated with less contrast, because in those areas you circled green, I clearly see there already being light in the areas, IE they are not solid black.

The lowest right green circle for example, there is a light source there, albiet fainter than the obvious lights, there is still a dim light there already, and this is for all of the areas which you've highlighted

Edit to add more info

Actually I have view this 2 seperate monitors, one is a S-PVA 24inch and one is a S-IPS 42inch. Both clearly show the areas highlighted as having light before the flashes.

This would continue to conclude that the flashes only seem to brighten existing light sources, rather than introduce NEW details

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

There appears to be reflective surfaces not visible before the flash, that are visible during the flash. The two frames above both received the same amount of increased brightness/contrast, in an attempt to see if histogram tweaking could reveal something in the dark that could have been enhanced -- in those highlight spots (via the green circles), there appears to be no light on those objects before the flash.

I don't agree with this. I turned up the exposure (2nd photo below) and the "reflective surfaces" started to show. The information is there before the flash.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bf7b401437c9.jpeg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8c5184cf1ce3.jpg[/atsimg]

Thank you for being a voice of reason SO, I been over the exact frames you are talking about from day one.

Check out frames 4:40 on in this vid which is very clear. Look at the very last frame as the light source moves out of frame. You will notice a barely noticeable light decrease on the reflection of the dome which would is only revealed by editing and ehancement. It is so very subtle but there nonetheless. It is that one frame 4:51 to 4:53
that make me think that it is a real light source at that location. ANd of course yes the cars in the footage are moving as they should be.

reply to post by Marsoups
for the umpteen time that is a copied version not form the source, if you want the true video go to you tube shshsh331 is the site person that put this up on you tube.

5th video:



it's odd because the audio of the lady from mississippi doesn't match up with this other video from the MSM:

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by penttbom
5th video:

it's odd because the audio of the lady from mississippi doesn't match up with this other video from the MSM:

I think she was perhaps cloned and left in multi angels of videos instilling some link between Mississippi and UFOs



That is unless every one with her voice in it is a fake.

-m0r