UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

reply to post by Mr Mask


I see your point and I think you're right, but could you post a sample picture that demonstrates your point so that we could see how the lights are dimmed in a real flash of that magnitude.

Hi, folks. Thank you again Ashtrei and ExCloud for tackling the 'Timing' video thing from, Arit. It looks like we are still in the game. Here is the reply that I recieved from SpiritualMystic on Youtube. He is the guy with the 'Mene, Mene..." video showing the geometric shapes. Although it is creative and comes from a well informed place. It is all him....

"Re: Clarification please
Yes of course and with much pleasure.

The last thing that I noticed is that the last letters that were traced that was JC. The letters were traced in roman script. But they were traced in mirror image. So immediately I imagined somebody writing on a kind of transparent wall from the other side of the firmament.
For the writer he would write in normal script, and the observers (we) would then see mirror image.
Good then is this God who writes, traces, on the firmament from the other side?
This brings us to Daniel 5.5 where the bible says:
5 In the same hour came forth the fingers of a man's hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the king's palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.
If you look very well at the appearing lights frame by frame, then you will see that it is like somebody is really pushing his fingers against something, and then light appears. So Immediately it made me think about this Daniel 5.5 and further where a mysterious hand traces mysterious signs.
Now what was written? We read in Daniel 5:25.
25 And this is the writing that was inscribed: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.
26 This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and brought it to an end;
27 TEKEL; thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.
28 PERES; thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

If you look at the first figure that is traced. Notice that it traces precisely over and over again as if it was repeating. So this made me think about Mene Mene where the word is repeating. Just like in the scripture.
So this made me think about well this must be a version of what happened back in the times of Daniel. And maybe God is saying the same thing.

I found this first shape to look very much like some kind of sextant triangulation position figure. A position measurement on earth (maybe the shape even indicates a position on earth). But at first I thought it is something like saying: I measured where you are!
And look at the shape. It is coherent and complete and seems to be some geometric drawing like measuring something.
So I decided mene mene mene while the first part of the shape is traced three times.

Then the second shape is amorph. Like God saying. This is you! It is like the judgement of us.

Then the third shape is like a wind direction rose. So I thought well we will be scattered to the eight winds and be found no more.

The there is a hook I have no idea what that is.

And finally it is signed by a JC. Whom we all well know who that would be.

Nice interpretation?

Regards,

Laurens

Note I am just making a video on how you can try this at home. It is nearly uploaded."
Sorry it took so long to get it up. J.

I have done a little quick work on the 4th video. It involves nothing more than using Photoshop's Shadow/Highlight tool to extract the maximum detail from the darkness. This attempt may provide additional clarity.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Quartza

There are no flaws in 1 and 2. Its this simple, crappy footage gives you crap data. And to use such inconclusive data is flawed research.

3 days? thats a joke. You have no idea the details that had to have been paid attention too

edit on 4-2-2011 by Quartza because: (no reason given)

But it's this same crap data thats supposedly telling us the truth? That makes sense, cant use crap data to dismiss, but can use crap data to accept. Oh ok, very intelligent conclusion there

So by this logic, we are to completely dismiss video 1 and 2 right?

Supposedly two of the videos were shot on a cell phone camera. It would put this to rest if the video is still on the camera which clearly can not be hoaxed.

reply to post by DeboWilliams


You are incorrect we have multiple people say the audio you show is incorrect due to envelopes do not match. Go back and read again.

I said I dont want to believe this is real, but I want evidence that will stand up and say its not.

You are getting upset I have your audio out so you start bashing me as a person?

Originally posted by Pinke


Just making sure I translated what you did to English. Why the flowery language, and breaking it down into maths that people won't bother to understand? Noticing you have a pattern with this.

I seriously hope you didn't spend all your time actually programming this, and did it in a pre-existing app?

edit on 4-2-2011 by Pinke because: Hope question

just on the math thing, in order to prove the authenticity of the footage an objective analysis is required. By parameterising elements of the footage we can take any one of many angles to either prove or in this case disprove the authenticity of the footage. I use the lack of localised contrast in the underexposed regions as my argument. I state my conceptual model explicitly and transparently which gives a peer the ultimate capability to debate the issue. Note that I do not do this to confuse my peers but instead bring those along for the ride.

Consider the following scenario, lets imagine if this footage became viral, promoted by the media agressively for any number of reasons. Lets say the footage and accompanying media analysis has the potential to increase the number of people believeing in ET life from 10% to 20% in the world. It could potentially affect the world economy through a number of potential ways through disorder etc. If it got to that point, what sort of rigor would be used by academic institutions to determine the authenticity of the footage in a transparent/objective manner? The first thing they would do is something similar to what I posted a few pages back, i.e. just look at the numerical data first, look for characteristics of the vid that have evidence of being synthetic in nature. This is the first hurdle, other hurdles could be as follows;

1) 1st hurdle, check basic characteristics of the footage. Understanding the physics of light behavior is important.
2) if pass 1, lie detector test
3) if passes 1 and 2, obtain raw footage from the owner noting down camera model etc. Provide this data to the R&D staff at the company that makes the camera. Get their opinion on whether the feature in the footage is synthetic or consistent with an actual object
4) possibly other steps, dont really know what they would be as these would be highly specific

if it passes this then its genuine and the reaction of the public is justified.

re: coding the software, yep, definitely did code all of that. As i mentioned a few pages back, i have packaged it up with a GUI and will deploy it for anyone to use to assist with analysis. The idea behind this is that it should empower more people to catch vids out at hurdle 1 much quicker, reducing the number of potentially fake videos reaching media outlets. In turn, this could improve the credibility of UFology as a whole given recent proven hoaxes, HAITI etc. I really want us to find the real thing. I am not on ATS to fly the sceptic banner, I want us to find the real thing, the smoking gun that passes all the tests. I want our resources and energy to be used wisely. The role of rigorous scientific analysis is fundamental in this pursuit.

regarding the histogram, i do not refer to RGB histogram, i refer to a histogram of unique intensity values. I will try make this clear by an example.

* lets say we want to look at each pixel in the image that has a value of 65 (out of 255). We choose 65 because it looks dark there but not too dark, it looks like if there was a bit more light then we might make out what is there. We find there are 12 instances of 65 in the 768x500 image. Lets look at these guys

instance 1;

before flash

looking at the 065 and the 8 pixels that surround him.
061 067 060
056 065 060
065 056 055

We add those 8 neighbors together (the difference)
local contrast value =abs(061-065)+abs(067-065)+....+abs(055-065)
then divide by 8 to get the average. This av number is 1 of the 12 instances belonging to 65 (before flash set)

now look at the exact same pixel, but during the flash burst, note all the pixels are brighter now
122 120 124
115 123 121
116 122 122

We add those 8 neighbors together (the difference)
local contrast value =abs(122-123)+abs(120-123)+....+abs(122-123)
then divide by 8 to get the average. This av number is 1 of the 12 instances belonging to 65 (during flash set)

repeat the above 2 steps in instance 1 for all 12 instances of 65. These 12 elements make up the 'histogram', At the end we just average the 12 values anyway to get 1 average value for 65 in the before flash set and during flash set.


now repeat all of that for not just lucky 65, but for all unique values, 1, 2, 3, ..254, 255

So the point I make with this is that if the light source is actually present in the scene then we would see increase contrast values for unique number values in the low brrightness range, say 0-50. If there was a higher contrast value in the flash set compared to the non flash set (say corresponding to the 50 value) then this would imply that we are seeing features in the brighter image we could not see in the darker image. In fact, what we see in the 4th video is pretty much no additional features showing up in the flash image in these darker regions. Thus, I have concluded that the light in the image is synthetic. I hope this makes sense. It is a bit heavy but i have patience

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


What puzzles me is why they didn't decrease the whole sound. Going through so much effort to create a hoax and then mess up on such a silly thing seems a bit strange. It would be good to do an experiment and record from two different cameras with similar sounds and echo to see how they would stand up to the same scrutiny.

reply to post by DeboWilliams


Debo

But it's this same crap data thats supposedly telling us the truth? That makes sense, cant use crap data to dismiss, but can use crap data to accept. Oh ok, very intelligent conclusion there

I'm not the one shouting out that there are parallax errors. Which depend on concrete numbers. Video 1 does not gives us those conclusive numbers.

Okay guys, does anyone know whether ANY one of the "eye witnesses" have actually been interviwed and filmed on camera by a proper news crew?

It's not for the lack of media interest I'm sure.......so where are these witnesses.......Oh yes I forgot.....they been visted by the Men in Black.

But seriously have any of them appeared on camera.....does anyone know?

reply to post by Logical one


Not as of yet. I wish someone from that location would speak up and not a new poster someone who has been a member here. I know we have some members.

Originally posted by Quartza
Mr.Mask, you can not ignore the effect that a rolling shutter would have on tracking points and calculating parallax errors. Those physical measurements cant not be taken accurately on video that has morphed the actual recorded points of any given object.

In this video, you could take a frame grab and say the buildings are skewed....are the skewed in real life?
And this is on a high end camera.

edit on 4-2-2011 by Quartza because: (no reason given)

Debo, this post shows why you can not use rolling shutter cameras..... Wow that video above shows the buildings all skewed .....that cant be possible.......video most of been hoaxed

The effect on cell phone cameras is much worse

Originally posted by BenCambell
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

 

What puzzles me is why they didn't decrease the whole sound. Going through so much effort to create a hoax and then mess up on such a silly thing seems a bit strange. It would be good to do an experiment and record from two different cameras with similar sounds and echo to see how they would stand up to the same scrutiny.

I don't have any other explanation why they didn't decrease the whole sound, other than the fact that they're obviously lacking indepth experience with audio editing. This is obvious with the abrupt peaking in audio, I've pointed this out more than once. You can hear it, you can see it. It's true information, facts, not opinion.

Originally posted by Quartza

Originally posted by Quartza
Mr.Mask, you can not ignore the effect that a rolling shutter would have on tracking points and calculating parallax errors. Those physical measurements cant not be taken accurately on video that has morphed the actual recorded points of any given object.

In this video, you could take a frame grab and say the buildings are skewed....are the skewed in real life?
And this is on a high end camera.

edit on 4-2-2011 by Quartza because: (no reason given)

Debo, this post shows why you can not use rolling shutter cameras..... Wow that video above shows the buildings all skewed .....that cant be possible.......video most of been hoaxed

The effect on cell phone cameras is much worse

edit on 4-2-2011 by Quartza because: (no reason given)

Ok? how is that video relevant to my argument? I think your mistaken me for another person perhaps?

reply to post by DeboWilliams

Ok? how is that video relevant to my argument? I think your mistaken me for another person perhaps?

It shows that cell phone cameras(rolling shutter) gives you crap data compared to the real world. Did you forget what we have been talking about. Maybe you should go back and read your own posts.

reply to post by DeboWilliams


hes just going to keep defending his audio. His audio is bunk the envelopes do not match up. The sound you hear was something else. He just continues to deny it and thats why he started attacking me. Kind of like yesterday he stopped talking when I shot his audio down and asked for the correct evidence.

It makes no sense. His audio is out and the webcam info is out. So we are basically back to parallax issues that are still unsure on.

Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by DeboWilliams

 

hes just going to keep defending his audio. His audio is bunk the envelopes do not match up. The sound you hear was something else. He just continues to deny it and thats why he started attacking me. Kind of like yesterday he stopped talking when I shot his audio down and asked for the correct evidence.

It makes no sense. His audio is out and the webcam info is out. So we are basically back to parallax issues that are still unsure on.

I believe my argument about the parallax issues is quite sound. Debo just cant open his mind for one second.

There is no conclusive data that there is any parallax error in video 1

reply to post by ExCloud


In my view that just strengthens the deliberate hoax argument.

The UFO witnesse in the recent sighting in the States came forward on camera pretty soon after the event.......It's been a whole week and not one witness has come forward.........instead we only get YouTube videos posted.

Sorry but this is smelling like rat central!