UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

Originally posted by timewalker
Sorry my typing is slow and I'm getting tired. Sorry for making it go on some more.

My point entirely with the building in the pic is,and again I am no expert, it just seems to me that either the light really was there, or what I am getting at is how difficult would it be to pixel by pixel, digitally add the light wrap around the curved surface of the building back and forth between flashes.?? Experts.........

Thanks. I like your comics....

edit on 5-2-2011 by timewalker because: (no reason given)

I don't work with video effects, but I will tell you I find it very easy to pixel-by-pixel add convincing light to many pictures I do. In fact, it was easy before home-computers with simple hand held tools, and now with home computers it has become child's play.

I do not think anything seen in these clips is hard or complex for anyone with basic understanding of editing programs.

But like you- I am no expert.
MM

Originally posted by chunder
Just a quick point but in all of the analysis about the flash it is assumed that it is simply an optical light flash, a "natural light" I think as Zorgon put it.

It may not be as simple as that, there may be some x-ray component, some gravitational or further electro-magnetic element that results in effects not adhering to "natural light" behaviour.

Obviously a moot point if hoaxed anyway but calling a hoax because an extraordinary incident may cause extraordinary effects is a breakdown of logic.

MARVELOUS! Let's toss physics out the window too.

:shk:

Originally posted by DeboWilliams

Originally posted by bigbigjezza
I've been a lurker for some years now and this Jerusalem thread, like others, got me to post something.

Debo : I think JPhish said it right, the audio evidence is simply inconclusive due to varying (possible) compression, etc. If the waveforms were identical this would've been a done deal. Sorry, but this isn't the case. I know you put some work into this and feel strongly about defending it but all in all, it's not 100%. It simply isn't. Speaking of 100%, nothing I've read (and I'm on page 67 now) seems to be 100% for or against it being real.

quartza : my train of thought and perception of the analysis of these videos are very similar to yours. One of which is that I think more focus should be made on Video 4 as it has the best quality *data*. Attack that one with everything everyone has. I wish I was more technical because I would. Regarding the other vids, it's almost pointless to breakdown skewed or "grey area type data" because nothing conclusive will *ever* come from it because of that reason alone.

This being said, even though the data integrity of vid 4 is the best, and I don't know who mentioned it before, but proper analysis should be done on the *red lights* of all videos. If they are triangulated, mapped, measured, whatever, it would be more proof, although not 100%, that it could be real. I can only imagine the amount of geometric mathematics one would have to do to make those lights line up, move together and at the same time from different angles. This would entail some kind of CAD app which is a different skill set altogether.

All in all, I can't wait to read up on the remaining pages but this thread should definitely stay alive. I hope there will be a 100% definitive answer to these videos but I think we must prepare ourselves to take what we believe as individuals and run with it in the end. It's unlikely there will be a consensus unless new solid evidence pops up.

Yea, why don't you go do that and scrutinize them red lights, surely SOMEONE is gonna come outta the woodwork and say theres a plausible explanation why there would be any discrepancies. And then fail to produce evidence to back up their claims

Bottom line, you guys been had and just too salty to admit it. That's all.

You are hoping that the professionals that will check this out will say "Hey guys, its real", lol your gonna be waiting for the second coming for a looooooong time

I almost feel sorry for you guys being in denial.

If us amateurs can find all these flaws whats that tell you? You guys aren't a authority on what is and what isn't supposed to happen in audio, or cgi for that matter. You have countless people who atleast appear to know some credible knowledge telling you that all aspects of this is wack. From interlaced / progressive framing to lighting to audio, to sociology. True videos don't exibit this kind of crap. Wake up.

Oh yea and bashing me isn't gonna change this

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

Debo, I'm not bashing you. Period. Nobody has given 100% proof of either side (fake or real). What I see is both sides taking a passionate stab at this which these videos deserve. There is no need to take things personally (although I can see how this happens) but we aren't talking about a super bowl commercial here. You and everyone else, including myself are here because of what? Alien visitation and how it could change the world. There...I said it. You are obviously passionate about it, so are the people from "the other side".

What I'm trying to say here is that no one should try to trivialize anyone's efforts or opinions here because the subject matter is huge. If anything deserves its due diligence it's this. Don't you agree?

I applaud your audio debunking efforts and other angles you have provided.

Can someone show us, how, using cgi, the shadowing effect from the dome and other buildings when the light goes up is done? This was a significant "real" factor for me but I saw that it's possible using different programs. This in vid #4 must've been painstaking to do to be accurate, no?

reply to post by Mr Mask


So youve been made a mod now ?

who are you to tell me to stop posting ?

You have on a number of occasions posted information that is false, such as

Evidence that a VERY WELL KNOWN hoaxer is involved with this, one who is famous for creating and distributing viral CGI UFO clips:

where is the evidence ?

There is no kind way to put this so "i'll be blunt"
When you post falsehoods like this in an attempt to justify your claim its a hoax, you are hoaxing the data

the reality is ANW stole the video posted on YT, that does not translate to they are involved thus its is a hoax, that "spin" is a lie, and you know it, you are knowingly using a lie to make your case.

Im not insulting you, im having a go at the data, the false data you try and spin as fact

Your agenda is to make people think this is a hoax, i get that. i dont have an agenda other than the facts be debated honestly. I would be happy to have it proven a hoax, i dont really care if this matter is a hoax or real i care that its disected with honesty and integrity, and you sir have used obvious falsehoods as fact.
im of the very firm opinion that you dont care about finding the truth, you care about convincing everyone its a hoax
they are two different things.
When you post

Evidence that a VERY WELL KNOWN hoaxer is involved with this, one who is famous for creating and distributing viral CGI UFO clips:

You insult my intelligence and that of others who can see what really happened with this case, this well known hoaxer stole and reported the case, that does not equate to be "involved" thats false spin youve put on the facts to push your agenda

i have been speaking with the mods during this matter, and working to comply with their standards, in making the commands you do, you overstep yourself, thats their job not yours.

If i and others say nothing and let ppl like you post obvious falsehoods like ANW is involved with this, then the matter will be proclaimed hoax, by false statements.
I and others want it proved hoax, not proclaimed hoax

Youve stated many time it IS a hoax, the truth is you think its a hoax, and your entitled to think that.
But what you think and what it is, are not necessarily the same.
Your POV is locked in stone you say it IS a hoax, mine on the other hand is open to either possibility i dont know yet
If you've found your answer why bother to come here and ram it down the necks of those still deciding ?

wheres the evidence the same wall is in all 3 vids ?
wheres the evidence that a known hoaxer is "involved"

You make these claims, posit them as absolute irrefutable fact, but give no evidence to back them, instead popping in to brow beat those still disecting the data , telling them they are wrong and you are right.
How can they be wrong ? like me they havent made their minds up yet.
You want to convince them your right, but you use obvious falsehoods like

Evidence that a VERY WELL KNOWN hoaxer is involved with this, one who is famous for creating and distributing viral CGI UFO clips:

To do so........thats dishonest and its bullying, you want to convince us, give us evidence not lies

Here is a video comparing a three CCD camera to a CMOS chip. This video was posted to demonstrate the variety of artifacts that can be generated with the CMOS chips. If you have not seen anything like this it is a really good example.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by pezza
I state my conceptual model explicitly and transparently which gives a peer the ultimate capability to debate the issue.

Sure. It also implies you programmed and designed a bunch of already existing stuff.

Originally posted by pezza
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.

Surely you would have been better making it as a pluggie for an existing system?

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.

'Unique intensity values'? ... You mean the already existing values you could have used and that are already measured? ie luma values.

I assume you put the image into black and white in an effort to isolate the luma values of the image, but there are Y values already available in any image. There wasn't really any requirement to do this that I can see, but I suppose we all work our own way. /shrug

Originally posted by pezza
I hope this makes sense. It is a bit heavy but i have patience

edit on 4-2-2011 by pezza because: remove quote

edit on 4-2-2011 by pezza because: spell

It's not that heavy at all. It's pixel maths 101.

Just perhaps seems like you maybe went to a lot more effort than was necessary.

reply to post by Frater210






Note the circles ( pay attention to the peak inside the circles) and the highlighted inverted green area

reply to post by DeboWilliams


You're the best. But I don't see circles.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by chunder
Just a quick point but in all of the analysis about the flash it is assumed that it is simply an optical light flash, a "natural light" I think as Zorgon put it.

It may not be as simple as that, there may be some x-ray component, some gravitational or further electro-magnetic element that results in effects not adhering to "natural light" behaviour.

Obviously a moot point if hoaxed anyway but calling a hoax because an extraordinary incident may cause extraordinary effects is a breakdown of logic.

MARVELOUS! Let's toss physics out the window too.

:shk:

edit on 5-2-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)

I agree let's toss it out! It's quite obvious we on Earth know very little about physics.

reply to post by Frater210


You have to use the bar, at the bottom of the photo, to scroll to the right.

~Heff

Originally posted by Frater210
reply to post by DeboWilliams

 

You're the best. But I don't see circles.

lol scroll over, theres a scroll bar

reply to post by DeboWilliams

Debo, are those the two separate tracks side by side?

reply to post by QuantumDisciple

It's quite obvious we on Earth know very little about physics.

Bravo. That was funny. If we did our butts wouldn't be on this rock.

Originally posted by Frater210
reply to post by DeboWilliams

 

Debo, are those the two separate tracks side by side?

2 top are left channel right channel from video 2, the 2 bottom are left and right channel of video 1

reply to post by Hefficide


Thank you so much. I was sold before I slid. I did not know a forum could do that. OK. for god's sake quit buggin' Debo! Thank you for your patience.

Originally posted by timewalker
My point entirely with the building in the pic is,and again I am no expert, it just seems to me that either the light really was there, or what I am getting at is how difficult would it be to pixel by pixel, digitally add the light wrap around the curved surface of the building back and forth between flashes.??

You wouldn't necessarily sit and paint frame by frame. All artists work different ways, however, and some might.

Silly way of doing it: Basic 3D geometry to create mattes etc ... and then applying those mattes onto a 2D scene would work quite happily. A really basic method ... Track a light movement around basic 3D model, and make that part of the model white where the light is hitting ... this could then be used as an alpha matte or track matte for part of lighting pass.

There are also tools in many comp applications to perform these procedures in a 2.5D only environment. You can actually separate elements in 3D space and use interactive lighting to produce faux 3D lights.

Given there is no real reference footage for this event it makes it hard to compare to, so for all we know the artists of the UFO images could be waaaaaaaaaay off. How would the human eye know?

The human eye assumes things are correct most of the time unless the mind knows otherwise. Maybe I'm just desensitized to art and things, but I can't see how a 14 - 18 year old couldn't do this.

Note: I *think* this answer question ... but I also may be having english fail!

Just for fun, I created some 3-D stereo pairs from the #1 and #2 videos. Did you notice that there were two distinct flashes? And that the light doesn't come from the UFO, but just seems to come out of nowhere, and is imposed on the general scene?

Anyway, I created the first stereo pair from the frame of the first flash. This should be a point at which the UFO is in the exact same location in each video. So if it is actually hovering over the Dome, it should be seen in the combined stereo image at the same relative distance as the Dome. Follow me? It's a cross-eyed 3-D image. Cross your eyes until the UFO from both images becomes one.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/75fc50b9beb2.png[/atsimg]

What I notice is that the UFO actually appears to be a lot closer to the cameras than the Dome, and the approximate distance of the streetlight (?) at the bottom of the image. Curious.

But just to double check, I did the same thing with the images at the time of flash #2:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cb2f83125170.png[/atsimg]

Again, what you see is a flash coming from no specific point, such as the UFO. What you also see is that the UFO is once again relatively closer than it would appear to be in either individual video, and nowhere near the Dome. If you understand how objects are discerned in a stereo image (as more of you with 3-D TVs are discovering), then you can see the problem here, and why it's in the images themselves, and isn't something artificial that results from creating the stereo pair.

So, to me, that means that whoever created the videos didn't line the UFO up good enough to match placement over the Dome, so a stereo image of them places the UFO apparently closer to the cameras than it could have been without it being noticable in either individual image (i.e., if it was as close as the nearer streetlight, the flashes would clearly illuminate the side of the opposite hill, as well as the person in Video 1.).

But who would take the time to make sure the multiple images would withstand the scrutiny of a combined 3-D stereo creation? That would be low on their list (if there at all) of things to account for.

Of course, you may have a different opinion. This is just a bit of food for thought.

reply to post by DeboWilliams


Thanks for posting, but i still dont see it, what about this makes one a copy instead of a recording of the same sound

reply to post by Blue Shift


"Yea but it's not conclusive" is what your going to hear . or if your lucky, youll get my favorite "but UFO's with their advanced technology don't have to go by our laws of physics" .

But in all seriousness, yea I noticed the lights, especially the first one, doesnt iminate from the object AT all, in every video shown. But maybe, if ufos was real, we don't quite know exactly what physics are involved. Looks odd though

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by chunder
Just a quick point but in all of the analysis about the flash it is assumed that it is simply an optical light flash, a "natural light" I think as Zorgon put it.

It may not be as simple as that, there may be some x-ray component, some gravitational or further electro-magnetic element that results in effects not adhering to "natural light" behaviour.

Obviously a moot point if hoaxed anyway but calling a hoax because an extraordinary incident may cause extraordinary effects is a breakdown of logic.

MARVELOUS! Let's toss physics out the window too.

:shk:

edit on 5-2-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)

Then why do you bother posting here at all, because by the known laws of physics an object such as the one depicted could not possibly move like that so cannot possibly be there to even emit the light to start with.

By the very nature of what is being discussed we are at least admitting to an incomplete knowledge of physics in terms of propulsion, why can't that be extrapolated to light.