"UFO Over Temple Mount in Jerusalem" [discussion and analysis of multiple videos HERE]

Just a quick note to those willing to dismiss this because of the stabilization point:

This is nighttime footage, heavily compressed JPEG. Doing a stabilization pass - motion tracking with After Effects, I'll presume, though I don't think the poster was specific, please correct me if I'm wrong - on this kind of footage, is one note short of silly. If I'm supposed to come to the conclusion that we're looking at a comp consisting of a blue or greenscreen shot of the guy standing in front of the wall, with the city composited into the background, and the whole thing motion locked for the camera tilt up, well, sorry, I don't buy it.

dB

Originally posted by ch1n1t0
OK, I've done some thinking (I suppose

) and I think I have an explanation about the moving tree and wall according to the horizon.

Please, do excuse me if I am not correct as I'm no pro, however, I think I might make a good point about this.

First, the horizon is far away. Second, the wall and tree are quite closer to the camera taking the footage. When one moves the camera a bit, there will be much more movement noticed in regards to objects closer to the camera, rather than movement in the stuff in the distance.

Think about it like traveling in a car, the objects closest to you will seem to move faster, and objects in the distance will seem like staying still or moving very slowly. I think this is the case we're seeing here.

I hope I've put this with the correct words so you guys would understand what I mean...

I could be wrong but it sounds logical to me and I think we're a bit in a rush to throw this into the hoax bin. (and I said I'm no expert so I'm waiting for the experts to elaborate my theory)

edit on 30-1-2011 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)

I was thinking the same thing only it's too late for me to try to put much into words at this point. You may be onto something though.

I find it quite entertaining that the skeptical minds wish to close the door on this case as quickly as they can.

Why wasn't the same "tracking" method applied to the 2nd video?

There were two videos shot - why is only one being analyzed? I don't care if you all think it was shot focused on a TV or not - why isn't the second video also being used to conclude your case?

Unfortunately I am in the middle of a PC rebuild - otherwise I would have Adobe AE loaded up so I could examine this footage myself.

In a few days I will be fully functional - but this does not help the 'believers' case.

Also - I don't think anyone can come to any conclusions without the RAW data of the ORIGINAL footage.

Right now, your just selling snake oil... with a 25% discount. For people trying to be so scientific about an investigation - you are anything but. Where are the A and B groups? What functions of your video analysis can you ascertain as truth, or are you all just placing theories amongst us?

The pseudo sciences of the debunkers is becoming quite entertaining.

They don't appear at all to be the same brightness. Logically, were I faking this video, I would copy the light from each frame, thus making it "twinkle" naturally and then offset it by a few frames so it didn't match the cloned source. I'm assuming this is the technique you have in mind. With that technique, I would expect to see some pixelation around the "UFO" at some point or even a "looped" effect, since most people particularly hoaxers, are too lazy to actually sample a complete copy for the duration of the video. They either spent far more time on making the cloned light appear random than I give them credit for, or it's not cloned in that manner. What do you think?

I made this video to prove that this could be done with editing software.I took one of the lights from the scene added some twinkle and simply tracked the existing UFO in the scene and landed mine on top of the light the original UFO could have been copied from.
I could have done just about anything with my UFO in the scene.Including making it larger,smaller and move anywhere, but I just wanted to show you guys it's not that difficult to add a point of light to such a scene.
No pixelation.
No "looped" effect.
Just good times

Originally posted by FlySolo


Man, I posted that clip before Gift, and someone else posted that link before me and someone else from yt by the name of Hoaxkiller stabilized the video. Credit goes to Hoaxkiller, it only took reposting the same info several times for people to finally take notice.

My mistake than! I missed a few pages in here (skipped ahead to read the end). My humble apologies go out to Hoaxkiller if he was the one providing the debunking.

I salute him and thank him deeply for taking the time to work on this event.

Wherever you are sir Hoaxkiller, I tip my Mask and thank you dearly.

MM

You guys wont think it's a hoax once they beam you on board and start fattening you up for the dinner plate.

Then it will be...too late.

reply to post by Mr Mask


thank you for your reply mr mask
both have red lights (one flashing)
both filmed from more than one location
both dropped illuminated objects
both sets of lights that dropped the object "moved as if connected"
both within a few days of each other

the wall and tree issiue is strange but i have seen image stabilized artifacts from the stabilization process
at this stage there are too many things in common to claim hoax out of hand.

i think the us footage lends credability to the other footage
and a copy cat hoax would be a first that i have heard off but possable

thank you mr mask
xploder

Sorry missed the earlier post, my bad.

Originally posted by kroms33
I find it quite entertaining that the skeptical minds wish to close the door on this case as quickly as they can.

Sir, with all due respect-

1) I want nothing more than this case to remain open and for it to gain more attention from people skilled enough to prove or discredit it.

2) I believe in UFOs and find the labeling of people as "skeptic" to be sly and silly.

3) I still see no reason for the background to be moving independently from the foreground. If this clip is proven to be fake (and it seems to be quickly going that road) than there is no reason to further examine the 2nd clip. But I see no harm in continuing to look at both.

4) We have two clips, from two people, standing less then 10 feet apart from each other. If clip 1 proves to be fake, than clip two is also fake. Unless you argue that the first guy was jealous of the guy who filmed the 2nd clip and went home to build one himself?

Like I said...I need to see proof that a back ground can remain stationary while the foreground bounces around.

Show me that, and I'll slide closer to the side of the fence that allows this to be possibly legit.

MM

reply to post by davidbiedny


Similar experience here. If the video is real (right now, I find the 2nd cooberating video to be very convincing) the velocity, lack of sonic boom, and reactions of the individuals doesn't surprise me at all. 18 years ago, from a hill about a mile distant, I observed a very bright light near what was then the tallest skyscraper in our city. I automatically assumed it to be a helicopter. As I watched, waiting for it to continue its movement toward us, believing it was a news helicopter, it eventually occurred to me that the light wasn't moving, it was perfectly stationary. No sooner did I have this realization, than the light then sped off into the sky at about a 60 degree angle, from that stationary point, moving at least with the velocity of the object shown in this video, and was gone. Just gone. Rather than reacting with any surprise, my silent response was more down the line of, "Hmmm, wow, I wasn't expecting that." My husband was with me and instead of grabbing his arm and excitedly jumping up and down and yelling, "Hey, did you see that!!!!" I sat there absorbing what had happened as my mind rapidly clicked away all the things it could not have been based on the particulars of the event--how there had been no acceleration, it had left no trail, that there had been no accompanying sound, that the intensity of the light had appeared to never vary. After a few seconds, I calmly announced, "I believe I just saw a UFO." My husband, whose attention had been on the intersection (he was driving, we were resting at a stop light when this happened) had seen nothing. It was early evening and I was on my way to work, where I wouldn't have the opportunity to watch the news for any snickering reports about a UFO, but here was nothing on the news about it in the days following, at least from what I saw. However, I didn't call any of the news stations to report what I'd observed.

reply to post by Mr Mask


Mr. Mask, I would like to hear your opinion on my amateurish debunking of the debunking of this video (refer to this post www.abovetopsecret.com...). You said you wanted someone to provide explanation for the movement of the wall and tree according to the horizon.. Now the ball is in your court, I'm really curious if I'm onto something with my logic

Respect!

Originally posted by flyingfish

They don't appear at all to be the same brightness. Logically, were I faking this video, I would copy the light from each frame, thus making it "twinkle" naturally and then offset it by a few frames so it didn't match the cloned source. I'm assuming this is the technique you have in mind. With that technique, I would expect to see some pixelation around the "UFO" at some point or even a "looped" effect, since most people particularly hoaxers, are too lazy to actually sample a complete copy for the duration of the video. They either spent far more time on making the cloned light appear random than I give them credit for, or it's not cloned in that manner. What do you think?

I made this video to prove that this could be done with editing software.I took one of the lights from the scene added some twinkle and simply tracked the existing UFO in the scene and landed mine on top of the light the original UFO could have been copied from.
I could have done just about anything with my UFO in the scene.Including making it larger,smaller and move anywhere, but I just wanted to show you guys it's not that difficult to add a point of light to such a scene.
No pixelation.
No "looped" effect.
Just good times

Oh come on now. You're using logic that's as pitiful as that used on Fact or Faked. Just because you CAN make a hoax that looks identical to a video does not make it fake.

I don't think anyone on here doubts for a second that this video could easily be faked. It is of zero use to make or modify this video to prove it can be done. We all KNOW it CAN be done.

The point here is WAS it faked? Not CAN it be?

I suppose then since SNL was able to have Tina Fey portray Sarah Palin so well that the real Sarah Palin must be therefore, fake? That's where your logic leads.

I have been analyzing the video in AE CS4 and PS CS4 x64 and so far I've got nothing concrete that points to clearly fake. I've also analyzed and compared the audio using Cool Edit Pro and Audacity and found nothing there either that reveals a hoax.

In short, so far I'm unable to produce evidence that this is fake. The parallax mentioned above I am strongly coming to suspect is not a result of composite editing but an optical effect created by stabilizing video of low quality and high compression.

Unfortunately, I'm not up to speed on using AE CS4, so I've been experimenting with video shot from my IPhone to reproduce the parallax anomaly described by GiftofProphecy. It will probably take me a few days to iron the issues out and submit what I find.

Originally posted by PSSZZZ

These events are occuring because of cern lhc. You all have no idea how destructive to our solar system, the milky way galaxy and beyond that particle physics experimentation really is and what can happen.

Sorry but what's happening at CERN is really quite harmless. In fact, there are much, much more violent particle collisions that happen within our atmosphere every day. The LHC is a pea shooter in comparison to what mother nature is capable of.

Originally posted by XPLodER
thank you for your reply mr mask

No problem. But I'm just a bystander watching minds debunk or prove this event. Nothing more.

both have red lights (one flashing)

The Utah ones fly over heard as solid red lights and move together. That is unlike the clip in this thread, where they flash all over the place instead.

both filmed from more than one location

The clips in this thread were filmed in the same location by two men standing close together. There are no witnesses outside that "pair". Unlike in Utah where witnesses were unknown to each other and not together.

both dropped illuminated objects

The solid light in this thread's clips is not dropped by red lights. It descends from darkness and then flies up. Only after that do the lights appear.

The case in Utah explains that the lights flew along a path and then dropped a burning object. The light never flew back up nor did the red lights flash all over the sky.

So in Utah everything appears to behave like terrestrial aircraft dropping "something"

But in these clips we have a light descend, then hoover, then move at incredibly speeds upward as red lights appear to blink all over the sky.

IMHO, both events have very much to separate them apart. But I do see why anyone could connect the two events.

both sets of lights that dropped the object "moved as if connected"

Again, the clip within this thread dosn't show any lights dropping anything.

The clip from Utah does.

both within a few days of each other

With the one in Utah being "first" and the one in Jerusalem thus far showing a foreground and background discrepancy/anomaly.

One has multiple witnesses unrelated in relation to each other, in a semi unpopulated area.

One has only two witnesses, both standing next to each other, in a crowded city of over 774,000 people, with nobody seeing the light directly over one of the most famous and most visited landmarks.

the wall and tree issiue is strange but i have seen image stabilized artifacts from the stabilization process
at this stage there are too many things in common to claim hoax out of hand.

I will enjoy seeing this effect proven to exist as a normal camera effect or byproduct of lighting. I would also love to see this clip be proven true.

i think the us footage lends credability to the other footage

I do not. But I've been wrong before. See my humiliating display of "me being wrong" in the VX/Dugway-Base-lockdown thread for an example of how wrong I can easily be.
Mask is big time wrong HERE

and a copy cat hoax would be a first that i have heard off but possable

There are countless cases of copy cat hoaxes in conspiracy, with hoaxers feeding off each other or mimicking/exploiting prior unexplained events.

thank you mr mask

You are very welcome. But it would be better to thank those actively working to investigate this event. I am simply recording the event and watching it unfold from the safety of my desk.

Those working towards proving or disproving (you included) are far more important individuals here than me.

PS- Good call on bringing the Utah event to the table here. I liked that.

Salute.

MM

I think at this point whether this video is authentic or not, we can agree that in light of the stabilizing findings, this clip is trashed. Ufologists can never use it, debunkers would have a field day with it, and too many questions would come out of it.

just my2cents

reply to post by Mr Mask


I am HOAXKiller1. I stabilized the videos. Thanks for your support.



Some issues people are mentioning...

1: In my second stabilization I used motion tracking to track two lights on either side of the horizon so that the horizon is stationary. Since the horizon passes through the mans head, and the man's head is very close to the center of the view, it appears the man's upper body is stationary, but it's not. The man's head is near the pivot point for everything else. The man's lower legs are moving exactly with the brick wall.

The brick wall, the man, and the tree are all one layer, and move together. The city lights and sky are another layer, which was composited into the background. This was most likely not even filmed in Jerusalem.

2: My first post on this topic with my first stabilization talks about PARALLAX. Objects further away move slower than objects closer to the camera. In my first stabilization video I pointed out that the horizon is moving faster than the wall and tree. This is a major issue. The horizon should move with the camera... but it moves independently from the camera. That is not possible.

3: My second video stabilizes the horizon (which was moving the fastest in the original video), and that makes it easier to see the angle changes between the horizon and the edge of the wall. If the wall is truly attached to the same ground as the horizon, no matter what rotational movements the camera makes, the angles should always be exactly identical and locked together.

The only thing that should change is the distance between the horizon and the wall edge, the angles should NOT change. You can test that with a table, and the floor, in your house. I will make a demonstration video.

4: I am in the process of analyzing the second video. So far, there is more proof of it being a hoax from the second video.

a- The first light flash is NOT synchronized with the both videos.
b- The first light flash on the second does NOT fill the entire screen like the first video. In fact, the light only shows on the very left edge of the second video. In other words the look of the first flash is not the same in both videos.
c- If you listen to the sound of the second video with headphones, you will hear STEREO sound. The camera mans voice is more dominant in one of the headphones. Cell phones do NOT record stereo sound. Only mono. d- You can also hear the sound of fuzz and noise drop in and drop out when the voice clips are played... This to me shows that the voice sound effects might have been added in after, and they didn't do a good job blending the sound clips together.

5: If you listen to the background noise, it sounds like there is a major highway and many vehicles passing (at 1am mind you). Someone needs to check if there is a major highway overlooking Jerusalem. I doubt there is. I think the highway noise was recorded wherever they recorded the wall, man, and video scene. And the view point over looking Jerusalem might not even be near a highway.

I'll be back.

I cant buy the video analysis of the horizons moving until I hear a detailed explanation of why this video is doing it, not just "its a hoax because it's doing this".

I hate to quote Youtube, but I have seen a few people defending the video with arguments such as...

"This guy is Dead Wrong. Knowing how to use 2D image stabilization software does not mean you know what your talking about when it comes to 3D space.

The wall is at an angle from the point of view(aka your camera) thus making any movement by the camera change the relationship between the horizon & the walls lines.

These objects he is comparing are 3D objects, not 2D height maps... If they were then he would be right, but there not. I have been programming 3D stuff sense I was 16."

Sooo.. If this IS a hoax, why are the horizons moving strangely.

We have all seen already how easily After Effects can add a moving dot of light. So what was the purpose of green screening, overlaying multiple video clips or whatever else was done to create this moving horizon anomaly? Seems all a bit unnecessary when you think about it....

reply to post by Dramier


You're accusing me of using logic now that's funny.
There are those who think editing this UFO into the video could not be possible without certain anomalies showing up.I just wanted to clear that up.
I have uploaded video from my cell phone into my program to see if I can reproduce this so called compression difference going on with the foreground and background.I got to tell you all not getting the background to move independent not even close.
In any event I will add a UFO in my cell phone video complete with flash.
I will post tomorrow, it's going to take some time.

Originally posted by ch1n1t0
Mr. Mask, you're a cool guy

There's a hoax easy to debunk...but lets move on.

do you so, find any logic in my line of thought?

Not being a video expert, it seems "to be a reasonable line of thinking". But I still need to see this effect happe in videos of proven real events. But it is surly worth considering to me.

Experts, please elaborate as well, I for one want this to be completely figured out, so if I'm mistaking, please, someone explain to me, cause it's getting on my nerves already...

I agree. I will continue to watch this event unfold and see what comes of it. Its a nice little set of instances worthy of real debunking.

If it withstands ATS and all the debunkers of the world. Then I'll be pretty pleased.

Sadly, I think the clip of this thread looks fake, the people act fake, and the light looks cloned/added. The moving background/foreground is also enough to make me see a hoax here thus far (unless someone can show me this is normal).

There is a lot of other reasons I am thinking this is a hoax, but they have been mentioned here by others and myself already.

MM

Originally posted by Mr Mask

Sir, with all due respect-

1) I want nothing more than this case to remain open and for it to gain more attention from people skilled enough to prove or discredit it.

2) I believe in UFOs and find the labeling of people as "skeptic" to be sly and silly.

There is nothing sly in the notion that skeptics exist - they do. I am skeptical of various UFO footage, thus at times I am skeptical - but to say that the labeling of people as being skeptics is sly and sillly is not logical at all. You see, there are the die hard skeptics (who find any excuse to debunk), and there are the believers that are skeptical - there is a difference.
Also, to avoid the generalization of being a skeptic – don't automatically embrace the first theoretical instance that 'debunks' the event in question.

3) I still see no reason for the background to be moving independently from the foreground. If this clip is proven to be fake (and it seems to be quickly going that road) than there is no reason to further examine the 2nd clip. But I see no harm in continuing to look at both.

Again - that is completely illogical. In science, that makes absolutely no sense. If you discount one record you would automatically discount the second? What kind of flawed logic is that?
No - if this were applied with scientific methods both clips would be completely under review. We do not see video experts analyzing this footage - but rather people stating opinion. I am in contact with a 3D artist/computer programmer about this footage - and this is what he wrote about the red parallel lines when talking about the scenery:
"Dude who ever posted that video is a moron. What he says about the two parallel lines is totally wrong & goes to show he rly doesn't know what he is talking about.
The brick wall(its not a 2D object) is at an angle in relation to the camera thus making any horizontal or vertical moment from the camera(3D view point) change the relationship between the wall & horizon."
That is exactly what he wrote on the youtube vid link.

Hmmm - quite a different perspective now isn't it?

I am also in contact with the OP of the video and trying to get the raw data from both sources. If you, or anyone else was really interested in finding the truth about this matter - you would have done what I am currently doing - contacting people... but alas, this does not seem to be the case.

4) We have two clips, from two people, standing less then 10 feet apart from each other. If clip 1 proves to be fake, than clip two is also fake. Unless you argue that the first guy was jealous of the guy who filmed the 2nd clip and went home to build one himself?

Wow, good for you - it sounds like you know absolutely nothing about video effects packages and how they work. Seriously - you should have thought about posting #4. So, you suppose that the guy got jealous and went home and made his own video? What about the synchronicity of the event? Computer graphics is an art - and not everyone can just pick up some software and be able to create these effects on two different cameras with ease. So to suppose (with not even theoretical speculation) that the second individual did this without reference to the original material is just plain bunk.

As it stands – this video is still in the unknown category because the only people speculating on it are amateurs with no qualifying video credentials. (Not just an amateur? Step forward - with credentials verified by ATS staff).

Like I said...I need to see proof that a back ground can remain stationary while the foreground bounces around.

Show me that, and I'll slide closer to the side of the fence that allows this to be possibly legit.

MM

Working on it... although – you should do some ground work too, instead of automatically embracing others claims as factual without any scientific medium to contribute.