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

hey guys,

i shoot low-altitude aerial photography/videography from RC helicopters. one of the things we have to deal with is 'rolling shutter' effects causing jello-like waviness when using CMOS-based video cameras. CCD cams do not suffer from this effect. so if the heli isn't perfectly stabilized - things can seem 'wavy' and i wonder if that could explain some of the wavyness that you see in the vids...

I dunno....highly suspect I must say

reply to post by samureyed


Whoever posted that comment is wrong, and they don't understand parallax.

The wall should be connected to the ground. The ground should extend all the way out to the horizon. This means the horizon and the wall are ONE. If you rotate the camera to the left or right, the horizon line and the edge of the wall line should both rotate together, they should be locked together.

The only thing that should change is distance between the horizon and the edge of the wall. This changes when you move the camera up and down, and forward and backwards. The angle of the horizon and the edge of the wall should NEVER change. You can test this your self at home with a table, and the floor.

I will make a demonstration later since people don't understand.

obviously 2 guys standing in front of a screen.. the effect is pbviously CGI or clever video editing..

otherwise why are there only 2 videos?


duh...stop being gullible.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


I have definite proof that the example you posted IS NOT INDICATIVE of a composite video.

I come with proof:

I took the following video on my back patio with my IPhone cellphone. This version is completely unaltered, and straight from the phone. I tried to emulate the movement in the UFO video and demonstrate the approximate likeness to the original.



NOW. I took that SAME video, and using the SAME method previously shown and used to say the UFO video is composite, I stabilized the video. I think the results speak quite clearly for themselves.



Needless to say, I am NOT on a boat.

I think you can definitively take that "independently moving background" rubbish and throw it out. What you are seeing and describing as proof of a hoax is in fact just a by-product of attempting to stabilize a video and causing an optical illusion.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


I didn't post that to defend him, but it seemed like a reasonable argument against your video, at least one of the better ones that I have seen. I do understand what you are saying about parallax, and I agree the horizons should move together. With that said, do you know why they would be moving irregularly of each other? In other words, what method of hoaxing would produce this effect and why?

I am trying to figure out why, if hoaxed, would it be necessary to overlay two clips like this and not just use After Effects on one solid clip. I suppose there can only be assumptions to that question though.

reply to post by Hundroid


2nd guy taking video of 1st guy holding camera. witch is the second video coming from camera of the guy holding the camera. ah what the hell..its fake and i think we have other worries other than how and why it was faked. and besides if it was not faked it just proves that we know the truth is out there! Did I spell witch right?

(unless someone can show me this is normal).

I have taken this video a bit personally already as it did stun me (after the second video was added) and if it turns out to be a hoax I'll be really disappointed. Not because I myself need proof, but because I want others to get the proof they need to finally admit the phenomenon is real (again, I'm not necessarily pointing towards aliens flying these crafts, I'm pointing towards these crafts and technology to be completely real having observed them from very very close).

And just because I took this one personally, I think I can recreate the conditions of the video and am willing to do so, but we'll have to wait for at least 10-12 hours for me to be able to do this. And that's if Gift doesn't beat me to it and provide a referance video showing close to these conditions and proving it's not possible for such an anomaly to occur without having different layers of footage on top of each other.

Gift, as far as your arguement goes regarding the stereo sound in the video, are we sure the first video was taken by a phone or it might have been a video camera? It might have been discussed already somewhere throughout the thread so sorry if I missed it.

I still think that foreground objects tend to change angle according to the horizon because of being close, it does make sense, but we'll have to wait either for Gift's referance video, or the ones that I'm willing to make.

reply to post by Dramier


You completely don't understand the argument(s). What you show is normal parallax effects. The UFO video does NOT have normal parallax effects.

The UFO video's camera is shaking independently from the city lights. That is impossible. Look at your video... when you move the camera left, the background objects move left, they are linked. But in the UFO video, the city lights are moving and shaking around independently from the camera, that is impossible.

Also, the angle of the horizon and the angle of the wall should NOT be independent. They should BOTH be identical.

reply to post by csimon

Was a cool video and it's all over youtube.

If this actually happened...cameras can play tricks and so though impressive looking it might not have been real... IF it occurred we should be

a) seeing more photos/videos from different sources and camera angles and
b) hearing from other eye witnesses who saw it.

So far... it is a lot of copies of the one video out there.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


But that's just it. If the background in my video were further away, you would see -exactly- the same effect as in the UFO video. I believe the process of stabilizing the video is in fact creating the effect you are seeing. It is an optical illusion and not a true anomaly.

The background in my second video demonstrates the same motion effects that the stabilized ufo video does. It's not as pronounced because the background is not as distant, and I am closer in my video to the wall and moving more than the original was.

In fact, in the second video, look at the upper left hand corner light. It appears to be moving completely independently of the camera's view!

Originally posted by kroms33
We do not see video experts analyzing this footage - but rather people stating opinion. ...

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).

Agreed. I''m not buying the Hoax label...YET...

As far as an expert, I believe that David Biedny fits that bill extremely. Check out his bio if you don't already now about his extensive work. I wish he would do some further analysis of the video. So far all we have is...

Originally posted by davidbiedny
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

there's a new video on youtube

www.youtube.com...

(the "whoa" at the end when it flies off seems a little strange, almost sarcastic to me)

reply to post by samureyed


This is a hypothetical situation that caused the issues I have been pointing out;

On day one, the wall, the tree, and the man were filmed by camera... They ACT out their "omgs and wtfs", and move their cameras like they are filming a UFO go down then up, but in reality they are filming nothingness. They are looking into an empty sky, probably nowhere near Jerusalem. They could be in Los Angeles for all we know. Call this "video A".

On day two they found a separate video of Jerusalem's city lights at night from atop a hill. They used motion tracking to add a fake UFO, and animation, and lights, to the Jerusalem video. Call this "video B".

Day four they used a mask to cut out the sky/area around the wall, tree, and man in video A. Then they composited video B into the background of video A. They had to use motion tracking so video B moved with the camera shake of video A. They must have done a bad tracking job, so video B (the city lights) moved around independently from video A (the wall, tree, and man).

I believe they bad tracking was caused by the low levels of light available in video A. There is a lack of high contrast objects to choose from which is needed to track x and y coordinates in a video with motion and shake.

3rd Witness Video of UFO!!!

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


I understand the part about the independantly moving foreground and background and I will look into it.

However, the part about paralax... You say rotate, but does that count for when moving the camera sideways (i.e. left-right)? I think exactly then would it move in the manner we're seeing in your stabilized version of the video (horizontal movement, as shown in Damier's example).

Also, it's important to note that Damier's video isn't providing the same conditions in relation to distance, and distance is one major factor we shouldn't dismiss.

I hope you're not getting me wrong and thinking I'm grasping for straws to prove this is a genuine sighting and I'm against your points. I think we're on the same team, as I for one hate hoaxes and can't wrap my mind around the idea that someone would spend their time to use greenscreens and go through so much trouble to create a fake UFO video... But I think we're doing constructive discussion here and that's the correct way to dissect this case

Ok, enough chit-chat, time to go see what you meant when saying that horizon and foreground move independantly from each other.

None of you have proved or disproved this video...Looks staged to me.The guy in front is holding a cell phone camera up to it.Someone is behind Him with a camera which is slightly further away.It looks staged as if they knew what they where doing.So far we don't know and if we do not get congress to open up and investigate UFO cases and hoaxers and fraud we probably will never know who is hoaxing and who is telling the truth and what cases are real.Cannot tell for sure if it is real or a hoax with this evidence you guys have presented.
It is fun anyways to look at..Something has to give with this subject eventually,looks staged and probably is a hoax.

reply to post by AstroBuzz


OMFG! I KNEW MY GUT FEELING WASN'T LYING TO ME!!!

This is awesome...

I feel proud with myself that I continued defending this sighting lol...

I certainly hope I'm not jumping to conclusions too quickly, cause that could be a part of the hoax as well but... WTH?!?! I think it's time to check the timing in all three videos!

NOW I AM EXCITED!!!

p.s. I think you deserve a milion stars with your first post!!!

reply to post by Dramier


No the background in your video is not rotating independently. Instead of moving your camera up, down, left, right, trying rotating it like a car's steering wheel. The horizon, and the edge of the gate will always be aligned and move together. In the UFO video, the horizon and wall are not aligned and are moving separately. The horizon is actually rotating...

No, the stabilization is NOT causing anything... it was happening already in the video. In fact, the only reason I stabilized it is so you can see it better.

"you can almost hardly look at it"

(quote from third video)

Also, no flash whatsoever in this one.