It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 31
167
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ahmose



Dramier already has multiple times..
but just choose which posts to read and which to not read, of course.


Actually, no he didn't. He showed wavyness. His background did not, and could not, move independently of the foreground.

Now I can tell that "you" think he achieved the exact same thing as "the background moving independently from the foreground", but I can assure you that is not what he achieved, and he himself has declared that.

He has shown that stabilizing the film causes wavey-ness.

Nowhere in his clip did his background detach from perspective and move independently from the foreground. In fact, if it did, it would be reason to assume he faked his video as well...but he didn't, and for that reason the background and foreground remained perspectively intact- just "wavey and distorted".

I may not know about video effects and editing...but I can assure you I know about perspective (i've studied it my whole life actually). And Dram's backyard vid DID NOT break those laws as the UFO clip plainly and clearly did.

You can even SEE it doing so in the original "unstabilized" clip we are all disscussing now that it has been pointed out. You can CLEARLY see the tree, wall and man moving detached from the rest of the background, independently if you look for it.

This, along with many other things, proves to me it is fake. UNLESS you can show me my understanding of the physical laws of perspective somehow fall apart at the seams as soon as you record a skyline on a cell phone.

Is that clear to you?

Perhaps it is "you" who is selectivly seeing/reading things you "hope for".

Not I.




got a little somethin' on your nose there....
and it's not the mask...


Could it be a rude little fly buzzing in my face, talking about something he thinks is relevant to the fact that the background moves independently from the foreground, but actually is not?

Or maybe it is just wrinkles from laughing?

MM


edit on 31-1-2011 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Dramier
 


Just watch the original video... draw an imaginary line on the horizon, and on the brick wall. You will see they are both moving independently without any stabilization. The only reason I did stabilization was because I knew it would be easier for people to see the issue.

Stabilization does NOT change any elements inside the video. All it does is move the images up, down, left, right, and rotates it every single frame so that certain elements appear stationary. All the movement you see is actually in the video... you just have be a good observer to see it. Don't be distracted by the UFO.
edit on 31-1-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: typos lol



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   
I'm thinking if not real then this is going to be a Viral for a film.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by metalshredmetal
 


Sure does my friend \w/ \w/

Went to see them last month (sorry to go offtopic) lol



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by Dramier
 


Just watch the original video... draw an imaginary line on the horizon, and on the brick wall. You will see they are both moving interdependently without any stabilization.


Indeed. I pointed it out to my friend and he and I can't "stop" seeing now.

Once you know the foreground is detached from the background, and actually look for it, you can not ignore it. It is very apparent when you watch the original once it has been pointed out to you.

Go ahead, try it yourself. Look at the tree (that is what jumps out the most due to its size and length along the skyline) and the wall while watching the unstabilized original.

It is debunked and clearly altered, breaking the laws of physics for all to see.

Thank you Hoaxkiller...I salute your work and think you are a hero sir.



MM
edit on 31-1-2011 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
I finally got around to stabilizing the second view:

-sorry it got stretched-



Look at how much the UFO bounces around in the beginning. The video loops one time, and I added red lines on the second loop for reference so you can see how much the UFO is bouncing around. I think the bouncing is caused by motion tracking flaws. I highly doubt the camera sucks that much to distort the UFO to that extreme.

After studying the video, I think they went overboard on the lens effects. The shake, the ripples, the zoom, all of it seems to be added for effect, it is just too much. If it is not effect, then the camera they used is the worst camera EVER.
edit on 31-1-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


LOL, thanks.

Yes, I can't stop seeing it either. My eyes seem to jump to the brightest light that exist between the tree and the man, right above the wall. If you keep your eyes on that, you can see some funky movement that does not look natural at all to me.

Thanks again for the support.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Another thing, people keep saying this must be an expensive and huge effort if its a hoax.

Fact is, you can do this in ten minutes with a cheap Mac-mini and a downloaded/pirated program and in the end spend nothing but 500 bucks for the computer.

There has been plenty of larger hoaxes perpetrated on grander scales- costing considerably less.

MM



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by Dramier
 


Just watch the original video... draw an imaginary line on the horizon, and on the brick wall. You will see they are both moving independently without any stabilization. The only reason I did stabilization was because I knew it would be easier for people to see the issue.

Stabilization does NOT change any elements inside the video. All it does is move the images up, down, left, right, and rotates it every single frame so that certain elements appear stationary. All the movement you see is actually in the video... you just have be a good observer to see it. Don't be distracted by the UFO.
edit on 31-1-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: typos lol


For the record, I believe you have nailed it. The reason I ask for demonstration on the original is that it completely eliminates any further argument about it from anybody else. It's the proverbial iceberg for the titanic hoax. I personally am satisfied between your work and my own experiments that you are absolutely correct.
As you and I both know, those who haven't or can't experiment with it for whatever reason though would appreciate the visible evidence to be able to understand.

I'm of the opinion that if you can debunk something, you should demonstrate it so that all can understand even if they don't have backgrounds or Ph.D's if you understand what I'm getting at.

99% of the time I lurk on here and don't post much because most of the videos I see are plainly hoaxes or normal things or otherwise easily explainable. Whenever one like this though shows up that isn't readily apparent, I think it's important for those of us with the knowledge, skill, background, experience or just plain luck to do our best to educate. Of course, the converse is the hoaxers just get that much better... lol.

Hats off Gift, superb work. This was a great learning experience for myself and I hope a good exercise for yourself as well.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
I finally got around to stabilizing the second view:

-sorry it got stretched-

Look at how much the UFO bounces around in the beginning. The video loops once and I added red lines on the second loop for reference so you can see how much the UFO is bouncing around. I think the bouncing is caused by motion tracking flaws. I highly doubt the camera sucks that much to distort the UFO to that extreme.

After studying the video, I think they went overboard on the lens effects. The shake, the ripples, the zoom, all of it seems to be added for effect, it is just too much. If it is not effect, then the camera they used is the worst camera EVER.
edit on 31-1-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)


Excellent. That is just icing on the cake.

If the UFO bounce were attributed to poor glass, it would display uniformly across the board and the lights of the city would have been bouncing too. I think that pretty much sums it up.

After this project, I simply have to get AE on my desktop again, my laptop just isn't fast enough to do the editing and suffers from a small 16" screen. My desktop's 22" widescreen couple with the SLi'd cards is absolutely a beast for this kind of work. But anyway, awesome job. Thanks for all of your diligent work and patience.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by tarifa37
 


Well this video says it all... bad acting, poor effect on great lighting, I will call it a viral video as you said.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   
This thread is about to find the hoax bin, and you Mr Gif (and Mr Dram) should both be applauded for all your work here.

I hope you both don't mind but I have added you as friends. Don't worry, you can tell the public you are a victim of my free right to click your name.

THIS is what ATS is about.

Sweet...that is two mysteries solved in two weeks by ATS that I got a front row seat at watching it figured out.

You people amaze me every time.

AND TO THE HOAXERS WHO MADE THIS PEICE OF GARBAGE-

YOU SUCK AT FOOLING PEOPLE!

But I'm sure you got the hits (and will get more) that you so dishonestly sought.

MM



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Jesus, this thread is still going!!

About page 6 a load of us inc me proved the video a fake simply based on the added guy on the phone but still 30 pages later its still rumbling. It grieves me that people will only accept the truth if certain people post it, that makes a mockery of the forum.

The whole point is that if someone shows you without any doubt that something is wrong then use your bloody common sense to see it, if you need hand fed by 'known' over something so obvious then it really says something about the readership of the forum.

As you can see I'm no fan of 'cliques' or blind followers.

Use you brain, its not there just to keep your ears apart!



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   


good job debunking. i was all sorts of hopeful for this one. the good news is that we have people here with the technical knowledge to spot even decent fakes. S&F to the debunkers.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


You are right, it's not really a huge effort at all... All it takes is a few minutes of filming and acting, a maybe an hour or two of editing.

Check out what this guy did to the video:



A little more time and effort and he could match it 100%.


reply to post by Dramier
 



Thanks...

edit on 31-1-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   
3rd video looks faked.

Someone going out of their way to try and dis-credit the other 2 videos.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Mclaneinc
 


Yes sir, checking your history in this thread you also are to be applauded for pointing out the problems with the added man jumping around.

But in defense of everyone who did work towards proving this, your post didn't have all the nifty videos showing this with red lines and stuff...lol.

Its not "who" presents the info by the way...its how it is presented.

You were right in calling this a hoax, like many others, and you even went so far as to be absolutely correct in pointing out where the flaws in the vid were. So- GOOD EYE AND GOOD JOB!

But really...no reason to blame anyone for missing your post. After all, is over 30 pages of most people blindly accepting this or screaming "best footage ever!".

I didn't see your post myself, and if I did I would have agreed with your analysis...cus as a few have already said- once you "see" it, you can't ignore it.

Thank you sir. I tip my Mask to you and declare you a Hero as well.

Sorry I didn't read your post earlier. Would have saved me a lot of waiting. But truth be told, the wait was worth the watch.


MM



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Third video?


edit on 31-1-2011 by treesdancing because: Apologies - I see that this has already been posted.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Looks like a poor viral scheme or a flat out hoax involving several individuals. I wonder if they got paid. All of the videos exhibit poor quality effects and digital movement. That last video with the crowd in the background was the nail in the coffin for this being a hoax. The poor acting, even lower quality effects, etc.. Thanks to the people who made all of this technically clear. I can see all of these flaws clearly as an artist, but I don't have the technical know how to show it to others. Thanks to the people who can and did do it.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


Yeah, I saw that one a few hours ago when I was searching for source clips. I didn't mention it cus I knew people would say (rightfully) that hoaxing something doesn't prove that something a hoax.

But I did see you posted in that youtube comments section and figured if it was going to be posted here, it probably would be by you.

Really sir, big fan. Keep punching hoaxers in the nose.

MM



new topics

top topics



 
167
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join