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

reply to post by Mr Mask


Have you read my observations yet? I would like feedback on the perspectives I added, faulty hardware is a known problem causing these issues.

Also I thought there was more to your hoaxing declaration than personal opinion, I thought there was an official declaration? I figured someone of your stature would leave personal diagnosis at the door, present the facts right?

Originally posted by nrd101
reply to post by tarifa37

 

thats the first time i've seen that video. either this is totally real or a lot of money has gone into this hoax. Either way it is interesting to me because I know the truth, that some UFO's are extraterrestrial. So just to get this straight, this is a third video I've seen of this UFO encounter. Either its real . Or its HOLLYWOOD.

Actually, the clips have been mimicked very easily using very cheap programs already.

Here is a link to another semi-famous UFO hoax that also fooled thousands of people, including some UFOlogists that was created by a 10 year old and a 4 year old.

Children fool UFO researchers worldwide.

I personally have the technology at my finger tips to make this video, and so do many people here. It dosn't take Hollywood to make anything this primitive.

I am willing to bet if this was professional, it wouldn't be easily identifiable by containing poor perspective.

It probably took more work recording the sound and video than it took to add a moving light and an overlay foreground.

Heres an example of how easy it is to make incredibly advanced looking crap for nothing. The following video was made on 300 dollars by a few kids.



Now compare that with what you are now calling a professional Hollywood UFO piece.

Also, just for fun- here is something my friend made using a computer and a little time. In my opinion its a million years ahed of this UFO thing, and I can promise you he spent no money making it and isn't working for Hollywood...yet.


I can show you plenty of examples of kids making cool things cheap and easy. This UFO clip is not Hollywood.

MM

Originally posted by Mr Mask

Originally posted by Mclaneinc

Yes I accept presentation is everything in today's rather overly eye candied world (reading a book via a mini PC, jesus just read a bloody book) and I was not seeking any acclaim, it simply irked me that people had bothered to post a credible comment that stood up there and then yet people skip from the start of the thread to the back so quickly, failing to read the bits in between.

And then you have the core that refuse to believe a word unless a 'known' blurts it out.

I just wish people would read, digest, have a view of their own based upon what they have read and use some logic.

No red lines needed for that

Naw, I understand, don't get me wrong. You surly DID point out the very flaw that shows this to be a hoax. I can fully understand you being irked.

I just couldn't read 20+ pages of people hooting "this is real, this is real" with no evidence. I wish I did see your post earlier, but I didn't.

Yknow, honestly, I can't stop seeing the flawed perspective now that it has been pointed out, but before that it slipped past my eyes. I can see it also slipped past a lot of eyes in the world as well. I don't know why, but for whatever reason- you saw it easily and I did not.

So yeah...no hard feelings, but I really benefited from Mr Gif's presentation and I really think he did a great job.

But yes, you saw it without such help, and that should be applauded as well.

Hoaxers must be destroyed...they are the real enemy here...I assure you I do not blindly follow anyone based on track record or status.

Just remember, what you may easily see, can also be easily missed by others. Its not always stupidity that does that...but in my case...well...who knows?

MM

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

I called no one stupid, I just asked for common sense..

Anyway, despite my second reply I have no feud with you, I thought what you posted about the UFO hoax was just and correct and have stated so, I just don't like people jumping on the very same people looking to point out the exact same items we both detest.

Cheers

Paul...

Originally posted by Aziroth
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

Have you read my observations yet? I would like feedback on the perspectives I added, faulty hardware is a known problem causing these issues.

Also I thought there was more to your hoaxing declaration than personal opinion, I thought there was an official declaration? I figured someone of your stature would leave personal diagnosis at the door, present the facts right?

This is not opinion.

The horizon lines change and detach from the foreground creating a perspective that is not possible.

If this sounds wrong or you think I am going on a limb that is fine and understandable. Fact remains, the foreground detaches from the background and horizon and move independently free of each other, even when not "stabilized".

That is impossible.

For further understanding I offer this-

The Laws of Perspective

They are- (I've made bold those that prove this clip fake)

0. There is only one geometry of perspective projection onto a fixed picture plane.

1. All straight lines in space project to straight lines (or points, if end on) in the picture plane.

2. The projections of all lines that are parallel in space either remain parallel in the picture plane or intersect at a single vanishing point.

3. All sets of parallel lines lying within a specified plane in space have vanishing points that fall along the horizon line defined by the orientation of that plane.

4. For two sets of parallel lines at some angle in the scene, the two vanishing points form that same angle at the viewer's eye, regardless of the orientation of the angle in space. In particular, the vanishing points for any 90º angle in space form a 90º angle at the viewer's eye.

5. Any planar figure in space is foreshortened in the direction of its slant from the observer (up to a 45º viewing angle).

6. Circles in the scene, if foreshortened, project to ellipses in the picture plane.

7. For correct projection of its perspective, a picture should be viewed from its center of projection in space.

8. When the eye is at the center of projection, the perspective geometry in the picture plane is independent of where in the plane the eye is looking.

These are the standing laws of perspective as taught to me by my mentors (may they rest in peace)

MM

I like it, So tonight im gonna believe its real.. tomorrow i'll take another look at it. :-)

What about this angle?


www.youtube.com...

Also ( forgive me so busy tonight and so many pages to read) did the military or any amature capture anything and report it ?

Originally posted by woodward
What about this angle?


www.youtube.com...

Awesome !! but where was the flash? hmmm

Well, hate to say it but this is legit. Along with the HD footage of the fellow accompanying him, some tourists AT the temple mount caught some close up footage of the UFO. No #e.

Please review the following video for further speculation: www.youtube.com...

reply to post by DakmindAK


Actually that clip shows no movement in the city, no lights move, nothing reflects or brightens from the UFO arriving (still picture).

You would think a giant golden dome would reflect some sort of huge bright light...no?

Yeah, face it, there are folks trying to get Youtube hits.

MM

reply to post by DakmindAK


1. Where are the bright flashes?

2. Why is everyone so nonchalant?

reply to post by Mr Mask



Its a digital rendering of a material field, the CMOS systems when they start to deteriorate present problems of this nature. The CMOS when deteriorating can cause RAM issues specifically in image sensors, the lag in the RAM can cause the image processor to not reassemble the image as we would naturally see it, consistently for many frames. Older phones and small camcorders the photo cells use sCMOS systems, integrated CCD/CMOS systems, and when the circuitry starts to fail it lags out the electrical interpretations of the light readings.

Not that this has to be the case because no one can inspect the cameras in question, it can never be confirmed, but it does present a reasonable level of doubt. I am trying to give those who have spent significant time presenting evidence for the positive credibility of this video a helpful hand, I do not consider either side to have a truly logical factual argument, that is to say something with a conclusion that is undeniable.

The issues with the inconsistent perspectives can be caused by hardware failure I have seen it happen, even in well built (arguably) military digital cameras, and can cause reasonable doubt on the validity of the premises for the hoaxing conclusion.

Originally posted by DakmindAK
Well, hate to say it but this is legit. Along with the HD footage of the fellow accompanying him, some tourists AT the temple mount caught some close up footage of the UFO. No #e.

Please review the following video for further speculation: www.youtube.com...

Sadly that footage is as fake as the others, at no point in that video do you see anything either move or blink, we have a supposed set of Americans behind the camera but listen to that appalling chatter "is that a UFO laugh laugh laugh" please......

The point about the lack of movement being that at night you would have seen at least a light blink, a car headlight, people walking about (as we are lead to believe how busy it is) but there's no movement. Also the lights should show some change in the lens flares when focused on, but there's none.

This is merely a still image being After effected ie faked

Edit: Just as the others say above my post which hit as I was typing this

Well you all are entitled to the arguments which you so vehemently defend, so I'm not here to try and sway your opinions in either which way. You have 3 pieces of footage, maybe some more might surface in the near future. I, for one, suggest you do some digital analyzing on this particular piece of footage for artifacts around the objects. You might be surprised.

But, alas, no amount of footage will amount to anything to those who stand so close mindedly by their arguments. Only time will tell. We know they're here, but only time will tell, and then what will you say when they show?

reply to post by Aziroth


Hi there, I read your technical breakdown and it makes sense, very good sense and I acknowledge your reason for posting it and it can over ride what people have said but with the full set of other facts I think it's safe to call this a hoax as shown with other points such as the use of static pictures, the lack of movement or change of lighting in a busy area, the rather poor choice of not to light up the area from the flashes in the 3rd video and the more basic fact that apart from here and other forums there's no news reaction on their media about this.

Something as symbolic as this would have been front page everywhere.

reply to post by Mclaneinc


I heard what I think is Japanese in the 3rd video (certainly Asian) right before the 'take off'... let's hope they also had their cameras out (not wanting to stereotype but if they also have a similar angle it may shed more light).

And, speaking of light, I agree that there should be a flash evident in this third, close up video.

Has it been discussed that in the second video there is an additional flash prior to the only flash caught by the first video released?

There are plenty of similarities but alsoanomolies with this footage so I have to hold conclusion, even with 3 videos, and possibly speculate that this is a viral ad for an upcoming movie, much like the cologne airport ad.

reply to post by Mr Mask


Also I wrote this in the first post:

"All throughout the video the background buildings have airplane hazard lights flashing, they are seemingly at set intervals as real hazard lights would be. The two videos show the same rooftop hazard beacons and they seemingly flash at the same intervals in both videos. Of course it could be faked with enough time and effort, anything can."

The video that shows the original two perspectives is here
Combined video

Both of the videos show the airplane hazard lights in the background, which would indicate that it is a real background and further give credit to the failing CMOS/ sCMOS conclusion. It also shows at the end the two differing observations of the lights in the sky and their color differences, the two evidences, blinking lights in background, and failing CMOS, together are fairly complimenting pieces.

reply to post by DakmindAK


Hi there, I'm a believer but this whole set of video's smell rotten of fakery and as much as I believe in the phenomenon I have to look at everything actually with an open mind. I think digital analysis of this would only pour more scorn on it.

Video two is for me a clearly zoomed in version of video one minus the guy on the camera, the lights are all out of focus. Video 3 is just awful, the banter from the people is daft, the image has zero movement despite so many people being out and around, the maker obviously could not find a way to fake the two flashes the other video's show and the speed the item leaves looks slower than the far away video's which cannot be right as we have a tighter vision of it so it should almost be an instant gone.

Add to the lack of news and it really comes off as a poor grade stunt in MY opinion..

Originally posted by Mclaneinc
reply to post by Aziroth

 

Something as symbolic as this would have been front page everywhere.

Ah yes well it would appear so, it would make cense that more videos would be posted and give more credibility to this puzzle either way. However there is a trend in Israel of censorship, the government is not without precedence of covering up many heavy headliners for extreme amounts of time. It is a possibility that these individuals, though may be Israeli citizens, could have come to the US and decided to present their videos here. Not that this would have been their sole reason for coming here, however being here might have given them the idea to present it.

reply to post by Pr0t0


Hi Proto, I'm not even sure the quality is good enough for a viral advert, there's just so many for my liking but I wasn't there and could be completely wrong (but I like others seriously doubt it)