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: 38
167
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufoeyes
Every detail is the same.

It's a shot of a city... what details would you expect to be different?




posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I would simply consider it nearly impossible for something like this to actually take place,whether caught on film or not, without just about everyone in the city seeing it, and there being a huge number of reports from the ground.
Common sense alone tells me that these videos have to be fakes.
It simply could not happen without a bazzilion other people seeing it. Especially since the object drops right down over the lit up city then zips away at light speed.Come on. No way Jose.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
It's a shot of a city... what details would you expect to be different?

Different lens flare, certain lights being out of view due to a slightly different angle, some lights being off due to different time. The third video is quite easily identified as a fake, probably riding on the tails of the first in order to get visits to some site. We should focus on the first two videos and try and ignore the faked third video.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by gmax111
Im guessing its caused by low lux pixel tracking..You obviously know nothing about how digital image stabilization works..


I am guessing you are right on that much. But lets go further.



THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN IN THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE VIDEO!




It absolutely happens as well in your video there. The same exact way as the one you seem to think is caused by the added titles. Meaning...it happens in the vid with the titles, and in the vid without the titles.

Do you not see it happening here? I can't ignore it. It hits the eye like a brick now.



Compare the two yourself..


I have. Both videos show the same exact anomaly in perspective.

I do not see how you can say it doesn't.




PS - Mr Mask - I believe i just blew your post out of the water with all the bragging and arrogance you showed..


Bragging? Is sharing truth "bragging"? I'm afraid I don't see that.

But since you don't see the obvious detached perspective in both vids...maybe we are both blind?



Stabilization filters

Many non-linear editing systems use stabilization filters that can correct a non-stabilized image by tracking the movement of pixels in the image and correcting the image by moving the frame.[15] The process is similar to digital image stabilization but since there is no larger image to work with the filter either crops the image down to hide the motion of the frame or attempts to recreate the lost image at the edge through spatial or temporal extrapolation.[16]

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 31-1-2011 by gmax111 because: (no reason given)


Let me get this straight...you are arguing that "image cropping and digital recreation of the edge of a frame" is exactly the same as "half the picture moving independently in a detached fashion with two different perspectives" are the same thing?

I dear say it must be "you" who is failing to understand "video stabilization" now.

After downloading three PDFs, reading about a dozen or so pages on Image lag and its appearance, more than ten pages on CCD failure, and all the wikilinks involved (including more than a few camera companies manuals on CCD/CMOS problems) and watching about two dozen videos showing exactly what both actually are-

I can tell you...digital auto-cropping and edge mending are not even remotely related to "the horizon line breaking the laws of perspective by acting independently of of the foreground".

Not even in the same ballpark.

But hey...I'm ignorant...right? Never mind the fact that the foreground is moving to reveal areas of the background that should be covered at all times, in effect "intelligently deciding what is and what is not foreground and background and than splitting the two and inventing on its own what should reasonably exist behind objects that did not move in the first place".

Put it this way...if you took a photo of a house, and stabilized it...you wouldn't ever see what was behind that house because it wasn't ever "filmed", it never existed to the camera's eye...meaning what was behind the house could not ever be revealed in the picture.

Nor could the backyard behind that house begin to detach from the foreground and create a separate perspective.

Now I can tell you I don't do special effects. But I do know the Laws of Perspective and that they are as solid as any other factual law of science. They apply to all forms of the visual observation- from your eye to your camera.

It is (get this) impossible for this to happen in film.

You can not have two independent perspectives in one shot taken by one eye. It is as simple as saying "heavy things fall to the ground when dropped on earth" or "3 is the square root of 9".

Its fundamental.

It breaks three of the laws of perspective, and that makes it impossible.

I can't make you understand that, but I can assure you- once this is officially "debunked by those with credentials elsewhere or here" they will point towards this key fact as well.

CCD/CMOS failure can not be the culprit.

And stabilization can not be blamed since it happens in the unedited film as well (not to mention stabilization doesn't cause foregrounds to independently live a separate life detached from the linear plain's perspective"

Its impossible. Not opinion...fact.

Now get some credited film guy in here t explain it to you better so you can say "oh...I get it now".

You are claiming a digital sensor has intelligently split the foreground and background and applied (invented on its own) a whole new (and entirely alien) perspective for the foreground that exists outside the laws of physics.

Funny how none of the clips that I have seen that show these "very well known anomalies" as an example- actually show this magic trick happening.

Sorry...its a hoax. And sooner or later you will know that for the reasons I am failing to adequately explain to you.

MM




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



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
What makes the significanse of this insignificant UFO, Jerusalem
and who is not mentioned, who is absent?



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by turk182
I would simply consider it nearly impossible for something like this to actually take place,whether caught on film or not, without just about everyone in the city seeing it, and there being a huge number of reports from the ground.
Common sense alone tells me that these videos have to be fakes.
It simply could not happen without a bazzilion other people seeing it. Especially since the object drops right down over the lit up city then zips away at light speed.Come on. No way Jose.


You would be surprised at the number of people who don't look up. Maybe there have been reports that the rest of the world have not seen yet. Lets wait and see.

Fake or real? I'm not sure and will remain open minded until it can be proven one way or the other.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
It looks very strange indeed. 3 different videos well i am impressed. WOW! is the correct word to use here. However it bugs me that there are only 3 people who taped this. Why is this not on mainstream news? If hundreds of people saw this there would be numerous reports and TPTB had a hard time shutting al these people up. Above the Dome for god sakes! It's holy ground.

On the other hand maybe this is the real thing and TPTB did shut people up, who knows. It would be nice if this was an apperent hoax but to me the debunking is not satisfactory.The last weeks the number of sightings is increasing. Now we have daily sightings. Just a matter of time to get the truth out. I am realy following the alternative news streams now..............exciting



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by kroms33
reply to post by Mr Mask


Sadly...its been proven to be a hoax.

 


With the utmost in respect intended,

Please stop with such disinformative opinions. If this were proven to be a hoax, it would be in the hoax bin - and not currently in this forum. You can not definitively call this a hoax because you have no scientific backing on the matter. You only have flawed theory and speculation put forth by amatuers.

Stop making such wild opinions and speaking for everyone else here - this video has not been proven by any scientific evaluation to be a hoax - nor has any of the other videos. We need the ATS PTB in here stat so they can have experts review these videos.


While I'm no expert at CGI and a relatively new member. I'm also no stranger to common sense and UFO phenomenon. There is so much proof that's been presented in this thread that this is a hoax, I find it ironic that the "this has got to be real" group is still trying to debunk the debunker's, going on 40 pgs and counting. How much proof do you need to be shown that this is a hoax? Not trying to be a jerk but use some common sense. There's so many things that don't add up and if you take the time and read from the start of the thread. There are some basic questions and observations that some of us "rookies" asked, that never got answered, as though some were oblivious to what some of the skeptics were asking and presenting.
The skeptics on this thread have gone to great length's to dissect, study and present the vid for what it is. How about the believers expend the same amount of time and prove that it's real instead of ignoring the facts that are right in front of you, that continued to be ignored. Some really need to step back from the vid and start looking at the other facts in this case instead of being tunneled in the visual of the vid.
One point being, I've found more convincing and compelling evidence on paper about UFO's and ET life than I ever have from a photo or a vid. I believe in Et life and UFO's, but I've found very little proof outside of our atmosphere that proves so, besides the fact it's ridiculous to say we're the only ones in this universe. I'm not trying to bust any bubbles here but I think a little bit of common sense go's a long way when studding this topic.

Mask, giftop, flynfish and others have done an awesome job on this one, kudos,stars and flags for putting the time into the research of the truth.
edit on 31-1-2011 by mtnshredder because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
So, I debunked the third video. It is completely 100% fake, proven to be a hoax.




posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 





can you make another with the frame diference sync to zero i dont make vids i dont think your frame is matched up properly (i cant do it all so......) there is a glitch in both vids as it decends!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! just before it starts to slow to a stop. try to sync it at that point (the glitch is visable from both camers) xploder


I did not create the side by side comparison for you or any promotion.I did it for my own curiosity and as I stated before I'm satisfied with my findings.
No matter how you cut it, thirty frames don't lie even if I'm off a frame or two.I have seen enough to know without doubt that the two videos are NOT the same object.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
What im really curious about is how come no one is talking about this video?



They are completely separate video's.. Just because one person pointed out the flaw in image stabilization all of the facts go out of the window and its condemned to be a hoax? I proved thats all it is here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you watch the movements in camera phone video(right) and compare with the movements of the guy holding the phone(left) they are in sync, and then the "ufo/ball of light" and flash are also in sync with each other.. This would be very complicated to reproduce unless the object is really there..

Next it will be just someone in the tree with a light attached to a string..



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


Good work! I like your style.
Now get some sleep.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


Your a little late someone just did a search on google and found the original picture..

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
The UFO is only one the pretenders are millions.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mtnshredder
How much proof do you need to be shown that this is a hoax? Not trying to be a jerk but use some common sense.

Just one piece of compelling proof would be good. Do you have one piece of compelling proof to offer that the first and second videos are fakes?



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I'm just amazed that there are nearly forty pages worth of arguing about a light in the sky. Let's just suspend disbelief for a moment and PRETEND it is absolutely a true video, an honest portrait of a light in the sky over the Temple Mount. Just give me a minute of unbridled BELIEF. Ready? Go!

There's a light in the sky. So? What have you got? What have you proven? What do you know that you didn't know before? How will your life change? Does that light prove aliens? Does it prove extraterrestrial craft? Does it prove shape shifter reptilians from another dimension? Will it change foreign policy? Will it ensure Obama gets re-elected? Will Islam give up the Dome on the Rock so the Jews can build the Third Temple?

OK. Back to reality and 40 pages of "discussion." Even if this thing were iron-clad you still don't have anything meaningful. It does not prove the existence of anything but a light in the sky. All the rest is pure speculation. On a scale of one to ten where ten would be a craft landing on the White House lawn filmed by the major networks and a little green guy getting out with a sign saying, "Take me to your leader!" this light, were it completely unequivocally real, is a one at best.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by gmax111
 


Never to late! you need a mountain of evidence to convince the hard core believers.
Just another nail.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crayfish
As a CG artist, what technique would you use to fake the flash of light and do you see evidence of that that technique being used?



Could make that a bunch of ways. A soft edged roto spline or shape would kick it off easily. Over or add the pixels and bham. It only lasts a frame or two. The extra kick on the lights etc is readily available from sources such as genarts with *zero* skill. Currently using flame and nuke so dunno what's popular with the AFX crowd at the moment.

Got to ask ... Such quick flashes and both devices captures almost identical frames. I film muzzle flashes sometimes with two cameras and they can miss a flash. Light seems massive but no blown highlights. Look at the lines of the gradient ... Clean as. So okay pinke maybe doesn't know what ufo light is like. Maybe ufo has special non photon emitting light that looks like flat 2D shape.

If that's true I would honestly expect some better evidence in other areas.

And mask has a point ... A poor tracker from a consumer NLE isn't going to make two separate plates of footage ... Those usually take a rough track and average movement over a *single* plate faux virtual camera style. I have never in my life seen an NLE produce a track which separates footage. If it screws up it just fires the image all over the place.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Check this out:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Really similar.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by gmax111
 


Looking at the videos my first thought was "cool" and then I looked at the street lights etc. These two videos were done in the same location or those recording it were nearly on top of each other. Now if the video was from the other side of the city I would be more inclined to be wowed. However at this time my "skepto-meter" is at a 8 out of 10.




top topics



 
167
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join