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: 39
167
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
The complex of the Americans, went to the new world?




posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
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.

The second part of my question was "can you see any evidence of that technique being used?"

I used a differential filter to isolate the flash from the background and could not find any regularities that indicate the use of artificial lightening techniques. In fact I found a very good reproduction of the effects a flash of light would have on the surrounding geography.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mtnshredder

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.


Thank those other guys, and a few more- but take my name off that list.

I have done nothing but watch others show me the flaws that prove this to be a hoax and read a bunch of websites detailing common anomalies.

I can't take credit for anything but getting wordy and quoting the great painter Aeschylus and his famous laws of perspective.

A chimp could do what I am doing here. The real credit goes to our debunkers using real skills to show guys like me what is wrong with these clips.

I salute them and am honored to be able to sit here and watch them work.


MM



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by csimon
 


It doesn't change anything - video can be real or can be fake and won't change anyone's opinion about aliens and ufos. We need real proof.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Crayfish
 


I am not convinced that the flash is fake, by the way.

I am convinced it happens about a quarter inch to the left from the UFO and a tad lower on the horizon. Its clearly not centered on the light.

I'm not the only one who sees this. My friend who I showed it to watched it a bunch of times with me, first thing he said was-

"well, that light isn't from the UFO, its from that white area of light over there"

Then he pointed to the area a quarter inch to the left and a tad lower than the "UFO".

Do you agree that the flash is not centered on the UFO?



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufoeyes
I have found the image that the hoaxers have used in the 3rd video. Compare this still frame from the video at 0:13:



with this image from Wikipedia (link to original at Wikipedia):



Every detail is the same.


Nice one ufoeyes. 3rd video is definitely a fake (imo).
Previous ones I believe are hoaxes as well but not necessarily because of the moving background/foreground but because the alleged event has taken place at the crucible of world religions with millions of people looking and there is little to no news coverage.
An object hitting a wind turbine in northern England had more coverage than this "event" and said turbine was in the middle of nowhere...

ITN

French TV


I believe that there isn't something quite right with the look of the vid but also have to agree with what someone said earlier with regards to the unwanted results of using camera stabilising software. If you have used for example Final Cut Pro's smoothcam plugin you will recognise the same sort of anomaly cited in this thread, and compression codecs etc can also have an effect.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by martinkb
reply to post by csimon
 


It doesn't change anything - video can be real or can be fake and won't change anyone's opinion about aliens and ufos. We need real proof.


If this video was proven legit and untampered with, I would say it would greatly effect my life.

I don't understand those who say "if it was real" it would change nothing.

I actually WANT it to be real.

Buuuuuuut....

MM



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crayfish

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?

Yes.........reread the thread from the top and if you're willing and open you will find your answer. I'm not in to doing others homework for them. If you look and can't find the proof then maybe tag the end of the thread and ask again. All the proof you need (or I needed I guess) is in the thread already, you just have to be willing to accept some of the answers and also answer some of the questions the skeptics have asked that have gone unanswered.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:14 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.

Until that time comes where the STAFF of ATS rules that these are indeed hoaxes and files them in that catagory - your comments such as "its been proven a hoax" are completely FALSE - and are only a matter of YOUR opinion. I would have left you alone if you stated that "it is my opinion these are hoaxed" - but "proven"??? - you sure do have a lot of faith in other people that you can't even investigate this on your own, and you take their word for it - then try to speak for the ATS staff stating that it has been "proven" when this isn't even in the hoax catagory... interesting.

Who are you to be the judge and jury on this matter anyhow? I haven't seen you go out and screen grab anything or even talk about how these could be hoaxes with your own theories: you use everyone else's words to back your speculation. That in itself is a fraud and hoax.

I myself have stated that these "could" be hoaxes - but I make no assertations that they are "proven" - that is just not true.




Well said my friend.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by BruceWayne
If you have used for example Final Cut Pro's smoothcam plugin you will recognise the same sort of anomaly cited in this thread, and compression codecs etc can also have an effect.


Oh really now? Can you find me an example of this happening? I've just spent about 6 hours looking for a printed word or video showing this anomaly.

None exist that I can find.

I mean...there are entire technical manuals about the subject of video stabilization, and the anomalies they produce. Yet none I have read tonight seem to claim this as a common or uncommon result.

MM



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crayfish
The second part of my question was "can you see any evidence of that technique being used?"

I used a differential filter to isolate the flash from the background and could not find any regularities that indicate the use of artificial lightening techniques. In fact I found a very good reproduction of the effects a flash of light would have on the surrounding geography.


Absolutely I can.

The only people that are actually going to listen though are already at the same conclusion. It's late here and my English is poop, so I had a look at another post:

Below is a post from gift0fpr0phecy in which the person is mostly correct about everything in my opinion. The 'lighting pass' (or awkward attempt at one) is just a 2D shape with well rounded lines and things. It doesn't interact the way I would expect 3D light to go. The gradients look odd, it has no fall off, not atmosphere .... It's all too human. Parts of the equation may be real ... and people revel when artists can't pick out a whole shot, but I've shown things I've done to really good artists before and they always miss things! Even bad artists get away with some bits and pieces.

Light bounces off particles and things which is what makes it look real. Artists spend a lot of time mimicking these looks even if they don't understand what causes them.

But here's the breakdown ... it's all too easy to deconstruct this stuff in philosophically stupid ways to make anyone sound wrong. To say things like ... oh we need a scientist. You know what scientists do when they want to know things about video? They generally either get educated or find a film or video artist to help them.

I once posted in a thread once with an obviously 100% fake CGI faery in it. Upon pointing out that the maker of the video hadn't even bothered to do a decent lighting pass and the lighting on the faery didn't compensate for the auto exposure of the sensor I was told something like ... how do you know how a creature from the fifth dimension would react to light???

So it's business as usual friend person. I summarize points. Not to be patronizing but just to say ... by all means pick one ...

1. Oh the sensor could make the lighting look dodgy! How do you know? It's compressed (It's pretty unlikely ... generally I find things that don't look real compressed generally don't improve any when they get bigger or better)
2. How do we know what you know about light is true? (am not going to write thesis on this in a web board!)
3. How do you know how a UFO looks like on film? (it's a photon light emitting object? I imagine it looks like all the other billions of photon light emitting things I have seen? Perhaps I'm wrong though!)
4. You would think anything is fake! Just debunking! (Maybe! Maybe persons think everything is real. So who cares?)
5. Artists = good at making fake, not at recognizing fake. (Everyone gets it wrong sometimes ... but usually we're pretty good!)

Here is a very truncated version of that post by gift. It's on page seven. People should read it. May not be perfect, but has some points.


Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
That is impossible. The city lights even move independently from the camera movement, that too is impossible.

Here is a portion of the video that has been stabilized to better show the impossible movement of the city lights:



2: The light flashes are completely fake. Here is an image that has the suspect frame:



To me, that is obviously fake. The only area that seems to increase in brightness is the "masked" area which was composited into the scene (the city and sky).

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



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
This is still going on?

Come on guys. Let's look at the facts:

1) No reports of a UFO over Jerusalem in the last couple of days or forthcoming witnesses

2) Three videos, one of which is highly suspicious (the video with the tourists). Many fellow ATSers have analyzed the other two videos and have concluded that they are hoaxes.

3) Has all the tell tale signs of a hoax or viral marketing. Not that hard to believe considering that there are over 22 science fiction movies coming out this year, many of which are about alien invasions.

The simple fact that there has been NOT ONE peep of this on Israeli news is evidence enough that this is a hoax. The Dome of the Rock is a sacred place for the Israelis. Surely if an object hovered right on top of it and flashed a bright light that the people in that vicinity would see, then it would cause quite a ruckus.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask

Originally posted by mtnshredder

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.


Thank those other guys, and a few more- but take my name off that list.

I have done nothing but watch others show me the flaws that prove this to be a hoax and read a bunch of websites detailing common anomalies.

I can't take credit for anything but getting wordy and quoting the great painter Aeschylus and his famous laws of perspective.

A chimp could do what I am doing here. The real credit goes to our debunkers using real skills to show guys like me what is wrong with these clips.

I salute them and am honored to be able to sit here and watch them work.


MM

Oh, on the contrary, I think you've done an awesome job and put a lot of time and effort into these vids and now you have gained even more knowledge to teach others as they have taught you.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahmose

Very nice.
Worth a quote (or two). lol



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 

Mr Mask, please realise that I intend no disrespect. In fact the opposite, I enjoy your work very much and appreciate what your investigation into this has brought up.

I am opining only about my meagre experience with video manipulation. What I am talking about occurs especially when the camera is moving through the x y and z axis's simultaneously especially if it is a rocking movement.
Smoothcam can be very good, but when its bad its rotten. It 'moves' other elements in the frame not in the desired way and can make the image look like it's morphing or projected onto a fluid.

HERE is an example of smoothcam not dealing properly with footage...



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



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by BruceWayne
 


I'd agree with some of what you're saying Bruce ... smoothcams and things can do some odd things, but to separate two plates?

I've done a fair amount of match moving, and I've never really seen anything crazy like that happen except maybe with doing slo-mo vector things or using plug ins like twixtor where it's messing with the temporal resolution. Even then those things really are obviously artifacts and way out of whack.

It would be a pretty big leap to say smoothcam in final cut managed this by accident. Normally it just averages a track as far as I know? I don't know the maths behind smoothcam.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by csimon
 


The reason I doubt these videos is the fact neither try to zoom in on the object in question. Isn't it normal for a person to want to zoom in on an object they are seeing? Doesn't anyone else find this strange?



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I would like to interject here with some tension release which is actually a semi-theory of its own.

It was composed during day time because it's not an Emo or Goth cartoon.

My theory:



And the funny thing about it is that it is 100% accurate (apart from the day time setting).

Go, debunk my theory then!!

-m0r



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevilDog0311
Do SCALAR weapons even exist? I'm pretty sure thats just a conspiracy thing, if they do exist, I would like proof.



Caption: "The proposed space-based neutral particle beam would shoot an unbendable beam of hydrogen molecules at approximately 60,000 kilometers per second to disrupt the electronics and warhead of an incoming missile." credit: SMDC/ARSTRAT

This image was from 1976 in a paper from white Sands. The original image link is still there but the article is offline

www.smdc.army.mil...
edit on 31-1-2011 by zorgon because: CLASSIFIED



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by BruceWayne
reply to post by Mr Mask
 

Mr Mask, please realise that I intend no disrespect. In fact the opposite, I enjoy your work very much and appreciate what your investigation into this has brought up.

I am opining only about my meagre experience with video manipulation. What I am talking about occurs especially when the camera is moving through the x y and z axis's simultaneously especially if it is a rocking movement.
Smoothcam can be very good, but when its bad its rotten. It 'moves' other elements in the frame not in the desired way and can make the image look like it's morphing or projected onto a fluid.


I take no offense in you (or any of these posters) disagreeing or debating this. I actually enjoy seeing everyone involved and am sure that all of us together will figure this out.

Between ATS and all the other brother/sister sites out there, we always get our man.

So feel free to call me wrong, strong or King Kong. I'm cool with it.

As for the morphing/fluid effect you mention...yes, I've seen it in a few videos tonight online tonight. But the best example was by a poster here earlier (Dramier) who recreated this effect in his back yard to show it clearly.
[yvid]
[/yvid]

Notice, though it morphs, never do the connecting plains of perspective detach from each and become entirely disjointed from the laws of perspective.

With that said...sleep has come for my eyes. IT IS TAKING MY EYES!!! NOOOooooOOO!

PS- M0r just made me giggle to sleep.

MM


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



new topics

top topics



 
167
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join