It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 40
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:44 PM
ok I see my 'case closed' comment caused a little stir as I appear to be the minority calling a hoax.
couple of thoughts to ponder -

a/ even if no-one in proximity to the temple saw the object they would have definetely reported the flashes - the lack of witness statement is significant given the area it occured.

b/ if the first video was infact green screened and masked. the source footage of Jerusalem probably didn't have a person in it so could be used for any number of spin-off hoax videos. Just because the perspective looks different and contains no standing person doesn't make it any more authentic imo.

one thing I think we can agree on as a collective - it's one of the better videos we've had to evaluate in recent times.

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:45 PM
reply to post by Pinke

I just edited my post to include an example of smoothcam weirdness. I know it's not exactly what we're talking about but hopefully gives an idea of what can happen.

As I have said there is most definitely something iffy with the footage. I am leaving it at that because there are so many different factors that would affect the final youtube result and to do a full analysis would drive me mad.
We don't have the original video for instance... but I digress.
Is not the point here that this would have been reported on by all those witnesses who saw a celestial event of miraculous proprtions occurring over one of the most sacred places on the earth have made it onto the news somewhere apart from ANW?

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:45 PM

Originally posted by dubiousone
If this was real we'd have a multitude of reports of it. If these guys videotaped this "event" from two kilometers away, why did no-one 1 1/2 kilomoeters, 1 kilometer, 1/2 kilometer or even 100 meters from the scene notice and report it, let alone record it. In my book, the lack of other reports totally debunks this. A bright light at night, descending to near roof top level, creating a bright flash before it suddenly zooms out to space, and no-one nearby notices, and only two or so guys at the same location two kilometers away see it? Please, people, you're displaying extreme credulity on this one.

one o'clock in the night ..... much people in the streets ??? much people seeing this ufo ? maybe the ones up there still on the street did see the 2 flashes, yeah, but if you see a flash light are you knowing it is about a ufo ?
maybe you think well a flash and what about anyway .....

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:56 PM

Originally posted by BruceWayne
reply to post by Pinke

I just edited my post to include an example of smoothcam weirdness. I know it's not exactly what we're talking about but hopefully gives an idea of what can happen.

Oh yup. You can see the frame being thrown around there in your example which is sort of what I mean about those kinds of things. Its a good example of a tracker getting confused with moving objects, but its still not separating plates the same way. It'll probably be the tracker jumping onto objects that it can't differentiate between - in this instance the blades of the fan thingie.

But yes, lack of reports is off, too. Though I think this debate is at the stage of believers believe, skeptics be frustrated, and the fence sitters have made up their mind.

News picking it up doesn't mean muchly either anyway. Where I live the news likes to report on hoax things and leave them 'open' since saying ... oh someone faked a ufo this morning ... isn't very interesting.

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:06 PM
reply to post by Mr Mask

i have concluded that if two out of three videos are in question then it is likley a hoax
well done to all the members for showing that the video is falsafyed.
star and flag to the op
well done the "sceptics" lol saved us from blind belief
this is what it means to have memebers
thanks all


posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:19 PM

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by gmax111

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

I find it amusing how yawl are working so hard to debunk #3 which is an obvious fake from the get go. i guess it was convenient that someone made such an easy to spot fake so yawl can focus on that one and not need to deal with the others

Besides if ya need to know what it was... it just arrived a little late this year

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

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:32 PM
I'll take another stab at this even though it's been covered.
If you look at the looped pic of the flash that gift posted and pinke reposted on (38?) There's not one single main source of the flash that I can see, if you look a little below and left of the object, it looks like what they intended to be ground zero for origin of flash, yes? You can see the circle of light that's looks a little brighter than the rest of the flash in the vid.
If you focus on the center of the flash and look at all the blk and darkest spots within that circle(not the buildings)at the time of flash, you will see that the dark areas have no more increased degree of light intensity at the time of flash than you do on the other side of town. The degree of change in light intensity at the center of flash is the same washed all over the photo, look at the guys jacket/shirt, it changes no more or less than the dark areas around the center of the flash, watch the loop and you will see this. If the origin of flash was real it would have lit all those dark areas in the center up like daylight and the intensity would have lessened the farther away from point of origin, it doesn't This is a flash that would have lit up the whole area for a few miles, it looks.

I would expect a flash of that intensity would have looked more like this....... not washed out at the same degree of intensity from the center as it does a mile away.
oops wrong vid, correct now.

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

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:34 PM
Has this been posted here yet? American tourists filming same object -

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:34 PM
I call hoax...

It's great footage, but there's little value in the two-camera perspectives when the two cameras are basically in the same place... Movie productions do this all the time... Show me footage from multiple witnesses in different parts of the city with hundred or thousands of other eye witnesses who saw the event and you might have something.

CGI is too good these days.... look up CGI UFO on youtube and if not for the fact they are all fake, you might become a believer.

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:40 PM
I noticed the brighter the flash effect the harder my masking was to hide.
It makes sense that their flash opacity is turned down, to my eyes I can see the mask.
This is just for demonstration purposes for creating my own UFO video using similar techniques.
Don't worry I will not be selling my video as the real deal this will be for educational purposes and my own pleasure.

Note: I added lens effect just for fun.

Opacity turned down masking still evident around subject.

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:43 PM
reply to post by flyingfish

On the topic of the flash, is it possible the flash isnt in the visable light spectrum ie infra red ?
It might explain why its picked up by some cameras and not others.

Not suggesting it proves hoax or real, but it may explain some things

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:46 PM
reply to post by zorgon

I find it amusing how yawl are working so hard to debunk #3 which is an obvious fake from the get go. i guess it was convenient that someone made such an easy to spot fake so yawl can focus on that one and not need to deal with the others

I have done little to debunk #3 just a comparison to show these videos are NOT tied.
Just having a little fun here.

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Mr Mask
Do you agree that the flash is not centered on the UFO?

I'm not sure. In the second video the flash does seem to be just off from the location of the alleged object. In the first video the flash seems consistent with the location of the object as can be seen in this image that isolates the effect of the flash from the non changing city background:

You can just make out the alleged object quite central above the area affected by the flash.

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:58 PM
reply to post by oleus

Definitely hoaxed from this photo.

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 03:00 PM
You guys are wrong those 3 videos are real UFO, they are not fake, stop saying, look at it a white orb fall from the sky and hoovers in mid air over Temple Mount, I bet you 100 people will come foward saying they saw this UFO, tourist, cab driver, police, security guard, come only 3 people saw it, just wait, more more video will come out, and real live people too.

you debunker can not even debunk a bed whatever.....I'm mad.

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 03:05 PM
reply to post by newkid

Well crap, and to think we wasted 40 pages of analysis when we could have just asked you if it is real or not...

Silly, silly, forum members. They should have known....

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 03:05 PM
reply to post by Crayfish

Could you use your differential filter on my flash effect above.
I would like to see a comparison from the original.
Thanks in advance.

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 03:11 PM
reply to post by gmax111

Just to clear this up......

Originally posted by gmax111
Just to clear this up.. This anomaly that everyone is going on about had to have been caused in the video editing software he used to add the text "Dome of the rock Temple mount".. This is in the HD version of the video which is the one with the stabilization anomaly. Im guessing its caused by low lux pixel tracking..You obviously know nothing about how digital image stabilization works..

Compare the two yourself..

480p - This was the original video - no anomaly:

780p - edited with text included - Anomaly:

I did another comparison using your "original video"... I used two tracking points on two of the brightest lights on both ends of the horizon. (exactly like the other video) So there was ZERO tracking errors. There was ZERO "low lux" issues because the objects are the brightest objects in the scene. I even toggled through each tracking waypoint and made sure that is was perfectly centered with the objects I was tracking (by hand).

I actually did this with ALL of my stabilization videos. Basically, I let the computer track automatically and I watch it closely while it is doing it. Whenever there is any tracking issue, I pause the tracking and fix it by hand. This makes sure there is nearly ZERO tracking issues.

Here is the "original" BAD QUALITY video stabilized:

I increase the brightness and contrast, and played with the hue/saturation so you can see the wall better. As you can see, the horizon stays perfectly still, that means there is no tracking issues.


You can STILL see the edge of the wall rotationally moving independently from the horizon. This breaks laws of perspective. Two parallel lines such as the horizon and wall edge should NEVER CROSS no matter how far out you draw the lines. However, because the walls edge is moving, that means the lines DO cross at some point outwards, breaking the laws of perspective.

Originally posted by gmax111
PS - Mr Mask - I believe i just blew your post out of the water with all the bragging and arrogance you showed..

Your comment shows arrogance now... and you didn't blow anything out of the water.

Originally posted by gmax111
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]

Yes, NOTHING inside the frame (image) is changed. The entire frame (image) is only moved as a whole to align with the next frame.

Imagine a pile of physical photographs, and all the photographs are nearly identical except for small movements on the x axis (up/down), small movements on the y axis (left/right), and small movements on the z axis (rotation). Then imagine starting with just one photograph, and then getting another photograph and placing it directly on top of the starting photograph so that their major features align. Then get another photograph and place that directly on the last so their main features align... rinse and repeat. The photographs never change, only their x, y, z axis change. That is how video stabilization works.

Originally posted by gmax111
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]

That is describing only the edges of the videos. If you notice in most stabilized videos you can see the edges of each image as they rotate or move, creating a moving border. To get rid of that border you just crop the image smaller so that you don't see the edges moving around. Instead of cropping, there are tools that will build (recreate) the entire scene into one large image using the previous frames.

For example, if you took two photographs of your face, and in one image your face was centered, and in the other image your face was more towards the top of the image, then you tried to align both images on top of each other so that your face lines up perfectly, the top and bottom of both images will not be lined up. If you were to blend both images together you would have "one large image".

Honestly, after reading what you typed, I think you don't know much about stabilization. Stabilization wont change any geometry which lies within images and video... geometry/perspective is what is wrong with the first UFO video... It's a hoax.

The city lights and the horizon were composited in the view.
edit on 31-1-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 03:16 PM

Originally posted by zorgon
I find it amusing how yawl are working so hard to debunk #3 which is an obvious fake from the get go. i guess it was convenient that someone made such an easy to spot fake so yawl can focus on that one and not need to deal with the others

Excellent point!

Could the third vid have been created in order to discredit the previous 2 ?

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 03:19 PM
reply to post by newkid

You held on to bitter end that the Isaac CARET - Drones are real!
Why would the evidence in this case be any better.
Instead of calling us out on our hard work to prove if this is real, why don't you contribute to the findings.
I for one would love for these videos to be the real deal but I must first explain away all the possibility of in being a hoax.

<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in