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: 42
167
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by BruceWayne
 


Amazing how fast people call it a hoax even going so far as making a video about it in a couple of days.

And I think someone made the third video purposely to try and derail the other 2 knowing by leaving out the flash that people would notice and assume it's a fake and associate that video and the other 2 as though the same people made it.

Skeptics really want people to believe it's a hoax.




posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by kroms33
 


That's why I'm suggesting they did not use chroma keying. Your images are still no good even being black background the subjects are a bright as Christmas.
It's hard to control any feathering in chroma keying, however if you frame by frame in masking you can feather"both" ends.This technique done with care can be very difficult to detect albeit tedious.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by GodIsPissed
Skeptics really want people to believe it's a hoax.


For the benefit of people who can't make causal connections as quick as you - how did you come to the conclusion that skeptics really want people to believe it's a hoax?

-m0r



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by GodIsPissed
 





Skeptics really want people to believe it's a hoax.

Wrong-I don't care what you believe this is secondary to me.
I do this to exhaust the possibility of it being fake and to satisfy my own curiosity.
If the video can come out the other end unscathed, then I will call it real.
It's not looking good.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by kroms33
 




The people that are screaming hoax, and those trying to debunk it almost seem to either not know what they are talking about – or have no experience with video editing/special effects. If their case is that they know what they are talking about – why is it that we see such a failure about mentioning the above technologies stated in my post?

Even if the vid was proven to have been shot as one, you still need to analyze all of the other aspects of the vid that people are pointing to that screams hoax. The effect your explaining above is not what sticks out the most (for me) as this being a hoax or not, theres plenty of other things that don't add up.
I admit I have very little experience with video editing and I don't claim too. I do have experience in audio engineering (analog mostly) and have spent 28 yrs as an owner of a faux painting co. and as a set painter for the motion picture and TV industry . My job on a daily basis was making things fake look real or the other way around. Trust me when I say I've seen a lot when it comes to special effects in the movie industry. The tricks I've seen used with; split screen sets, blue screen, miniature sets, animation, etc have blown my mind when I've seen them after production. This doesn't make me an expert on this topic by any stretch but I don't think it's fair to discount people's opinion just because their not a vid/editing guru. There are some of us that do have a pretty good idea on what to look for as far as fakes and hoax's.
I think I'm going to spectate the rest of the way on this one and let you guys hash it out.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by newkid
reply to post by Toxicsurf
 


look when come to ATS I want to see UFO, and this look real to me because I see it with my eyes and then
comes the debunker, showing me how fake the videos are, is not fair.

This is like the bonus on a DVD movie where they show you how the movie was made, I'm telling you it ruins the movie, so I never see the bonus.


Are you serious?


So, you would rather be fooled and lied to, than to know the truth about things?

"It's not fair" to tell people the facts?
Are you kidding?

"look, don't tell me what's going on, Just let me believe whatever I want.. no matter how deluded I am"

Is that really what you'd prefer?

"it looks real to me because I see it with my eyes" ?
What!?!?

Are cartoons real to you also, because you "see them with your eyes"?

man.
just,





posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I very much want these videos to be real. But I find issue with the difference between the horizontal distance of the UFO in relation to ground objects between the two videos. These guys are nearly at the same spot, everything in the background is at the same parralax. But the UFO seems a little more to the left in the cell phone video. Being that he is slightly to the right of the first video taker, that would mean the moving object is actually much closer to the video takers than what is trying to be portrayed. If the object was actually as far away as portrayed, then there would be negligible difference in the left-to-right distances there. When the UFO is at its lowest point, there is more left to right distance with it and the closest ground object in the first vid. Just my thought. Also, has there been no eye witnesses closer to the UFO that have come forward? Even though 1am, surely some other people at least saw it.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by kroms33
 


That's why I'm suggesting they did not use chroma keying. Your images are still no good even being black background the subjects are a bright as Christmas.
It's hard to control any feathering in chroma keying, however if you frame by frame in masking you can feather"both" ends.This technique done with care can be very difficult to detect albeit tedious.


In the example images, the people are lit up bright to show the difference, yes - to show the quality of the lighting effect. The light affecting the person in the first video would be sufficient to show chroma keying.

As to masking - and exactly how hard it is: The image of the guy would have to be cut around so significantly and without error - frame by frame, as would anything in the foreground. We would see masking artifacts or errors regardless of the quality of the video - we just don't. I think that both masking and chroma keying have been significantly diffused from the argument, because there would be proof of it.

What I stated about the technology of a cell phone in my chroma key post rings true - and I have not seen that refuted yet. The image stabilization on cell phones sucks - especially in low light situations, and would create the effects that you are trying to debunk as fake.

Like I said previously, the UFO and light flash could be fake - but the video recording of the area is not.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by kroms33
 





As to masking - and exactly how hard it is: The image of the guy would have to be cut around so significantly and without error - frame by frame, as would anything in the foreground.

I disagree-The image of the guy is very choppy"look at his left shoulder,head and arm".The wall and tree are easier as they don't move.To say without "error" means nothing with such low contrast any "error" can be cleaned up by feathering.



We would see masking artifacts or errors regardless of the quality of the video-


Not necessarily-it is very hard to see it "especially" in this low contrast poor quality.
By the way in my flash photo I masked out the background from the foreground so that the flash would not bleed into the foreground.Look again-do you see any evidence or masking artifacts?
Of course you don't.




we just don't. I think that both masking and chroma keying have been significantly diffused from the argument, because there would be proof of it.


The only real proof will be in the original file.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by kroms33
Like I said previously, the UFO and light flash could be fake - but the video recording of the area is not.

I agree. The thing that convinces me is that there is simply no reason to composite the man and wall on to the city backdrop. It serves no purpose in the generation of a fake video. It would be far easier to just use video of a man in front of a real city skyline and then just overlay a fake UFO on that.

There's still not a single piece of smoking gun evidence to show that the original video is a hoax.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
if there was any way possible to enhance the video to a degree that we can see the LED screen of the cell phone of the witness closer to the ledge basically showing his cell phone capture the event in the RAW then yeah, i would be juiced.

its a good video regardless except for the close up version ( i guess were calling it the THIRD video now?)

anyway, peace LT



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by LordThumbs
 


There is absolutely no way we could do that - the resolution of the video would have to be in the gigapixel or even terapixel range. What was recorded was very low quality lower megapixel range.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by kroms33
 





The only real proof will be in the original file.


'tis what I have been saying from the start of this all.

I have messaged the OP of the vid for the raw data with no replies yet. I will be more persistent

edit on 1/31/2011 by kroms33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
easy to underestimate the software that's out there. it's been easy to remove (2-3 mins) green backdrops in static images since photoshop cs3 (video from 2008) www.youtube.com...

there are plenty of forums that discuss similar techniques for video; this youtube video is from three years ago and explains how to remove the green fringe - www.youtube.com...

it could indeed be masked as already identified, the flash is definetly iffy. hmmm the debate continues .....



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Crayfish
 


I see a reason to composite the man and wall on to the city backdrop.
It would have been extremely difficult if not impossible to create both the cell phone video and one with the guy in it and have them sync up perfectly.
On the other hand if you first created the UFO against the city scape the work on the UFO effect is done.
The only thing left to do is mask in the guy and foreground and the UFO sync problems solved.
Except for the motion tracking problem that seems to be apparent on the boat ride effect.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by csimon
 


I just read a thread saying there was footage of this from two different angles...

This simply isn't true, both videos were filmed from the exact same angle.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
do you know what - i think I've found the source image - www.weizmann.ac.il...

took it into photoshop, played with the contrast and brightness and its almost an exact match (albeit the bottom is cropped in the video) - what do you think ?



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by digitalf
 


Nice find there! could you please embed and post the results.
This would be another reason to composite the man and wall on to the city backdrop.
You don't even need to be there!



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Has anyone seen the third alleged video yet? I havent read through all of this massive thread. Seen this on youtube tonight. I have my doubts about this, but here it is for members to analyze.




posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
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..

THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN IN THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE VIDEO!
Compare the two yourself..

480p - This was the original video - no anomaly:
www.youtube.com...

780p - edited with text included - Anomaly:
www.youtube.com...



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.

IT DOES HAPPEN IN THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE VIDEO!

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)


Thanks you proved my point exactly.. The horizon line stays parallel with the brick line(the one below his left hand).. All I see really happening is the "all white balance" adjusting because of camera shake.. Which is exactly why you can not use the top of the wall as a reference point.

Now compare what you have now to what was in the original stablization video that you did.. Your original is all over the place..

Im done arguing..

Oh and now you will notice that the stabilization has caused the tree to wiggle around un-naturally..

I dont care if its real or fake what i do care about is that everyone has their facts straight.. There is more evidence including the camera phone video...
edit on 31-1-2011 by gmax111 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
167
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join