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: 46
167
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
First time poster. Had to add another angle to this discussion

So I have a question for you video editors, analysisors, etc...

What are the possibilities of enhancing the image on the other guys cellphone from the first video?

You catch a short shot of it in the beginning of the first guys video.

It seems to me that if that can be enhanced then maybe we can see if he is recording the same vantage point as the first guy or if it is a different image on his phone.

Just throwing it out there




posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   
I'm curious, to those that think this footage is real what exactly are we looking at?
Is it a; live organism/et energy orb, spaceship, light from mothership that's dropping down over the temple and creates this power surge of energy that flashes over the city and shoots back up into the air to join the rest of the crew which is flashing red lights in different shapes or is it ours/military/ PBB?

Since there has been a lot of evidence presented that this is a hoax.....Can someone tell me what you're trying to prove is real and why you believe this is ET or Our's and not a fake which has been proved very easy to do?

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



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by kroms33
I also have a 3D artist and computer programmer joining the frey - who states "HOAXKiller1" is dead wrong about his assumptions.

He even programmed a nice little program called "Perspective Test" in which he will soon demonstrate how wrong HOAXKiller1 is. According to this programmer, he will be joining this site soon (tomorrow?) and he will also be putting up a counter video to HOAXKiller1's unscientific claims.


Well then- your friend is also wrong...as wrong as you are.

The simple fact of the matter is this-

THERE IS NO POSSIBLE LEGITIMATE ANSWER to have the background break the laws of physics and the rules of perspective by detaching from the foreground and behaving in a manner that breaks the laws that govern the observable world.

Now I know...you will dispute this by saying things like "croma key on the news is different" or "blue screen was not used", or "none of you know about editing" etc etc...

But truth be told- NOBODY needs to even resort to understanding special effects/computers/cromakeying/CCDs/CMOS/image-lag etc.

Alls one needs to know is that IF THERE IS FOREGROUND MOVEMENT it is 100% IMPOSSIBLE for the horizon-line and the background to detach from that movement and react in a way that breaks the laws of physics and the rules of perspective.

The rules of perspective have been studied and detailed since the early 4th century, before Christ and are as indisputable as any factual law of physics. Countless famous painters and artists have written entire books on this subject. Science details this physical law completely and entirely.

The background and horizon-line do not obey these SIMPLE laws.

This is not a matter of "misunderstanding complex processes of newfangled technologies and editing techniques"

THIS is a matter of PHYSICAL LAW and has been well established and understood by man for hundreds of years.

You can't pass a high school art class without understanding this.

NOTHING can make a background go against the rules of perspective but tampering. And this background image reacts and detaches itself as a separate entity from the foreground.

There is no movement or play in the background to reflect the movement of the camera's eye verses the foreground.

Sorry...this is grade school science. This is high school art class at best. This is fact and can not be bent or broken due to argument over "tech"

It is as pointless as arguing math.

Sorry...like stated, everything you need to know about this event is in the laws or perspective as detailed by Aeschylus, Plato, and the detailed discovery of three-point perspective at the invention of photography.

It is math.

it is science and physical law.

The background does not move with the foreground, and detaches itself from the perspective of the viewer's camera eye.

That is...say it with me...impossible.

MM



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Another video for publicity. Nothing more. Officially another person wasting the time of people trying to find the truth, but at the same time helping people see how you can tell from what is fake and what to look for in something to say it can be considered legit.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MurrayTORONTO
 


That video is the third one I believe.

There's *a lot* wrong with that one. I can understand people being fooled by the other two, but this one isn't even trying that hard. Static lights and things ...


Originally posted by kroms33
I also have a 3D artist and computer programmer joining the frey - who states "HOAXKiller1" is dead wrong about his assumptions.

He even programmed a nice little program called "Perspective Test" ... [sic]


I'd be fascinated if this programmer has written a program called 'perspective test' btw ... Is it better than say boujou, or synth eyes for example??? The vast majority of 3D tracking apps I've used have had hundreds of hours of development time over years and years of time ... They all require human intervention, data, or on set prep to produce reliable results in most circumstances ... But this programmer has written a program named 'perspective test' that can solve this for me?

If it's better than ILM's prop tools I'd be shocked and he's probably in the line to make a few million bucks. Why does he care???

edit on 31-1-2011 by Pinke because: Edit: Added quote



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MurrayTORONTO
Well here is yet another angle:
www.liveleak.com...

It seems no flash in this one.. so one of these is fake. Oh and this one is too
the very end when it 'warps', looks very cgi to me. Also not to mention the fact that if it's a glowing orb it should be lighting the top of the building (and it doesn't)

Probably some guy touring Jerusalem and wanted to take the opportunity to make a few fake vids from different angles so people believe it..
edit on 31-1-2011 by MurrayTORONTO because: (no reason given)


That one is is obviously fake....even the dialog is fake.

"Is that a UFO?"
I mean come on.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 



Thats funny, HOAXKiller1 is a 3D artist and a programmer too. I wonder if your guy will even understand his arguments, or if he is going to make the same erroneous simpleton judgements and not see the complexity in the arguments.


Isn't is a bit silly to make such broad assumptions when you haven't even seen what the guy has to offer? This is the mindset I am talking about – closed mindedness. Automatically you are assuming that this person won't be able to understand what Hoaxkiller1 is referencing, interesting perspective and quite prophetic.

I ripped Hoaxkiller1's theory to shreds when I showed that there is no chroma keying, nor masking involved with this video... just plain old stabilization issues with cell phone cameras and darkness.



Oh, and thanks for ignoring my question...

I don't think I ignored anyone that I am aware of... I scrolled back and even checked my replies to messages and I couldn't find you referancing me or even replying to me. I did notice you were debating someone completely different than me about these matters.



I don't think anyone has studied these videos more than my self, and I have detected camera movements along all 3 axis of the camera, and a change in ONE of those axes is all that is needed to show parallax effect (which is completely missing).

The problem is this: the video is horrible. How can you possibly test a parallax effect with such a dark video? Sorry - I think what you are seeing is what I decribed as poor cell phone video stabilization. I wouldn't base your entire theory on the parallax effect.



Sure I could be wrong about the background being fake... but I know I am not wrong about the lights


If you have been reading what I have been writing - you wouldn't have even wrote that. I state that it is very possible that the lights could be faked. Again, the only way we can KNOW is if we look at the RAW data. I have requested the raw data twice from the OP of the video so that I can send it up to the ATS staff for review, and so that I can also post it to this board (or a file share). I am still waiting for a reply. As far as I know, I am the only person who has actually gone to the lengths of trying to get the original footage. I remember the old days here... people actually did an investigation rather than crusade about hoaxes. To bad I don't remember my original email and password from 2005, because that is how long I have been on these boards.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 




I call BS



Most excellent! Star for you!

ummmm... how about... NOW?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 2/1/2011 by kroms33 because: added BS link



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Could be that the original video is all a part of this HUGE viral campaign for the movie Apollo 18? If you do a "rescent uploads" search for "UFO" on YouTube you'll see 3 or 4 different channels have been almost non-stop posting ufo sighting reports. Over 400 of 'em in the passed few days even! I suspect that's part of the viral campaign for the movie too.

Also on the Apollo 18 movie web site they're releasing supposed "new" government documents (part of the viral campaign) about the mission. You can get a little more info about how to access the documents from the Dread Central article New Apollo 18 Secret Documents Uncovered. Of coarse I could be wrong but I thought it was worth bringing up.


edit on 1-2-2011 by AstroBuzz because: Added: (part of the viral campaign)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Videos 1 and 2 are well done.

Video 3 (tourists with American English voice) is badly done. Amateurish.

After looking at all the videos and imagining all sorts of ways on how these could have been faked, it was Video 2 that drew may attention.

Cellphone cameras (and DSLRs to a certain extent) exhibit something called a "jello effect" - this cannot be avoided, and is a result of the fact that the component in these cameras that capture the image do not capture the pixels in a frame all at the same time. This effect is obvious when there is left-right motion, where, as the name suggests, the scene being shot appears to wave like a jello.

Now, what I notice from Video 2 is that no matter how I imagine myself faking it, I can't find a reasonable way to fake it.

1.) One way to fake it - I shoot the scene with a cellphone (this will have jello from the beginning), put in the fake orb with motion tracking, then find a way for the inserted fake orb to behave as if it also exhibits the "jello effect" to be consistent with the surrounding scene. (You can see this jello effect on the orb itself about 3 seconds before is stops down)

How do you do this? Is there a plugin for this effect? Is it possible to fake the "jello effect" post prod?

2.) Another possibility is that it (Video 2) was just a big screen playing a high quality faked video, shot with a cellphone. In this case, everything captured by the cellphone would exhibit jello. But this big screen would have to be very tall, since the video tilted way up to show a triangular arrangement of red lights.

So… If you examine Video 2, see if you can see the jello I'm talking about, especially on the orb 3 seconds before it stops down. Is the jello there or not? If you see it, how would you go about faking it?

I appreciate any answers…

Thanks!



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask

"THERE IS NO POSSIBLE LEGITIMATE ANSWER to have the background break the laws of physics and the rules of perspective by detaching from the foreground and behaving in a manner that breaks the laws that govern the observable world. "
 



Actually if you ever read about theoretical means of FTL, one of them achieves FTL velocities by moving the space around an object while the object/ship itself doesn't move at all.
edit on 31-1-2011 by ErasmusSB654 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


The sad thing is, all of that typing - and you never really read what I actually stated on page 41 did you?
It is so apparent you didn't.



But truth be told- NOBODY needs to even resort to understanding special effects/computers/cromakeying/CCDs/CMOS/image-lag etc.


Really? That is like saying someone who doesn't know how to fly a plane or program a computer can actually do those things without training. I like your thinking - it is pretty philosophical... another words, if we want to pretend to be or to do something, we no longer need reality as a base. Cool.

Your above quote applies so much more strength to my arguments than you even know...



Alls one needs to know is that IF THERE IS FOREGROUND MOVEMENT it is 100% IMPOSSIBLE for the horizon-line and the background to detach from that movement and react in a way that breaks the laws of physics and the rules of perspective.


Beating a dead, rotting corpse... N O T I F T H E C A M E R A H A S B A D S T A B I L I Z A T I O N.

What you are suggesting is the following: That if I am recording a video and I get some digital artifact, or a blurred frame that puts things out of perspective because of my movements... that it is against the laws of physics. What?


It's ok - take some deep breaths.


I think you, and other debunkers (or what ever phrase you want to use so that you don't get offended) tactics are is to beat dead horses and come up with such silly and off the wall evidence that eventually people who are actually trying to do an investigation get frustrated and move on... best form of censorship if you ask me. Debunk the item, scrutinize the evidence and people.

Again, I remind you - I have never stated that these videos were not hoaxes, I have stated that I am investigating them - and upon my investigations I have found evidence that refutes most of the debunkers claims... I have listened to what each and every one of you have had to say on this matter, but no one listens back... deaf ears.

Did you read everything above? Just checking... make sure you do before you reply.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   



Hello,

My small contribution: I compared the small screen (aka video 2) seen in video 1 to the YouTube Video 2. At some moments the small screen is clearly visible. The time I used for the picture is 2 seconds before the light descends. The two clearly do NOT match.

Regards

arit



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
I'm not sure as to where the conversation is right now & I have to go to bed, but I did make this video for this forum & YouTube, so i'll post it now.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by csimon
 


I am the biggest UFO sceptic, but this is the first footage that actually has me thinking.
I don't want to sound ignorant but what was the building that the object visited.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by zezba9000
I'm not sure as to where the conversation is right now & I have to go to bed, but I did make this video for this forum & YouTube, so i'll post it now.

www.youtube.com...


Very well done dude! That settles it..."case closed".


I want to embed this for you also:



SNAP!

reply to post by Mr Mask
 




Alls one needs to know is that IF THERE IS FOREGROUND MOVEMENT it is 100% IMPOSSIBLE for the horizon-line and the background to detach from that movement and react in a way that breaks the laws of physics and the rules of perspective.

I bet you regret writing that whole stupid rant now Masky...



edit on 1-2-2011 by WhizPhiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by zezba9000
 


Thanks for showing up!
People were calling BS on me hah.

I think right now, the people debunking this will try any tactic to stress their beliefs or agenda. So, don't let them get you angery.

Thanks again, and good night!



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by the2people
 


The Temple Mount in Israel



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhizPhiz

Very well done dude! That settles it..."case closed".


I want to embed this for you also:

SNAP!


Yeah... see how the keep digging themselves deeper and deeper? They didn't even believe I invited a computer programmer/3d artist on here to speak about this case... hmmph...

LOL - I wish we could do what they do... "Case Closed"
Ain't going to happen.... still waiting on a reply from the OP of the vid about the raw data....



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by kroms33
reply to post by zezba9000
 


Thanks for showing up!
People were calling BS on me hah.

I think right now, the people debunking this will try any tactic to stress their beliefs or agenda. So, don't let them get you angery.

Thanks again, and good night!


Debunked.

www.ufoeyes.com...



new topics

top topics



 
167
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join