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: 47
167
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by HazyChestNutz
 


We are not talking about the 3rd video footage. We are nearly all in agreement that it is fake. We are talking about videos 1 and 2 - the original sources.

Of course vid 3 was debunked....




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by kroms33
reply to post by m0r1arty
 


Nope, I have alread debunked the green screen theory HERE:
www.abovetopsecret.com...




Before I respond to this, let me say that I was very disappointed to see nearly 20 more pages of discussion over topics already covered in the first 10. It appears nearly half of the contributers since I left this thread DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO READ THE THREAD.

That aside.

kroms33, respectfully you need to sit down and check your attitude at the door. We are all on the same side here, and that's the side of truth. I am shocked to see you attacking people so personally and sharply. Why is there a need for that? Nobody is winning anything here. This isn't a contest or a competition. Sit back, recover your dignity and come back with civility! It is good to argue with passion, but you have become overbearing. I mean no offense or to pretend to be better than you, just pointing it out calmly.

NOW.

As far as your "I have thrown the debunk out" stuff regarding chroma keying goes.. Your examples do illustrate the technology of green screen quite well, and yes you can check for "green screening" in the way you described. However, you made one fatal logical assumption: You are assuming the creators of this video used a "green" screen. If they used a black or dark screen, as many professionals do when dealing with a dark end result video, YOU WILL NOT FIND THE HALO OF GREEN OR LIGHT COLOR!

You have not proven a thing my friend. If a dark screen was used, you will have an extremely low chance of detecting "green screening" or as it is officially called, composite layering.

I would love just as much as you to have a genuine video on my hands. I witnessed something just like this several years ago as I stated earlier in the thread, and have been hoping somebody would catch it on camera ever since. This isn't that video. I'm sorry, but Gift's analyzing and video demonstrations prove it conclusively. If you re-read the thread, you will see that initially I challenged him multiple times, and he was able to prove his theory against all reasoning.

I promised to come back with a video demonstrating the subpar video stabilization anomalies. Where is that video? It's not coming. Why? Because no matter what cheap camera I used, I was not able to recreate the same type of shifting movement because it's not a product of the camera, it's a product of composite layering.

I also tried to take a real video, in broad daylight, and use stabilization methods in AE to show that it could be an artifact of the stabilization process itself. Again, I have no video to bring because I was unable to get any stabilization process to reproduce the anomaly seen in the video. I used my old Hi8 camera, I used a cheap webcam, I tried my laptop camera, I tried my IPhone, NOTHING did that.

I'm truly sorry, but Gift is right. There is absolutely no way a real video will display the difference in perspective that the video shows when stabilized. You can download a thirty-day trial of AE even if you don't own it. Try it yourself, and you will quickly convince yourself!

Remember scientific method.. Gift proposed a theory, both he and I tested that theory, and all evidence supported it, and none of the experiments, video demonstrations or research was able to produce anything to disprove the theory.

When you couple the evidence produced in this thread of a hoax, combined with the lack of witnesses, lack of credentials of the video cameraman, and the sheer fact that we don't even know who shot it or any details.. Well, it's pretty straight forward.

With all this being said, it is still always going to be a matter of your opinion. Only we as individuals can decide in our minds and hearts what is real and what is not. But it is not our place to force our beliefs or opinions on others, merely to share the evidence we have gathered and allow others to reach their own conclusions. Do you understand what I am saying?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by zezba9000
 


Thanks for adding to the analysis. Real demonstration showing that other people's spatial analysis is incomplete. Please watch this guy's video before believing incomplete statements about perspective.

I would also like to add regarding parallax (nothing to do with this guy's video):

Originally, Hoaxkiller's video said that:
1. Fixating on a BG object while moving causes the FG object to move in the opposite direction.
2. Fixating on a FG object while moving causes the BG object to move in the same direction.

I will add: There are two types of camera motion, Translation and Rotation. The parallax rules above refer only to Translation motion.

In rotational motion, such as pan left/right or tilt up/down, any of these motion will make BOTH background and foreground appear to "move" in the same direction, this is of course relative to the frame.

What does anyone think about the camera's motion? Is it Translating (track left/right, crane up/down)? Or Rotating (pan left/right, tilt up/down)? Or both? What do you think?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by thektotheg
 


Well videos are about as legitimate as an eye witness testimony, you can't take something for fact just because you see it... The facts that it is so easily possible to fake a video is proof enough that you can't believe what you see...

You'd be naive to believe most anything of a fantastic nature that you get from the internet...



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by laymanskeptic
reply to post by zezba9000
 


Thanks for adding to the analysis. Real demonstration showing that other people's spatial analysis is incomplete. Please watch this guy's video before believing incomplete statements about perspective.

I would also like to add regarding parallax (nothing to do with this guy's video):

Originally, Hoaxkiller's video said that:
1. Fixating on a BG object while moving causes the FG object to move in the opposite direction.
2. Fixating on a FG object while moving causes the BG object to move in the same direction.

I will add: There are two types of camera motion, Translation and Rotation. The parallax rules above refer only to Translation motion.

In rotational motion, such as pan left/right or tilt up/down, any of these motion will make BOTH background and foreground appear to "move" in the same direction, this is of course relative to the frame.

What does anyone think about the camera's motion? Is it Translating (track left/right, crane up/down)? Or Rotating (pan left/right, tilt up/down)? Or both? What do you think?


I think you missed the point of parallax, but i could be wrong, hear me out:

Imagine if you will a graph overlaid onto the video in 2d. X-axis, and Y-axis. The top of the wall we will call X-axis-1 and the horizon line X-axis-2. The problem is, no matter how you move a camera when filming, those two axis will always be parallel to each other. In the "UFO" video, Gift shows that in fact, x-axis-1 rotates while x-axis-2 does not. That, no matter what you film with, how you shake it, where you move it, is impossible. Unless of course, the whole ground they were standing on rotated, like if you were on a boat.

That's the problem with the video. Trust me, I spent several pages arguing with him and had to go experiment with my own video cameras to see it. If you can produce a video of your own or anyone else's that is not a composite that shows the two axis not in parallel, then maybe we have a reason to look at it again. I hope that made sense.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Dramier



kroms33, respectfully you need to sit down and check your attitude at the door. We are all on the same side here, and that's the side of truth. I am shocked to see you attacking people so personally and sharply. Why is there a need for that? Nobody is winning anything here. This isn't a contest or a competition. Sit back, recover your dignity and come back with civility! It is good to argue with passion, but you have become overbearing. I mean no offense or to pretend to be better than you, just pointing it out calmly.

 


You are 100% right - and to any of those that I offended I am sorry. Sometimes I get a little too passionate, and that is my flaw. I get way to passionate about things and seem a bit over the top... I am actually a nice guy.

I can not blame this on my fluctuating nicotine levels - because there is no excuse for my actions... we are all human - and I did say some out of character statements.

I am going to bow out of this debate for now, as I do think I need a breather from it.

Again, from the bottom of my heart I apologize to those I have offended. Hopefully one day we will all come upon the evidence that changes our world.

Peace,
kroms33



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brainiac
reply to post by thektotheg
 


Well videos are about as legitimate as an eye witness testimony, you can't take something for fact just because you see it... The facts that it is so easily possible to fake a video is proof enough that you can't believe what you see...

You'd be naive to believe most anything of a fantastic nature that you get from the internet...


Well said, but I would also like to add this:

I believe Arthur C Clark said any sufficiently advanced technology will seem like magic. In that line of thought, when you are shown something unproven, it is the natural tendency to disbelieve, but that does not make all things shown false. It is an unfortunate side result of the power of the internet that false information spreads so easily and willfully.

Analyzing and reaching conclusions on videos like this help us all understand all the videos we see that much better, and keep us more knowledgeable and sharp. If nothing else, that is a great benefit.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:46 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!



It is still BS and your point is moot. You simply say "it is real" when clearly the back ground is inconsistent with the laws of physics. Where are all the people who claim to have seen it? Oh we only have Micheal Cohen's word because he communicated with the witness in email. The original video is as bogus as the other 2. The man that filmed it allegedly is now mum. let me guess... he fears the MIB and MOSSAD will silence him? Why has he not communicated with real researchers and just Micheal Cohen? It is the same song and dance we get with every hoax on allhoaxweb ANW. Why has it been used as mere spam by Cohen with a Viral agenda? You are betting on the wrong horse.


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



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dramier

Originally posted by laymanskeptic
reply to post by zezba9000
 


Thanks for adding to the analysis. Real demonstration showing that other people's spatial analysis is incomplete. Please watch this guy's video before believing incomplete statements about perspective.

I would also like to add regarding parallax (nothing to do with this guy's video):

Originally, Hoaxkiller's video said that:
1. Fixating on a BG object while moving causes the FG object to move in the opposite direction.
2. Fixating on a FG object while moving causes the BG object to move in the same direction.

I will add: There are two types of camera motion, Translation and Rotation. The parallax rules above refer only to Translation motion.

In rotational motion, such as pan left/right or tilt up/down, any of these motion will make BOTH background and foreground appear to "move" in the same direction, this is of course relative to the frame.

What does anyone think about the camera's motion? Is it Translating (track left/right, crane up/down)? Or Rotating (pan left/right, tilt up/down)? Or both? What do you think?


I think you missed the point of parallax, but i could be wrong, hear me out:

Imagine if you will a graph overlaid onto the video in 2d. X-axis, and Y-axis. The top of the wall we will call X-axis-1 and the horizon line X-axis-2. The problem is, no matter how you move a camera when filming, those two axis will always be parallel to each other. In the "UFO" video, Gift shows that in fact, x-axis-1 rotates while x-axis-2 does not. That, no matter what you film with, how you shake it, where you move it, is impossible. Unless of course, the whole ground they were standing on rotated, like if you were on a boat.

That's the problem with the video. Trust me, I spent several pages arguing with him and had to go experiment with my own video cameras to see it. If you can produce a video of your own or anyone else's that is not a composite that shows the two axis not in parallel, then maybe we have a reason to look at it again. I hope that made sense.


Hi Dramier, a few moments ago that's what I thought too... but please watch zezba9000's video, posted recently. This demonstrates that, in fact, they will not always be parallel as I once believed. Please watch the video.
edit on 1-2-2011 by laymanskeptic because: one -> once



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 




It is still BS and your point is moot. You simply say "it is real" when clearly the back ground is inconsistent with the laws of physics.
Hahaha, did you even watch the video on the last page? How can his point still be moot when the video CLEARLY shows he is in fact correct? You simply say "hoax" when clearly the background is obeying the laws of physics.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Dramier
 


Arthur C. Clark said that true, but he would probably say that, "this isn't one of those times"...


It still stands that this is all just a staged event.

I mean come on, standing on a mountain... with a video recorder, overlooking a town, with a vantage point of the whole sky... Why stop at the Lightsource taking off straight up [which of course is simply the footage reversed and sped up] have the lightsource spell Alien in the night sky...

The designers and distrubuters of the video felt it was good enough to draw attention, but since i am well versed in 3D software and photo/video editing software, i can tell you that this is so easily done... You can superimpose anything to anything, you can even splice and overlay video overtop of video, and you can blend and alpha transparency and all sorts of other tricks of broadcast quality to videos...



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhizPhiz

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)


Hi Dramier, here's the video that changed my mind. Please let us know how relevant you guys think this is. Watching this video I realized that they will not always be parallel, if they are not completely parallel in space. They appear parallel to us from the cameras perspective, but not universally parallel. The only way they can be parallel no matter from which angle you view it is if the 2 lines are absolutely parallel in space. If not, then there exists an angle where they will not appear parallel. What kinds of motions will reveal this, you guys can help out analyze. We're the camera's motions enough to reveal that the 2 parallel lines aren't actually parallel in space?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brainiac
reply to post by Dramier
 


Arthur C. Clark said that true, but he would probably say that, "this isn't one of those times"...


It still stands that this is all just a staged event.

I mean come on, standing on a mountain... with a video recorder, overlooking a town, with a vantage point of the whole sky... Why stop at the Lightsource taking off straight up [which of course is simply the footage reversed and sped up] have the lightsource spell Alien in the night sky...

The designers and distrubuters of the video felt it was good enough to draw attention, but since i am well versed in 3D software and photo/video editing software, i can tell you that this is so easily done... You can superimpose anything to anything, you can even splice and overlay video overtop of video, and you can blend and alpha transparency and all sorts of other tricks of broadcast quality to videos...


Hi Braniac, can you please tell me how to fake the "jello effect" (rolling shutter) seen in video 2? Specifically, how to fake the jello effect on the orb itself, if it was in fact superimposed on a wobbly cellphone video. Please observe the orb 3 seconds before it stops down (video 2), then let me know how you think the wobble is applied on the orb consistent with background wobble. Thanks



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by WhizPhiz
 



Im shaking my head here, did you actually follow this thread and the analysis? Or was it selective choice? Maybe you missed it..

Proven to be a hoax
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This thread will end up in the Hoax section soon enough.

Haha

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



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
reply to post by WhizPhiz
 



Im shaking my head here, did you actually follow this thread and the analysis? Or was it selective choice? Maybe you missed it..

Proven to be a hoax
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This thread will be in the Hoax section soon enough.

Haha


Uhhh...ha...ha...

lol, this is quite funny...you're still trying to push the explanation which we have just proved wrong!! Can't you get that through your head? There is nothing wrong with how the background moves!!! And as for the parallax thing I posted a video showing how that can easily occur. I don't know who is being selective here...but it definitely isn't me.

*insert snide remarks here*



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   



Hi Dramier, here's the video that changed my mind. Please let us know how relevant you guys think this is. Watching this video I realized that they will not always be parallel, if they are not completely parallel in space. They appear parallel to us from the cameras perspective, but not universally parallel. The only way they can be parallel no matter from which angle you view it is if the 2 lines are absolutely parallel in space. If not, then there exists an angle where they will not appear parallel. What kinds of motions will reveal this, you guys can help out analyze. We're the camera's motions enough to reveal that the 2 parallel lines aren't actually parallel in space?


Well I'll be damned. In my own experiments, I only faced a wall, or actually it was a wooden fence, at a straight on angle.. I don't have the space to stand at an angle to it...

I'm really glad you point this out to me, because I completely missed that video when I was scrolling through the pages, probably thinking it was another repost of a previous video..

I already fired up 3DS and did my own rendered wall and checked it out for myself. I guess we are solidly back to ground zero again.

Heading back into Photoshop and Adobe.. maybe something will turn up. Haha, I guess I can read my own post there and take my own advice about the perspective eh? =P



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
SO what have we established so far?

-Parallel lines will always appear to be parallel, unless they only appear parallel from a certain angle and not absolutely parallel in space.

-when the BG is the target, FG moves opposite the direction of the viewer's motion
-when the FG is the target, BG moves the same direction of the viewer's motion
-rule only applies to translation motion from viewer, not rotational motion like pan and tilt

-cameras exhibit a number of artifacts related to its image capture method
-post production exhibits a number of artifacts too
-the anomalies that we see... camera or post prod?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   


Uhhh...ha...ha...

lol, this is quite funny...you're still trying to push the explanation which we have just proved wrong!! Can't you get that through your head? There is nothing wrong with how the background moves!!! And as for the parallax thing I posted a video showing how that can easily occur. I don't know who is being selective here...but it definitely isn't me.

*insert snide remarks here*


Thanks for taking the time to do that rendering. Just when I thought I was dropping that video in the recycling bin, I find myself back in AE and PS yet again.

I don't think analyzing the UFO itself will turn anything up since it seems to be too clean, and the usual suspects have been eliminated. I think I will take another look at the audio. I have no class today so after some sleep I can tackle it.

Nice work!



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhizPhiz




SNAP!


You don't even know that this further shows and displays what I am telling you.

Look at the background...see the gridded squares that make up said background. Look at those squares "moving and changing depth and perspective in relation to the moving camera eye".

Now look at the entire city in the UFO clip failing to do this at all.

Look at each and every point in the distance of the UFO clip "not reacting to the change in perspective by remaining stagnant and unaltered to the change in camera positioning".

That is impossible.

And if one more person calls anyone here "stupid", I can only say that I will do my best to see you receive proper education on the T&Cs.

Please "try" to keep disagreement on a civil level.

TY.

MM

MM



new topics

top topics



 
167
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join