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: 57
167
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Something that PROVES that video is a fake.... When the camera zooms in, the rate of camera shake remains the same. When it zooms out, the amount of camera shake stays the same.

Everyone knows that camera shake increases when you zoom in.... The camera shake is FAKE.

After Effects allows for 3D lights and shadows... That reflection on the dome is easy to do.
edit on 1-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Norio Hayakawa posted on his page today, claiming this is a PROVEN HAOX




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
...and who knows what ATS members agendas really are? All of us just know eachother from an internet message board (ATS). What does this video really matter anyways? IF it was an alien craft or angel/demon that came down, hovered over the Temple Mount, then shot back up to a mother ship or whatever, what did it accomplish? Absolutely nothing except a small internet interest and heated discussion on various message boards. That's IT! It didn't drop off Jesus or Allah or anything.

I think if aliens/angels/demons wanted to really get our attention, much more would've come from this specticle than has manifested.

Again, lesson learned: Don't believe any UFO video ever. Too easy to hoax. I'm done with this thread.

edit on 2-2-2011 by AstroBuzz because: (sp)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by theRiverGoddess
 


Some people, it seems, like to call hoax too early. This may very well be a hoax, but those who say this is case closed at this stage are just jumping the gun and quite possibly spreading lies themselves.

The current debate surrounding the particular video you posted is as follows:

1) www.youtube.com...
2) www.youtube.com...
3) www.youtube.com...
4) www.youtube.com...
5) www.abovetopsecret.com...

EDIT: And a few posts below you will see the debate continuing on.


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



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by AstroBuzz


P.S. ...and just cause people say it was debunked on ATS doesn't mean anything. This is just another cool forum were random people gather and share their expertise...


Wrong. once the physical/observable laws of perspective are broken, it is proven to be fake.

I can't get you to understand that...but it is true.

All that is left is for others to study/understand perspective law and "get it".

The 15 laws of perspective are something that can not be broken in legitimate 3D space- as is clearly done in the clip in question.

Its as simple as that.

Sorry.

MM
edit on 2-2-2011 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
reply to post by theRiverGoddess
 


Some people, it seems, like to call hoax too early. This may very well be a hoax, but those who say this is case closed at this stage are just jumping the gun and quite possibly spreading lies themselves.


Those refusing to understand that the laws of perspective, when broken, prove that it was faked or filmed in a universe governed by laws other than those of this realm of existence- are indeed likely to post what you just said above.

Fact remains- the laws of perspective are simple and easy to understand. You can't pass highschool art class without having a decent understanding of them.

MM



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
One more thing- to those saying things like "the farther away something is the less parallax/perspective comes into play"

Know that ancient astronomers (just like current ones still do) used these laws to accurately measure distances to to other stars using "nothing more" than basic parallax.

Its that simple.

What the hell am I doing back in this thread?


Look...I don't know crap about editing special effects...but I do know that the laws of perspective- as I fully understood them by age 13- are manhandled and broken here in this clip.

PS- To the guy who owns another website (yknow, the one with less then 30 posters) saying "Since Mr Mask attaches himself to the debunking it needs to be wrong" (or something similar)- Um dude? You claim this may be a RC toy plane...



No wonder you were removed from this site and banished to the failing one you now control.

MM
edit on 2-2-2011 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


"I block everyone from commenting"
-- O really?? Then why did I see comments there & why then when I tried to comment did it give me this error:: "You have been blocked by the owner of this video."
Hmmmm....Let me guess...

"I didn't get this message you are talking about"
-- Check your YouTube inbox... I could not comment on your video, so I sent you a message.

" NO EXTREME CAMERA MOVEMENTS"
-- By you are in fact saying there is "Camera Movement" .
And because there were camera moments that were produced by a Human holding a camera we can assume with 99% probability that all 3 motions are taking place here(aka Eye, LookAt & Up). This WILL produce a slight DEPTH variation & VERTICAL variation, making these statements hypocritical "ZERO change in depth" & "ZERO vertical movement".
The difference in the WALL angle to the HORIZON is a small variation as you point out. I made extreme variations in my video to demonstrate a point.

"there is ZERO PARALLAX"
Wrong, you even demonstrated that there was in the video I originally harped on(If you take into account the WALLs angle).
Here is the video to prove you have not demonstrated all scenarios:: www.youtube.com...
edit on 2-2-2011 by zezba9000 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-2-2011 by zezba9000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask
PS- To the guy who owns another website (yknow, the one with less then 30 posters) saying "Since Mr Mask attaches himself to the debunking it needs to be wrong" (or something similar)- Um dude?


Some of those 30 members may be of a particular guile and wit that the likes of man couldn't comprehend though. I've heard there is at least one man there who is as handsome as the day is long and is smart as the North is magnetic. Shares an alias with me too


Anyway, back onto the UFO topicanza. Another video has been uploaded by the original author as the first video and for me this is the nail in the coffin that this is legit.



-m0r



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by zezba9000
 


The guy making these "debunking the debunker" videos with computer environments seems very nice and interested in truth...so I want to be very clear in saying I mean no disrespect to him.

What he keeps showing is "not" what is being pointed out as proof of hoax.

What "is being pointed out" is that the background of the clip moves independently of the foreground verses the movement of the optical eye. The lights in the city disobey the laws of perspective by not following the laws of parallax and by existing in a free moving way apart from the foreground.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by m0r1arty

Some of those 30 members may be of a particular guile and wit that the likes of man couldn't comprehend though. I've heard there is at least one man there who is as handsome as the day is long and is smart as the North is magnetic. Shares an alias with me too



"Some" of those members are my heroes and I really wish they were here right now to explain why this "perspective analysis" is right or wrong. One member there is actually extremely clever/knowledgeable on video and photo issues...I will call him "Mr C"

Mr C has openly said he sees some weirdness in the way the camera is displaying the scene in this clip. And though he has said it may be some bad camera problems- he has also stated he has never seen such anomalies present themselves in this manner.

Now Mr C is much more careful with his credibility and knows way more about photography and video than I will ever know. But seeing him say he never seen this type of anomaly present itself in this manner is telling...at least to me.

Anyways...on that site there are a few brilliant/awesome debunkers/friends/sexy-studs.

Sadly it is run by a goof ball with bad manners and horrible site-running skills.

MM



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by m0r1arty


Anyway, back onto the UFO topicanza. Another video has been uploaded by the original author as the first video and for me this is the nail in the coffin that this is legit.



-m0r


I take it all back...THAT WAS AMAZING!

I'm off to pack my UFO-bug-out-kit (UBOK).

If you pack one as well...You be OK!

MM



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   
There is a 4th video out now...Didnt know if anyone knew



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Needless post as the info as now been replied to so....



-m0r
edit on 2/2/2011 by m0r1arty because: Making life better



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Moose318
There is a 4th video out now...Didnt know if anyone knew


You mean this one?




edit on 2-2-2011 by AutOmatIc because: found



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by m0r1arty
 


Great video...it also shows some interesting examples of parallax itself.

Thanks for posting it.

Whoever made it is obviously talented and handsome.

"I am a machine, searching for receiving outlets".


MM
edit on 2-2-2011 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by zezba9000
"I block everyone from commenting"
-- O really?? Then why did I see comments there & why then when I tried to comment did it give me this error:: "You have been blocked by the owner of this video."
Hmmmm....Let me guess...


Sometimes I don't turn the comments off instantly. They were on for a little while, then I must of turned them off right when you tried to reply. If I wanted to block YOU I would probably just leave the comments on and only remove your posts, but I am not doing that.

I am turning off comments and proving a link to this forum so I can talk with people more easily. YouTube comments allow for drive by posting of CRAP, and no room for debate.

I didn't block you...


Originally posted by zezba9000
"I didn't get this message you are talking about"
-- Check your YouTube inbox... I could not comment on your video, so I sent you a message.


I just rechecked my inbox and there is no message. Maybe you should check your sent box and see if you sent it at all or to the right person.


Originally posted by zezba9000
" NO EXTREME CAMERA MOVEMENTS"
-- By saying this you are in fact saying there is "Camera Movement" .


Yes there is very small movements of the camera. I haven't detected any movements of the location of the camera, only movements of rotations of the camera.


Originally posted by zezba9000
And because there were camera moments that were produced by a Human holding a camera we can assume with 99% probability that all 3 motions are taking place here(aka Eye, LookAt & Up).


I thought that too, that is why I complain about the lack of parallax. I figured if he was actually holding the camera in his hand, there would be at least SOME parallax, but there is virtually NONE. I find it hard to believe anyone could hold and shake that camera that long and show no parallax between the man and the background.

When I watch the original video, I keep an eye on the wall and background lights. When the camera appears to move right, the background moves left.... it's supposed to move right.. Never do I detect any actual parallax meaning the camera moves right and the background moves right, and the foreground moves left.

Something is not right with the camera movements and the background and foreground. It seems there is only rotations of the camera, but not changes of location and altitude. The background seems to shake, but not in any way that laws of perspective define. It's more like an error in compositing.


Originally posted by zezba9000
This WILL produce a slight DEPTH variation & VERTICAL variation, making this statements hypocritical "ZERO change in depth" & "ZERO vertical movement".


There is ZERO change in depth. Did you not watch my stabilized videos close enough? The city lights stay perfectly in place. If there was change in depth (forward and backward), the distance between any two city lights would increase and or decrease. That doesn't happen, that means zero depth change took place.

You can also measure the distance between brick intersections on the wall, on each side of the mans legs. The distance never increases or decreases. There is ZERO detectable change in depth.

There is ZERO vertical movement as well. Watch my stabilized video again... Pick a light on the horizon, then pick another light below, nearest to the bottom. Measure the distance between the two over the entire video.... NOTHING CHANGES. If there was a change in vertical movement, the distance between two lights on top of each other would change.

There seems to only be rotational movement of the camera.... Who really knows if the camera is being held by hand or not... I am leaning to the possibility it was not hand held, but made to look that way.


Originally posted by zezba9000
The difference in the WALL angle to the HORIZON is a small variation as you point out. I made extreme variations in my video to demonstrate a point.


The key to my argument and video is the camera movement... The camera stays in one spot, and the rotation only changes very small amounts. The wall line angle should never change independently from the horizon line in this case...

The only case where it would, is in extreme situations of perspective change, like what you are doing in your video, and you just admitted to doing in the quote above. The camera in the UFO video does NOT move like your video, EVER, that is why I claimed the angle should not change. I think you are having trouble understanding that.


Originally posted by zezba9000
"there is ZERO PARALLAX"
Wrong, you even demonstrated that there was in the video I originally harped on(If you take into account the WALLs angle).


No, there is ZERO parallax. At least, horizontal parallax. When the camera moves right, the guy should move left, and the background show move right. I don't see that ever.

The wall is moving around... this could make you think you see parallax.

Even when the camera initially pans down when it follows the UFOs descent, the distance between the horizon and wall never changes... The distance should have changed according to laws of perspective... but it doesn't...


Originally posted by zezba9000
Here is the video to prove you have not demonstrated all scenarios:: www.youtube.com...


That scenario was already demonstrated! You made a reply to a video that you obviously ignored. Watch this video at 1:24:
www.youtube.com...

The entire wall is rotated on it's vertical axis 15 degrees to the left. The right side of the wall is farther away from the camera, and the left side closer.

edit on 2-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


You can try and Sweet talk your way out of this to everyone else on here, but its not going to work on me.
Do you get paid to put HOAX in front of everything(I'm really asking here)?? Just wondering because behind the scenes you seem very hypocritical. You say I am not addressing the issue, but you are very wrong on that regard.
Sorry if this sounds rude, but i'm having a hard time not understanding why someone at your skill level can't understand what i'm pointing out.



the background of the clip moves independently of the foreground verses the movement of the optical eye

The background moves dependently upon the eye. So does the foreground. The only difference is there speed of motion in relationship to there depth from the eye. The independence you refer to is in Fact correct.



The lights in the city disobey the laws of perspective by not following the laws of parallax

Of course your not going to see any parallax on the lights, because they are simply to far away & the camera is only moving a small amount in relation to that distance.
Can you see the parallax in a stone wall 100 feet away simply by moving the camera 6 inc?? No you cant, so the same apply's to the lights in relation to there distance from the eye.
edit on 2-2-2011 by zezba9000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Ok, if this has been posted before, my apologies...but here is the full version of the supposed 4th video.



Looks like the kids wanted to have some fun with the world
This is the only video on the kids ytube channel (aside from the shorter version) that they posted on channel named "YDMU1". I would wager, that they filmed several angles on the same night from different locations, before editing them in after effects of similar program to give them "authenticity" due to the fact that there are multiple vids, and multiple angles. Just my observation, also the original video guy's ytube channel "eligael" only has 4 uploads which are just the ufo. Both of these channels seem highly suspicious to me because they only have uploaded the same video the "ufo over jerusalem" video but different angles and on different ytube channels. Suspicious...so all the vids come from the same group of kids?
edit on 2-2-2011 by AutOmatIc because: fixed



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Up, down, like a merry-go round and round, like a forest fire down, down.



-m0r




top topics



 
167
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join