"UFO Over Temple Mount in Jerusalem" [discussion and analysis of multiple videos HERE]

page: 81
167
<< 78  79  80   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Sorry if this has been said already in the last pages, but here are the links to the actual witnesses youtube channels, where the original audio is still intact. I have downloaded these and stripped out the audio, loaded it into logic and run it side by side, it all matches perfectly apart from some odd clicks, which should be inaudible on the guy in the fronts footage, but is actually at the same level?


Here is the channel of the guy who actually filmed this video: www.youtube.com.../u/1/zQ-bNOy_CKQ

he says

"This morning around 01:00 AM at the promenade of Armon Hantziv in Jerusalm, i was witness(with another guy), an amazing ...ufo aircraft over Jerusalem old city (mount Moriah) Dome of the Rock,Temple Mount,قبة الصخرة, הר הבית.
What is the meaning of this sighting ?????????........................................... "



And this is the guy who filmed on the phone: www.youtube.com...

"shshsh331 (3 days ago)
...
wow!!! i was there ,i am the guy in the video, i was there with anothr guy on the promenade, we couldn't believe our eyes , we start shooting this thing with our cellular phones, it was amazing .im going to upload my video now although his quality is poorer then this one.


edit on 3-2-2011 by mirare because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Gotcha! Hoax!

Debunking video#4:

But before that, please bear with me as I introduce a quick background on digital cameras and the video they come up with:

(Some quick credentials first: I'm not just an armchair philosopher lolz. I used to be a cameraman, a video editor, and other stuff related to postprod, and I'm currently a producer, with some CGI background as I have worked on several CGI projects in both producing and hands-on capacities, solving and troubleshooting problems on a variety of levels):

Here goes:

Technical background (important):

There are 2 ways a camera can capture moving images (a sequence of still frames):

"Interlaced" capture - each captured frame is a actually made up of 2 separate alternating fields each captured at a slightly different slice of time. In postprod, this creates "combing" effect (where the 2 interlaced fields reveal themselves especially for objects or scenes captured while in motion).

"Progressive" capture - each captured frame is a whole frame. But there are 2 types of shutter variants:

"Rolling Shutter" - each frame is captured one line at a time.

Observable artifact #1: creates wobbly deformation of objects or scenes with respect to the orientation of the image sensor (either horizontal or vertical). Common weakness of cameraphones and DSLRs.

Observable artifact #2: external light flashes captured by the camera appear cut off within a single frame (when the duration of the flash is shorter than the time it takes to expose each frame)

"Universal Shutter" - all pixels (and therefore all lines) of each frame are captured all at the same time.

Observable artifact: no wobble, but creates simple motion blur for moving objects or scenes, regardless of image sensor orientation.

VIDEO#4 Debunk Explanation

1. A digital camera can only take a shot either in progressive or interlaced mode, but not both at the same time.



2. This sequence of frames from Video#4 show both interlacing artifacts and motion blur artifacts (supposedly due to quick motion), IN THE SAME FOOTAGE! This can't happen in reality, because the camera is either shooting in interlaced, or shooting in progressive, but NOT BOTH. Either everything that's revealing in the clip reveals interlacing, or progressive - not both.

3. So Video#4 is tampered with in the following sense:

a. The background footage was shot in interlaced mode as most consumer camcorders do
b. The CGI orb was composited into the interlaced background as a progressive image (in fact, the project settings is done in progressive mode - it can't be done any other way unless you know the "nuts and bolts" of your comp system (many thanks to Pinke's U2U for explaining to me how to do that)
c. The resulting final video is exported in progressive frames
d. Video comes out with a mixture of progressive and interlacing artifacts, which no camera can do, and it wouldn't make sense for a camera to do so.
e. Ergo, HOAX

I shall also debunk Video#2 :-) on a later post.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by laymanskeptic
Gotcha! Hoax!

Debunking video#4:

But before that, please bear with me as I introduce a quick background on digital cameras and the video they come up with:

(Some quick credentials first: I'm not just an armchair philosopher lolz. I used to be a cameraman, a video editor, and other stuff related to postprod, and I'm currently a producer, with some CGI background as I have worked on several CGI projects in both producing and hands-on capacities, solving and troubleshooting problems on a variety of levels):

Here goes:

Technical background (important):

There are 2 ways a camera can capture moving images (a sequence of still frames):

"Interlaced" capture - each captured frame is a actually made up of 2 separate alternating fields each captured at a slightly different slice of time. In postprod, this creates "combing" effect (where the 2 interlaced fields reveal themselves especially for objects or scenes captured while in motion).

"Progressive" capture - each captured frame is a whole frame. But there are 2 types of shutter variants:

"Rolling Shutter" - each frame is captured one line at a time.

Observable artifact #1: creates wobbly deformation of objects or scenes with respect to the orientation of the image sensor (either horizontal or vertical). Common weakness of cameraphones and DSLRs.

Observable artifact #2: external light flashes captured by the camera appear cut off within a single frame (when the duration of the flash is shorter than the time it takes to expose each frame)

"Universal Shutter" - all pixels (and therefore all lines) of each frame are captured all at the same time.

Observable artifact: no wobble, but creates simple motion blur for moving objects or scenes, regardless of image sensor orientation.

VIDEO#4 Debunk Explanation

1. A digital camera can only take a shot either in progressive or interlaced mode, but not both at the same time.



2. This sequence of frames from Video#4 show both interlacing artifacts and motion blur artifacts (supposedly due to quick motion), IN THE SAME FOOTAGE! This can't happen in reality, because the camera is either shooting in interlaced, or shooting in progressive, but NOT BOTH. Either everything that's revealing in the clip reveals interlacing, or progressive - not both.

3. So Video#4 is tampered with in the following sense:

a. The background footage was shot in interlaced mode as most consumer camcorders do
b. The CGI orb was composited into the interlaced background as a progressive image (in fact, the project settings is done in progressive mode - it can't be done any other way unless you know the "nuts and bolts" of your comp system (many thanks to Pinke's U2U for explaining to me how to do that)
c. The resulting final video is exported in progressive frames
d. Video comes out with a mixture of progressive and interlacing artifacts, which no camera can do, and it wouldn't make sense for a camera to do so.
e. Ergo, HOAX

I shall also debunk Video#2 :-) on a later post.


Of course! Excellent. Well spotted. And also the stuff shot in the car before the dodgy "hidden" cut at 4:23 in video 4 is obviously interlaced too.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
in an effort to keep all of your work in one place and to appease the masses that felt that parts of this story deserve to be in the main aliens and ufo section, I'm closing this thread and directing you to Mr Mask's thread on the topic.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


thank you





 
167
<< 78  79  80   >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum