Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

page: 102
216
<< 99  100  101    103  104  105 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


To be honest? I believe they chose this video because of the audio. You can clearly hear an English speaking woman in it. I mean for the English speaking news agencies, I imagine this is probably one main reason they chose it.... maybe
edit on 5-2-2011 by esteay812 because: Middle Secret




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


Thank you again. I personally like unbiased, open minded opinion/ explanation/ research. But the problem is, biased people can't recognize their bias, otherwise they wouldn't do that. There are lot of biases in research. One is observer bias. The solution is blinding the observer regarding the experimentation. As the debate is not a research, I would suggest the debaters at least to take some break, look into the mirror and think what are you doing. No offense to anybody.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by esteay812
There are many things that are adding up on this thread that could easily make this turn into a split decision in favor of Hoax. I do believe, before the match is over there will be a definitive knock out blow by Hoax on Real.

I mean, there are just too many big questions that are left without a solid answers and anyone of those answers could completely discredit these videos. Not many of the answers could prove it to be 100% real.

I personally do wish the course of this thread had displayed different results and we were going in a direction of identifying the craft in the video. Wouldn't that be awesome?!

Just wonder how long it has to go before a TKO is declared?
edit on 5-2-2011 by esteay812 because: Punctuation


You and I both. I strongly believe in UFOs (I mean crafts that defy our logic / flight abilities) , I've personally seen 2 silver orbs about 6 months ago that just didnt make any sense, just suspended extremely high in the air, moving left, then rising straight up. When I first heard there was not only 1 video, but 2 I said GTFO!

When watching video 1 thought, something didnt seem right with how things was moving (the parrellex issue thats been discussed), then after immediately hearing the audio from halfway through video 2, I noticed it was starting to smell like bs, and I don't live by a cattle ranch so


I honestly wish we couldve been debating about how real they was, and how there was NO evidence support that they was fake.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by esteay812
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


To be honest? I believe they chose this video because of the audio. You can clearly hear an English speaking woman in it. I mean for the English speaking news agencies, I imagine this is probably one main reason they chose it.... maybe
edit on 5-2-2011 by esteay812 because: Middle Secret


Thats another good reason, easier for american viewers to identify with. "We get those in mississippi!" that gets me everytime



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


Strange when you see something like that yourself. Even trying to realize what you are seeing is so wierd. I have only seen with my own eyes, 1 craft that I would go to my grave saying it was UFO/ possibly ET. Can't be sure about the ET, because our governments are so sticky.

Won't get into detail about it too much, but it was when I was 15 or so. Saw it just a few hundred feet off the ground, very huge/long craft. Was with my mom, coming home from a basketball game. Hovering just 50-75ft off the side of the road.

One of the biggest reason I like ATS so much. Seems to be the largest source of info on this stuff and has so many people here that BS just doesn't work, for most people anyway...


EDIT to add: And NO I wasn't in Mississippi!!! haha
edit on 5-2-2011 by esteay812 because: shh



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by esteay812
reply to post by pezza
 


Hi pezza. Do you mind if I ask what qualifies you as an expert in this field?

Also, didn't mean to imply I am not a scholar, but meant to imply I am not a scholar in this field, or expert by any means

edit on 5-2-2011 by esteay812 because: addition


excellent question, I was actually going to provide this information up front with the last post. Instead I waited for someone to ask this. The reason being is that I have provided a series of posts that are quite detailed/thorough in their content. But the actual limited response and lack of creative discussion/review of these ideas have led me to believe that there is some sort of user enabled ignore feature in the forum. Im not sure, it makes me feel quite lonely.

In providing the requisite knowledge /experience to become an expert, I will point out that there are core requirements which should be shared by all experts and a series of diverse skills unique to groups of experts and individual skill unique to one person. The combination of common core skills and unique skills results in an advancement of a field that is not only efficient, but also innovative. So I describe below what set of skills an expert may have.

Core skills
* Enginnering or Science degree (manditory in the least)
* superior understanding of statistics
* Physics of motion


Specific Skills (based on debunking these sets of video alone and not any other set)
* Physics of light and electromagnetic radiation. Understanding of light scattering and models to describe it such as Mie theory, RGDB theory etc. The ability to solve the differential equations which describe the principles behind how light interacts with matter.
* Advanced knowledge of photography including understanding of their functions, lenses, intimate understanding of a specific ccd or cmos sensor, understanding of the photolithographic/etching process to construct that sensor from a silicon wafer, understanding of the onboard digital processing at a chip level, D/A, A/D, etc Someone who could take the actual camera that captured the footage, open it up and perform a forensic analysis on components like the sensor. He could look for dead pixels in the original footage, coorelate this to the position on the sensor, chop the sensor up by freeze microtomography and look at the part of the sensor corresponding to the failed pixel under a scanning electron microscope.
* Image processing, not only with commercial/shareware programs, but the ability to code image processing software from first principals using a variety of languages c,c++,VB etc.

possibly more. All that was off the top of my head. Im not thinking the best since chowing down this chocolate sundae. I think I might get Mr Whippy down the other end pretty soon. Jokes aside, what i describe above is a set of skills that are highly specific, understood in depth and multidisciplenry. Perhaps what i describe above is not of an expert but more someone that is the world leader in his field.

So naturally a person having quite advanced and in depth knowledge could have one or more of the following; PhD, patents in fields related to the above, track records of publications and winning grants from host government or private individual/institutions. The world leader in this field may be an emeritus professor

I will also comment on the nature of the 'UFO expert' specialising in debunking. I believe there is no such thing as this, to the extent that there is a bachelor degree in ufo debunking let alone PhD's on this matter. I could be wrong. What I specialise in here is making the distinction between a synthetic and real artefact in a computer image or print. It just happens to be that the artefact in question is a UFO attempting to passed off as being real. Tomorrow I could be looking at the authenticity of footage showing tiger woods driving a golf ball 400m into the wind.

So I will also make a final comment on the skills I outlined above. Another expert having completely diverse individual skills could be a senior CGI expert in Hollywood. His approach to debunking may be to create the video by CGI and if it matches the original footage then the original footage must be fake. Imagine if the scientist hooked up with the CGI expert to form a bulletproof argument for a hoax. It could be a knockout punch!!




edit on 5-2-2011 by pezza because: spell
edit on 5-2-2011 by pezza because: add idea



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   
ANOMALY FOR VIDEO #1

LOLOL... guys check out this sequence of frames...



See anything? Maybe this animation could help...



See it? No? Ok here's the spoonfed version LOL



Can anyone guess what that is? LOLz

Something... is reflecting... off an axis... that doesn't stay horizontal...

ROFLMAO... Do you know why? More spoonfeeding?

Can you guess how many artifacts I'm going to post after this? Guess how many artifacts in Video#2? Guess how I'm going to use it?

LOLOLOL

This gets funnier every time!

Wow I sound juvenile lolz



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by pezza
 


Thanks for outlining that for us. So, are you saying you have those requirements and that is what makes you an expert in the field or that is what should be fulfilled to be an expert?

Either way, thanks.
edit on 5-2-2011 by esteay812 because: grr



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier

Originally posted by Paradigm2012

Originally posted by oxbow

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist

However the UFO doesn't move with the rest of the image, instead it looks like it was composited on top of the city footage and wasn't motion tracked properly. There is no horizontal movement from the UFO, it only moves straight up in a vertical line. Why doesn't it move with the rest of the footage?




Bumping this post, because as far as I can tell it's gone largely ignored. Would somebody like to explain the anomaly pointed out by freelance_zenarchist? It's pretty much busts the 4th video in my opinion.


This proves nothing at all. This is not strong evidence of a hoax at all. You pretty much seem desperate to find something which is why you have not been able to back up your claims with evidence.


That gig exposes this perfectly!

Pot calling the kettle black? You seem intolerant of any analysis done in to this. Your agendas is pretty clear and you make no effort in hiding that. With your pot , disinformation being your cup of tea. You still contribute nothing but projecting your discontent with the facts. And i rarely flame people to this extent, but your counter productive MO deserves it. Not that just me and mask noticed or anything.
edit on 5-2-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)


It seems to me that there is horizontal movement from the 'object' in question, if only a little. Clearly when the object is at the bottom of the parallel lines it protrudes the right line. When it is at the top it is on or protruding the left line. Using lines like that can trick the mind into focusing on only the parts of the object in between the lines.

On closer examination the object clearly moves to the left by a fraction, just like the rest of the frame. This could be due to diminishing light from the object, I'm not too sure.

As the magnitude of light changes it is hard to tell where the actual 'obect' is as oppose to it's luminescence.

This technique of examining a 3D environment on an euclidean plane is hardly convincing evidence, especially when we don't know the object source from it's light radiation as it is so bright.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by laymanskeptic
 


MORE ! I WANT MORE!



Thanks for your rigorous work still, I suspect that they are using a video screen of some kind? Projection possibly ?

I think there are more telling signs we may yet still be overlooking. Something like that as an example. Parralax is a major sign, question is how did they did it im wondering. There are clues yet? Please more sir



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by laymanskeptic
 


Ha! I noticed that and I was about to make a video about it. You know what that is? I will tell you... It is proof that finally kills this hoax.

That is actually caused by a function called "Motion Tile" when it is set to "mirror edges". It is commonly used to fill in missing pieces of a video when someone applies fake camera shake to a video.. When you apply fake camera shake to a video it moves the images around to do it, and it creates these moving edges all around the video exactly like you see around videos that have been stabilized.. Instead of cropping and making the video smaller to hide the edges, some people just apply the "motion tile" effect and set it to "mirror edges", and it creates EXACTLY what you see.

Watch this video at 3:32:
www.videocopilot.net...

It is PROOF of a HOAX!

That same issue is found on video 4...which also has fake camera shake.
edit on 5-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by esteay812
reply to post by pezza
 


Thanks for outlining that for us. So, are you saying you have those requirements and that is what makes you an expert in the field or that is what should be fulfilled to be an expert?

Either way, thanks.
edit on 5-2-2011 by esteay812 because: grr


your'e welcome. I am happy to give an open answer in relation to that question.

regarding those requirements, yes, i got all of that. The full value of giving that detailed background is to emphasize that it is necessary in any given field for individuals to have diverse and in-depth skills to attack problems from different angles, and at the end of the day all playing to the theme of validating data against laws of physics, thermodynamics etc


Some may ask why an expert would 'waste' their time in a forum discussion that has relatively poor scientifc integrity and does not really advance the field at all (here i refer to 'waste' as what would be percieved by the average academic). Well i dont think im wasting my time. I think there needs to be reform in the world of psuedoscience. This is because we are seeing news bullitens waste time on videos that can be proved fake within a matter of minutes by a skilled person. This week, that 2minutes on the news was better spent showing how to increase survivability of a Category 5 cyclone rather than airing some fake ufo footage. Perhaps they could have run an article showing the great people in private institutions and universities who did work to improve the resilience of residential and other structures to survive 300 kmh winds. Give these guys at the coal face of research and engineering the exposure to drive their motivation to continue the great work. We had a Cat5 this week cross a poplulated coastline and so far there are no reported deaths directly due to the force of that wind. It was not too unlike Katrina as well. Anyhow, i could go on and on and on here. If it was a slow news week i wouldnt care
edit on 5-2-2011 by pezza because: add paragraph
edit on 5-2-2011 by pezza because: spell
edit on 5-2-2011 by pezza because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
@ layman or gift

Is there any way this could be present? Any logical reason? could the camera lens have some condensation on it which could cause it to reflect / mirror / distort along the edges?
edit on 5-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


Watch the video at the link I posted in my last post. At 3:32 in the video it shows you the cause of it.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by laymanskeptic
 


Laymen, you sir are another superb detective on the case.

These recent findings look to be another huge dagger in the heart of this hoax.

So when is enough of these physic breaking anomalies enough to start denting the case for realism and start waking up the masses?

Are we not the folks who are most often quoted calling ourselves aware/awake?

God job sir.
MM



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


Watch the video at the link I posted in my last post. At 3:32 in the video it shows you the cause of it.


Yea I watched it, I see exactly what you guys are talking about, AND the information you thrown up completely collaborates his theory.

I'm just asking for the sake of covering all basis while we can before the heavy hitters wake up and come crashing back into the thread.

I can hear it now.

20x "inconclusive"



Oh yea, and is this in ALL the footage? I hope so
edit on 5-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask
reply to post by laymanskeptic
 


Laymen, you sir are another superb detective on the case.

These recent findings look to be another huge dagger in the heart of this hoax.

So when is enough of these physic breaking anomalies enough to start denting the case for realism and start waking up the masses?

Are we not the folks who are most often quoted calling ourselves aware/awake?


God job sir.
MM


Sir, I believe we could find home videos all over youtube that have physic breaking anomalies. Poor quality CMOS cameras can not be used to jump to such a conclusion.

Does that not show we can't analyze videos 1 and 2, with such scrutiny?
edit on 5-2-2011 by Quartza because: missing words



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


Oh I misunderstood, you were asking if there is any other thing that could cause it?

Well, I don't think so.. its a perfectly straight edge, and the angle of the edge matches the movement and rotation of the camera.

If it was any type of lens artifact or flaw in the glass it would be present at all times, and would never change.

It is most definitely a sign of motion tiled mirrored edges. No other explanation.
edit on 5-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
I may not be a fully be a fully fledged Expert.. close maybe..

I think I debunked Vid1:

On the comparison video of 1 and 2, at 24 seconds into the vid the phone screen of Vid2 guy is clearly pointing at a certain level as we can see his phone in his hand and assume he has is arm outstretched pointing at the object.



The next image shows Vid2 guys same body shape at exactly 60 seconds.




I'm sold on the fact Vid2 guy's video feed should technically be at same or simlar level to view the cityscape and orb at this current level, that is provided he did not arc his wrist in an upward fashion in an uncomfortable manner. Currently however the Picture at 60 secconds shows him mid pan upwards, incorrectly correlating to the footage in VId1

We can still see the visible light from his phone in the same way we did at 24seconds.

Something to chew on. I still think Vid 1 is hoax, Vid 2 on the other hand.. dont know!!



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Well, it's hard to judge these so called evidence of it being a hoax if you don't have the necessary knowledge in CGI.

I just note that if you google around there are also people who also claim to be knowledgeable that believes the first videos are genuine. For example this analysis:


edit on 5-2-2011 by Shades1035 because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
216
<< 99  100  101    103  104  105 >>

log in

join