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 Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

page: 105
216
<< 102  103  104    106  107  108 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Alright, after reading about 20 pages of this thread, it was time I put my 2 cents in. I borrowed the animated GIF from earlier, cropped and zoomed in to make a point:





I drew a yellow arrow in the lower-left corner pointing to a dim light source. Notice that light source become brighter as the flash happens? Look at the other light sources as well. All of them become brighter when the flash happens. This indicates that the flash was added after the fact and brightening every pixel in the video.

In normal lighting conditions, such as the sun starting to come up, the area around a light source will become illuminated, but the light source itself will become dimmer as the sunlight starts to outshine nighttime light sources. In the animated GIF, the light source and its surroundings are all being brightened, thus proving the flash and the light from the flash were edited in by software.

The videos are all hoaxed. This thread should be moved to the HOAX forum with the other one. Props to Debo on the audio analysis, and everyone elses work on studying these videos.



Another revelation


I missed that one, deserves to be bumped.
edit on 5-2-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by DroppinSuga
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 


Please post the video. It's not going to change some people's minds because they will blindly defend this video, but it will hopefully show others who are more open-minded.


here ya go

www.youtube.com...

I concur that is evident



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 


Man .....I respect your staying power on this one , I imagine that right around now you look like the bloke in your avatar

Yeah they are fake , but some members just won't accept that , you can lead a horse to water.........



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Well, as much as I can't believe this case actually needed 3 threads with over 200 pages of posting to finally realize it was all just a hoax, it was still entertaining to follow.

The last time I was this engaged in a thread was when the Norway spiral happened. Over a year ago.

So thanks guys for keeping it interesting.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Great job everyone!

Also, Thanks to ATS Admins for allowing this to return to the main UFO board. If but just for a while.

Again, Cheers to all!



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 

Is this the same viewpoint?
I know it's cut off just to the left of it, but I think that if that was such a site as a mirrored or identical buildings, that they would of got that into the pic instead of cutting it off.





Ahhh there is a great photo for reference great find


I shall be retiring for the day and return later since I have lost sleep over this sham. It was well worth it , even the blatant ignorance played its entertainment purposes. And surely it will be no time before the next hoax to make its way in to our cross hairs. Chalk this one up for the good guys on the side of truth.

Hoaxers lose again



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Here's a high-res image of the view
annakpureseriousfun.files.wordpress.com...

Bravo!



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Alright, after reading about 20 pages of this thread, it was time I put my 2 cents in. I borrowed the animated GIF from earlier, cropped and zoomed in to make a point:





I drew a yellow arrow in the lower-left corner pointing to a dim light source. Notice that light source become brighter as the flash happens? Look at the other light sources as well. All of them become brighter when the flash happens. This indicates that the flash was added after the fact and brightening every pixel in the video.

In normal lighting conditions, such as the sun starting to come up, the area around a light source will become illuminated, but the light source itself will become dimmer as the sunlight starts to outshine nighttime light sources. In the animated GIF, the light source and its surroundings are all being brightened, thus proving the flash and the light from the flash were edited in by software.

The videos are all hoaxed. This thread should be moved to the HOAX forum with the other one. Props to Debo on the audio analysis, and everyone elses work on studying these videos.



Another revelation


I missed that one, deserves to be bumped.
edit on 5-2-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)


I hate to say it but this was mentioned about 80 pgs ago.

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

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



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 

The only thing missing was Jim Oberg. Read the Thread.........(both)
edit on 5-2-2011 by timewalker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 


Man .....I respect your staying power on this one , I imagine that right around now you look like the bloke in your avatar

Yeah they are fake , but some members just won't accept that , you can lead a horse to water.........



Haha tell me about it, I think im going to have bags under my eyes and more gray hairs after all is said and done. I still would like to see the Hoaxers exposed personally and any one that was involved. Why they did this we may never know, im not even a debunker or skeptic im a believer i guess i even use to be as blind and silly as some that refuse the truth serum. As passionate as i feel about the UFO issue i have felt malice toward Hoaxers in such a way I hate them. They are an obstacle and a puss filled sore in ufology in these times. They will always be there and that just comes with the territory anyway. At least they keep us on our toes.


OK bed time , off to hoax section you go.... again Jerusalem Hoax



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
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.

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)



Thank you, this is excellent, and a lot more of the type of thing I was looking for. This is solid, moreso than anything else that has been postulated, and I think it is very difinitve. Congrats, because I see this as a smoking gun, for reals.

This is the type of info I was looking for in requesting that someone put the red flashing light sequences side by side to see if there was continuity, opposition, etc.

Great job!



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
They mirrored the edges of the video because they added fake camera shake, and fake camera shake pretty much explains all the parallax issues I pointed out long ago.

I think if more people understood the parallax issues I pointed out so long ago this hoax would have been debunked before any of the rest of the videos even surfaced.


edit on 5-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by laymanskeptic
 


Here's my question, Is this the original footage for video 1? You downloaded the original video 1 footage, or got the raw file from the poster? I'm trying to understand how you came up with the mirrored image because a frame by frame analysis of the original video doesn't seem to reveal this discrepancy.

Also if people can link me to the evidence that shows video 2 is a hoax, as well as video 4? These might have also been explained in the 100 pages of posts, it's a little hard to dig through the whole haystack. Much appreciated if anyone cares to link me.

Long time viewer, First time poster, yes. It's easy to sit on the fence and look at all the action, but it's harder to get involved.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Wow. When I'd initially watched the first couple of videos last weekend, because of my own experience with the UFO I once witnessed, my first reaction was these possibly could be the real thing. I followed the first thread and arguments against were convincing early on. Also, as time passed and the individuals didn't come forward to provide a full description of their experience, I could only conclude it was a hoax. Despite having concluded it was, I followed the subject over from the first thread to the second, to see how it would play out on the forum and am glad I did. Some great eyes and ears pursuing the rough and finer details. Thanks for the education. I've learned quite a bit.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   


Why is the view in his camera not black or have just a small view of the city lights on it? Why does it have what seems to be nothing but light all in the viewing area? Explain please, or better yet for a little experiment, go outside when it is dark and point your camera towards the sky and come back and post what you get.

I have seen no new evidence come to surface as proving this to be real as of yet. I have seen new evidence coming to light of the 4th clip and the dealings with all the people involved and their relation to working with movies and audio. I have yet to see why no one has really taken this view of the guys phone in first clip into consideration. It has been posted before and one time with a pic that is posted. So again why is this guys phone that is supposed to be pointed upward towards the sky have all this light in view of his camera. I mean I thought it was just the view of the city lights below at first glance but really look at it and see for yourselves. Doesn't add up. I for one was wanting to believe and even threw some counter attacks to the Mr. Debo and giftofprophecy, but after actually looking at the video evidence, it really is pretty logical. Take time to research the evidence people.

True [ ] Hoax [X]
edit on 5-2-2011 by believerofgod because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
They mirrored the edges of the video because they added fake camera shake, and fake camera shake pretty much explains all the parallax issues I pointed out long ago.

I think if more people understood the parallax issues I pointed out so long ago this hoax would have been debunked before any of the rest of the videos even surfaced.


edit on 5-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)


I think this mirrored edge find is great one to add to the hoax side. I've been looking at every picture I could find from that area and cant find a reason to explain it. Though I've found no night time photos.

If the edges of the video were mirrored, would both sides have this effect? At the start of the longer version of #1, there is a almost equal side to side motion. When panned to the left you see the mirrored, added on portion of the video. Thought, right after there is almost the same shift to the right. Why does the light in top left not become mirrored. ------Updated: Or is it mirrored, cant really tell...looks like the top horizontal is mirrored as well...sorry, maybe I spoke to soon.

Please I do not need attacks about how I just dont get, or I have no idea of anything. Just thought is was worth pointing out. What do you guys think attributes to that?

video in question

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

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

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



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by serisony
reply to post by laymanskeptic
 


Here's my question, Is this the original footage for video 1? You downloaded the original video 1 footage, or got the raw file from the poster? I'm trying to understand how you came up with the mirrored image because a frame by frame analysis of the original video doesn't seem to reveal this discrepancy.

Also if people can link me to the evidence that shows video 2 is a hoax, as well as video 4? These might have also been explained in the 100 pages of posts, it's a little hard to dig through the whole haystack. Much appreciated if anyone cares to link me.

Long time viewer, First time poster, yes. It's easy to sit on the fence and look at all the action, but it's harder to get involved.


Yes it's the original footage by the original uploader.

Last 5 frames of 0:59 of the video (on the 1:44min version). 8 frames total, so go up to 1:00 +3 frames. Or just go to 1:00, then move around back and forth frame by frame around that time, you will see it.

Here's my post on Video#4 hoax:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Or I'll just paste if here:

Originally posted by laymanskeptic
Hi there, since the previous thread was closed (I was second to the last to post there LOLz, it was a debunking post), I shall migrate my debunking post here (debunking video#4)
-------
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.


I'll get around to video#2. More funny anomalies there...
edit on 5-2-2011 by laymanskeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExCloud
I concede... I have defended this video from start till now. I concede defeat. If this was taken from the 1st and original uploaded video. You have me we have been hoaxed.


I applaud you for having the guts to write this
Others are not so brave ...



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
They mirrored the edges of the video because they added fake camera shake, and fake camera shake pretty much explains all the parallax issues I pointed out long ago.

I think if more people understood the parallax issues I pointed out so long ago this hoax would have been debunked before any of the rest of the videos even surfaced.


edit on 5-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)


I'm with you on the parallax issue, but you never gave an answer on here or the u2u message I sent you as far as what a "real" shake is supposed to look like if you don't add all factors in. I gave them all to you if you would read up on it, it's pretty impossible in my opinion because what my main point was that we all differ in what our bodies do when it is cold outside and one is drunk as well. So I would kinda get off that analogy there unless you can prove otherwise. But as I said with my examples of breaking the laws of physics, mine deal with spheres and such as opposed to the walls. So I still agree with there.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by serisony
reply to post by laymanskeptic
 


Here's my question, Is this the original footage for video 1? You downloaded the original video 1 footage, or got the raw file from the poster? I'm trying to understand how you came up with the mirrored image because a frame by frame analysis of the original video doesn't seem to reveal this discrepancy.


On some versions you might have downloaded (from the same youtube account eligael), you can find it I think around 1:28.

Whatever version that is, it's around the moment when the shot starts to tilt up... you'll find it.



new topics

top topics



 
216
<< 102  103  104    106  107  108 >>

log in

join