UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
While I'd like to have a much better quality original, there does appear to be an indication that light from the object is having an effect on the surroundings, consistent with the objects motion and "flashes."
...
If there are definitive aspects debunking this video that I've missed -- I'm sorry. I haven't been able to read this entire thread in one evening.

There it is - indeed. The perfect example of what is going wrong in this thread. I am new myself to ATS, but I took the effort of READING the complete thread and downloading a HIGH QUALITY original to do some own studies, before posting anything delusional here. This thread could go on forever, if people keep coming up with their own amateur ideas from scratch before sifting through the previously established observations. So let me explain:

1. The video you downloaded is probably the worst quality I saw up to date. It is far away from the original. So please forget any analysis you did on it!

2. pezza and laymansceptic did some very good debunking analysis, which led me to do my own analysis. Read their threads somewhere around page 125.

3. I downloaded a high quality version and did some basic image comparison using CodedColor Fotostudio (www.codedcolor.com). Have a look at my analysis:


(??? Someone here in ATS: how can I have the image appear inside the text ???)

pezza concluded: "The fact that zero new information is revealed about the terrain (and emphasis on *zero*) tells me the light is 100% synthetic. If a burst of light high up in the sky, having the most direct line of site to the most amount of terrain in the image, and is also about 10x brighter then any light in the video, and that light does not reveal any new features in the underexposed regions of the image, you really need to question what the role of light is in our universe. "

I concluded after my own analysis: "So I did my homework, and guess what. I'm inclined to agree and say video 4 was tampered with. I compared two frames before and during the flash, and there is NO indication of previously unlightened objects. Only brighter pixels seems to have been lightened. It's a simple brightness increase (HSL), not even Gamma."

I will repeat it now: NO NEW DETAIL APPEARS IN THE SCENERY RESULTING FROM THE FLASH! If you don't believe it, do a pixel comparison yourself.

If you think otherwise, you may not know anything about image histograms. The brighter pixles are already there, even if you don't see them with the naked eye. The hoxer of video4 did a non-linear increase in HSL & brightness, which not only made lanterns brighter (wow, an electrical surge...), but also enhanced detail that was already there before the flash !!

On top of that there have been some very good additional arguments laid out:
* The zooming in video4 is synthetic, i.e. added by software
* The shaking in video4 is synthetic, i.e. added by software
* The light flash was added by "Adobe After Effects". There's a very obvious demonstration somewhere in this thread. This also explains my own observation from the pixel comparison.

So, even though I was a believer myself, after doing my own analysis I take my hat and am happy that this was moved into the HOAX bin. I just hope all you people sift through the evidence already contained in this long thread and use your time better after that. I do agree, that someone should summarize it somewhere.

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier

Originally posted by Slipdig1
I read the lot and you guys haven't debunked it. You just keep going on with claims that this could happen and this should happen!

You have not read " a lot" then, It was debunked... you must have missed it? Yopu keep just going on and on with no evidence or proof this is real rather you get debunked.

I want to ask a few questions
1. Were the videos shot from different locations uploaded by the same people? If not did these people know each other? If they do why were they filming?

All these questions have been answered, if you read the thread you would not be asking such a stupid question.

2. No one has answered any question about the lights? One fellow mentioned lasers thats it.

What thread did you read again? Do you have ADD?

3.Has anyone got the raw footage yet?

Raw Footage? You mean new hoax footage?

4.No one has made a multi angled "fake" to help others understand how it could be done?

Noone has has made love to a cactus, but im sure it has been done you jst dont hear about it.

Just stop trolling, I know what you are doing

edit on 8-2-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)

Is that an attack on me buddy. Who are you and how do you know i'm trolling. I'm not. Your lame mate. All the questions I asked haven't been answered at all.

Originally posted by Marsoups
The answer to that is teamwork. Here is the 3D graphic of the ship hovering, and launching off... Use your graphical experise and get them all to synch up based on the supplied graphic

Tosh!

As already stated it was an angel of fire and so this is just a ploy to have us all think it was a space ship.

See how it can be used back?

Plus - you've been here as a member for 24 hours - That's plenty of time to mount a credible video backing up your arguments.

Go make me a hotdog

-m0r

Originally posted by pezza
blah blah blah blah, sock puppet here, sock puppet there, blah blah, and so on.

In the interest of not letting this thread rage out of control like this one;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am going to step up to the plate. I am going to offer those who believe this video is real an opportunity of a lifetime. I will give anyone $1000, yes *$1000* in US currency if they can;

* get three academics or experts in this field from three separate institutions to verify that the footage is more likely to be real than fake. Not 99%, not 95%, just a measly 50.1%. Those three academics or experts cannot be anonymous, they must stake their name in order to make that 50.1% confidence and reasons to support that.

* Nominate any ATS moderator to hold the cash in trust. I will start with say $200 deposit now and $800 when the generous conditions are finalised

* ATS moderators must review the panel in an unbiased manner and provide transparent reasoning behind why he selected those three. They must have expertise in relevant field and neutral. Mods will also be compensated with a few bottles of choice red wine from downunder.

What do you reckon? This will get the fire raging again no doubt. Skeptics up for wild ride?

(btw, i mean skeptics in the context of just this video)

ps: i got the feeling the mods are going to move this thread to the Barbara Streisand section LOL

edit on 8-2-2011 by pezza because: add word

Why not the same challenge in reverse, why are "believers" expected to accept what has been put forth by debunkers (much credit to them for their hard work btw)? Anytime anyone challenges the debunks they are laughed at or ignored, stating that it's a hoax with the same words over and over is equivalent to saying because I said so. "Believers" are being labeled as deluded and unfairly so, sticking "your" fingers in your ears anytime there is legitimate suggestions and evidence for it having really happened, does not make anything "we" are saying invalid.

So this is the same thing that happens all the time here, the debunkers have concluded that they are right even though their are people, with evidence that leans toward it being real.

Originally posted by mirare

Originally posted by Marsoups

Something about them 'being in contact with the witnesses' is ringing alarm bells for me.. Anyone else ?

All of the witnesses have agreed to talk to Jaime Maussan

Jaime Maussan is flying over to Jerusalem to interview all of the video takers 1, 2, 4, as well as to contact other witnesses, or to collect other film evidence (say from security cameras), so we should learn more soon.

But there is other news here: www.ufo-blogger.com...

Today we have receive another email according to which the maker of Temple Mount video has admitted that his video is a hoax to the Israeli channel 2 news. Still waiting for news link..

Interesting thanks, yeah there was a link in the comments section of that youtube clip describing Michael Cohen
www.ufowatchdog.com...

Sounds to me like he's a crazy lunatic that would organize something like this....

Losing interest fast in this subject... Though am keen to see the report to see how they handled it..

and if my above post is too hard to understand, go outside with your camera. Take an out of focus image (i.e. the contrast in the image or sharpness is not near the best it can do) with the maximum size setting,10 megapixels, 20 megapixels, whatever. Then go back to your computer. Reduce the size of your image (by downsizing) until the picture looks like it is focus and sharp. Measure the size of that image. That is the *actual* amount of information you have. Not 10 or 20 megapixels, less!

Originally posted by Quartza
First off, My apologizes to all the debunker's who did great investigation work on video1, mainly GiftofProphecy. Lets blame excessive drinking and cabin fever(from this crazy weather) : ) I showed great ignorance in the use of motion tile effects.

To make up for that I wanted to bring up another anomaly that I don't believe that has been brought up. To anyone who still does not want to follow the mirroring effects claim, have a gander at this one. On the long cut of video1 during the 18-19sec mark, you can see and hear something very strange. Watch the the back of the guy, mainly the dark crease on the back of shirt.

he moves his arm and his jacket moves, what is the big deal with this? I have seen many jackets change shape as peoples arms move.

Originally posted by Slipdig1
So this is the same thing that happens all the time here, the debunkers have concluded that they are right even though their are people, with evidence that leans toward it being real.

yeah, those people are outnumbered about 1 million to 1 in this world.

Originally posted by m0r1arty

Originally posted by Marsoups
The answer to that is teamwork. Here is the 3D graphic of the ship hovering, and launching off... Use your graphical experise and get them all to synch up based on the supplied graphic

Tosh!

As already stated it was an angel of fire and so this is just a ploy to have us all think it was a space ship.

See how it can be used back?

Plus - you've been here as a member for 24 hours - That's plenty of time to mount a credible video backing up your arguments.

Go make me a hotdog

-m0r

You can call me newbs = )

The folk on this forum have gone to awesome effort to show things, I think an amazing 'open-source' analysis has been done. If I found something important enough to point out I would...

One does wonder though if some alien civilization somewhere has a way to tap into the earth net whether they be amused by it at all =)

One question that hasn't been asked is how would any human know how the light expelled from an extra terrestrial's space ship, would work?

Originally posted by Slipdig1
One question that hasn't been asked is how would any human know how the light expelled from an extra terrestrial's space ship, would work?

hahah, that's a good one

Originally posted by Slipdig1
One question that hasn't been asked is how would any human know how the light expelled from an extra terrestrial's space ship, would work?

hang on guys. I will get this one.

ANS: easy, theyll look up the manual to find the switch

I saved the video a couple of days ago (04.02.2010) on my hard drive and it already has the music on it. You're right that I can't see anything written on the display, but it seems illuminated. I'm not sure if this means anything but the properties say:

Date Created: 04:02:2011 03:42
Date Modified: 04:02:2011 03:46

I think is just crap that MS Windows shows because I see that Created/Modified discrepancy on nearly all videos in my folder.

Originally posted by Slipdig1
One question that hasn't been asked is how would any human know how the light expelled from an extra terrestrial's space ship, would work?

or even better, the light will only shine at four cameras. 5th one misses out and has to wait for the next one

For me this stays Inconclusive (and yes, I've read all (?) debunking attempts). Far more likely to be fake, of course, but still: inconclusive. Stating it's 100% proven hoax is incorrect, imo. It's proven that it could be made using editing programs, not that it indeed was.

People who 'believe' this is a hoax are just as stubborn as people who 'believe' this is real. There's not enough info to be sure either way. Some of the debunking arguments were just plainly wrong (i.e. background = picture vs. real video with cars and changing lights), others not conclusive (i.e. the 'mirrored' piece, the audio argument).
Right now it seems to be labeled 'hoax' because it's highly unlikely for it to be real. It probably is, but not surely.

There's just too much assumption. I'm with those who aren't satisfied with the current explanation yet. And that might not change, so I'm ok with that. If I'd have to rely on belief, I'd say it's fake - but that's just belief.

And, given it would be real, calling it extraterrestrial is another giant leap. Rather leave it with 'unidentified phenomenon' then.

Originally posted by Movhisattva
For me this stays Inconclusive (and yes, I've read all (?) debunking attempts). Far more likely to be fake, of course, but still: inconclusive. Stating it's 100% proven hoax is incorrect,

yep, im cool with that. Just dont apply for a job at my company or any other science/engineering related institution or company involved with aeronautics, chemical, bio med or nuclear. These industries need people that know when something is 100%. Some of these institutions teach subjects using the Keller philosophy. Go look that up.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Okay... sorry for not being able to jump in on this until this evening. I was traveling on business last week, and as a result, my weekend belonged to Mrs. Overlord.

Of the four videos, the "fourth" is the most intriguing to me... and shows little if any evidence of tampering or fabrication (in my opinion).

For reference, I obtained a decent quality original of the video using "keepvid.com" and have made it available here:
temple-ufo-4.mov (12 mb).

I've also applied some stabilization to the important sequences of the two flashes and the ascent of the "object" here in this animated GIF to preserve clarity:

Stills of the image were increased by 200% with no pixel distortion.

Here is what I see:

While I'd like to have a much better quality original, there does appear to be an indication that light from the object is having an effect on the surroundings, consistent with the objects motion and "flashes."

Now, it's certainly possible that someone skilled with desktop video software could produce this, but the effects are subtle -- someone creating hoaxes tends not to be so subtle.


There it is.


If there are definitive aspects debunking this video that I've missed -- I'm sorry. I haven't been able to read this entire thread in one evening.

Brilliant. I did notice some of these myself and wondered why this video got dismissed on grounds that the flash does not reveal more details. I had a look since on various videos with city lights at night and lightning and noticed that it's not as easy to say that more detail has to show up for something to be real. What shows up really varies from scene to scene depending I guess how close the flash of lightning is, how bright and how the camera reacts to sudden brightness at night. On some high quality videos more of the green areas are seen for example while on others the colour of trees and grass don't show at all. On some more details show and on others the details are washed away in bright light. I personally find the subtle amount of increased detail on this video during the flash very convincing.

reply to post by Movhisattva



I agree labeling it anything (god, angel, demon, black-project or ET) is premature and unwise, this to me is part of the problem. Going on my belief that this really happened, we need to find out what that was.

Originally posted by BenCambell

Brilliant. I did notice some of these myself and wondered why this video got dismissed on grounds that the flash does not reveal more details. I had a look since on various videos with city lights at night and lightning and noticed that it's not as easy to say that more detail has to show up for something to be real. What shows up really varies from scene to scene depending I guess how close the flash of lightning is, how bright and how the camera reacts to sudden brightness at night. On some high quality videos more of the green areas are seen for example while on others the colour of trees and grass don't show at all. On some more details show and on others the details are washed away in bright light. I personally find the subtle amount of increased detail on this video during the flash very convincing.

Personally i dont find it convincing at all and would give up my executive salary to vouch for that