UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

reply to post by Hongkongphooey


Thank you, well said.

I too do CGI, are an Illustrator and are adept in many other disciplines that are part of the scientists tools of logic and knowledge. BTW, As an illustrator, you need to know how light works, and general physics to represent reality accurate enough to look real.

Much of the debunkers arguments make seriously bad mistakes of logic, much like you outlined. Circular logic and such. It's like using a wildcard in a game. You did not win, you added a card that had no value but completed the dubious theory.

Look up "Rhetoric" and see how that works. Arguments here are more rhetoric than facts. Rhetoric is not used in a scientific paradigm.

Science is very strict. You cannot say anything is proven unless all the tests are conclusive, and none here were. Anomalies can turn up in all situations, video, photos and even direct experiences. There are trillions of relationships and causation after causation of effects that cause effects. You cannot even really prove you exist due to the anomalous nature of all events. Quantum theory ended every assumption we made. But it was covered up by science that was being industrialized and militarized in the 20's. No time is real. No measurement is real.

Read the secret histories of Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr, Max Planck, Albert Einstein. They wanted to go further, but the wars compelled them to develop weapons instead.

I cannot even count the times I read statements like.
"Definitely a Hoax." (nothing definitive about it)
"I can tell it's a fake." (oh really, please go on.)

Such easy claims are never allowed in real science, or even legal matters.

My whole intent was to say that there are not sufficient tools or learned systems here to make anything but subjective opinions. And, I got peeved when a bogus determination was fed to the thousands of readers here who are just looking for as good information as we can get. Put into the HOAX box of shame.

We owe it to each other to educate ourselves to a level of understanding that we can actually trust.

This is being covered up in bad, pedantic media, and all the junk science we give it becomes part of the obscuration of truth. So beware of your emotionally charged opinions. They are not science. Also, beware of bad science methodologies and cursory understandings. They can lead you astray and deepen your ignorance.

If it is fake, or real we may never know now. Too much mud in the water.

The controlling systems know how to catalyze our ignorance to do their work for them.

ATS is discussion. Not a research lab. But have fun here. I do.

ZG

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I never said you said anything. what you did was uncover the light enough that i could actually see the being hidden within the light, then arc its wings just before it thrust itself back up into the sky...its not a craft, its a being.

the light generated from the center of it, or should i say its chest.

call it what you want, justify it in your mind however you choose, but its clearly not hoaxable by any cheap measure, and Ive yet to see anyone duplicate this affect using CGI.

and thanx again overlord for the proofs, ur a real sport

Originally posted by Hongkongphooey

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Hongkongphooey
I just received this on email from a mailing list I am on, food for thought methinks:
...
The thing I noticed about the video is that the camera isn’t CG…it’s an actual camcorder in my opinion. It’s almost impossible without hours and even days of work to get that type of camera shake. I can get it extremely close, but unable to get exact…nothing like the real thing.

Pure bunk.

Video tutorials on simulating camera shake in After Effects.

My Apple Motion (comes with Final Cut) has a filter with several options and settings to simulate the shake of a hand-held camera.

Additionally, the links to "example work" shows very basic material, and not demonstrative of high-end production work.

edit on 9-2-2011 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)

I am not a CGI expert by any means, I was just posting what a 'self procalimed' CGI expert claimed! If you don't rate his work or opinions, thats not a problem. Thought it might throw some light on the matter, it seems I was wrong

My apologies!

I use MAYA and 3DS Max, but we did a camera shake in a few minuets with a small Mel Script. It is easy. but not very convincing unless you use Motion Capture data, or have handy quality pre-sets in the CG or video software.

ZG

reply to post by ZeroGhost


Thank you very much for what I consider the best dang post in this thread! You said it right, we'll never know if it's real or fake, too much mud in the water now.

ATS is a fun ,informative place to be. I love it, even if it pisses me off sometimes!!!

If I could give applause, I'd clap til my virtual hands fell off!!

Well, I have finally found something that I feel puts me in the hoax catagory for video 4. I found this copy that is slowed down and is focused on the crafts ascent.

www.conspiracy.me...

I found two things.

1. Look solely at the dome itself and watch the light given off by the craft. Now watch that light as the craft ascends, try and pause it just before the light completely disappears from the dome. Get it so you see the small spot of light on the dome. Now look at where the craft is at. At that angle the light should be gone, but it is not. You have light there with nothing to light it unless the craft is moving faster than light. That is a law of physics I will not give up for just what is shown in this video.

2. The cars driving down the road. None of the cars seem to react to the flash. I can not imagine someone driving next to the Dome of the Rock, knowing there isn't a lightning storm, and not hitting the brakes when blinded by a huge flash of light. Being 1am your eyes are acclimated to night and would easily be blinded by a flash that bright and instinct should be to brake.

Until a proper field investigation reveals new data that proves differently, this is a hoax to me.

reply to post by QuantumDisciple


I respectfully disagree with your first point, from my examination the reflection from the dome is exactly where it should be. The object is still in frame, therefore it should be still lighting up a portion of the dome - which it is.

Second point, this is a fairly good point im glad you posted it but again i dont feel that its conclusive. The flash looks very bright from the perspective of the camera because it has direct line of sight, and also because a camera when shooting a night scene has its "exposure" cranked. What seems extremely bright to us may not have been as bright to a car driving by who was covered from direct flash exposure from the adjacent buildings. At least not so bright that you would slam on the brakes instead of maybe thinking that someone just took a picture of your car. I wouldnt smash the brakes in traffic if i saw a flash to my left side, unless it was absolutely blinding.

reply to post by Natelite


I actually believe the whole mechanic of the light on the dome and the ascent of the craft do not match up. Try this at home. Get something that is reflective and dome shaped like a stainless mixing bowl from the kitchen. Now get a light, a small flashlight will work. Turn out the lights and put yourself in a position that would give you a view of your dome that mimics the camera in video 4. Now take your flashlight, have a friend or loved one help you, now mimic the motions and most importantly the ascent of the craft. You will see that as you move the light up into the air the reflection climbs UP to the top of the dome. It doesn't stay in the same spot and get smaller like in the video.

Do you understand what I mean? Watch closely at the slow mo footage.

I find it ironic that the same technology that has given us the ability to capture these events that so many people have claimed to have seen is in essence the same technology that can be used to deceive an mislead us.

Unfortunately when these types of things really do happen; unless the circumstances are absolutely perfect and a hundred people come forward saying they saw an object, its immediately discounted. Im afraid to see that people on both sides of the argument tend to leap to concrete conclusions with less then concrete evidence.

There are arguments to be made that certainly cast doubt in one direction or the other, but definitively? I don't see that.

People aren't coming forward... well lets think about this for a moment. If someone has the resources to create a video like this and they really wanted to "trick" the population, surely they could pay someone or a group of people to come forward as witnesses. The fact that nobody is coming forward, which given that this is happening in a foreign country is a dubious statement at best. Who exactly do they come forward to? the news? the police? for what, to be ridiculed? How do we know there aren't people in Israel claiming to have seen this, has anyone canvassed the streets?

Yes it would be nice if a hundred people came forward, but the fact that there aren't, doesn't immediately discredit the whole thing. It IS conceivable that they wouldn't.

The other problem is that it is conceivable and certainly technically possible that this video or i should say all three video's could have been faked.

So the skeptics will never believe its real, by nature a diehard skeptic will believe that anything that can be faked was faked. And the people who really want to believe will never believe its a hoax, round and round we go until something so big happens that it cant be swept under the rug.

One thing thats noteworthy is the 3rd video that was a clear hoax... its interesting that almost every MSM picked this video as the example, and this immediately put the "hoax" thought into everyone's mind. It was actually pretty brilliant the way that was done, it let all the people who wanted to immediately dismiss this, the people who simply refuse to believe that there is more going on immediately cling on to something. It was just real enough that people would watch it and then quickly discredit it and by extension - all the videos.

Personally i think this was an elaborate hoax but you have to admit, its very well done. I wonder who would have the resources or the motive to do something like this.

If its not a Hoax, i dont think we have seen the end of this sort of thing, i think it kind of happens progressively, the lights in mexico being chased by the military, chicago O'hare, this... Whats next?

reply to post by Mr Mask


Really hoax not a hoax wait hoax not a hoax I feel as if John Kerry is some how behind this how about the government answere we can neither confirm or deny its authenticity

reply to post by QuantumDisciple


I see what you mean Quantum... Ill take your word for it that the light moves up the dome since i don't have any dome shaped objects here with sufficient reflectivity

This is a good point, although for me to completely take this as hard evidence i would have the see the whole situation replicated exactly as it happened or in a smaller scale with a cheap handheld camera. I think that (and this is just a theory) light wouldn't appear to react exactly the same through the lense of a cheap digital camera because the information from the CCD sensor has to processed first, its not optical and therefore doesnt move at the speed of light. Light can fade instead of disappearing instantly as it would though a purely optical setup and this could be an artifact of the device itself not necessarily of tampering.

When the object bolts to the sky, it appears the the light its emitting dims significantly. This could explain why the light didn't go up the dome. Although you would expect to see something wouldn't you?

reply to post by Natelite


If you go back and read all the pages of discussion you will see that I have remained VERY open minded through 165 pages of debate. I am not a debunker nor a believer. I am in pursuit of the truth. The way the light and the dome interact during the ascent does not look the way it should.

I'm not saying this is 100% proof of a hoax, but it puts it in my hoax bin until I see evidence that can dig it out.

You know what else seems off to me, all the videos end at the same time. Put yourself in their shoes if this was real. After the lights stopped moving around would you just stop recording? Wouldn't you look around to see if it moved again? Maybe tilt back down to capture the look on all your friends faces? Maybe get some of the reactions or dialog. All three do the exact same motions. None of the show what's behind them or tilt back down. Just wierd to me.

One more thing. Next time you go out drinking with your friends bring your camcorder with you. Before you start throwing a few back go outside and film 2 mins of the moon or a bright star. Go have some fun and when your done do it again. The following day take a look at the footage and see if you held it as steady as the 4th video.

Believe me I would like to see these be proven real somehow.

reply to post by QuantumDisciple


I agree with you that the dome light does not look correct. I noticed the same thing when I was creating an attempt to duplicate the dome effect...

To me it appears the light on the dome actually moves down instead of up when the UFO moves up.

It appears instead of moving the light up, they may have just decreased the light source intensity.

I used a screen shot of the dome without the light on it, and created a mask layer over the dome which is transparent, yet it can reflect light.

Here I moved the light source up like the UFO, and you see the dome reflection move up:

Here I just decreased the light intensity and did not move the light, and you see the dome reflection appear to move down:

From these tests it appears to me that they didn't move the light with the UFO but instead just decreased the intensity of the light.


-to add-

I am using a spot light, not a point light, to replicate the video, not to replicate reality.

reply to post by Natelite


haha maybe if I get a little time at work tomorrow I will make a little demonstration of what I'm talking about. I can dismiss a lot of things as artifacts, compressions, cheap CCDs, CMOS jello, interpolation...the mirroring, tiling, interlace don't do it for me. The craft's light appears to follow the physics of light as decends and moves so to not follow them when it leaves, to actually do the opposite of what it should do gets me. I just need data/proof outside these videos to give them a re-examination. If someone still chooses to believe them I certainly don't mind.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


Thank you for showing what I was trying to explain, I don't know how to do that stuff yet

Some people still really think this was not a hoax after all these proofs? Lol.
Well i guess some people lack experience in thinking properly or thinking rationally even.
The argument somebody above put about the witnesses being too afraid to claim the footage is theirs is irrational. Hell if u had seen that light , id bet u wouldnt just be keeping it to yourself. You would not be afraid to talk about it either due to "persecution". After all what you saw is real , right , and rather revolutionary!
Lets just say u did see it and thought people would ridicule you. Would u confide in ur friends, ur family?
If ur friend saw it and filmed it would u really tell them to keep their mouth shut?
Honeatly, stop thinking in straight lines and start thinking a little laterally!! Your way of thinking is very narrow minded and about as bad as somebody saying that there is no such thing as ufos!

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

that things got to be moving at 500 ft a second or faster so the light would just blink out just like it did.

unfortunately we don't have the original footage to test all this so it all leaves it up to speculation on what is and what isn't. i still think its cool as hell

reply to post by anumohi


Although 500 ft. a second may sound fast, light traveling at 187,000 ft. a second is faster. You can see the light recoiling and moving to the bottom of the dome. The lights contrast shows direction. What you would expect to see if the craft was decending or if it blinked out in the low position. Not ascending vertically. I know my expierment may sound silly but look for yourself at home.

Originally posted by QuantumDisciple
Although 500 ft. a second may sound fast, light traveling at 187,000 ft. a second is faster.

Really?

Isn't the speed of light, travelling at feet per second, 983,571,056.43?

Why in the world wide web would anyone believe you when what you are stating is easily refuted by a simple search on what you state?

Don't you think it would be a better use of your time to reflect on all the mistakes you are making and why that is?

Here, this might make it a bit easier:

(Skip to the end if you're s Spaced fan)


-m0r

reply to post by m0r1arty


YIKES! I meant miles per second. 186,282. It's late here time for bed.

Originally posted by Marsoups
Some people still really think this was not a hoax after all these proofs? Lol.
Well i guess some people lack experience in thinking properly or thinking rationally even.
The argument somebody above put about the witnesses being too afraid to claim the footage is theirs is irrational. Hell if u had seen that light , id bet u wouldnt just be keeping it to yourself. You would not be afraid to talk about it either due to "persecution". After all what you saw is real , right , and rather revolutionary!
Lets just say u did see it and thought people would ridicule you. Would u confide in ur friends, ur family?
If ur friend saw it and filmed it would u really tell them to keep their mouth shut?
Honeatly, stop thinking in straight lines and start thinking a little laterally!! Your way of thinking is very narrow minded and about as bad as somebody saying that there is no such thing as ufos!

And yet it seems you JUST joined ATS to post ONLY here..
No other interests??