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: 20share:
Originally posted by esteay812
Can someone please post a link to the UTAH UFO sighting that has been referred to in this thread a few times. I know the link is in the thread somewhere, but am leaving to work and really wanted to show a worker the UTAH video
It is located in the OP (very first post) of this thread. Not sure how it could have been missed.
edit on February 3rd 2011 by greeneyedleo
because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Quartza
Interlace vs Progressive - The motion blur of the object in question does not have the "comb" effect due to the vertical movement. The comb effect only effects horizontal movement.edit on 3-2-2011 by Quartza because: gramer
Hi Quartza, welcome to ATS.
I'm afraid what you said a common misconception regarding interlaced footage: Interlaced artifacts are revealed in all possible directions, although the vertical motion instance of the artifact does not manifest itself as a "comb". What should be seen is that, for the frame in question, the object should appear to double (for small fast objects), one appearing in the odd numbered field lines and the other appearing in the even numbered field lines. They don't look like "combs" if you want to be strict about it, but the artifacts should still be there (They're still made of horizontal lines of course)
Hint: you can actually find vertical motion interlace artifacts in the photos I posted. Can you see them? I sure you can tell me which photos I'm referring to. These mostly has a vertical motion component don't they?
I have doubts on the authenticity of the videos based on the simple fact that there is a lack of precedence in UFO cases like this. If someone can
link or share similar cases, it would be helpful. If not...well...
reply to post by discl0sur3
thanks for posting that link, disclo! I don't know why I couldn't remember the links were in the OP...brain cramp...
*note to self* put down the ATS and step away from the laptop!
thanks for posting that link, disclo! I don't know why I couldn't remember the links were in the OP...brain cramp...
*note to self* put down the ATS and step away from the laptop!
Originally posted by SomeCheesyUsername
Get a grip on reality
There is no evidence of a hoax. ZERO, NONE, ZIP.
you are believing in the toothfairy if you believe this is a HOAX
PROVE IT *SNIP*
Mod Note: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.
edit on February 3rd 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)
I realy do not understand how in the world someone can pretend this is definetly a hoax.We have a skeptic mind and honesty to investigate this and the
people who possibly witnessed it if it is not a hoax.If it is not a hoax then get over it the UFO phenomenon is something we all will have to deal
with and learn about.
If this is not a hoax then governments are gonna have to start to answer what or if they know anything.Hoaxing will become a major fraud if this turns out to be real.
If this is not a hoax then governments are gonna have to start to answer what or if they know anything.Hoaxing will become a major fraud if this turns out to be real.
reply to post by Paradigm2012
You are stating the obvious.
The wall, the man, the tree, and the light, and person filming are all one shot. But is the horizon and city lights really there? Are they really standing on a hill?
You are stating the obvious.
The wall, the man, the tree, and the light, and person filming are all one shot. But is the horizon and city lights really there? Are they really standing on a hill?
edit on 3-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)
Just bye doing Google Jeusalem Camera I had like bunch of cameras that live feed from Jerusalem, this link here is good one
www.kkcj.org... (I need more proof.)
reply to post by greeneyedleo
It wasn't missed, I was just being hasty and overthinking it. Some reason I was thinking the Utah video had been added to the thread several pages later
It wasn't missed, I was just being hasty and overthinking it. Some reason I was thinking the Utah video had been added to the thread several pages later
Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by Paradigm2012
You are stating the obvious.
The wall, the man, the tree, and the light, and person filming are all one shot. But is the horizon and city lights really there? Are they really standing on a hill?edit on 3-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)
Why is it so hard to accept that 2 guys on a hill can film a video with city lights behind them. Is it that much of a reach?editby]edit on 3-2-2011 by Paradigm2012 because: (no reason given)
edit on February 3rd 2011 by greeneyedleo because: change all caps.
Mod Note: All Caps – Please Review This Link.
Well done Layman,
I think you've pin-pointed what was really bothering me about the 'whoosh' upwards.
You are entirely correct in your observations... the 'whoosh' is a de-interlaced blur while the original video is interlaced.
Spot on.
It's a great hoax.
I think you've pin-pointed what was really bothering me about the 'whoosh' upwards.
You are entirely correct in your observations... the 'whoosh' is a de-interlaced blur while the original video is interlaced.
Spot on.
It's a great hoax.
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.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cc8ab5aa5588.png[/atsimg]
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.
reply to post by laymanskeptic
Yes your correct. I see the doubling of the street lights, in the forth frame down.
Thought I don't think you can say that the ufo would have the same doubled effect. Its motion blur looks like progressive due to just how fast it moved and light blooming.
Yes your correct. I see the doubling of the street lights, in the forth frame down.
Thought I don't think you can say that the ufo would have the same doubled effect. Its motion blur looks like progressive due to just how fast it moved and light blooming.
Originally posted by liveandletlive
Originally posted by liveandletlive
Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
Not sure if anyone's mentioned this but I thought I'd throw it out there.
Time will tell, but I'm relatively convinced that this was a genuine occurrence. I look forward to seeing any CCTV footage that may come to light. As others have said, the Old City is likely to have at least as many cameras as the Pentagon, so surely we'll see some footage at some point, right?
There is footage but no one wants to talk about it.
What do you mean no one wants to talk about it liveandletlive?
Well everyone seems to be ignoring my question. They just keep insulting each other.
Oh, well maybe they dont want to talk about it because they cant explain it.
Deny Ignorance my *ss!!!!!!!!!
Its like your talking to yourself. Like a thread within a thread.
Just a reminder
This is obviously a controversal and heated topic (for some).
ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.
This is obviously a controversal and heated topic (for some).
ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.
This one is still undetermined...Need to get eyewitness accounts from the eyewitnesses and what not if it is not a hoax.Nothing anyone shown yet that
disproves or proves this.It is as if people are being to fundamental and onesided with their evidence.Nothing as of yet has proved this as a
hoax....please people can we have common sense with this subject.
reply to post by Paradigm2012
When the camera is shaking around and supposedly hand held yet there is no signs of parallax effect taking place, and the horizon and wall are wiggling about in ways which seemingly defy laws of perspective and geometry, then yes, it's hard to believe the background is actually real, and they are actually standing where they claim.
You must be the type that thinks your local weather man is actually standing on the beach, then the next minute standing in a storm, and then suddenly standing in front of a big TV with the map of the weather....
I mean, is it so hard to believe he is standing on the street pointing at the clouds?
When the camera is shaking around and supposedly hand held yet there is no signs of parallax effect taking place, and the horizon and wall are wiggling about in ways which seemingly defy laws of perspective and geometry, then yes, it's hard to believe the background is actually real, and they are actually standing where they claim.
You must be the type that thinks your local weather man is actually standing on the beach, then the next minute standing in a storm, and then suddenly standing in front of a big TV with the map of the weather....
I mean, is it so hard to believe he is standing on the street pointing at the clouds?
edit on 3-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)
For myself, my eyes believe the UFO, but I would like to bring a new element into this discussion. I am an acting coach, work with many star actors,
and am very savvy as to plausible believability. What I am concerned about is two things: 1) the 'unexceptional' - but long - car ride has about it
the distinct flavor of 'Cloverfield'. 2) The photographer in the back seat never says anything, and when the the young lady finally exits the car,
he would have lowered the camera to see where she was going. It seems to me, as much as I think the footage is as real looking as it can be, that the
set-up to get the young man to leave the car and 'see' the event taking place is extraordinarily specious, and therefore, in all likelihood, an
elaborate hoax - undone by a bad script and implausible 'natural' camerawork - sorry, but that is how I see it.
You guys are grasping at strings over this case. You cannot find any conclusive evidence of a hoax, everything you come up with is weak.
Why are you so afraid that this might be real?
Why can't you find any evidence of a hoax?
What is it that can do now?
How can you find that needle in the haystack and call it a hoax?
Why are you so afraid that this might be real?
Why can't you find any evidence of a hoax?
What is it that can do now?
How can you find that needle in the haystack and call it a hoax?