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: 22
216
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quartza
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


Cant find a photo at the moment.

The comb effect is created when a object has changed horizontal position between the time field A and field B are captured. When a object is moving vertical, there is no horizontal difference between the two fields.
edit on 3-2-2011 by Quartza because: (no reason given)


The blur is not evidence of being progressive. Only the lack of comb effect on its movement
edit on 3-2-2011 by Quartza because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-2-2011 by Quartza because: (no reason given)


I have to agree that it is on the horizontal where "combing" occurs. And I may be arguing against myself but
from the footage I've downloaded you can see scan lines in the ascending ufo.



Not sure what's going on here but having scrutinised so much video footage in my days and taking into account the lack of faithful people in Israel publicly declaring a miracle I remain a sceptic as is my right.




posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   


So I took a look at some of the frames in the closeup video and found that the building circled in red has a flash upon it as the object is above it, and when the object shoots into the air the glow off the building dissipates. I figured if it was faked that the glow from surrounding objects would be pretty hard to make look real. Just watching the video doesn't show that much of the glow dissipation, but looking at the frames theres a pretty ralistic dispertion of light..

I then took a look at some interesting frames from the synced video file, now if this was synced, it was synced badly, the frame rates of the cameras are different, or there's some pretty obvious inconsistencies. Throughout the three frames captured at 1.05 in the vid the flash from the object appears to happen at the same time from the double witness position, but significantly after on the closeup footage. Again this could be down to bad sync or frame rate differences in the videocameras.

First footage = witness one (left)
Second footage = witnes two (right)
closeup = you get the gist

The three frames captured over 1.06 shows the object rising from the first footage, in the second the rise is delayed. Then we see the first footage the object is higher than the second and in the second the object has also split into two, and the closeup footage the object remains stationary. Then we see the object has left the screen on the second footage, whilst still rising in the first footage, the closeup footage shows the object as just taking off.



This is the most inconsistent part from three videos, just speculating but that aint right. Again could be down to different cameras and their frame rate, I've only captured three shots in a second whereas generally video footage tends to be 25 frames per second. If anyone knows of anyway to get that many frames and break down the videos to take a closer look I feel it would probably raise some finer issues.

I realise I've done a pretty cack job of this so I hope the pictures work but just thaught these issues should be raised..

Sorry just realised the pictures are from left to right so use the scroll bar at the bottom to see the frames in order..
edit on 3-2-2011 by impostah because: I'm useless



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Further, given that the site IS high security area there MUST be loads of security cameras about. Those could confirm the flash of light if not the UFO as well. But nothing so far.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1n1t0
reply to post by Paradigm2012
 


Not meaning to look like a disinfo agent who's trying to derail your line of thought, but maybe you should back off a bit from this case as you're getting a bit hostile towards the debunkers... Just my 2 cents.

Believe me, I was fooled to believe this is the real deal as well, but now I've gotten over it (since there's so much pointing towards this event didn't take place at all). And also, do believe me, I would have been amongst the happiest people on this planet if this was the real deal that finally shows undoubtedly that there are unidentified advanced technology crafts flying in our sky, so it would convince even the die-hard skeptics...

Sadly, this is not the case we have here...


I am not being hostile. I am pointing out that there is no logic in declaring this a hoax without sufficient evidence. Sure you can say you think its a hoax, but your only speculating and guessing.

I don't work on guesses

I only prefer facts and hard evidence

and so far the evidence is on the side of "it being real"



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TMFAP
Further, given that the site IS high security area there MUST be loads of security cameras about. Those could confirm the flash of light if not the UFO as well. But nothing so far.


Right!!! why don't they just get it over with and show us a security cam video proving the hoax?!?!?!

Kinda reminds of a 9/11 Pentagon video..... WHY don't they just show us one of the many security cameras that caught more than 4 #ty frames of the plane hitting the pentagon? ..cause they can't ...they confiscated them all and will probably be destroyed.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Someone needs to analyze the "red lights" that appeared above the sighting.

Those might be the key.

And again also

remember folks these are "cellphone videos": these are not professional grade cameras

I mean from a cellphone video I have to say its pretty easy to find flaws in video and audio

edit on 3-2-2011 by Paradigm2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jobeycool
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.


Watch my youtube vid a few pages back.

Why do I keep seeing people saying the same crap, "nothing has been shown, there hasnt been any evidence, nothing disproves this, or that"

How about you prove to me why this is real, prove to me that what I am seeing is not the work of some kids. Show to us how it's possible to they're fake.

Link me some supporting evidence from your vast knowledge of the universe that proves this is real. It's already proven that video alone is not proof that the event is real, so what other information do you have to give on this. What information does ANYONE ELSE has to support the fact that this is real? hmm lets see

It's been 4 days since the first video, we have:

NO eye witness reports from ANYONE
NO admittance / acknowledgement or communication with the people who made them
Not even so much as a interview with a Joe Ackmed Jarah schmoe saying "Yea I seen them"
NOTHING, not even so much as a reply to a comment on their youtube page

You would have to be downright stupid to think this is how it would play out if this was real footage.

So theres honestly NOTHING that leads to even the slightest minute chance that they ARE real.

Now on the other hand, theres so much evidence that shows their fake, if this was a murder trial, you could send him to the electric chair. Comon people HONESTLY wheres the common sense.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Quartza
 


Excellent observation that the combing effect would only compensate for horizontal blurring. Good catch.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I remain skeptical as well.Just cannot understand the absurd attempts at debunking this subject.Classic case is the Chicago O'hare airport where eyewitieeses discribe a metallic disc which punched through the clouded overcast.Offiicial explanation is nothing more than a never heard of weather phenomenon that casues people to see flying disc which speed off and make wholes in clouds.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Paradigm2012
 


When you're done posting videos with choppers labelled as UFOs you could start addressing the interlaced v. progressive argument. I asked you to do this a few pages ago, but all you do is scream that this is the real deal without considering the other side.

Thank you for your time.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeboWilliams

Originally posted by Jobeycool
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.


Watch my youtube vid a few pages back.

Why do I keep seeing people saying the same crap, "nothing has been shown, there hasnt been any evidence, nothing disproves this, or that"

How about you prove to me why this is real, prove to me that what I am seeing is not the work of some kids. Show to us how it's possible to they're fake.

Link me some supporting evidence from your vast knowledge of the universe that proves this is real. It's already proven that video alone is not proof that the event is real, so what other information do you have to give on this. What information does ANYONE ELSE has to support the fact that this is real? hmm lets see

It's been 4 days since the first video, we have:

NO eye witness reports from ANYONE
NO admittance / acknowledgement or communication with the people who made them
Not even so much as a interview with a Joe Ackmed Jarah schmoe saying "Yea I seen them"
NOTHING, not even so much as a reply to a comment on their youtube page

You would have to be downright stupid to think this is how it would play out if this was real footage.

So theres honestly NOTHING that leads to even the slightest minute chance that they ARE real.

Now on the other hand, theres so much evidence that shows their fake, if this was a murder trial, you could send him to the electric chair. Comon people HONESTLY wheres the common sense.

Because I cannot do it.I do not edit man and stuff.Just saying we have to get the governments and the U.S.congress to help agaisnt faud.Because some of this stuff is very real.I do not edit videos and stuff.I don't know how to do all that stuff.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paradigm2012




Sorry to burst your bubble, but I (HOAXKiller1) didn't just use the edge of the wall for tracking. I used large sections of the entire walls surface, including the lines/cracks between each brick to do the motion tracking. The line followed the wall 99.9% perfectly.

In fact, you don't even need a line to be drawn to see the effect. That is why a good first half this video doesn't even have lines draw on it, so you can see the edge your self.

To go even further... the part above the wall is completely black... and the wall itself is more than 10% brighter than the blackness. This makes it near impossible for compression to make a mistake...

If you can SHOW it to be incorrect, instead of just making a wild incorrect claim, please do try...

Why don't you stabilize the video, and draw the line the way you think it should be?


Originally posted by Paradigm2012


Hoaxkiller one tried to define the horizon using a horizon that was not defined and or out of focus.
As you can see there is no way you can accurately put a line over the horizon and use it as a perspective to then attempt to compare it to an already blurry overpixelated leading wall ledge. This whole parallax study was flawed from the get go.




For your information, when I stabilized the video I used two lights on both sides of the horizon. Stabilization works the best, EVER, when you have a black background and two bright points of light to track (just like in the ufo video). All I did was track two of those lights, and that allowed for the entire background to remain still.

If you don't think the horizon line is accurate, that doesn't even matter because you can still draw a line between any two stationary lights in the background! Since the wall line, and the line between the lights are connected to the ground (physically connected), the angles should move together, not independently. The only way for the wall to move independently is for there to be extreme camera movements, however there exist ZERO parallax between the man and the city lights which means the camera didn't move enough to make the wall move independently.

It' is obvious to me that you don't know what parallax is, because the line on the horizon and the line on the wall were NOT to demonstrate a problem with parallax, but of perspective. However, the lines are a useful tool for you to see that there exists no parallax between the guy and the background.

Everything you have said was just debunked over and over.

The end of this video DISPROVES that video you think you posted:



edit on 3-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeboWilliams

Originally posted by Jobeycool
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.


Watch my youtube vid a few pages back.

Why do I keep seeing people saying the same crap, "nothing has been shown, there hasnt been any evidence, nothing disproves this, or that"

How about you prove to me why this is real, prove to me that what I am seeing is not the work of some kids. Show to us how it's possible to they're fake.

Link me some supporting evidence from your vast knowledge of the universe that proves this is real. It's already proven that video alone is not proof that the event is real, so what other information do you have to give on this. What information does ANYONE ELSE has to support the fact that this is real? hmm lets see

It's been 4 days since the first video, we have:

NO eye witness reports from ANYONE
NO admittance / acknowledgement or communication with the people who made them
Not even so much as a interview with a Joe Ackmed Jarah schmoe saying "Yea I seen them"
NOTHING, not even so much as a reply to a comment on their youtube page

You would have to be downright stupid to think this is how it would play out if this was real footage.

So theres honestly NOTHING that leads to even the slightest minute chance that they ARE real.

Now on the other hand, theres so much evidence that shows their fake, if this was a murder trial, you could send him to the electric chair. Comon people HONESTLY wheres the common sense.


There are 6 witnesses
it only lasted for 24 seconds to 45 seconds
it was 1:00 A.M.
There was simliar UFOs spotted in Victoria, Utah, and South America on or about the same day
Jewish people in Isreal are not the kind of people who would pull this kind of hoax
I doubt these people even own digital imaging software

The only way to know for sure or go to the source
interview the people

There might be people who saw it, but they speak Hebrew, they are in Israel or Palestine
its not like MSNBC or CNN is on location ready to ask them questions.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Thunda
 


I think you missed the point of the post, I was looking for another angle to debunk it, not prove it was genuine. The only conclusion was eliminating one possible way the fake flash could have been generated.

Anyway, Laymankeptic's interlacing debunk and jaylemite's facebook detective work now have me convinced that videos 1, 2 and 4 were faked by this group of Israeli students. They did a very good job and it was fun and educational seeing all the investigative work done here.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Jobeycool
 


The problem with that one there were no videos of it, so the news mainstream news can call it what they like


edit on 3-2-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by BruceWayne
 


Wow! just the frame grab I wanted to see. You can clearly see the doubled effect(I believe the oblong motion blur itself is due to something else...) I believe that proves the ufo was recorded by the camera. There is clearly an interlace artifact.
edit on 3-2-2011 by Quartza because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
REMINDER:

Since some have forgotten....the topic is UFO over Jerusalem: Reopened not other members. Not debunkers. Not skeptics. Not believers. UFO over Jerusalem: Reopened Debate, discuss and analyze the VIDEOS. Not other members.

Any post that are not about the TOPIC will be removed.

Thank you.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by BruceWayne

Originally posted by Quartza
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


Cant find a photo at the moment.

The comb effect is created when a object has changed horizontal position between the time field A and field B are captured. When a object is moving vertical, there is no horizontal difference between the two fields.
edit on 3-2-2011 by Quartza because: (no reason given)


The blur is not evidence of being progressive. Only the lack of comb effect on its movement
edit on 3-2-2011 by Quartza because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-2-2011 by Quartza because: (no reason given)


I have to agree that it is on the horizontal where "combing" occurs. And I may be arguing against myself but
from the footage I've downloaded you can see scan lines in the ascending ufo.



Not sure what's going on here but having scrutinised so much video footage in my days and taking into account the lack of faithful people in Israel publicly declaring a miracle I remain a sceptic as is my right.


Hi BruceWayne. My guess is that this picture is an example of frame blending, where a video with a certain framerate is converted to another framerate: Since most framerate changes are not perfect multiples of each others frames, the solution is to blend certain frames so a resulting fit can be made to a target framerate.

What you downloaded was probably of a different framerate (where the conversion involves applying frame blending) than the original footage. Make sure you download that from the original uploader. But even then, the original downloader might have changed the framerate himself and applied frame blending.

What you have is probably of a lower framerate than the original. Just a guess.

ADDITIONALLY: That is not proof of interlacing on the orb. Please check again the picture sequence I posted as reference to what an interlace artifact should look like. The "grilling" should be perceptible.
edit on 3-2-2011 by laymanskeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
I think about 90% of cases are hoaxers and misidentification.So I realize how much fraud is out there and you never take a case without skepticism.Problem I see is some of the debunkers are just throwing anything out there and do not even understand the real UFO cases,such as the Rendleshem Forest Bentwaters case.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy

Originally posted by Paradigm2012




Sorry to burst your bubble, but I (HOAXKiller1) didn't just use the edge of the wall for tracking. I used large sections of the entire walls surface, including the lines/cracks between each brick to do the motion tracking. The line followed the wall 99.9% perfectly.

In fact, you don't even need a line to be drawn to see the effect. That is why a good first half this video doesn't even have lines draw on it, so you can see the edge your self.

To go even further... the part above the wall is completely black... and the wall itself is more than 10% brighter than the blackness. This makes it near impossible for compression to make a mistake...

If you can SHOW it to be incorrect, instead of just making a wild incorrect claim, please do try...

Why don't you stabilize the video, and draw the line the way you think it should be?


Originally posted by Paradigm2012


Hoaxkiller one tried to define the horizon using a horizon that was not defined and or out of focus.
As you can see there is no way you can accurately put a line over the horizon and use it as a perspective to then attempt to compare it to an already blurry overpixelated leading wall ledge. This whole parallax study was flawed from the get go.




For your information, when I stabilized the video I used two lights on both sides of the horizon. Stabilization works the best, EVER, when you have a black background and two bright points of light to track (just like in the ufo video). All I did was track two of those lights, and that allowed for the entire background to remain still.

If you don't think the horizon line is accurate, that doesn't even matter because you can still draw a line between any two stationary lights in the background! Since the wall, and the lights are connected to the ground (physically connected), they should move together, not independently. The only way for the wall to move independently is for there to be extreme camera movements, however there exist ZERO parallax between the man and the city lights which means the camera didn't move enough to make the wall move independently.

It' is obvious to me that you don't know what parallax is, because the line on the horizon and the line the wall were NOT to demonstrate a problem with parallax but of perspective. However, the lines are a useful tool for you to see that there exists no parallax between the guy and the background.

Everything you have said was just debunked over and over.

The end of this video DISPROVES that video you think you posted:




Cellphones are known for these types of artifacts.
You could not pindown an accurate horizon.

The leading wall edge is jittery because of the pixelation and out of focus range do to the city lights and the blue light in the top right corner.

You had to alter the image just to make the wall visible. When you did that did you cause any data loss.

His legs jitter with the wall because the celphone camera is writing the screen in that manner.

Why does his head stay stable with (your imaginary horizon)
Why does his arms stay stable with (your imaginary horizon)
Why is the only thing that sways with (your imaginary horizon) his legs and the wall and the ground

its because its a cellphone camera artifact



new topics

top topics



 
216
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join