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: 59
216
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoJAk
reply to post by Quartza
 


This video with the redneck sounding woman
doesn't even contain the flash that the others have. I thought that was a little odd. No?


That Video has been debunked mate.. Currently 3 videos are up for debate. the first two are still going and also the fourth.. closer from opposite angle apparently.




posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


It's too cold for crop circles.
The Greys put on a light show over Jerusalem instead.
"Beware the bearers of false gifts and their broken promises.
Much pain but still time.
Believe there is good out there.
We oppose deception."



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Recently I think we may be getting an influx of people just joining the discussion so HERE ARE THE CURRENT 3 VIDEOS WE ARE DISCUSSING:

www.youtube.com...

Video 3 has been debunked.. catagorically!



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
I think this is a hoax by Israelis to try and steal some limelight away from Egypt's revolution.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
www.youtube.com...


Posting video links - ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ
* Link
* Description
* Review/Opinion


edit on 6/2/2011 by Sauron because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
WebCam more important now than original videos. others agree??
reply to post by soulfox
 



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
About the 3rd (fake) video, 50nFit appears to be the original unloader on YT. He seems to have a grasp on faking video(on the low quality side) but yet has never uploaded anything else. I think thats weird.

On the viral marketing subject. Pretty much all viral marketing has some sort of logo or branding within the video, some what hidden sometimes. These videos show nothing like that. If it was for a upcoming ufo movie, it would of shown a distinct craft....something to tie into the movie. It would not have just a bunch obscure balls of light that no one would make a movie about. IMO This smells nothing like viral marketing.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quartza
[
And if it is a hoax....wow these guys are pros to put all this together and to forget a little detail like locking down the foreground plate with background plate. I dont see that happing.
edit on 4-2-2011 by Quartza because: (no reason given)


I was thinking the same thing. If this is a hoax then a lot of time and effort has been put in, hiring actors, filming, special effects etc. It seems strange that they would be so sloppy in leaving this effect in the first video. I think that the effect could simply caused by some idiosyncrasy of the camera and lighting conditions of which I'm ignorant. Your demonstration video of the rolling shutter effect is a case in point - I've never seen this effect before either so there's probably a lot of crazy stuff that cameras do of which I'm unaware.

Has anyone explained why separate foreground and background layers would even be necessary? This would be the first hoax video I've seen where this effect was present. Why not just film the actual night scene in toto, stabilise the whole scene and then add the cgi object in? Maybe someone who is proficient in After Effects can explain

1) why a hoaxer wouldn't have done it that way instead,
2) why separating the foreground from the background is necessary when creating a hoax ufo video?
3) If this technique is necessary why doesn't it appear in the fourth video?
4) why would a hoaxer use different techniques?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by larry619
 


The poster of that video even apologises for his mistake of uploading this vid by debunking it himself and saying it is the ceiling of a shopping mall in the middle east.

I can't see how this is relevant to the discussion.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by haggisbingo
 



Definately important.. and it should be looked into further. I believe finding the actual original uploaders is paramount.. if they just came out and said yeah.. we didnt hoax it.. it wouldn't prove legitimacy but at least they would be showing us their hand, and we could throw some more respect at this issue.

Also, what are the origins of video 4? I believe it surfaced some 4 days after the event took place.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarrsAttax

Originally posted by Quartza
[
And if it is a hoax....wow these guys are pros to put all this together and to forget a little detail like locking down the foreground plate with background plate. I dont see that happing.
edit on 4-2-2011 by Quartza because: (no reason given)


I was thinking the same thing. If this is a hoax then a lot of time and effort has been put in, hiring actors, filming, special effects etc. It seems strange that they would be so sloppy in leaving this effect in the first video. I think that the effect could simply caused by some idiosyncrasy of the camera and lighting conditions of which I'm ignorant. Your demonstration video of the rolling shutter effect is a case in point - I've never seen this effect before either so there's probably a lot of crazy stuff that cameras do of which I'm unaware.

Has anyone explained why separate foreground and background layers would even be necessary? This would be the first hoax video I've seen where this effect was present. Why not just film the actual night scene in toto, stabilise the whole scene and then add the cgi object in? Maybe someone who is proficient in After Effects can explain

1) why a hoaxer wouldn't have done it that way instead,
2) why separating the foreground from the background is necessary when creating a hoax ufo video?
3) If this technique is necessary why doesn't it appear in the fourth video?
4) why would a hoaxer use different techniques?



Epic valid point.. It's why I keep coming back to the issue thinking it may be credible.

Here's a point that is also valid. Why doesnt Video#1 guy stand closer to the ufo.. up at the wall.. wouldnt you or I want to be as close as possible? If we think about the reason for this then it could be that this is a deliberate ploy by the hoaxer, an intentional choice of viewpoint intended to prove it's own worth.

In other words this is an instance in which a ufo has been captured by two seperate video capturing devices and the only way we can deduce this is becuase Video#2 guy is in Video#1. Otherwise we could be discussing how they are both the same piece of video.. (which they still could be)

Basically what i'm saying is the evidence for and against is equal and opposite. The other side of the coin i guess



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by soulfox
 


That is my only problem with this footage (that and the fake video 3
)

If indeed what we are looking at here is a UFO, put yourself in the shoes of someone who is witnessing it. I'm fairly certain logical thought would go out the window and either:

a) I'd be running for the hills away from something like this or
b) I'd be clamouring to get the best view I possibly could to film it - not film my friend who is nearer to it.

I wouldn't be thinking 'right I need to make sure I get my buddy filming this in shot as proof that we both saw it'. The adrenaline rush from something like this would destroy any rational thinking - as much as you wanted to prove it or not.

I am holding out that this is legit. The whole standing further back when I've got a primo view overlooking Jerusalem sticks in my throat though.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Yes I would like to see interviews with the posters of the videos too. I'm hoping to see them as this plays out.

Regarding the webcam for those coming in late:
"There is a weather cam in Jerusalem that points north and shows the old city with the dome to the right. The cam is located HERE."
"Due to some popular demand from members I have created this thread providing some sort of evidence that coincides with the time, date and location of the alleged UFO over Jerusalem on the 28th."

FlySolo's thread is here if you want more background: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Again, this is extremely compelling IMO...

reply to post by soulfox
 



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:07 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.


Bang!!! That's the last nail in the coffin for this sad affair, no need to put any effort into debunking video #2. Nice catch

edit on 4-2-2011 by cripmeister because: l'm Swedish!



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

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.


Bang!!! That's the last nail in the coffin for this sad affair, no need to put any effort into debunking video #2. Nice catch

edit on 4-2-2011 by cripmeister because: l'm Swedish!


I believe that to be video #1

Videos 1 and 2 are so riddled with video compression artifacts that you just cant clam that. Nail in the coffin? Really?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 



You know I never thought of that? The Security cameras yes!


Security cameras are generally pointed towards the ground to watch people...not usually up in the sky to look for UFOs.

Maybe there is some wide angle security cam or just a web cam somewhere though.


Security cameras at ground level would be a good place to look for people reacting to this event at the temple mount. Is the temple open to tourist round the clock? Would there even have been people at this place at the time this supposedly happened?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quartza

Originally posted by cripmeister

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.


Bang!!! That's the last nail in the coffin for this sad affair, no need to put any effort into debunking video #2. Nice catch

edit on 4-2-2011 by cripmeister because: l'm Swedish!


I believe that to be video #1

Videos 1 and 2 are so riddled with video compression artifacts that you just cant clam that. Nail in the coffin? Really?


I notice the whole frame gets brighter to be honest. I'm not sure how this is a nail in a coffin?

If I want my photographs to capture a picture in a darkened room, I use a flash. And LO everything within the catchment area is illuminated.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Quartza
 


I know it's video #1 and that's why there's no need to put any effort into video #2. It's guilt by association. Sure blame compression
Fact is that when one light source is outshined by another it appears dimmer, not brighter.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by Quartza
 


I know it's video #1 and that's why there's no need to put any effort into video #2. It's guilt by association. Sure blame compression
Fact is that when one light source is outshined by another it appears dimmer, not brighter.


Ok, If it was hoaxed they would not have used a cheap flash effect that brightens every pixel. If that was the case why does some areas of the back of the man stay the same level....if not get darker?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Here is my analysis of the 4th vid; Hoax for the following reasons

• the flash/burst light source does not relect off structures/surfaces, it is simply a radial weighted dodge type algorithm.
• comparing the ufo containing frame versus the one without it (near the end) reveals that the light omitted by UFO didn’t even affect the surrounding surfaces at all. It was simply a synthetic brightening of the frame achieved by also applying the same dodge with different parameters.

what I have done is the following for the first of the two points above;

1)download youtube vid to mp4
2)mp4 to bmp
3) bmp to greyscale 0 to 255, 0 representing a black pixel, 255 a full white and values in between different shades of gray in order of brightness
4) isolate 2 successive frames, a normal frame pre-burst, and the one showing flash burst
5) generate an indexed table, each table element containing the pixel brightness value
6) loop through each pixel in each image and assign a localised contrast value defined by the average of the difference between the 8 surrounding pixels and the nominal centre pixel.
7) create 255 histograms, each histogram contains the spread of contrast values corresponding to each unique brightness value between 0 and 255.
8) examine brightness values corresponding to regions that are underexposed (pre-burst frame) and contain virtually no structural info about scene (between 0 and 120 is a good place to look)
9) repeat 8 for the image with the flash burst.

10) compare the local contrast data in 8 with the one in 9.

RESULT

The local contrast values in the underexposed regions are basically the same between the two frames. So what does this mean? It means that the flash burst does not affect the appearance of the environment it is in. The flash itself appears quite diffuse. If it was real I would expect the surrounding terrain to light up and reveal new information. But quite simply it doesn’t. A real diffuse light burst that is *actually* located where it appears should do one of the following;

• If 360 deg diffuse source; affect the appearance of the surfaces , particularly the ones behind the object slightly more than the surfaces in the foreground. From the data we do not see this at all!!. Infact, I break the image up into 4 equal horizontal segments. Segment 3 contains the background terrain and segment 4 the foreground with 1 and 2 making up the sky. The local contrast in underexposed regions of 3 and 4 are the same.
• If directional diffuse towards observer, it should increase local contrast on specific foreground surfaces. We don’t see this
• If direct beam towards the observer, the radial exposure decay from the beam centre should have a smaller footprint than what is seen here. If it truly was a direct beam then the observed radial exposure decay is because of light scatter. This scatter would light up the foreground as well and increase local contrast.

So basically there is no escape here, if there is a light there then it must affect the surrounding surfaces. There MUST be some evidence of this (above the noise floor or the footage) for the footage to be valid. What I can conclude is that the frame containing the light burst has been synthetically created by application of a radial weighted dodge algorithm.. Regardless of the light source, one could simply achieve this by taking a non-burst frame and applying the following pixel operation

FakeBurstFrame(x,y)=StandardFrame(x,y)+fn(r)

where fn=

a1*exp(-((r-b1)/c1)^2) + a2*exp(-((r-b2)/c2)^2) +
a3*exp(-((r-b3)/c3)^2) + a4*exp(-((r-b4)/c4)^2) +
a5*exp(-((r-b5)/c5)^2) + a6*exp(-((r-b6)/c6)^2) +
a7*exp(-((r-b7)/c7)^2) + a8*exp(-((r-b8)/c8)^2)

a1 = 55.21 b1 = 41.17 c1 = 25.08 a2 = 60.99 b2 = 70.29 c2 = 40.06 a3 = -5777 b3 = 297.2 c3 = 126.7 a4 = 58.01 b4 = 117.5 c4 = 61.28 a5 = 47.95 b5 = 22.9 c5 = 13.64 a6 = 2.82 b6 = 333.6 c6 = 10.47 a7 = 0 b7 = 275.2 c7 = 0.02164 a8 = 5886 (-1.287e+007, 1.289e+007) b8 = 297 (42.63, 551.4) c8 = 128 (-1214, 1470)

and r=int(sqrt((x-xc)^2+(y-yc)^2))

and ufo centre coords xc=370, yc=290

By the time it gets to youtube the compression artefacts add a nice layer of “noise” to mask what would be a blatantly obvious forgery. BTW vid 1 looks like following the same track as 4.

Please note, the coverage of this vid in the Aus media has pissed me off so much that I have written a program (with GUI) that can take any youtube vid, isolate a nominal UFO within each frame and calculate several parameters framewise. These include

• motion of UFO
• motion of UFO relative to background/foreground
• motion of background/foreground resulting from camera shake
• pixel intensity model
• size
• surface reflected light analysis (quite a few algorithms in here, the local contrast feature just one of many)
• frame by frame parameter summary table, statistics, histograms etc.

quite a few more features, I will get around to listing them. I will try and compile a sanitised version for release. I think i will call it DBUNK1.0

edit on 4-2-2011 by pezza because: spelling

edit on 4-2-2011 by pezza because: spell2

edit on 4-2-2011 by pezza because: spell3




top topics



 
216
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join