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: 62
216
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by soulfox

Your saying in your opinion that the fourth (and therefore the 5th) video is a FAKE! Interesting, keep going my friend, you sound informed.

With the quality of video capturing device in VID#4, do you think it could even capture the streak if we take into acount how fast the object must have moved? In other words could a mobile phone record the neccessary frame rate to catch an object move so fast.. If not, does this suggests post processing?


yeh, im pretty convined they are modified frames. Keep in mind that I did the analysis without reading a single post here and knowing if the previous X pages contained a debunk or not.

If it is a mobile phone then I dont think the censor would return the observed streak pattern during that single frame where it shoots up, let alone several that are identical from different cameras. Thats just red hot, caught with pants down LOL.
edit on 4-2-2011 by pezza because: spell




posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
They are frusterated with their failured to debunk the video, so now they are desperately looking for something wrong with the audio.


We are frusterated by our failured are we?

PMSL! That speaks volumes!
 


Now again.. I will ask you to put forward your proof that it is real in your next post or get on your bike!

IRM

edit on 4/2/11 by InfaRedMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
My attempt to spark a formal debate went down like a lead baloon.

MODS - my post has been quickly buried on page 58. Nobody is checking back even a few pages at this time, so I'll repost the suggestion again if that's okay, seeing as there are still plenty of 'believers' seeking answers.


LET'S HAVE A DEBATE!



Guys, the mods have suggested a debate in the debating forum?

We can't have any research threads, but debating is sanctioned and encouraged. Who's up for it? Probably need a few volunteers from each side of the fence who can then coordinate their materials and tactics via U2Us; once everyone's ready we can see what happens.

I think the point of the debate (from the 'believer' perspective) is to show that the evidence presented by skeptics thus far is not solid enough to warrant a 'case closed - hoax' verdict. I don't think it will be possible to determine that the video evidence is proof of a UFO visitation; but I do think there's enough information out there, and enough flaws in the skeptical arguments, to give this a 'day in court' on ATS. This discussion thread is a bit too haphazard. Let's have a formal debate, where the key points from each side can be consolidated and analysed objectively, without emotions or falsehoods getting in the way.


There are still unanswered questions, and an obvious lack of easy access to the key evidence - these issues in combination have led to a perpetual state of argumentative and falsely authoritative posting (from both camps)


A debate would enable everyone to see the arguments laid out bare, for all time. And if there is a conclusive proof of hoax (one that doesn't leave any room for 'reasonable doubt')...? I'll tip my hat and concede the matter as lost, before turning my focus onto who hoaxed us and why.

**** **** **** **** ****

PS - I don't think I'm suitably qualified to participate in the debate, but I think there are people here that are, on both sides of the argument. Remember - the 'believer' focus will not be about providing absolute proof of the actuality of a UFO visitation; it will be about providing a convincing argument as to why we cannot write this situation off as a 'hoax'.

PPS - By 'believer' (a term sadly loaded with negative connotations) - I mean anyone who is stumped by this one incident, and feels it is, or could well be, genuine. To be a 'believer' in this context, you don't have to be associated with any other 'belief' existing in UFOlogy. You need only be relatively convinced, or convinced, of the actual reality of this incident as a UFO visitation of some sort...



Thoughts?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
give em the webcam info!!!

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
They are frusterated with their failured to debunk the video, so now they are desperately looking for something wrong with the audio.


We are frusterated by our failured are we?

PMSL! That speaks volumes!
 


Now again.. I will ask you to put forward your proof that it is real in your next post or get on your bike!

IRM

edit on 4/2/11 by InfaRedMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Just so any debate doesn't leave out the WebCam stuff. A debate about a noise in video 3 or an inconsistent light in the 4th video will probably also go over like a lead baloon...
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment
 



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
How is this still open to debate, when it has been shown, that progressive footage is on a film recorded with a camer that records interlaced? Has there been an error with the findings that the footage of the ufo is interlaced?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quartza



Vid4 is likely not to be a camera phone. Mainly due to the interlaced footage and low light performance

We need to nip this one quickly. There is no Vid5 only a copy of #4
edit on 4-2-2011 by Quartza because: (no reason given)


I think you may well be correct because as I mentioned earlier in Video No. 4 there is a beeping sound before they get out of the car that sounds like an SLR or DSLR camera...

BTW Excellent work Pezza

edit on 4-2-2011 by BruceWayne because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by soulfox
reply to post by Ashtrei
 


Ive got a way to prove these VIDS are real. When the ORB moves laterally in VID4 we can see the ORB move slightly in VID1 and VID2.. All we have to do is get both camera locations and figure the angular dimension between both shooting points..

If indeed these 3 videos are real the angle should be around the 90 degrees mark. Dont know where vid 4 was shot from though! that would be a start!
edit on 4-2-2011 by soulfox because: (no reason given)


I think someone needs to chart the red lights in the sky on both vid 1 and vid 4 then compare them



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Please, please disprove the webcam info and forget about the photoshop stuff...

Originally posted by Cassius666
How is this still open to debate, when it has been shown, that progressive footage is on a film recorded with a camer that records interlaced? Has there been an error with the findings that the footage of the ufo is interlaced?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Now I will jump to the darkside and tell you how to really make a smashing fake UFO Jeruslam vid;

* Purchase 3 Canon 5Dmk2 DSLR's with kit lenses
* Purchase 3 tripods
* GPS
* Computer

1) take a -2/0/+2ev HDR video footage of the chosen scene
2) look up GPS coords
3) generate terrain mesh data from Google Earth including buildings. If you think this is over the top, go see what people are doing in FSX and MS Train Simulator with custom generated terrain.
4) select the camera angle position in CAD and apply render model based on fake UFO light source position. The correct CAD camera position can be calculated via SSE minimisation algorithm (based on abs(real-CAD view))
5)Generate complex dodge model as a pixel map containing CAD generated weighting numbers.
6) Apply complex dodge algorithm in combination with HDR method to generate dynamically rich master fake-footage. Make as many bursts as you want.
7) Add 1 or 2 streak frames using (6)
8) odd OMG vertical pan to chase object
7) Apply camara shake, white noise and compression artefacts to whole footage. Add music and annotations too.
10) upload to youtube
11) inform media outlets
12) create 1 ATS thread for each video variation and 1 master thread that will encompass all vids in the set.
13) inform sock puppets to flag each vid and make positive contributions until someone reverse engineers the method used
14) use thread diversion and distraction methods until a better technique is developed
15) start all over again


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

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



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by BruceWayne

Originally posted by Quartza



Vid4 is likely not to be a camera phone. Mainly due to the interlaced footage and low light performance

We need to nip this one quickly. There is no Vid5 only a copy of #4
edit on 4-2-2011 by Quartza because: (no reason given)


I think you may well be correct because as I mentioned earlier in Video No. 4 there is a beeping sound before they get out of the car that sounds like an SLR or DSLR camera...

BTW Excellent work Pezza

edit on 4-2-2011 by BruceWayne because: (no reason given)


The video can not be from a DSLR(cmos) they all record video in a rolling shutter fashion. video is clearly interlaced.

To those who say the motion blur is progressive, there is no proof of that.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by oxbow

Originally posted by haketem

According to a post that was deleted, but still available in Google's cache, the original poster of the first video wrote in a forum (I'm putting the whole text, before it disappears from google's cache:

Hello i am eliyahu, the person who originally uploaded the jerusalem ufo video
youtube.com/user/eligael
Myself and my friend filmed in the early hours of saturday morning (between 1 and 5 past 1am to be exact) a shining huge orb like object which hovered for about 10 minutes...


This raises questions, surely there should be more than half a dozen witnesses if the object hovered for 10 minutes, even at 1am?


If it was just hovering in the sky the video wouldn't look that impressive, like the latest from the uploader of video #1:
www.youtube.com...
edit on 4-2-2011 by haketem because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Breakdown:


Originally posted by pezza
1)download youtube vid to mp4


Okay.


Originally posted by pezza
2)mp4 to bmp


Yep. So you took a h264 and turned it into an image sequence.


Originally posted by pezza
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


So you took an 8 bit image ... and left it as an 8 bit image. A wise decision.


Originally posted by pezza
4) isolate 2 successive frames, a normal frame pre-burst, and the one showing flash burst


So you scrubbed your time line to the flash.


Originally posted by pezza
5) generate an indexed table, each table element containing the pixel brightness value


You generated an 'indexed table' ... that already exists inside any decent comping system.


Originally posted by pezza
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.


You created a kernel which is done regularly in any decent comping system and is usually invisible to the user unless they get involved (blurs/sharpens etc are all done this with mathematically) ... I haven't evaluated the maths, but you may have used something well known and with a name but chosen not to use it?


Originally posted by pezza
7) create 255 histograms, each histogram contains the spread of contrast values corresponding to each unique brightness value between 0 and 255.


You 'created' histograms that already exist inside all compositing applications??? Histograms which generally show a spread of luma values I imagine?


Originally posted by pezza 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.


You scrubbed through the pixels during and before the flash and found it wasn't actually a 3D flash which was revealing new data, but was raising the values of the pixels nearby by an arbitrary number in 2D space? IE if the black point is 0.417 ... it's highly likely that most pixels will be 0.417 + X ... X being the value of the flash in that area. Where as if they had data the flash would reflect of surfaces in that area, and make the values more varied.

Just making sure I translated what you did to English. Why the flowery language, and breaking it down into maths that people won't bother to understand? Noticing you have a pattern with this.

I seriously hope you didn't spend all your time actually programming this, and did it in a pre-existing app?



edit on 4-2-2011 by Pinke because: Hope question



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by pezza
 


Do it!

Sorry I couldn't help myself



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by pezza
 


right ahh and they are doing this fun, just to fool the audiance, like me and you, ahh I am the joke. 4 people aready show there face well maybe only two. don't you think that someone may recognise them. What about the the other fact. That maybe some one hire this people to do a fake UFO. maybe is a group of people from the University of Isreal or maybe is just plain fun, to see how the monkey react.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by pezza
Now I will jump to the darkside and tell you how to really make a smashing fake UFO Jeruslam vid;

* Purchase 3 Canon 5Dmk2 DSLR's with kit lenses
* Purchase 3 tripods
* GPS
* Computer

1) take a -2/0/+2ev HDR video footage of the chosen scene
2) look up GPS coords
3) generate terrain mesh data from Google Earth including buildings. If you think this is over the top, go see what people are doing in FSX and MS Train Simulator with custom generated terrain.
4) select the camera angle position in CAD and apply render model based on fake UFO light source position. The correct CAD camera position can be calculated via SSE minimisation algorithm (based on abs(real-CAD view))
5)Generate complex dodge model as a pixel map containing CAD generated weighting numbers.
6) Apply complex dodge algorithm in combination with HDR method to generate dynamically rich master fake-footage. Make as many bursts as you want.
7) Add 1 or 2 streak frames using (6)
8) odd OMG vertical pan to chase object
7) Apply camara shake, white noise and compression artefacts to whole footage. Add music and annotations too.
10) upload to youtube
11) inform media outlets
12) create 1 ATS thread for each video variation and 1 master thread that will encompass all vids in the set.
13) inform sock puppets to flag each vid and make positive contributions until someone reverse engineers the method used
14) use thread diversion and distraction methods until a better technique is developed
15) start all over again


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

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


Yes that pretty much how you would do it. Though DLSR are crap for video and would not be used by a pro putting all this togther. Second, most VFX houses would shoot the video naturaly(natural camera shake) and matchmove all post effects to original video

Do you really think some 16yr old HS students put all that together? How does the video keep its authentic interlaced look after all that? Post interlacing effects do not look that natural
edit on 4-2-2011 by Quartza because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2011 by Quartza because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Frankly the fact of the matter is that we are simply dealing with technology that bewilders us. The only tools we have for debunking are not made to give a proper assesment due to the fact that we are dealing with something not of this society. Yes it glows white hot giving off an intense light. Do we know the way that light is going to affect a camera and its field of view? Of course not! You can't Just go and say "well I know its fake because the way the light is/isn't being captured" or "camera phones have slow frame rates so there is no way it would have captured movement at that speed". None of that is applicable due to the fact that we do not know how this tech affects our everyday tech. Have to start thinking away from the norm because frankly, this is NOT normal. And that's my two cents



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


To ben and others still talking about the webcam footage shown by FlySolo, here is a quote from the weather station manager himself, after being asked about the camera's field of view, distance, location, and if the Dome of the rock could be seen from the camera.




02WS Manager: The camera is in Gilo looking north and the Dome of the rock is not in the frame, not even after building obstructing it . It is later on the right of the frame. The spot you saw in the clip is something else, not connected.


This information should be put in the OP so people joining the conversation and reading earlier pages can not be thrown off track. This is factual information and no longer speculation. While FlySolo did bring the opportunity to scrutinize new information that, and I commend him on his investigative attempts, the webcam data is irrelevant to this scenario and has been declared void.

The conversation between me "James" and the Station manager can be observed "here". Whats funny was that, after I asked him the second question (which was to clearify his first answer) and reported his response back here, I was bashed in numerous posts by others stating that "I'm lieing" "I don't understand english" and yada yada.

As far was what some people have stated about "Not being able to debunk a video on sound or audio alone" is completely ludacris.

When dealing with UFO footage, or ANY footage that needs to be scrutanize, you only have the evidence presented to you to work with. If this was the case, then the airplanes "Black Box" would be a video recorder and not audio, for example. What if the video is completely fake, but the audio has been deemed original and untampered with? Does that mean that the event actually happened? Completely dismiss the CGI and only go by audio? No, I gauruntee as soon as people SEE something fake, the video get's tossed on the bunk burner.

Audio AND Video goes hand and hand, what you see must collaborate what you hear. Another example of how things become out of place when the sound doesnt match what is being seen is the many reports of huge UFO's, yet noone HEARS anything. "It was silently moving across the sky" "It was HUGE but didnt make a sound as it hovered, definately wasnt a helicopter". You hear this all the time in UFO reports.

When we are presented video evidence of something abnormal, we MUST scrutinize ALL the evidence that we are given. If the video has clearly been altered, it's bunk, Same MUST go for the opposite, if the audio has been clearly manipulated, it's bunk. If either of them has been altered, then we are no longer observing pure FACTS, and simply cannot acknowledge what we are witnessing to be TRUE EVENTS.

If information is allowed to be passed off as factual, yet aspects have been proven not to collaberate, then it cannot be a FACT. With facts, there is no point of view, opinions or reasonings. There is no room for speculation on the fact itself, it is what's true.

I have observed that from multiple people, there seems to be some confusion regarding which video is number what. So let's clear that up now

Video 1, posted by Youtube userid "eligael". He is the person filming this footage and was the first to post this encounter 1-29-2011
www.youtube.com...

Video 2, posted by Youtube userid "shshsh331". He is the person observed recording a video with his cellphone in video 1. His video has been collaberated and acknowledged by eligael to be the person seen (shown by youtube comment / interaction between each other). He is the second person to post his video. Taken from the same geographical location (vantage point) as the first video. Posted on 1-30-2011
www.youtube.com...

Video 3, posted by Youtuve userid "50nFit". Video taken from a different vantage point than the first 2 videos. This video is labeled on youtube as "2nd" but it indeed is the 3rd video to appear online. Unknown amount of spectators. This was posted on 1-30-2011

Video 4, posted by Youtube userid "YDMU1". Video was taken from another vantage point. Theres actually 2 videos which are considered the 4th video, one being only 1 minute long and was cut from a video that was 5 minutes long. The short version appeared online first, later the longer version appeared. This video was taken by 4 witness.
Short version
www.youtube.com...
Long version
www.youtube.com...

Another video, posted by Youtube userid "eligael". A second video to be posted by the original witness. However this video was taken on a different night this should not be included in the debate as to the 1-28-2011 event. But should atleast be acknowledged. It's vantage point is unknown except it's located somewhere in "Old city"
www.youtube.com...


This information should be added to the first post aswell, along with any edit's or information I forgot to include.



Since we are dealing with a series of videos which all represent the same event, then debunking / proving of certain videos will cause all other videos to be voided / proven.

Video 1 and 2 have been the first videos, debunking of these 2 should be top priority. The 2 video's collaberate each other, and has been proven to be directly linked together. If ONE of these videos are proven fake / real, the other MUST follow suit. How can one be real, but another fake, when both are shown to be recorded at the same time, and acknowledged by both parties to be VALID. If one of these 2 videos are debunked, 3-4-5 (and so on) that crop up about the same event cannot possibly exist.



@JPhish. Take those the supposedly audios you checked, save them to mp3, then upload them to youtube as a part of a mp4 video, then redownload as a stripped mp3 audio track. Open up your original copy and the uploaded copy. The envelopes will not match, but they are the exact same audio correct? This is the problem with using lossy compression codecs. The amount of information in the audio bitstream is altered each and every time it is converted, downsampled, or converted to other formats. Compression algirithems introduced by each codec will alter the audio's waveforms, by introducing artifacts caused by relocating binary bits and rounding. If you'd like, you can read more information

here

And if you're not willing to accept that, try my exercise above to help improve your knowledge of audio compression. Regardless of whether the audio has been altered by compression, the fact still remains that the audio has been ALTERED. This means that even if it was compressed and converted to 20 different formats before it was uploaded, it doesnt dismiss this fact. The highlights of the information that I have given is proof that the audio has been TAMPERED with.

So even if that added in a sound FX of a cow mooing, it's still proof that they intentionally CHANGED the audio, which could include conversion into different formats, removing / adding frequencies (this is obvious in the track, they removed frequencies below 650 to remove any bass, as to make the track sound hollow and distant), reducing / adjusting velocities. Any number of these things WILL change the envelope. The information that I've shown proves that the same artifacts are present in BOTH recordings, the clicking from handling the recording devices, the CHH artifact, the sudden increase of volumes without any types of fading. These are things that wouldnt not be present if the audio was not a duplicate of the original.

I'd suggest taking a few coarse at your local community college if you wish to further you knowledge on this subject, specifically Sound reinforcement & Audio theory.


By now I should be about caught up on all the posts, since when I left last night, I was on page 40, and it's been bloated to page 62 so far



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quartza


Yes that pretty much how you would do it. Though DLSR are crap for video and would not be used by a pro putting all this togther. Second, most VFX houses would shoot the video naturaly(natural camera shake) and matchmove all post effects to original video

Do you really think some 16yr old HS students put all that together? How does the video keep its authentic interlaced look after all that? Post interlacing effects do not look that natural
edit on 4-2-2011 by Quartza because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2011 by Quartza because: (no reason given)


You could be right about the cameras there. I just got 5Dmk2 on my mind because i want to upgrade my 5Dmk1.
I would not leave out the HDR component of the exercise though, gives you a much more workable master footage having the increased dynamic range.

I dont think i could pull that off at 16 (mostly for reasons related to cash). Im about 50% confident of pulling that off at 16 myself with enough cash, mind you I was programming C64 from age of 5. I reckon a 2nd, 3rd or 4th year comp sci, elec eng or similar student can pull that off



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Ok, thanks for that and I accept it. It would be nice though if FlySolo could also put this to rest but I guess, by his absense, he has..


Originally posted by DeboWilliams
reply to post by BenCambell
 


To ben and others still talking about the webcam footage shown by FlySolo, here is a quote from the weather station manager himself, after being asked about the camera's field of view, distance, location, and if the Dome of the rock could be seen from the camera.




02WS Manager: The camera is in Gilo looking north and the Dome of the rock is not in the frame, not even after building obstructing it . It is later on the right of the frame. The spot you saw in the clip is something else, not connected.


This information should be put in the OP so people joining the conversation and reading earlier pages can not be thrown off track. This is factual information and no longer speculation. While FlySolo did bring the opportunity to scrutinize new information that, and I commend him on his investigative attempts, the webcam data is irrelevant to this scenario and has been declared void.

The conversation between me "James" and the Station manager can be observed "here". Whats funny was that, after I asked him the second question (which was to clearify his first answer) and reported his response back here, I was bashed in numerous posts by others stating that "I'm lieing" "I don't understand english" and yada yada.



new topics

top topics



 
216
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join