just checking back in to reply to any comments. FYI, i posted the follwoing thread on page 59
In summary, I show in quite some detail why it was a hoax. Some points;
* the bright light does not reveal any new structural info in the darker regions of the image
* the streak is synthetic
* a model based on an 8 degree gaussian function can be used to create the flash burst. I later remembered that there is a thing called "Gaussian
Blur" and explains why this particular function fit the dodge pattern the best (R2=0.999). AMAZING! pure reverse engineering
* i am going to deploy the software used to debunk these vids so we can have more people debunking videos that clearly fall over at the first hurdle
in a timely manner.
RUSSO also posted out a source which pretty much says the same thing as i did, but not in as much quantitative detail as me.;
Personally, the analysis I presented in my first contribution would be sufficient to declare this as a hoax in a formal medium (like court of law,
scientific publication, etc). The detail is sufficient and the reasoning is conclusive. The ATS mods are quite inconsistent in their criteria for
hoax, hence we see a number of ATS threads on a variety of matters containing conclusive evidence of a hoax but are not labelled hoax for certain
reasons. Im ok with this, it provides a place for the fantasy to live.
I will now make some comments on the widespread penetration of this footage. I came across these vids last week and pretty quickly identified features
that convinced me it was a hoax. I dismissed it quite quickly, i thought it would die a natural death. Instead, whilst paying very close attention to
the Cyclone Yasi media coverage (as it happened), I started to see these vids pop up on the news bullitens of pretty much every Aus FTA channel. It
closely followed content from egypt and the cyclone disaster itself. The headline read "experts are struggling to explain this UFO footage form
Jeruslam", then adding religous connotations to the story. I thought to myself, does this expert discussion exist? could they name such persons and
their credentials? My intuition told me NO, its bull5h1t. There was no expert analysis, particularly one supporting the credibility of the footage.
This was classic ABC mediawatch worthy journalism, it was systemic to all FTA networks. This really pissed me off, it did not belong in the same
airspace as the cyclone coverage.
So over the course of the day I wrote the software to analyse the footage. I did not pay any attention to any commentary on the issue. I just looked
at the basic elements of the footage itself, the actual pixels, a completely objective approach to the problem. No audio, no eerie music, just the
numbers. Pretty quickly I found enough features (or lack of) to convince me to the point of not going any further because it was a forgery.
There are some comments here pointing out these kids, men, woman are sitting back having a good laugh. They sure would be. It dawned on me that we
need to have quicker turnaround of analysis of potentially genuine UFO footage. Particularly the ones that fall over at the first hurdle. The
appearance of fake ships in the media doesnt do many people any favours
edit on 4-2-2011 by pezza because: spellign