Dome Of The Rock UFO: Hoaxes Are Easy - Extended Discussion., page 1

As the "Jerusalem UFO" incident flared-up to epic proportions here on ATS and elsewhere online, the majority of people ended up on the widely-accepted conclusion that the videos were hoaxes. However, a insistent and not-insignificant number of people where expressing a high-degree of skepticism regarding the hoax conclusion. An often-heard refrain from those unable to accept that the videos may be a hoax was that they've not seen a proper reconstruction of the effects used in the fabrication of a convincing video.

In just a tad more than two hours (yesterday evening, on a whim), I've used a combination of images found via a Google image search and the "out of the box" features of readily available software -- Motion 4 (part of the Final Cut Studio) on the Mac.

The images were overlaid on a 2D plan within a 3D space, and a standard software camera pointed at the long rectangular image.

A simple randomizing effect was used on the x/y parameters of the camera to simulate being hand-held. Basic blur effects were added to simulate a consumer video camera auto-focus.

The bright "object" is oblong with a glow, light, and rotation effect added.

Masks were used to create the simulated visual effect of the object's light having an effect on the surrounding area.

No other complicated 3D or lighting effects were used.


Here's the video, shown with typical "YouTube-style" compression and size.



This version is a cleaner, larger aspect ratio and resolution.



A few minor changes (no zoom and simulated auto-focus), and we have something that looks as though it was shot with a mobile phone:



And for those who would like a high-quality QuickTime file, download it here:
domeofrockufo-h264.mov



My experience level with video and photo software is in the "expert" range, as I've been using these tools in a professional capacity for several years (essentially since such tools were available). And while I have an array of additional "plug-ins" and "effects" that could significantly improve these results, I stayed with stock features and basic animation.

Now... someone with more time and motivation could certainly plan a much more complex and lengthy video, tweaking the overlays, extending the length of the video, adding background animations (lights, cars, aircraft, etc.), overlaying crowd/background audio/noises, and much more. But this example shows the ease with which a convincing effect could be composed from found images and widely available software.


So... what does this mean, should we no longer trust video evidence?

Providence is critically important with digital video. Anonymously uploaded videos to YouTube should automatically be suspect. Unless -- which has been missing from the "Jerusalem UFO" hoax -- there are several supporting and unrelated eyewitness accounts that identify the video as what was seen.

As more and more hoaxed videos find their way online, we must maintain a healthy does of skepticism as part of a critical analysis that should always include more evidence than just one or two videos. In this era of easy to use digital tools, the rapid and decisive exposure of UFO hoaxes is the most important task for those concerned with UFOlogy.

reply to post by speculativeoptimist

---

All a shame.

All videos have been proven to be hoaxes. In addition, there are no corroborating eyewitness accounts other than the videos.

Let's be clear though... The Jerusalem UFO Videos are Proven Hoaxes, this thread is (hopefully) an extended discussion inspired by that thread, to examine the ease with which hoaxes can be composed, and the need to insist on more evidence than a video on YouTube.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

---

Thanks for the clarification
Is there any simple way to run a proposed video thru some software to quickly determine if it has been altered any from it's original state? Or any techniques for recognizing alterations, or does one need to be somewhat versed to determine such?

spec

reply to post by speculativeoptimist

---

There are a few forensic methods that can be applied to a high-resolution original, but multi-generation videos (meaning more than one pass through compression codecs) such as available on YouTube are pretty much useless under such analysis. The best method is a keen-eye on the lookout for anomalous visual or audio cues.

For example -- in video one of the original Jerusalem UFOs, the background image tiling and lack of stunned response from the person in the foreground (with a cellphone) are big clues. And in the 4th video, the flash does not illuminate surrounding objects on the ground. And in all cases, the videos were composed from still photos found online.

reply to post by 12voltz

---

where the hoax pictures are nothing more than a frying pan being thrown across the sky.

Star for the chuckle!
Guess it is another benefit of membership here, denying ignorance by applying detailed scrutiny. At least we have a place to assess from multiple angles here, with some good experienced scrutiny involved.
But yea, it kind of takes the wind out of my sails too.....

spec

Egg found in Martian Meteorite
  Posted 19 days ago with 126 member flags

Bizzare Enochian encounter for writer while working with rock band Tool on Faaip De Oiad (Tool song
  Posted 5 days ago with 56 member flags

Ooparts and Ancient aliens
  Posted 2 days ago with 56 member flags

Bad Ufologists-Lets clean the closet of any skeletons
  Posted 10 days ago with 52 member flags

Death by UFO!
  Posted 16 days ago with 49 member flags

UFOs during Satellite launch
  Posted 10 days ago with 49 member flags

Tracey Taylor - "Aliens Gave Me a Special Gift"
  Posted 9 days ago with 31 member flags

DIVINE INTERVENTION: ETs Defeating Old World Order
  Posted 18 days ago with 29 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: