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

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.

Excellent work!

An you are absolutely right. It is possible to simulate almost anything these days. While this makes for good entertainment, it does lead to more hoaxes.

The only way to really know for sure is to fully document the event and keep the masters of any recordings available for review.

WOW!

I would never in a million years be able to figure this out.

It is amazing what can be done on computers now a days and it does make it hard for the UFO community imo when these can be done so easily in this fashion. I am sure there are plenty of people out there with the same expert skill that can use these programs.

Thanks for taking the time to do this. I will be posting this on my FB as well for those who were questioning it.

Excellent work , they look more real than the original fakes
2nd

A little confused here, is the first vid a" doctored" one? I understand your point about skepticism, just a bit unclear about where you stand with this particular event? All sham or still undecided?

spec

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.

Awesome job SkepticOverlord. Your quick couple hour presentation actually looks a lot better than the original hoax.

However, having sat through the entire original thread, my gut tells me that sadly the "believers" will not be satisfied. They never will be unless someone takes the time to reproduce the hoax shot for shot, effect for effect, with multiple videos showing different synchronized angles. Or the original hoaxers come out and confess.

-TM

Awesome example of debunking and showing an example of how a hoax can be simply pulled off with "standard" video software.

However....

A video can be a hoax, but it's much harder for an eye witness to be claimed as a hoax, and there were many that saw this event. If it were JUST the video alone that was used to make the claim of a UFO being seen, I would not argue it given the ability to re-create anything on digital video these days. BUT, when you couple that to the eye witness accounts AND the multiple videos rather than just one, it makes the story far more compelling.

I applaud you for taking the time to show one side, but we should encourage others to use critical thinking and ask themselves the hard questions without bias. If we all go with "anything can be faked on digital video", that is where investigations would end for every single video created these days, but we MUST apply critical thinking to look beyond the obvious and not be ignorant to what is vague or ambiguous.

S&F... as if you need them!

Edit: One of the witnesses names was Mr. Eligael Gidlovitch of Tel Aviv... still searching for more, such as the American tourists that were in the audio of one of the videos.

~Namaste

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
and there were many that saw this event.

I've not seen, nor can I find, any reports of corroborating eyewitnesses who can back up the hoaxed Jerusalem UFO videos... other than what is/has been "reported" by sources with a "stake" in the game.

This is one of the important points of this thread -- corroboration, through more than one source, for an extraordinary event seen in a supposed UFO video.

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

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
So... what does this mean, should we no longer trust video evidence?

I'm no techie... but I assume while it's sometimes difficult to prove a video has been manipulated, it's not difficult to prove it hasn't? Or am I fundamentally wrong here. I may be.

'It seems like some one got that phone call on the red phone telling them to defuse the situation'
Was this something you did in your own time for your self,or for us,or because you got the phone call from you no who ?

SkepticOverlord.

Can I suggest that this thread is moved into the 'deconstructing disinformation' forum?

Seems more appropriate on several different levels.


Cheers.


NB - for the record, I strongly disagreed with the 'consensus' (rammed home) opinion based on GiftOfProphecy's work. However, I won't waste time or energy absorbing insults while I explain my reasons. Planetzog went over the top, but I understood his frustrations. How many times do we hear 'pseudoskeptics' bashing the hell out of witness credentials (or rather, usually they bash the lack of credentials)..??. Now, when the need for credentials is called for from the other side of the fence the patronising remarks are dished out by the truckload.

My two cents/pence, and the last comment I will make regarding this subject on ATS.

NB - I will be extremely surprised if my post is edited or removed - I believe I'm entitled to state my honest and non-confrontational opinion.

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.

As you have shown ,no video can be 100% trusted anymore.I am going back to my books with black and white pictures of ufo's ,where the hoax pictures are nothing more than a frying pan being thrown across the sky.Technology and dishonesty have not done us any favours

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

Oh man! That means there is 5 separate independent footage of the same event!

I keed, I keed...

But seriously, thanks for the quick tutorial SO. I was definitely on the fence with this one.

What scares me more, is that the videos were picked up by many mainstream news outlets... are they going to make sure people know it was a hoax?

Or is this a new form of black budget propaganda... A UFO over Jerusalem is very provocative and if it were real - or perceived to be real... it could have significant repercussions.



I had to say it... This is ATS.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
and there were many that saw this event.

I've not seen, nor can I find, any reports of corroborating eyewitnesses who can back up the hoaxed Jerusalem UFO videos... other than what is/has been "reported" by sources with a "stake" in the game.

This is one of the important points of this thread -- corroboration, through more than one source, for an extraordinary event seen in a supposed UFO video.

edit on 14-2-2011 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)

Excellent point and well-taken.

It is an interesting point that I can't seem to find a lot of eye witness accounts, and it does seem a bit strange that an object would come that close to the Dome without Israeli jets all over the place within minutes.

Besides the videos and the stir on the internet, couldn't this be verified simply by the Israeli 911 switch boards? Surely, if there were witnesses, there would be at least a few calls on record such as there usually is here in the US?

To me, that would immediately lay waste to this being a hoax if there are 911 type reports... that would mean people actually saw it and it wasn't just a video, and would confirm what was seen on video.

Either way, Skeptic, good stuff.

~Namaste

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
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.

From my perspective this is THE most important point, no evidence can be regarded as evidence without providence and its a key point that seems to be missed when people view UFO reports/video's/photographs etc. A video/photograph should be corroborated especially a video like the Rock of the Dome where there should of been a myriad of eyewitnesses and police calls etc.

If I ever ever see a giant craft hovering above rural Somerset there isn't a doubt in my mind that I'd be straight on the phone to any number of my friends/relatives and posting it all over a social networking site if only to have someone else to talk to about it.

Thank you for doing that. Great OP. What a bloody relief.

Skeptic Overlord and Versa are bang on the button. Where is the corroboration? There isn't any. Case closed.

The only thing that has shocked me about the whole flap is - how the heck it has got so out of proportion?