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

page: 3
159
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Good job SO,

...but of course you are just going to get the common replies such as, "it doesn't look anything like the original", or "i can tell it is CGI", or, "this doesn't prove it is a hoax"...


Then they are going to tear apart your work like they should have on the original hoax.

When people know something is fake, it will never look real to them. When you don't know something is fake or not, it looks more real when you see it. Some people don't know this simple fact of psychology. It is a mental thing...

I only wish more people could see how FAKE the original videos are...




posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
Does showing how an effect can be achieved easily equate the same thing as proving that an effect was achieved that way...

Not necessarily, however, those who were denying hoax were using the excuse that no one has created a similar video as a reason to deny the clear evidence of hoax.




Witnesses to ufo events will be very few unless they did a major thing.

I would classify an unexplained bright light hovering over one of the holiest places on the planet as a "major thing."




3. If experts determine something is a hoax, because it could be duplicated,

That's not why the original videos are a hoax. There is clear evidence of fabrication within all the originals.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Please
make it stop!!!
Sorry, carry on...

Edit to say: Thanks for the videos... when I started reading the thread I felt relief but then...
edit on 14-2-2011 by BruceWayne because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
...but of course you are just going to get the common replies such as... "this doesn't prove it is a hoax"...


How exactly does it prove the original video is a hoax? I'm not trying to promote ignorance here, but proving that something can be hoaxed doesn't prove that it is a hoax.

I've been working in the post-production & VFX industry for over 10 years now. I've been a UFO believer for longer. I've never seen one UFO video that couldn't be hoaxed using the right tools.

So every single UFO video in the world could conceivably be a hoax - how does this help us to separate the wheat from the chaff?



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheStev
So every single UFO video in the world could conceivably be a hoax - how does this help us to separate the wheat from the chaff?

It's more appropriate to reclassify that statement to: every single contemporary UFO video uploaded to YouTube without independent corroboration should be considered a hoax until corroborating eyewitness stories support the event shown in the video.

Not every video is a purposeful hoax. Some are misinterpreted events.

However, the point of this thread is to demonstrate that discernment is required along with a demand for more sources than an anonymous YouTube uploader.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I wonder how many out of work or bored movie industry special effects people there are that own computers? I'm sure only a couple
This is amateur stuff, Lucas and Speil did as well how many yrs ago?



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Awesome demonstration!

I have to say, nice work. Finally... can we close this silly case? I know I was fighting on the side of 'it could be real' - (I emphasize could) but this case just won't die (it needs to).

We have babies being dropped off by CGI aliens, the return of Jesus or some other entity... it is getting beyond tabloid.

Thanks Skeptic Overlord!!!



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I'm just amazed how many youtubes there are every day. Most are obvious fakes just wanting Fame.
I'm thinking the not so obvious fakes are from those believing they are going get a big pay off from news services.
Some do get paid for thier fantasies, but nothing they can retire on.

There are so many Fakes, rather than prove each one is a Fake, it would be much easier if they could Prove it was real.
So I always take the stand, they are all Fakes, you prove it's Not Fake.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
i think i see videos of ufos come in and out of ats on a daily bassis
and everyone just watches makes an opinion and moves on because untill disclosure thers nothing we can say or do to change that
but this video in jerusalem and the baby left ther and the fact its still being debated givs it credit in itself
no offence but if u go out of ur way to hoax a few thousand people so good it got t.v coverage
wouldent u come forward and explain how u did it and recieve the credit u deserve but nope silent the same as the evidence its a hoax in the first place



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Awesome thread.

If i could add my two cents.

I've been a member her for a long time so i've seen my share of hoax videos whether it be of ghosts, aliens or gnomes.

No matter how well executed a hoax video is it can NEVER be genuine. Meaning it will always be missing SOMETHING.

There are basic things i look for when the CGI is indiscernible from reality.

A. Reaction of the camera man and others in the video.

Does what the camera man and others say in the video match up with what is being seen on the video?
Is the camera focusing on what it should be focusing on?
Does the camera man zoom out and in at the perfect time?
Does the camera man have inhumanly spectacular reaction time?

B. Locations matching up with the time stamp on the camera, stars the sun and weather in the alleged area.

It's really easy to identify celestial objects if the location and time are known. A good way of ruling out mis-identifications of basic things like satellites and stars. It's also a good way of spotting a fake that uses a fake backdrop or computer generated scenery. Lunar phases stars etc. will typically not match up.


C. Audio/Visual and physical anomalies.

Audio splitting; a video mysteriously having no audio or borrowed audio(sampling); parallax issues, mirroring issues, lighting problems, physics problems (example: sound moving faster than it should) etc. These things are some times the hardest to spot, but once identified prove video tampering.

Although visually your example video is very impressive and well done; if you scrutinize it using the 3 steps i typically use . . .

Sure signs of a hoax

A.
Camera man has ESP. (Zooms out right before the light flies up.)
Camera man pans up and follows the UFO as it ascends nearly as perfectly as he possibly could have.
Camera man continues to look at the dome instead of up in the sky after the UFO flies off.

B.
No audio

C.
City lights are all immobile
No cars or movement of any kind except for that of the UFO
Lights not flickering
etc.

People need to be on their toes because CGI's are getting much better. As a result, nearly all video evidence will never be considered conclusive proof of anything ever again. We'll have inconclusive videos and hoax videos.

But some things, like i said, can not be faked and those are the things we have to look for.
edit on 2/14/2011 by JPhish because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I'm not trying to troll here, but i actually don't think this has proved anything.
What you have done is reconstructed a video of an event, fake or not, and despite it looking very similar, there is clear difference between what SkepticOverlord has created and was is portrayed on youtube video's.
The version created here is much clearer, and i don't mean because its in a better resolution, and the way the object shoots up is different too. You can clearly tell this is a CGI video
Surely, if you where to show people how easy it is to fake it, you would recreate almost exactly what is in the 1st video at least.

Sorry



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


well that about does it.
wonder why i have always laughed at videos like that,

320 x 240 bad bitrate videos taken asvidence of proof.
thanks for showin how easily it can be done. also. kinda flipside your giving people skills and ideas now..



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Remarkable work there Skeptic Thos Videos look Top notch and prove that in this day and age ever thing we look at has to be asked the questions.

Is this a Hoax? ...

Is this real?..

your videos looked so good and the others did not even look as good but maybe thats what they where intending?



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheStev
So, every single UFO video in the world could conceivably be a hoax - how does this help us to separate the wheat from the chaff?

Welcome to the digital age.

Your next question should be... "If people have been posting digital hoaxes since the dawn of the internet, what type of evidence can be passed off as legit?" Its rather simple. After you capture an alien alive or alien craft, hold a press conformance and reveal him, her, or it to the world. If you are trying to show the world a space craft, we want an up close and personal view of the ship.

No clips of lights, no shaky cameras, and no corpses. Why? As a professional multi-media designer (web, photography, video, print, and other fine arts), I can fake every single one of those with only a few clicks. Adobe Creative Suite 5 - Design Premium can turn fantasy into reality.

Welcome to my world of skepticism.
edit on 14-2-2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheStev

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
...but of course you are just going to get the common replies such as... "this doesn't prove it is a hoax"...


How exactly does it prove the original video is a hoax? I'm not trying to promote ignorance here, but proving that something can be hoaxed doesn't prove that it is a hoax.


You said exactly what I thought people would say, but with different words.


It doesn't prove it is a hoax.

I am pretty sure the point of this topic is not to prove it is a hoax, but to prove how easy it is to make a hoax like this.

Many people said they wouldn't believe it was a hoax unless someone remakes it.... I personally told them CGI can replicate ANYTHING, so their "challenge" was pointless and useless. I knew as soon as someone remakes it, they would say "it doesn't prove it is a hoax", etc., so it would be pointless to try. It's loopy believer logic that never ends.

There is already plenty of evidence that proves it was a hoax. This just proves it is easy to hoax.
edit on 14-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
There is already plenty of evidence that proves it was a hoax. This just proves it is easy to hoax.

You are correct.

If you go to the video on YouTube, someone has already started to claim copyright. What that means is that its an original work of fiction.

Click on the YouTube video attached to this page (bottom of page):
Dome of the Rock UFO Just a Marketing Stunt?

This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Wendy Johnson.
Also...
Jerusalem UFO footage could be marketing stunt for upcoming Battle: Los Angeles film.
edit on 15-2-2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Sorry if this has been asked but, how did they light up dark streets and little dark areas that you could not see until the ufo flashes?
edit on 15-2-2011 by BACONHAWK because: Clarifies question.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Real is easy to spot. It usually has eye witness accounts and the local media reporting.

If you can get the local media to just mention it, something did happen.

That's my rule of thumb... also the sources, how fast it travels around the different "Facebook" groups... Real as in, a real "UFO" in terms of the true meaning.

... the sad thing is - to be honest - I wanted to believe this video was real so bad.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   
My only question is, why? Yes we already know the video(s) can be easily reproduced with CGI, and nobody was arguing that. But making another CG reproduction is just beating a dead horse, and quite honestly, pointless. It came down to: either you believe it or you don't. There's not enough witnesses to suggest it is real. You won't disprove it once and for all without some hard proof, but occams razor says it's fake anyway. Think what you may; I personally am leaning towards hoax.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Excellent post.
I'd like to add to your list of things that make OP's video an obvious fake in my opinion:

No gradient transition between the sodium lighted overcast sky to the pitch darkness overhead when the camera pans up identifies the cityscape as a static image.

At any speed, SkepticO's work is certainly on (if not above) par with the original Jerusalem videos and though many people have made compelling points in support of this argument already, I do believe it's a point worth repeating. Especially in light of current trends on this board!

S&F





new topics
top topics
 
159
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join