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

reply to post by Vinterskogen


It has proved that Hoaxes can be very convincing. This is not an appeal to disbelief, it is an appeal to reason and cautious criticism.

SkepticOverlord you're a stud.

Originally posted by BACONHAWK
how did they light up dark streets and little dark areas that you could not see until the ufo flashes?

The effect is simple, once you locate two photos of the same scene... one for night, and one for day. Thankfully, in this case, we have an often-photographed object -- the Dome of The Rock. There were several options for night and day shots by different photographers from the same vantage point, this is the one I picked. With creative masking and overlays, and placing the "object" in an area similar to the direction of light for the daytime photo, much can be accomplished with very little.

With more time, we could have twinkling lights, people walking, cars driving, etc.

excellent job recreating this event i must say!
but how about the fact that it was filmed through a mobile phone? Can you re-create that effect?
just curious

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Excellent videos.

So much for "pics or it didn't happen". Anyone who uses that line from now on is just trolling.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Yes but my understanding is that the one you are recreating is not of the first 2 clips (these 2 are naturally related to one another...the first being the one with the man taping it with his phone in the shot, and the second being the actual phone footage) I may be wrong, but this is what I had read from a couple of sites. It's not hard to imagine people jumping on the bandwagon making their own fakes, so to properly try to debunk the event you should recreate the first video known to have been posted. (in this case the first 2 since they are directly linked to one another). I'm not really sure what you are trying to prove here. This day and age a person can literally hoax ANY video footage they can imagine, if they have a decent computer, and some halfway decent software. Simply proving that you can make a video that LOOKS like the other video, doesn't really do much to prove anything. I think most people realize how easy it is to hoax a UFO video, with computer software. I should point out that aspects of the first clips shown would have made it MUCH harder to hoax than the simple clip you provided...however even having said that, this doesn't prove that the video was real....it only proves what I literally said...that it would be harder to hoax. The only way to PROVE that it was indeed hoaxed, is to find an element of the original video clip that points directly to it having been hoaxed, and which would be impossible to have been shot in the real world. For instance if the background could be shown to move in a way that contradicted what could physically be possible in a real world filming situation. I've seen at least one attempt to do this, but that attempt was quite thuroughly debunked itself...a debunking of the debunker so to speak. To boil my point down to the basics....making a video that simply shows that you CAN hoax something is not REAL proof of anything...any more than the original video is REAL proof that the event happened. I could've easily hoaxed a video which shows President Obama being sworn into office...yet that does nothing to DISPROVE that he really WAS sworn into office, LOL!!!

Actually if one pays attention to detail like SO did, one can zoom in on the original videos like I did and see exactly what was floating above the dome...observe and bow before your new rulers:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e622316d0f47.gif[/atsimg]

reply to post by mblahnikluver


I was one of the naysayers about the Video. Only ignorant people believe in video evidence. I'm a computer game designer with experience in 3D and special effects and how to create them with Computer Software. I can tell you that you can simulate anything today and it will look believable not only to the untrained eye, but convincing to experienced digital editing people as well. The only difference is that the video editing experts are having a chuckle, while the dolts are floored with the revalation that they have just witnessed a true to life Alien encounter, or UFO footage...

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Not sure about anyone else, but this looked incredibly fake. Clearly a 2d image. Not sure what this post is supposed to prove, other than bad fakes are bad fakes.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


This is why I like the oldest UFO videos the best. You can always tell hubcaps on a string from the rest of the cases.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Sure the video looks too good to be true. And I would have no problem believing it a hoax. The only thing that keeps a sliver of doubt in my mind as to it being true is the sighting over Utah, which has garnered much less attention. Multiple witnesses and video showing nearly the same thing, within days of the Dome of the Rock sighting...www.youtube.com...

This is amazing to me. Its the same F-ing thing!

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Your recreation - while clever - proves nothing. Give some footage of a commercial jet landing to a special effects expert and ask him to recreate it in CGI, and he'll be able to do just that. It doesn't mean the original event didn't happen.

Great work.
Love it when experts can demonstrate how easy it is for them to create startling videos.
Fantastic work.

Originally posted by grindhouzer
excellent job recreating this event i must say!

It's not that good, sorry. Way too much artificial camera shake and you can tell the picture is a still. Also, you could see traffic moving in the streets in the original. I'm not saying all that couldn't be done in CGI - of course it could - but this recreation is a poor facsimile of the original. I'm very surprised at all the "looks better than the original!" comments.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Good post and vidz, im still on the fence, its sad that pretty much anything new we will ever see is questionable.

Nothing on the Internet or TV or in some document is automatically true.

To know something is true 100% you have to see it yourself, and UFOs are a perfect example of that.

Sure most all of it's faked, but a few are almost certainly genuine.

Figuring out which needle in the haystack is the real deal, is next to impossible.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I'm going to kick myself for actually making another comment on this after saying I wouldn't.

However, I just watched the two videos you've created with your 'expert' skills, and I have to say, I am stunningly UN-impressed. Despite all the will in the world to believe that they could portray real events (I am practiced at forcibly 'suspending disbelief' due to my professional work as a writer for TV and film) - they were clearly, obviously and shamefully fake, and I was "surprised x 10 to the power 15" that so many people have been so quick to come and schmooze about how awesome they were and how much they prove the skeptic case.

at the herd-mentality...


Sorry SO, but as much as I was willing to be convinced, they were gosh-darn awful, and demonstrate several failings to recreate specific effects seen in the actual videos. How anyone can say you've come up with an even adequate reproduction staggers me.

As I mentioned, I can forcibly 'suspend disbelief' at will... For those that don't understand the term - that is what we do naturally when watching a (good) movie. Knowing that it's not real, knowing that the characters are played by actors etc - we 'suspend disbelief' and become absorbed in the tale being told, convincing ourselves for the purpose of enjoying the film that in a general sense, the film is real. People who work in film will tell you that watching a movie becomes harder to enjoy as a natural process once you start actively learning about how they're made, and especially if you help to make them. A bad movie is often bad because it doesn't allow us to suspend disbelief in any natural way; the characters are too wooden, the plot is too shallow/ far-fetched, or the props/ budget aren't adequate to provide the level of quality needed to support the story... For example - it's no use trying to convince us that the lead actor is walking around an air force base by standing a few 3/4 size cardboard cutouts of F16's here and there in a field.

So - with that as a background, my honest opinion about those films in the OP is that they do not come anywhere close to the level of believability that the original 'Dome UFO' videos engendered (ignoring the 'back in Mississippi' hoax, released to muddy the waters and provide an easy debunk that the media could latch onto).

The reason this entire event led to such a heated, extended and divisive debate in the UFOlogy community, is that the 'reality-feel' of the original videos was so high - the intuitive reaction of the brain is that nothing is out-of-place in the images we see. Sure, if people are trying hard enough to disbelieve, then they will convince themselves that faults can be found and recreated. The human brain is a powerful tool. I looked at the originals and at the OP recreations, and the level of difference in what the brain automatically deduces is staggering. Sorry SkepticOverlord, but you haven't proven a thing with those videos.

And this post really will be my final comment on the matter. If I cannot suspend disbelief, despite my talent for doing so, then these are totally inadequate as any form of evidence to prove the original videos were hoaxed. Which imho they weren't. What really happened? The witnesses were silenced, the majority of footage removed or replaced, the dogs were unleashed and a cover-story created - a media action-plan carefully spun to seem open-minded.

I even started to wonder whether the 'kids in the car' video was a PTB-led red herring, spliced with some of the original footage. Etc, etc, etc. The disinfo wheels keep on turning.

I saw someone comment the other day, saying that a certain group of ET's want disclosure to occur - and that our governments/ PTB are standing in the way. But hey - who knows, right? A few nights after the Jerusalem UFO incident occurred, I saw a UFO of similar type and movement hovering very close to where I live, making a clear attempt to prove its 'un-naturalness' to any ground-based observers. Since then, I've seen between ten and twenty UFOs, where previously in the same time-frame (one week) I'd perhaps suspect I'd seen one UFO... This most recent proliferation of UFO activity has been characterised by actions, light displays, and changeable flight paths that show them to be 'something other-than' ordinary air traffic (or indeed 'something other-than' ordinary aerial phenomena, stars and planets etc).

Something is changing on Earth, and in our skies, at this moment in time. The PTB don't want us to be looking up at the skies - because if we do, our collective paradigm might shift in ways that undermine and encourage subversion of the FatCat agenda.

Sadly it is the truth that this video was a hoax.

Surely, an advanced species would know the right people to communicate with on 'Earth', and those people are not religous or political.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/31f0f95acf6a.jpg[/atsimg]