NEW Jerusalem UFO Video Emerges

reply to post by hotrice


Alright I can see you don't know how this was made. The corners weren't darkened, the image was brightened. A separate layer was put on top of the video and a light was added, this light then brightens every pixel that it overlaps. This is why the light flash unrealistically brightens up the back of the tree, the bushes, the ground that is blocked from the light by the bushes, etc. A real light wouldn't have lit up the backs of those objects from that distance.

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by backpage

 

Show me some real proof. Not the psuedo analysis I mistakenly read through on the other threads, wasting my time.

Show me proof that it is real

You cannot prove that this is fake and I cannot prove that this is real. Everyone should have their opinion. Throwing videos in to the hoax bin right away eliminates discussion. Discussing hoaxes is also positive for members here. Making subjective opinions look like fact is really detrimental for ATS.

As has been said many times before, lets please label these "Jerusalem UFO" threads with [HOAX] tags. Not only are they hoaxes, but they are bad hoaxes.

reply to post by Planet teleX


Your gradient fill does not look to convincing in comparison to the video. I agree that it could be faked, but it would be very difficult to make it look convincing. How many hoaxers would take into consideration the lens characteristic of a camera phone?

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
reply to post by hotrice

 

Alright I can see you don't know how this was made. The corners weren't darkened, the image was brightened. A separate layer was put on top of the video and a light was added, this light then brightens every pixel that it overlaps. This is why the light flash unrealistically brightens up the back of the tree, the bushes, the ground that is blocked from the light by the bushes, etc. A real light wouldn't have lit up the backs of those objects from that distance.

You just missed what I wrote earlier on. The bushes and trees are also lit because of the poor white-balance performance that a camera phone displays. Take your camera phone and suddenly shine it at your ceiling light. You will experience the same phenomenon.

reply to post by hotrice
You are right you can't prove it's real. But we can and have proven it's not.


reply to post by Turiddu
Each thread deserves due process. Otherwise this site would be a dictatorship.

reply to post by hotrice


Yup, i read it, it just doesn't make any sense.
Are you sure you mean white balance? Maybe you're confusing your terms.
White-balance

And how do you know this was taken with a cell phone?
Do you know something about this video the rest of us don't?

reply to post by hotrice

Your gradient fill does not look to convincing in comparison to the video. I agree that it could be faked, but it would be very difficult to make it look convincing. How many hoaxers would take into consideration the lens characteristic of a camera phone?

Read freelance_zenarchist's post at the top of the page.

Here it is for you:

Alright I can see you don't know how this was made. The corners weren't darkened, the image was brightened. A separate layer was put on top of the video and a light was added, this light then brightens every pixel that it overlaps. This is why the light flash unrealistically brightens up the back of the tree, the bushes, the ground that is blocked from the light by the bushes, etc. A real light wouldn't have lit up the backs of those objects from that distance.

Originally posted by Planet teleX
reply to post by hotrice

 

Read freelance_zenarchist's post at the top of the page.

Read my post above your post. I'm not saying that this cannot be faked. I'm just providing an alternate explanation for the lit bushes and trees. Fighting over who is right or wrong is pointless.

Take your camera phone and suddenly point it at your ceiling light. You will see that everything around the light source is also bright for a moment. What you see in the video is possibly due to the camera's white-balance.

This is obviously a copy cat... You can just tell it is fake. The lighting is wrong, the camera shake is fake... I hope the losers that are making these get a life soon. I hope the people the think these are real wake up soon too.

Originally posted by Planet teleX
reply to post by hotrice

 

You are right you can't prove it's real. But we can and have proven it's not.


reply to post by Turiddu

 

Each thread deserves due process. Otherwise this site would be a dictatorship.

Once again it is your opinion that this is a hoax. You haven't proven anything. It is possible to fake, yes. Anything can be faked with CGI. That does not prove that it is fake. The shaking looks fake? I agree, but who knows.

reply to post by hotrice


I realise you agree. I hope you understand that the hoaxer wouldn't need to factor in the lens effect due to the point that freelance_zenarchist is making.

The corners weren't darkened, the image was brightened.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4a082a668c4d.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/652855268d5c.jpg[/atsimg]

1) fake shake
2) objects that should be in shadow lit up
3) it took nearly 2 months to upload this to YouTube?

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
reply to post by hotrice

 

Yup, i read it, it just doesn't make any sense.
Are you sure you mean white balance? Maybe you're confusing your terms.
White-balance

And how do you know this was taken with a cell phone?
Do you know something about this video the rest of us don't?

Yes, I mean white-balance. That's what a camera phone mainly relies on when it does not have an iris. Camera phones are basically pin hole cameras. It's for sure taken with a cell phone as the lens is really of poor quality, hence the dark corners. And the poor white-balance and video quality also point towards the fact that it was taken by a cell phone. Remember that there is a background light source in the video. I know nothing more.

PS-as a person who has witnessed a plasma ball UFO, I take every such sighting seriously

Originally posted by Planet teleX
reply to post by hotrice

 

I realise you agree. I hope you understand that the hoaxer wouldn't need to factor in the lens effect due to the point that freelance_zenarchist is making.

The corners weren't darkened, the image was brightened.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4a082a668c4d.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/652855268d5c.jpg[/atsimg]

See this is really difficult to fake. With cheap lenses there really is no gradient. The corners are simply blurry and darkened. The gradient is really small. The center is usually sharp, then as you start going towards the edges the image gets blurrier but not to the naked eye. Then suddenly at the corners the image gets really blurry and dark. This is because the lens is round and the sensor is square.

As I recall the earlier videos in question had several flashes not one, and the proximity of the flashes were not easy to determine if indeed it was "real light" or otherwise. This video and the earlier ones show the light as somehow diffuse. Just to add this video shows the point of light flash in the sky, and not associated directly with the moving object.

Hoaxes are Easy
Just to show how easy it is

Ok, the BIG text has swayed me... Your opinion is etched in stone as fact. I won't argue anymore. And the "I can write louder than you" concept should be taught to all community college pre-law students.

Originally posted by cluckerspud[/

Originally posted by backpage
Proven by whom? Guys who use BIG text to make a point? It's astounding looking through this website. I see everything from fake moon landing conspiracies to HAARP causing all the ills in the world. With people actually arguing their points with a straight face irregardless of how insane they appear. And something like this gets immediately discarded by the "HOAX" crowd (emphasis on the BIG letters) because they just hate the fact they might be wrong. Show me some real proof. Not the psuedo analysis I mistakenly read through on the other threads, wasting my time.

Originally posted by cluckerspud

Originally posted by skyjohn
Not sure if anyone said HOAX BIN yet...

The previous videos were proven to be fit for the:

HOAX BIN

So that, in relation with this poorly constructed 6th video, I have made the suggestion for the:

HOAX BIN

And if a 7th video surfaces, most likely it will belong in the:

HOAX BIN

I have watched all the videos and have read both arguments and I have concluded that this is a

HOAX

Therefor it would stand to reason that this belongs in the:

HOAX BIN

But that is just one mans opinion based on the information.

And that opinion again is that this belongs in the:

HOAX BIN