• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged UFO @ Jerusalem, 2011. Call Captain-D

I know this has been conclusively debunked, but...

King of the Americas said:
Camera men shoot what is in front of a steady camera...

Trying to follow a fast moving object often yields jerky un-centered images. You are better keeping the camera still, and just capture what happens in front of you.

The object moves away quickly, too much so to be followed, with any accuracy.

I'd have shot the object the same way.
Click to expand...

The camera is neither centred nor still, so this argument falls at the first and second hurdles.
 
Nice catch on the photo! I felt something was off about the lens flares but I couldn't figure out what it was. Lens flares move!
 
UFO over Israel?

This was posted to Jalopnik.com but thought you guys might wanna look (I believe that there would be other explanations that can explain the "UFO"). Its a video compilation of three angles filmed by three people (being claimed by the original videos) of a UFO spotted over Israel.


Compiled video:




The video above shows three videos taken from three different angles by three different people—including one woman from Mississippi—synchronized into one.


http://jalopnik.com/#!5750880/is-this-ufo-caught-by-multiple-cameras-a-real-alien-spaceship
Click to expand...
The video though has an explanation by the poster that it was faked (I believe it was) however, I'm not sure his explanation is a "valid" one.

I suck at video comparison, but would love to see you guys take a stab at it.


The three videos:

First Video:




Second Vide (a news report that covers the incident):



Third Video (allegedly by a Mississippi Woman on vacation in Israel):
 
Last edited:
My comparison video, put up three days ago has had nearly 70,000 hits so far.

A fourth video has now 'surfaced'
I say surfaced, it's slightly better quality SFX, so I guess it took a bit longer to make.
 
Angel Love said:
No it hasn't, what has been done is that the video with the Americans talking has been proven fake. We are still left with three other videos that are not completely debunked yet ;)

The original OPs post shows a new comparison of three videos; 1, 2 and 4.
Click to expand...

There are still plenty of people on Wootube who still don't think video 3 hasn't been debunked :eye-poppi

I think Video 4 is quite easy to show as fake though. I just haven't had time and people have probably already done it by now.
 
I'll post these here because although there is a thread for the other video, this could be treat as a separate issue. But obviously if the mods feel a thread merge is required, that's cool by me.

Video number 4 analysis... at first look it's not the worst video I've ever seen.
But there are things that just don't look right about it.

The first is that although on this video there are cars driving around and flickering lights (so this on is a real video as opposed to a still photo), When it zooms in, it still looks wrong. I can't put my finger on it at the moment but I'm going to check out some stuff tomorrow (it's late here now).

So anyway, looking specifically (for the moment) at the point in which the UFO zooms up into the sky, I noticed an odd 'effect' on the motion blur of the city lights. It looks once again like this has been shot from a TV screen with the object added afterwards.

See the effect in this still:

Strobe.jpg


I may have thought this was just an artifact of this digital camera, only when the UFO zoomed off half a second before, it has a perfectly smooth motion blur:

Zooms-1.jpg


Zooms-2.jpg


At the moment my thought is that the footage of Jerusalem is taken from a TV screen (again) and the strobe effect is a consequence of the screen scanning. Who ever made this video has learned from the mistake of the last one and blurred the TV screen so that you can not see the horizontal lines this time. But when the camera moves, it's shutter is capturing the individual scanning lines that make up the TV picture causing the motion blur to highlight the individual scanning lines instead of producing a continuous motion blur. This is only a guess at the moment so I'll try to do some reading up on it tomorrow.

There are also major issues with the two flashes of light that appear on the video, but again I'll have to write that up tomorrow as well because it's already 4.30am here.
 
Once again, well done, Stray Cat.

I know this "Jerusalem UFO" is (ETA: very probably) a hoax, but as with other hoaxes it's still fun to point out the flaws and disclose how it was probably done. You're quite good at it. :)

Looking forward to your further posts on this.
 
Last edited:
Well it's not cracked just yet but thanks anyway :)

I have to discount the possibility that there is a difference between when an object within the picture moves as opposed to when the camera moves.
I don't think that is the case, but I'd rather read up on it first to make sure.
 
From elsewhere:

technical background (important):

There are 2 ways a camera can capture moving images (a sequence of still frames):

"Interlaced" capture - each captured frame is a actually made up of 2 separate alternating fields each captured at a slightly different slice of time. In postprod, this creates "combing" effect (where the 2 interlaced fields reveal themselves especially for objects or scenes captured while in motion).

"Progressive" capture - each captured frame is a whole frame. But there are 2 types of shutter variants:

"Rolling Shutter" - each frame is captured one line at a time.

Observable artifact #1: creates wobbly deformation of objects or scenes with respect to the orientation of the image sensor (either horizontal or vertical). Common weakness of cameraphones and DSLRs.

Observable artifact #2: external light flashes captured by the camera appear cut off within a single frame (when the duration of the flash is shorter than the time it takes to expose each frame)

"Universal Shutter" - all pixels (and therefore all lines) of each frame are captured all at the same time.

Observable artifact: no wobble, but creates simple motion blur for moving objects or scenes, regardless of image sensor orientation.

VIDEO#4 Debunk Explanation

1. A digital camera can only take a shot either in progressive or interlaced mode, but not both at the same time.

cc8ab5aa5588.png


2. This sequence of frames from Video#4 show both interlacing artifacts and motion blur artifacts (supposedly due to quick motion), IN THE SAME FOOTAGE! This can't happen in reality, because the camera is either shooting in interlaced, or shooting in progressive, but NOT BOTH. Either everything that's revealing in the clip reveals interlacing, or progressive - not both.

3. So Video#4 is tampered with in the following sense:

a. The background footage was shot in interlaced mode as most consumer camcorders do
b. The CGI orb was composited into the interlaced background as a progressive image (in fact, the project settings is done in progressive mode - it can't be done any other way unless you know the "nuts and bolts" of your comp system (many thanks to Pinke's U2U for explaining to me how to do that)
c. The resulting final video is exported in progressive frames
d. Video comes out with a mixture of progressive and interlacing artifacts, which no camera can do, and it wouldn't make sense for a camera to do so.
e. Ergo, HOAX
Click to expand...


So looks like you are on the right track Stray Cat, nice work.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom