Merged UFO @ Jerusalem, 2011. Call Captain-D

[23_Tauri]

Angel Love, I can't see a reference for the material you just posted. Please can you provide a reference/citation/link to the original url.

This is helpful for other members, and also without a link we don't know if you're in breach of Rule 4, so I think there's a managment issue too if you don't cite your sources. Thanks.

 

[Angel Love]

Angel Love, I can't see a reference for the material you just posted. Please can you provide a reference/citation/link to the original url.

This is helpful for other members, and also without a link we don't know if you're in breach of Rule 4, so I think there's a managment issue too if you don't cite your sources. Thanks.

So rule driven

I missed the link, sorry for the inconvenience : http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread658652/pg12

I think rule 4 should (if applicable here ) be waivered in this post. The material I posted was to show that Stray Cat was actually on the right path and his images are correct.

 

[23_Tauri]

Thanks for the link.

 

[Stray Cat]

From elsewhere:

So looks like you are on the right track Stray Cat, nice work.

Thanks for that.

I have a problem with the interlaced theory though and think maybe the guys at ATS are on the wrong track.
Interlacing frames would only show 2 images of the same object and not the (at least) 5 that we can see in this footage.

See example from a UFO I analysed last year where luckily, a bird flew across the view and gave the game away:

Original (very short) thread here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168107&highlight=Bird

 

[Stray Cat]

More analysis:

The Shadows (no not Hanks Marvin and his friends plying twee tunes on echoey guitars)

Another thing I noticed was that when the flash goes off lighting up the whole compound in which the Temple of the Rock is situated, it didn't actually create any shadows at all.

So, the first thing I had to do was to find the exact(ish) position that the video was taken from. Here is the frame directly preceding the flash:

After searching through a lot of Google images I found a good match:

Which can be found in a larger format here: http://www.treybarrow.com/Jerusalem/photos/10%20Dome%20of%20the%20Rock%20at%20Night.JPG

This allowed me to position the Dome of the Rock with the Masjid-Al-Aqsa mosque (the building with the smaller dome to the left of the temple).

Looking on Google Earth, it looks like the video was taken looking roughly due West from the Mount of Olives (which confirms what the report claims).

But looking at the lay of the land, it drops away from the Temple into the valley bottom. So moving the view around about 90° and looking at the positioning from the SSE, we can see that a strong light will cast a long shadow shown here:

And yet, when we look at the point where the flash is bright enough to light up the whole of the compound, we see there are no shadows present.

Shown again here with the predicted shadow area superimposed:

And again in the next frame, when the flash is at it's brightest, still no shadows:

In fact all that has happened is that details already existing on the video have been lightened. No change in angle of lighting and alteration of shadow angle or length is apparent anywhere.

Then in the next frame as the flash is fading, still no change:

And the shape defining the over exposed compound is exactly the same as 2 frames prior. Which looks to me as if the same 'mask' has been used to mask off the area which has been manually lightened.

Now again, this is only based upon visual examination of all the sources I had (Photos, the video footage and Google Earth) and not accurate measurements of buildings/walls, but regardless of accuracy in the predicted length of shadows, there should be some shadows cast by such a bright light and there isn't. So whilst the accuracy may not be spot on, the theory seems to be holding up.

More to come.

 

[AdMan]

Thanks for that.

I have a problem with the interlaced theory though and think maybe the guys at ATS are on the wrong track.
Interlacing frames would only show 2 images of the same object and not the (at least) 5 that we can see in this footage.

Interesting. I know a little bit about video technology and think you may be right. Could the effect still be digital artifacts of some kind, perhaps caused by relatively cheap CCD technology?

I googled motion blur and found this image. It's from a digital still camera, but it still shows a "strobing" effect in the blur. Of course this could be caused by flickering lights, but all of the light streaks show this, so I don't think that's the case.

ETA: In any case, in the video footage you would also expect the UFO to display this effect, and it doesn't.

 

[Light23]

Hmmm....

 

[Stray Cat]

Interesting. I know a little bit about video technology and think you may be right. Could the effect still be digital artifacts of some kind, perhaps caused by relatively cheap CCD technology?

I googled motion blur and found this image. It's from a digital still camera, but it still shows a "strobing" effect in the blur. Of course this could be caused by flickering lights, but all of the light streaks show this, so I don't think that's the case.

ETA: In any case, in the video footage you would also expect the UFO to display this effect, and it doesn't.

Notice in your example how the 'strobing effect' isn't all lined up neatly though. Compare that to the video still

Where regardless of where the lights set off from, the lines all line up... like a TV monitor.

 

[AdMan]

Notice in your example how the 'strobing effect' isn't all lined up neatly though. Compare that to the video still

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Strobe.jpg[/qimg]

Where regardless of where the lights set off from, the lines all line up... like a TV monitor.

Duh. Of course. Just like the still image was shot off a monitor.

 

[Light23]

BTW, if anyone really wants to, you could recreate the "picture" video almost identically if you had a large screen or wall projector.

I tried recording my tiny laptop screen with my crap phone camera and I got a low res version of that video. I used the "zoom out" cursor in Firefox as my "UFO".

 

[Stray Cat]

Duh. Of course. Just like the still image was shot off a monitor.

I know... who'd a thunkt it eh?

 

[Stray Cat]

BTW, if anyone really wants to, you could recreate the "picture" video almost identically if you had a large screen or wall projector.

I tried recording my tiny laptop screen with my crap phone camera and I got a low res version of that video. I used the "zoom out" cursor in Firefox as my "UFO".

I've already done a comparison using overlays in photoshop. By distorting the video image you can even work out the angles the camera was in relation to the screen it was shot from.

I think Mike (?) nailed it earlier in the thread when he suggested simply shining a well focused mag light on the TV screen.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I am just amazed that people are buying into these videos. The one thing I learned about UFOlogy photographs and videos is that anything that looks too good to be true, probably is a hoax. Their better off recording iridium flares, scintillating stars, venus, airplanes (now they call them "fake airplanes!"), and contrails. At least you don't have to hoax those.

Good work on the 3rd video debunking and it looks like a lot of people are starting to expose the others. I originally felt that it was possible that the bright flash would shut off the street lighting but, after watching some old fireball videos, I discovered that the sensors are a lot less sensitive to this sort of thing than when I used to do it as a teenage astronomer (We used to shutdown the lights by shining a flash strobe through the scope at the sensor). The shadows may be a good thing but the whole image appears overexposed and one could never tell if there were shadows. Doesn't the dome of the rock have a 24 hour guard and why didn't the cars stop moving when the flash occurred? If I saw a flash like that, I probably would stop the car and look around for where it came from.

 

[Moochie]

The fake...it hurts my eyes!

And yes Info, good point. Why didn't the cameraman tilt up to follow it?

The impression I had was that as the object suddenly jerked upward, it appeared to be inches rather than a long way away from the lens.


M.

 

[Stray Cat]

I am just amazed that people are buying into these videos. The one thing I learned about UFOlogy photographs and videos is that anything that looks too good to be true, probably is a hoax. Their better off recording iridium flares, scintillating stars, venus, airplanes (now they call them "fake airplanes!"), and contrails. At least you don't have to hoax those.

Good work on the 3rd video debunking and it looks like a lot of people are starting to expose the others. I originally felt that it was possible that the bright flash would shut off the street lighting but, after watching some old fireball videos, I discovered that the sensors are a lot less sensitive to this sort of thing than when I used to do it as a teenage astronomer (We used to shutdown the lights by shining a flash strobe through the scope at the sensor). The shadows may be a good thing but the whole image appears overexposed and one could never tell if there were shadows. Doesn't the dome of the rock have a 24 hour guard and why didn't the cars stop moving when the flash occurred? If I saw a flash like that, I probably would stop the car and look around for where it came from.

Hi Astrophotographer... long time no see.

This is one of the most secure areas in the world with the constant threat of terrorism, I would bet that there are many CCTV cameras that didn't pick up a bright light or a flash.

Anyway, I've just posted my video presentation (hastily knocked together so excuse the poor quality) on to YouTube here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84IK8X3HXro

It's basically what I already posted above... with the addition of an advert for Squid Fishing Monthly tagged onto the end of it.

 

[Angel Love]

I still don't see any conclusive evidence that is irrefutable for the debunking of Video 1 and 2. Video 4 is still interesting as these witnesses are now going to be interviewed, so we will see what that brings out.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Hi Astrophotographer... long time no see.

This is one of the most secure areas in the world with the constant threat of terrorism, I would bet that there are many CCTV cameras that didn't pick up a bright light or a flash.

Anyway, I've just posted my video presentation (hastily knocked together so excuse the poor quality) on to YouTube here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84IK8X3HXro

It's basically what I already posted above... with the addition of an advert for Squid Fishing Monthly tagged onto the end of it.

The plug at the end is very amusing. I am one to call this a hoax at first glance simply because it appeared out of the blue with no preceding story. In real news stories (plane crash, explosion, car crash, shooting, etc.), an event occurs, the media picks it up and reports on it, and then the videos appear. The opposite occurs in hoaxes. The videos first appear, people bite and jump on the bandwagon, and THEN witnesses appear professing to have seen the UFO/bigfoot/whatever. Due to the extraordinary nature of the video, it demands "EXTRAORDINARY" evidence....Oh.....that is another thread.....sorry....

PS: Just so we don't have RR in here arguing about the ECREE statement in another thread, what I mean by "extraordinary evidence" is an extensive studying of the videos by professionals to confirm they are showing a real event and not somebody pressing the "I believe" button because a bunch of amateurs have a hard time showing conclusively it is a hoax (like the third video). If it gets past the amateurs (I consider most everyone in these boards amateurs if you don't mind the label unless you do this sort of thing for a living and have the educational background), it would require multiple professionals analyzing the original videoes independently to see if it passes inspection. IMHO, I don't think it is getting past the amateurs at this point.

 

[Stray Cat]

I still don't see any conclusive evidence that is irrefutable for the debunking of Video 1 and 2. Video 4 is still interesting as these witnesses are now going to be interviewed, so we will see what that brings out.

It's not really required is it. People examine them for various reasons, but really the conclusive proof that is actually required is the proof that they are what they claim to be. So far, I haven't seen anyone even trying to provide such conclusive proof let alone actually providing any.

 

[Angel Love]

It's not really required is it.

No it's not as we clearly have fake UFO videos here, end of story, somehow I think not. Let's see what comes next.

 

[manniequinn]

well sorry but if it was a picture how come in this video "wwwyoutubecom/watch?v=3Vw5vB7Ppfw&feature=related" at 1:04-1:06 you can see cars driving in the middle video. look very closely for all you experts at analyzing videos