Monday, February 7, 2011

Jerusalem UFO Video - Digital Processing Effects Prove the Hoax

My Blog post of Feb. 3 contains my initial comments upon seeing the sequence of videos of 'balls of light' allegedly photographed over the Dome of the Rock, atop Jerusalem's Temple Mount. At that time, a hoax was strongly suspected, but not demonstrated, except in the case of the "Mississippi" close-up video, which uses a well-known photo as a background.. "Why bother?", the philosopher might ask. "The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Unless it can be shown that there is practically no way such a video can be faked,  it doesn't prove anything, and so it doesn't need to be debunked." True enough, but when dealing with the public, it helps to be able to go from "this video proves nothing" to "this video is shown to be a hoax."



We can now state with great confidence that the original video, seen above and posted to YouTube on January 28 by user "eligael," is a hoax. When examined by expert eyes, those who are familiar with video editing software (unfortunately, not me), point out the effects of the digital processing software, proof that the video clip has been through a program to modify it from its original state. Using such a program, the knowledgeable user can insert more or less anything into the video, and make it look at least somewhat convincing.



The proof is fairly easily seen the the video above,posted to YouTube by user HOAXKiller1 on Feb. 5. This user had posted several earlier videos attempting to make this point, but they were not so useful in showing exactly what the problem was. I refer to one of them in my earlier post. But with this video, I think that HOAXKiller has succeeded, showing quite clearly the effects from the editing.

The hoaxer has used something called "Motion Tile" effects in the processing of this video. An artificial camera shake is introduced, to make it look like the video was taken using a hand-held camera. But what do you show, say at the extreme left edge, when the camera moves to the left? You don't have anything at all to the left of the left edge of the picture (although you would if the camera were really shaking). I'm reminded of a time when I was singing in a choral rehearsal of Puccini's Tosca in a small opera house. In the Second Act, the chorus is offstage singing a religious hymn, when Scarpia suddenly slams the window, cutting off the sound. One bass had a problem: "What do we do if he's late closing the window?" (A reasonable concern in live theater, perhaps). The director smiled and said, "Then you keep singing." The joke is, of course, that the choral part ends at that point, so even if Scarpia doesn't close the window, you still have nothing to sing.

You might solve the problem of "nothing to show" by filling in with blank space, but that would not look realistic. So a "mirroring" effect is generally used. You create data beyond the edge of the frame by mirroring data at the edge of the frame, along all four sides. Watch HOAXKiller1's video above, and you will see this happening. First, we are clearly shown where the mirroring occurs, in the first minute of the video. Next, we see an excerpt from an instructional video for using a video editing program. It is a tutorial involved with adding or removing camera shake.  It explains how to use "motion tiles," with "mirrored edges." This same process was used during the creation of the original Jerusalem UFO video.

This proves that the video did not go directly from the camera to YouTube, but made a stop in between inside a sophisticated video editing software suite. Which is obviously where it picked up its image of the "UFO."

24 comments:

  1. Some people dump footage into video editing software just to get it from their camera to their computer. Just something to consider. Your claim is valid, as well. I honestly would not be surprised with either outcome. I believe either one could be probable. It could be a finely executed marketing scheme from Hollywood producers. Or this could be that time in history that some large events unfold. Jerusalem is a pretty sacred place.

    ReplyDelete
  2. hmm doesn't explain the 3 other videos, one was by an American women who was closer to the object... just saying

    ReplyDelete
  3. Without considering the relative holiness of various portions of the earth's surface, I suppose we are left to conclude one of the following:

    1. Aliens have a vested interest in one or two particular human religions, and were touring the area in some sort of pilgrimmage.

    2. An avatar of one of those religions chose to reveal itself to one camera but no one else.

    3. Said avatar chose to reveal itself to everyone as a fast moving streetlamp but people just missed it.

    4. Some hitherto unknown but very large and bright natural phenomenon occurred over a major city and no one noticed.

    5. Some schmuck with a camera and a computer decided to have a little fun with the gullible.

    Hmmm...let me ponder that for the entire one second required. Done.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous1, this video didn't just "pass through" a video editor. Instead it was subjected to some serious editing using "motion tiles" and who knows what else.

    Anonymous2, the previous post talks about the American video (#3, "Mississippi"). It's a well-known still photo, with video effects added. And video #2 is from the same guy as #1, the hoaxer. As for #4, we don't even know where it came from. Maybe it's the Real Deal? But I wouldn't bet on it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. On what basis do you make your assertion that a motion tile effect was added to this video? I am a graphics programmer that works on software features like motion effect, and I see no evidence that an effect was layered on these three videos.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I watched the Hoaxkiller video. The motion tile explanation makes absolutely no sense. Hoaxkiller added two perpendicular lines to the original video, and manually moved them. The lines he added have absolutely no connection to, or bearing on, the original video. It is a non-sequitir, and a generally bad assertion. The camera shake tutorial that follows also adds nothing to the explanation. I have no idea why it was included, other than to confuse the matter.

    The fact is that there are at least three synchronized videos shot from different locations around the city. There has been one hoax video released by the "Mississippi" woman which includes a still picture of the dome. This appears to have been done to discredit the original three videos. It does not make logical sense to discredit the first set of videos based on people releasing future videos attempting to discredit the first set of three synchronized videos.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for posting truth about Jerusalem Hoax Video..

    And media is spreading disinformation and when we have real UFO news they don't report it at all..

    Down below is good example :

    Five Separate Airlines Pilots Confirm UFO Sighting Over India On 26 January, 2011

    http://www.ufo-blogger.com/2011/02/india-ufo-sighting-airlines-pilots.html

    Did any of the Main stream media reported it sighting ? NO

    ReplyDelete
  8. Greg: You claim to be a graphics programmer - the obvious mirroring doesn't seem the least bit odd to you? Really? You're looking too hard at the lines and not what the lines mean - the features on each side of the line are duplicated.

    http://i.imgur.com/5RUcl.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  9. After spending some time watching these, here are my comments:

    The first video is fake - there is no reason for video processing effects and obvious composting in a supposed handheld video.
    The second video is not from a different position - if you look at the objects in them, and their relative alignment, they are the same as the first video - however the brightness has been adjusted to make this less obvious. Given how closely cropped it is, I'm 90% certain that the second video is a cropped and brightened clip from the first video.

    The 3rd video, which I'm assuming is the closeup video, looks like the brightness was adjusted in post processing as well - when the "UFO" does it's double flash, if you do a frame by frame the lights on the ground bloom before anything else, and the flash seems to move outward from them - there is no reason for this to happen unless the "flash" was created in post processing.

    The american video - and the one it was commonly synced with, are so obviously fake it's not even funny. Using a still photo from wikipedia and video taping a computer monitor to add movement.

    Someone, maybe one guy - they've been caught editing in audio as well, so there is no reason to assume these are really different people - maybe several copycats, is pulling a pretty big hoax.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi Greg, you don't see anything because you must be tired and need some good sleep.

    The video is pretty clear for me, at 59' when the horizontal line is added, I indeed see something strange at the bottom of the video, like if the picture was extended in a non-natural manner. It's very short, but it's definitly there.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I can tell by not even looking at the debunking video above that this thing was a hoax.. Like Greg, I work in the media industry, as a cg artist, and watching the first 2 videos that emerged of this thing, there is a glaring rookie mistake, lack of animation continuity.. The videos I saw were a mid ground shot, and an extreme wide of the town from on a hill. The speed in which the thing accelerated off in each video were completely different. On the close, a few frames after it started off, it was still in camera, on the wide a few frames after it started it was out well above the town, when according to the other video it was still low enough to be in frame..

    I loose respect for humanity and die a little inside, when I see sadly disillusioned people commenting still thinking it could be real..

    ReplyDelete
  12. I wonder, has anyone seen the news video of the UFO and witness testimonies from a sighting in Utah from the day before?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X8AzsOZbkg

    The red blinking lights look similar for both. I'm not sure what to make of that, even from the point of view of being one of those "weirdos" with anecdotal testimony of my own. Let me just say that if humans are known to tamper with evidence and witnesses, you may at some point need to stop putting it past an alien to do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It is such a pity that those hoaxes get destroyed so fast. Wouldn't it be great when there would REALLY be the good aliens that will save us from the reign of money and war? It's giving so much hope to so many. And then, oops, poorly applied computer effect and the hope is gone. Shame on you ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  14. There are multiple videos circulating from many angles - it's either a massive expensive hoax or it's a real ... lightning / atmospheric effect.

    I'd say the video (if real) has been messed with to make it cooler.

    I've seen something like this before, however it was 20 seconds before lighting struck a radio mast. Ball lightning basically, an observably real phenomena. The flash is a huge clue here. however that does look fake - if it was that bright it didn't illuminate the surrounding area? Unless of course the aliens piloting glowing orbs are interested in radio stations. Why must people invoke little green men?

    ReplyDelete
  15. There's 2 other videos of the alleged sighting to be 'debunked' geniuses. There's another one taken from a similar standpoint and one taken from close up on the street in front of the temple.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well spotted that man! Best example of the mirroring is at 0.03

    I have no idea why the people who faked this decided to tile the damn thing as opposed to just zoom in and mimic shake within the original frame.

    I still think video 4 is the best one though. Any chance of debunking this one?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdcq1xQtwz4

    ReplyDelete
  17. Even if these things are real (which I don't think so), there is a difference between seeing a glowing ball of light, and extraterrestrials. It's staggering to me, to see people jump to these kind of conclusions. Kind of reminds me of what Carl Sagan said about planet Venus...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJNfQxjgqz4
    (from 5:00 to 6:30)

    DRMProd.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I WANT TO BELIEVE
    NOW NOT
    :(

    ReplyDelete
  19. This was a REAL sighting….vast majoirty of the ‘debunking’ – comes from extreme bullshit disinfo site ‘abovetopssecret’ -0 where young adults are posting very much unsubstantiatied/unadulterated rubbish indeed.

    They are forced to rely on flimsy arguments in their attempts to discredit the event. They point to "mirrored" images at the edge of the first video: yet ignore the hundreds of forums by owners of digital video recorders that discuss the problem of mirrored images cropping up on their clips. That's right, many digital cameras are manufactured with software that includes the mirroring effect to counteract motion blur. Skeptical? google the topic.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I am a graphic artist. I know most of the graphical tricks that could have been used to make this UFO hoax. And with that in mind, I can argue for another point that stands out, for any graphical artist out there that would also find hard to argue against.

    The first two videos that were released on youtube of the same Temple Dome event (in the first video, you can see a man with his mobile phone taking a video of the UFO; and the second video [is] the mobile phone video), proves that this cannot be faked.

    Because, if the first video is a graphical hoax, how did the supposed 'same' artist ever match-move and provide the same compositional effects in the mobile phone video, and do such an excellent job to make it blend perfectly with all the anomalies of a mobiles reduced video quality?

    Here is the side by side comparison of what I a talking about.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOf4qV​MIg7k

    ReplyDelete
  21. the 'HOAX' vid has no similarity to the 'real' one.....re-watch them both!

    ReplyDelete
  22. True, Cover-up, Fake, Debunking, Debunking of debunk.. OLD Story.
    Study Roosevelt and the past 60 yeas of Ufology, you'll not doubt anymore. If all you want is 10'000 videos of USO landed in front of the White Hous, you'll be disapointed. EBE are quite intelligent and show when and how the want.
    In one abduction, the EBE said "Some have to believe, but not all, and they should understand, but not all". Don't underestimate theire QI:) They know how to control the "how" and "Many". Take any abduction's story, quite everytime, at one moment the story goes crazy. Why? One explanation is "Juste to make the "many" don't believe in it".
    Explanation : Only few wil go further and continue the study. Just a thought. Greetings
    EBE (actually just my nickname since 15-20 years:)

    ReplyDelete
  23. All someone has to do is take a picture of the area in daylight or at night standing in the same spot to see if the images of the buildings that appeared mirrored in this video are actually there are not. (I do not know the area, so are there actually 2 domes on the left edge of the screen that appear symmetrical?) If they are not there, then my question would be why would anyone take a phone video and run it through a program to add a mirrored effect? I dont think smart phones would add that automatically. Although when I first watched the videos everything seems pretty legit. But the argument here seems like someone tampered with it.

    ReplyDelete

Keep your comments relevant, and keep them civil! That means no personal attacks will be allowed, by anyone, on anyone. Commenters are welcome to disagree with me, or with other comments, but state your arguments using logic, and with a civil tone. Comments in violation of these rules will be deleted, and offenders banned.

Comments should be in English, although quotes from foreign-language sources are fine as long as they're relevant, and you explain them. Anonymous postings are not permitted. If you don't want to use your real name, then make up a name for yourself, and use it consistently.