STILL WARY OF THE ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTERS OF AUTHENTICITY 'VIDEOS WHEN STARTING NEW EYEWITNESSES
Di Mattia Paolinelli
not stops more the long wave of the event-perhaps-in the sky over Jerusalem on January 28: Four videos in one certainly false (the third) and a host of counter-analysis and by those who believe and those who does not believe the authenticity of the same video and then the event.
course prove whether or not the films are artifacts is the key point to settle the whole question. Other types of objections (we talked about in the previous article ) do not stand in this or in other circumstances.
Unable to put the word on the matter, we continue to offer all the updates that-these days-especially coming from All Web News expressed by different utterances on their Facebook page about the efforts put in place to determine the true nature or not the video.
According All News Web each analysis in this sense is only meant to discredit the movie and get back in the big groove of "cover up" international. Personally, I find that this is a position totally wrong and I think that if anything in front of so magnificent a double check is due, especially when the analysis describes his doubts in a precise manner and relying on a clear expertise in this comment as received by a Our anonymous reader that is expressed on the first video of the UFO over Jerusalem and the subsequent analysis and counter-worked by those who believe and those who do not believe in its authenticity (you can find all the videos in the first article )
The video in 3d that would call into question the explanation of the phenomenon of parallax hoaxkiller1 for me is not valid. The reason is that the skyline of Jerusalem in the original video is virtually motionless with respect to the line "jumps" at the bottom. The example shows you in 3d instead, shifting the line down, but also a sharp line at the top of the wobbles. Why this is the real phenomenon of the horizon and moving in opposite directions of the imaginary line of point of view. Movement in the video but wrong UFO over Jerusalem. We forget also wobbles or "slip" of the tree to the right of the frame is completely desynchronized the rest of the "assembly". In conclusion. The video is a multi-layered compositing with a bad camera tracking and a luminous globe that is not CGI, but rather a clone of one of the lights in the area of \u200b\u200bthe square repositioned and animated.
The world would then light a small town "cloned" to deliberately to become the UFO. Possible. But why make even the red light at the end of the video? Lights, remember, appeared for the first time in more videos in other parts of the world at the same time? E 'is the only point that still is not fully convincing. Like the fact that the third video è stato immediatamente individuato come un falso, sui primi due e sul quarto dei dubbi sembrano ancora permanere.
Ma voglio evitare per il momento di avanzare ulteriori considerazioni personali, limitandomi ad esporre i nuovi elementi messi in campo da ANW:
(possible advanced weaponry above the Dome)
-so why bother saying "we need to get hold of the footage"?.....the footage is gone.
looking at Eligaels picture all telltale signs that he's gone through the army
....
08 febbraio alle ore 19.46
----------------------------------------------------
Another fun fact about the Jerusalem UFO event: Eligael writes his name EliGael-this implies he has some biblical delusions, emphasising the meaning of the word: God's redeemer-or God redeems.
His full name is Eligael Gedalyovich-meaning Gods redeemer-Son of the great God
Is this a sign of something?
08 febbraio alle ore 20.02
----------------------------------------------------
Another reason the Jerusalem UFO event has not been debunked:
note the blurb:Camera shake, jitter and noise distract the viewer from your story. Get rid of them quickly and easily with Magic Bullet Steady.
And this: It uses spatial and temporal data to work out true image values, and customizable settings give you control over block size
Download Magic Bullet Steady 1.1 Free Trial - Remove distracting camera shake, jitter and noise - So
mac.softpedia.com
Magic Bullet Steady Remove distracting camera shake, jitter and noise
08 febbraio alle ore 23.00
----------------------------------------------------
Note: new witness testimonies from Jerusalem are emerging, shown on video. One poster on Tapuz claims "many" people saw the lights. Apparently more witnesses saw only the red lights while much fewer saw the descending white object as well.
Jerusalem UFO witness report: Michael Cohen interviewed by Iain Lee
www.youtube.com
Michael Cohen who first reported on the footage managed to speak to Eligael Gedalyovich shortly after the event. In the interview Michael demonstrates that the event could not have been a co-ordinated hoax nor a viral marketing plan as well as reveas what the first witness told him.
Wednesday at 7:34
---------------------------------- ------------------
The beginnings of a Detailed analysis of the Jerusalem dubunking refuting the UFO event-please share it-it is ongoing work and will be updated regularly
Wednesday at 16:55
A strange fact to tell the truth about the first comment. As this screen:
and this particular
the comment was actually posted on the Facebook page of ANW, but going to see the profile today, as the comment is gone demonstrates this new "shot".
where you can see the "jump" directly from 14:05 to 22:21
then I do not comment on the comments about the name of the author cineamatore video that triggered the whole story. In this case the post of ANW is just grotesque. The other contributions are thankfully different nature: the words of the alleged eyewitnesses, the suggestion of a software fix for "distracting camera shake, jitter and noise" of the video and the announcement of a work counter designed to dismantle the conclusions of the "debunkers" .
between updates But nothing got to do with the UFO videos on Jerusalem, I feel compelled to report this new pearl ANW , upholding a tradition of articles free of any source or feedback available to readers. Not to mention the image
choice to accompany the article and that calls into question the Wikileaks and UFOs when they got to do anything with the content of the piece. Any further comment is superfluous.
For the moment everything is, of course, but remember that this space remains open for further updates as to the interventions and contributions of our readers (and not anonymous).
UPDATE 14/02/2010
We have a major update. remember the first video of the UFO over Jerusalem, the grossed up and uploaded to Youtube Eligael Gidlovitch? In any case, here it
Following this video a YouTube user, "HOAXKiller1," he once conducted an analysis to show how the video was actually a false
But in response to this analysis had received a counter-created by this "zezba9000" the following
Then a few days ago there comes a commentary by an anonymous reader , the one already proposed at the beginning of this article you propose again now: The video
3d that would call into question the explanation of the phenomenon of parallax hoaxkiller1 for me is not valid. The reason is that the skyline of Jerusalem in the original video is virtually motionless with respect to the line "jumps" at the bottom. The example shows you in 3d instead, shifting the line down, but also a sharp line at the top of the wobbles. Why this is the real phenomenon of the horizon and moving in opposite directions of the imaginary line of point of view. Movement in the video but wrong UFO over Jerusalem. We forget also wobbles or "slip" of the tree to the right of the frame is completely desynchronized with the rest of the "assembly". In conclusion. The video is a multi-layered compositing with a bad camera tracking and a luminous globe that is not CGI, but rather a clone of one of the lights in the area of \u200b\u200bthe square repositioned and animated.
Yesterday we received his new commentary, this time accompanied by a nickname, "fire1969"
are you "fire1969" which questioned the criticism made of the video hoaxkiller1 . Any explanation with further clarification as to why even the first video is fake can be found at this link:
The rejection of the video comes mainly from a 'last resort. A plugin used for the extension of the landscape.
Fire1969
analysis fire1969 cunnetwork up is as follows:
test a "mistake" in effect shake.
With this test, I declare definitively closed the case of UFOs Over Jerusalem. In the first view the original video, there is an error that finally ditching the authenticity of the video. Well, for those familiar with video compositing, you'll understand immediately what I'm parlando, guardando il frame postato del video in questione.
Al fotogramma 0:59 sul lato sinistro potete osservare come ci sia un effetto di specularità delle luci e di tutta quella parte di video.
Ebbene quello è un effetto chiamato After shake footage
Serve perchè quando si crea una composizione traballante "shake" come quella del video e si necessita di "allungarne" i bordi, "motion tile" affinchè non si noti il taglio finale dei video traballanti. Il plugin esegue una specularità del video in modo da darne una continuità overview. It 's a result of compositing used in cases like those of the video. The mirror at that point a signature to a video compositing, supporting the view that the increasingly used in motion tracking compositing was accomplished in a software such as After Effects.
Place also an example of the plugin, in this case about an image, to simulate the effect. The video Ufo over jerusalem instead has the effect applied to a real recovery and not a photo.
accompanied by this video
and this image, or the example of the plugin
I want to take advantage of it to bring also the comment by user "giambo64" in response to the analysis of "fire1969", which shows more than a thousand speeches as ufology and objectivity can go hand in hand:
Congratulations also from me, for your professionalism. When there is a movie that I will celebrate, as being authentic, because I'll have proof of the existence of UFOs!
As you can see, then, not all UFO enthusiasts and those who believe in the existence of UFOs are stupid suckers whose only reaction-faced all'evidenza di un falso- sia quella di pestare i piedi e rifiutare in toto la verità.
Naturalmente ringrazio "fire1969" sia per il primo che per il suo secondo contributo. Per il momento è tutto.
Leggi anche il primo articolo, UFO su Gerusalemme: storia riaperta?
UPDATE 14/02/2010
We have a major update. remember the first video of the UFO over Jerusalem, the grossed up and uploaded to Youtube Eligael Gidlovitch? In any case, here it
Following this video a YouTube user, "HOAXKiller1," he once conducted an analysis to show how the video was actually a false
But in response to this analysis had received a counter-created by this "zezba9000" the following
Then a few days ago there comes a commentary by an anonymous reader , the one already proposed at the beginning of this article you propose again now: The video
3d that would call into question the explanation of the phenomenon of parallax hoaxkiller1 for me is not valid. The reason is that the skyline of Jerusalem in the original video is virtually motionless with respect to the line "jumps" at the bottom. The example shows you in 3d instead, shifting the line down, but also a sharp line at the top of the wobbles. Why this is the real phenomenon of the horizon and moving in opposite directions of the imaginary line of point of view. Movement in the video but wrong UFO over Jerusalem. We forget also wobbles or "slip" of the tree to the right of the frame is completely desynchronized with the rest of the "assembly". In conclusion. The video is a multi-layered compositing with a bad camera tracking and a luminous globe that is not CGI, but rather a clone of one of the lights in the area of \u200b\u200bthe square repositioned and animated.
Yesterday we received his new commentary, this time accompanied by a nickname, "fire1969"
are you "fire1969" which questioned the criticism made of the video hoaxkiller1 . Any explanation with further clarification as to why even the first video is fake can be found at this link:
The rejection of the video comes mainly from a 'last resort. A plugin used for the extension of the landscape.
Fire1969
analysis fire1969 cunnetwork up is as follows:
test a "mistake" in effect shake.
With this test, I declare definitively closed the case of UFOs Over Jerusalem. In the first view the original video, there is an error that finally ditching the authenticity of the video. Well, for those familiar with video compositing, you'll understand immediately what I'm parlando, guardando il frame postato del video in questione.
Al fotogramma 0:59 sul lato sinistro potete osservare come ci sia un effetto di specularità delle luci e di tutta quella parte di video.
Ebbene quello è un effetto chiamato After shake footage
Serve perchè quando si crea una composizione traballante "shake" come quella del video e si necessita di "allungarne" i bordi, "motion tile" affinchè non si noti il taglio finale dei video traballanti. Il plugin esegue una specularità del video in modo da darne una continuità overview. It 's a result of compositing used in cases like those of the video. The mirror at that point a signature to a video compositing, supporting the view that the increasingly used in motion tracking compositing was accomplished in a software such as After Effects.
Place also an example of the plugin, in this case about an image, to simulate the effect. The video Ufo over jerusalem instead has the effect applied to a real recovery and not a photo.
accompanied by this video
and this image, or the example of the plugin
I want to take advantage of it to bring also the comment by user "giambo64" in response to the analysis of "fire1969", which shows more than a thousand speeches as ufology and objectivity can go hand in hand:
Congratulations also from me, for your professionalism. When there is a movie that I will celebrate, as being authentic, because I'll have proof of the existence of UFOs!
As you can see, then, not all UFO enthusiasts and those who believe in the existence of UFOs are stupid suckers whose only reaction-faced all'evidenza di un falso- sia quella di pestare i piedi e rifiutare in toto la verità.
Naturalmente ringrazio "fire1969" sia per il primo che per il suo secondo contributo. Per il momento è tutto.
Leggi anche il primo articolo, UFO su Gerusalemme: storia riaperta?
TI E' PIACIUTO QUESTO POST? CONDIVIDILO SU FACEBOOK, TWITTER O CITALO NEL TUO BLOG!
0 comments:
Post a Comment