1st published on 3 March 2011. Last edited on 21 March 2011.
Based on various analyses of the video and its still-image, the following clues are provided to determine whether the Video #3 footage of UFO on the Dome of the Rock is a fake or genuine event.
1. Soon after the reveal of the UFO footages on Youtube, expert was called by an Israel main evening paper (Yedioth Achronoth) to declare the UFO event as a hoax based on the Video #3. But supporters argued that the action was a government cover-up of UFO event, yet still many people believe this video is a strong proof and it supports the other three videos. The fact is that, the Video #1 was posted first on 29 January 2011, whereas the Video #2 and Video #3 were posted one day later on 30 January 2011, and Video #4 was posted on 2 February 2011. By simple logics, if Video #1 came first is a fake, very surely Video #3 will be a fake, in other words, if Video #3 is real then Video #1 is unlikely a fake came before it, otherwise there should have been a leak prior to the internet posting, or, extreme coincidence applies; however, if the Video #3 is a fake, it does not prove or disprove the Video #1, #2 and #4, instead a separate set of thorough analyses is required for judgment.
2. Presumably the Video #3 was recorded or posted by Wendy Johnson, her friend or the name is just a disguise. However, about the second week after posting, the video and/or its duplicates has been temporarily withdrawn from some Youtube websites, for a few days, and a notice was given stating the copyright of the clip was being claimed. It is suspicious whether the posting has been regretted, or the consequence and benefit issues were being considered.
3. The still images of various scenes captured in the Video #3 are similar to those found in an internet panoramic photo (see Post 3 image 1 and the website: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Jerusalem_night_7088.JPG.), which is presumably taken from a position quite far away, probably from between the north-west, and facing towards the Mount of Olives at far background. If the video was recording an authentic event, then it must have been done from the same hot spot, or at least from the same direction as for the photo. Interestingly, the entire video shooting was never framing beyond the range as indicated by the rectangular box drawn on the internet photo (see Post 3 image 2), if there is even one still image happen to be outside the photo frame, then the photo definitely cannot be considered as a possible source for the scenes of the Video #3.
Post 3 image 1 Pot 3 image 2
4. An example of fully zoom-out video still image is that at approximately second 38.5 (see Post 3 image 3), with its dimension about half the size of the internet photo as represented by the smaller rectangular box (see post 3 image 4). If it is a real-scene video shooting, the video viewer (the person who recorded the video) could be at a position of about 50 m closer than the photo viewer (the person who took the photo) if they were using the zoom lens of same power. If both were from exactly the same spot, the video camera must be using a more powerful zoom lens, probably between 70 mm and 210 mm, but quite uncommon for a video camera. Certainly, they were not very close to the Dome of the Rock because there are quite a number of buildings seen in the foreground; and, to obtain this broad range of view, the camera or video camera should be using a wide-angle zoom mode. Based on the above clues, the viewers are estimated to be about 300-500 m away or slightly farther from the Dome of the Rock, and that should be outside the walls of the Temple Mount (which has a trapezium shape with dimensions of west 488 m, east 470 m, north 315 m and south 280 m) [the Dome of the Rock is located approximately at the centre but closer to the north wall of the Temple Mount]. Certainly a video camera is able to zoom-out and zoom-in in order to produce broad views and close-up views of the UFO and the Dome of the Rock when considering it as a genuine scene; if it is an imitation instead, the video camera would just be a few inches away from a computer monitor, by moving it back and forth in front of a screen will also give the similar zooming effect. Moreover, the zoom-out still images looked rather like a close-up resulted from a “zoom-in” effect applied onto a photo.
Post 3 image 3 Post 3 image 4
Post 3 image 3 Post 3 image 4
5. The video movie started with a “medium lens” at about second 7 of the video time (see Post 3 image 5), and represented by the lower medium box on the internet photo (see Post 3 image 6), it shows some distortion with obvious slanting of the left side such as the window, this could be due to the effect resulted by tilting of camera, especially if using a lens of low quality. The video was hunting for targets during the first 4 seconds (seconds 7-11 of the video time), then it focused to and around the Dome of the Rock for 10 seconds (seconds 11-21, represented by the upper medium box, see Post 3 image 6), example of still image shown is at about second 16.5 (see Post 3 image 7). At second 21 the descending of UFO was then noticed and recorded, and just before second 27 it zoomed in within less than 1 second (approx. 0.6-0.8 second) to have the maximum close-up view of the orb, still image at second 27.5 (see Post 3 image 8) is represented by the small box on the internet photo. At seconds about 34.5-36.5, it was fully zoomed out and remained in this mode until the end of the movie, still image at about second 43.5 (see Post 3 image 9) is represented by the big box on the internet photo; with this maximum width of view considered as the relative size of 1x, the size during medium lens is about 1.5x, and when it is in close-up, the size of the objects are about 3x. It is quite unusual for a video camera to zoom-in so fast in less than 1 second and without temporary decrease in resolution. The resolutions of the still images are quite consistent, and these zoom-in and zoom-out images are looked like directly “extracted” right the way from the big picture.
Post 3 image 6
Post 3 image 5 Post 3 image 7
Post 3 image 8 Post 3 image 9
6. It is quite curious that for 14 seconds after started the video shooting (seconds 7 to 21 of the video time), the UFO in the sky above the Dome of the Rock was not noticed even though there were a few persons around. If the viewer was using a hand-phone video camera or handy video camera which does not need to see into the kind of view finder of an SLR camera, she should be able to see the UFO which took about 10 seconds in descending as recorded by Video #1 and #2. Instead, the video focused to the Dome of the Rock, like getting ready to expect something dropping from the sky.
7. When the video camera was fixed at a specific zoom state, such as at medium lens during the seconds 7-27, still images at seconds 7, 9.5, 11.5, 13.5, 16, 24.5 are represented by boxes on the internet photo (see Post 3 image 10), in the order of moving from the lowest to the top. There are some variations in the range and dimension of the frames, for example, being broader or taller, sometimes slightly trapezoid, or with some distortion. These effects should not be obvious when recording distant objects without adjusting the zoom, but if the video camera is just a few inches from the screen of the photo, together with hand-shaking and tilting, it will result in unparallel alignment between the lens and the photo or the screen, the above effect would then be enhanced.
Post 3 image 10
8. The internet photo is likely taken by using a wide-angle zoom lens of 28/35 mm, less likely more than 50 mm lens. If the video camera was exactly at the same spot, then it must be having a powerful telephoto zoom lens in order to get a frame of about 4x larger (see Post 3 image 6). Alternatively, the video camera should be at a closer location (about 50 m), if it is so, the viewer then should be at a lower building, may be 10-20 m lower, otherwise this building will be seen in the internet photo. Yet, this building must be taller (or it is on the slope shoulder of a mountain) than those of the foreground buildings, so that when looking down from such a higher level would be able to see the roofs, the foreground buildings together with the whole Dome of the Rock at far background. Assuming at that position and far distance, by just looking a little up into the sky, the tourists should be able to see the glowing orb even before it was descending. The size of the UFO is about 5 m in diameter, and at that distance should be looked slightly smaller than the moon. But the Video #3 was started by searching for targets around the foreground, more likely a pretended intention rather than incidental action, furthermore, it only recorded the last second (second 21) of the UFO descending.
9. Usually, a video camera or mobile phone camera is not equipped with a six-star filter, yet, the 6-star shapes of lights in the video or its still images (Post 3 image 11) are exactly the same as those found in the internet photo (Post 3 image 1). Besides, the starred lights also did not show any motion or perspective change with respect to the space dimension of the buildings, but they looked rather like fixed on two-dimension scenes. Moreover, for the largest six-star light at the location slightly to the left of the centre of the photo, one of the arms (the right arm) did not show continuation, instead, it is ending with a spot. Interestingly, when this photo is video-recorded by using a hand-phone camera, it becomes continuous (Post 3 image 12) and is the same as that found in the Video #3 still image.
Post 3 image 11 Post 3 image 12
10. If the UFO seen in the Video #3 was glowing, it should increase the brightness of the surface of the Dome of the Rock, but it did not, rather just looked like a white orb, which is not radiantly shining, and does not seem to be “hardly look into it” (as said by one of the woman of Video #3). Besides, there is also no sign of showing reflection from other buildings and atmosphere air surrounding it. Among the other three video footages, only the Video #4 is radiantly shining and spinning, and likely to be “hardly look into it”; however, it was only posted two days later than the Video #3.
11. After the UFO descended close to the Dome of the Rock, it is obviously staying at a fixed distance to it. There are two types of shaking effects, first type is the video camera vibration effect, it can be due to either really hand shaking or merely created by computer software. For second type, the orb and the photo scene are probably bound together, and they wobble in tandem but in irregular manners. Although the video shows shaking effect and wobbling movement of the orb, in fact it did not drift away or hover around as observed in the Video #1, #2 and #4, this is one of the major differences between them.
12. Practically, when a camera is in the zoom-in mode or using a telephoto lens, unsteady hand shaking normally will cause more severe shaking effect to the video as compared to when it is in a zoom-out mode. But the camera-shaking effects in the Video #3 are quite consistent whether it is in the zoom-out mode and zoom-in mode. However, the resolutions during the zoom-in and zoom-out filming are quite similar, it is rather unusual to have this consistency no matter how steady is the holding state. But not surprise that this result can be mimicked by using a camera moving back and forth and “surfing” around on the photo.
13. Among the women speaking English, one woman said: “hardly look into it”, another woman: “we ha-n’ (haven’t), we seen in Mississippi like this, but never like that, never like that…” the voice is ending with reducing volume and like fading away, either the woman turned her head to the back or she was turning while walking away from the video camera or a tape recorder. Guessing one of the possibility, the women were watching one or more videos (Video #1, #2, #3 and #4) displayed individually or together at the same time and same place, what she saw in Mississippi was like one of them (among the four videos) and not like another one; this conversation was then dubbed to the Video #3.
14. Before the UFO blasted off, there was also a conversation in Chinese between a man and a woman. The man was saying: “…why don’t take photo? Let’s take a photo! 怎不拍照?咱照个相吧!”, the woman: “my hand is taking my camera 我手拿着我的照相机”, and the man: “I think to take photo with Triumphal Arch 我想和凯旋门照”, certainly these are irrelevant to the UFO sighting. Supporters of the Video #3 may argue that the Chinese tourists might be facing a different direction and did not notice the amazing UFO event. However, a possible reason is that, the conversation was genuinely recorded somewhere else (maybe in Europe) where the American women were watching a video display of the UFO and then the composite sound effects were dubbed to the video clip to produce the final Video #3. Dubbing soundtracks is a common traditional technique and can be easily done.
15. Unlike the Videos #1, #2 and #4, the Video # 3 does not show two flashes therefore did not surprise them to scream out before its blasting off, but they “aoouu…woouu…” after, and the story then ended soon.
16. In Video #3, the time length for the hovering of UFO above the Dome of the Rock is 22.5 seconds, but in Video #1 is 23 seconds, these seem to be not tally between them. The time length of an event must be exactly the same, it can’t miss even a fraction of second in reality while another person gain in the space. In physical nature, there is no such time paradox in reality and neither there is such theory, unless it is merely technological glitches due to the optical and digital devices.
17. As the UFO was shooting up into the sky at second 44, the video was still staying on recording the Dome of the Rock. If there were “actual witnesses” at a far perspective of 300-500 m away, they should be able to trace where it went to. However, the frame of the video did not move away from the scene of the Dome of the Rock, it did not follow the UFO up higher above the range indicated by the box in the internet photo; moreover, the recording discontinued in about 3 seconds after the UFO blasted off, and the story just stopped there!
