UFO over Los Angeles 10-8-2012

[SilentFeathers]

Makes sense Ernesto!

Another great tool to use is "common sense"

If this was real, it would be a very "HUGE" sighting!!!!!!! and it makes no common sense at all that in a city of about 4 million people that only one person just happened to be looking up and seen this....and had a video camera to boot!

Of course some things do defy logic and common sense.....I don't think this is one of those cases.....

Sadly I sometimes create enemies because I try to be logical and think with common sense!

[Kindred]

I'll posit a theory here: It may be that the Dome o-t Rock episode was a real event... however, it was done by US 'Star Command', as part of a gradual uptick so as to promote any number of agendas, particularly the 'alien invasion' false flag.

If so, then it's also possible, even probable, that they took videos of the episode from various vantage points exactly so that they could compost a video just like this one. They could then post it at various times, causing everyone to think it's 'another one'.... if enough of them occur, tptb could 'justifiably' promote this 'invasion' concept.

Telling a lie often enough puts the idea in peoples heads that it's the truth.

Just one theory...

In Unity, Peace and Love

[wynderer]

Hi Ernesto -- thank you for all the work you put into your post

this is going to sound really rude probably --pls forgive me -- but when i was reading your post, i got the same feeling i got sometimes when i was doing proofreading for one of the USA's top med publishers -- esp w/some chapters i proofread from a 'cutting edge' book by some neuro-molecular biologists

what i would think [again, pls forgive me] is , 'These guys are nuts! They focus on one tiny little bit of the picture & think they are finding truth!' -- tho i have noticed that Human males seem to really enjoy the search for what James Baldwin called 'the hallowed fact'

i can picture you diligently working on your computer, searching for/ferreting out the 'hallowed [techno] fact', while outside your window, a huge mothership sails over

i hope this post does not offend you

wyn

Posted by ernesto (here)
Well, After analyzing the first movie, I have found a mistake in the computer generated effect.
Fortunately It is impossible to create a perfect fake!

First I will explain certain rules of ghost images in photographic lenses. When a strong lightsource gets in the frame, all lenses show some ghost images, or parasitic images, due to the reflection of that strong light source in the several lens elements. The current optical technology is very advanced and there are several tricks to avoid those ghost images. One of them is the lens coating. Each element is coated with a thin layer of certain pigments, in a way that the pigments are of complementary colours to block those internal reflections, but at the same time they compensate each other in a way that the light that reaches the sensor would not show unreal colours. Anyway these tricks has their limits when very intense lights gets involved.

These reflections follows strict geometrical rules. For instance if you look carefully the movie you will see a strong light near the bottom of the image, slightly to the right of the center. It is probably a lightsource pointing in the camera direction, which makes it stronger in relationship to the other lights. That is the ideal light to produce a ghost image, So I started to search for it! If you look at the top slightly left of the image frame, you will see the ghost image that belongs to the previous lightsource. You may ask How I know they are related? The answer is that because they are where they should be, and I will try to explain this:

In order to show the geometrical relationship we should determine the central point of the frame. (see images below) You can find it by drawing an X that touches the 4 corners of the image frame. The intersecting point of the X will be the center of the frame. Then if you draw a segment connecting the central point of the image frame, and the strong llight source, and a second segment connecting the same center to the ghost image, you will find that both segments are exactly the same length, and are perfectlly aligned and oposed as a reflection in a mirror. In fact the ghost image is a symetrical reflection of the light source!

Both the light source and the reflection "moves" across the frame because of the hand held camera movement, but no matter the frame you chose, the geometric rule will be the same.

Now, the supposed UFO flashes with an intensity higher than the previous exmple, so it should produce a ghost image following the same rules, as it happened with theother light. But it is NOT there!
Anyway there is another Fake "lens flare" that appears up at the right of the UFO flash, that violates the geometric rule of the reflections insde optical lenses.
Finnally if you draw the geometric construction to determine where the ghost image should be visible, you will see that in that spot there is nothing!

This is totally impossible considering that a dimmer light produced a clear ghost image, in the same lens!

This is in my opinion the best phisical proof of a digital trick in the Los Angeles Video.
Together with these considerations: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post535967 I can conclude is a fake.


The fist image is the X marking the image center.
Te second shows the real lightsource connected with ghost relection with exactly the same length and oposed segments.
The third image shows the same construction on the Fake Ufo light, showing the oposite spot where the ghost reflection should show.
The last image shows the fake lens flare effects violating the optical rules.

[ernesto]

Dear Wyn,

No ofense at all! Anyway I am not sure I have got your point... But just in case, the truth is not outside our mind, in my opinion. Yes, I enjoy logic games, but i know logic can be manipulated too. The interesting fact of little details, is that not many people notice them, so they do not receive so much attention from fakers, therefore they are the weakest points of any false evidence. The truth is not in the little details, but if they do not fit in the whole thing, they could expose a lie. Regarding the nature of truth, I believe size doesn´t matter, since reality seems to be like a fractal, repeating itself in all the diferent scales. The truth is not binary, so if you focus on detail, it doesn´t means that you are loosing the whole picture. Finnaly, I am not my writings!

Ernesto

[Doctor]

I am fairly certain I would have seen this, and I didn't. The first thing that came to my mind when I saw this was that it was a fake taken from the Jerusalem(sp?) video.

Dear Wyn, please do not group all of us guys into one single group. I, personally, find it annoying when someone comes on with this "proof" that it's fake by using a program they have on their computer. I don't think Ernesto's research is false, in any way, but the way some of us go about coming to our own conclusion doesn't depend on a single person's homework. I am a believer and I know these kinds of encounters happen, but I believe that this one is not real.

[wynderer]

i've seen so many UFOs in the sky that usually don't pay much attention to videos of them -- i learned some things from this thread:

1] Ernesto & Doctor are a couple of really nice guys

2] it is possible to determine -- to some degree -- whether or not a photo/video on the net is fake

3] common sense is important re videos of UFOs -- if a lot of people saw it, like the Jerusalem Dome light & the Phoenix lights, then the video can much more likely be trusted

[Doctor]

Wyn, i appreciate you not taking what I said a little too much to heart. We are all different and when it comes to doing research and figuring out what we believe on the inside. I agree with you, to an extent, that these programs can help but I do not believe that they determine the final say in whether or not a video is fake. I don't believe that, the more the people see it, the more they will believe it, because it doesn't create any real credibility from thin air. It's like music on YouTube, you can't judge the best music by how many views it has, because some of the best music is rarely seen. Plus, I can NOT stand Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga. BLERGH!!