A friend of mine who frequently reads this blog [Frank John Reid] sent me a video that's going around You-Tube currently about an alleged filming of an "angel" manifestation in Jakarta, Indonesia [c. last fall]. Although the film is not very evidential, and could rather easily be a hoax for no more information that's given [even on a brief foray into Google], the pictures are at least interesting enough not to bore you. But the reason that I'm writing about it at all is that, once again, we are demonstrating that our establishment commentators are in fact Homo Unsapiens, and the irresponsible media is happy to go along. In other words, I'm, as usual, angered by the stupidity of our species and am engaged in a bit of Rant-Therapy. But the pictures are at least diverting [and maybe even anomalous] so you might be able to put up with this.
The incident allegedly takes place at night [seemingly after closing hours] at a modern storefront of some kind in Jakarta. The footage is stated to be from an [assumed] outdoor security camera, which would be a vital piece of information to determine. In the shot above, a pedestrian has just strolled by the scene looking completely normal [now out of the scene].
The manifestation of the lightform then begins. It is a lightening of the area in front of the store window on the sidewalk. It could be true that this moment is only some slight increase in the camera sensing light, but given the location of the coming lightform, it is possible that a slight light increase is real.
Then, boom, there the "thing" is --- someone with better film copy and equipment can probably see more of this "coming-to-be" --- and you DO get the feeling of a fast-but-gradual emergence --- but this is the best that I can do. Note that the store window is now more illuminated.
The roughly butterfly shape is slightly more defined in this next iteration, but asymmetrical. As I have a prejudice for symmetry, I instinctively don't like this, but realize that I am being stupid if I let that bother me.
The thing takes a more refined form with a clear nucleus and a gap in one "wing". MAYBE the so-called "tail" is real; maybe it's just more light on the sidewalk.
The thing fattens up a bit [or in hoax terms, the translucent lamp cover is tilted more towards the reflective surface], and becomes symmetrical. The "tail" pulls up towards the "body".
Now the thing begins to compress or "squat". It's like it is going to flex and "bounce" out of there. This whole business takes place in two seconds or less.
Though more refined, this shot is "thinner" and the "tail" is back.
Thinner yet as the image again slightly compresses.
Now the thing begins to pulse larger, with pretty nice form.
Getting ready to make its move.
Lift-off. Looking quite like the first manifestation.
Moving. Notice the small gap between "wing-to-right" and that reflective bit of sidewalk that has been messing with our eyes earlier.
Condensing and going.
Mere lightfuzz moving out, up and right. Note decrease in ground illumination.
End of game. Our friend is just about out of the frame to the upper right. Sidewalk has returned to shadow. Shortly, a handful of men run across the street to the scene... one has a flashlight. A claim was that one or more were security people from the other side of the street.
So... well, first let me discharge my scream therapy.
1). The Huffington Post entitled this something like video of angel called hoax. Their "authority" for this was UPI, who apparently said that they believed it was a hoax based on You-Tube comments!! I mean --- Lord help us! What absolute anti-scientific or even intellectual crap.
2). But Homo Unsapiens was on the way to the rescue. The comments which sunk the "angel's boat" were that "we have ONE STATIC PICTURE". On the ONE STATIC PICTURE "a picture of the alleged light being was mounted". Damm. Wouldn't you like to forget your gospel spirituality just for a moment and find these people and rearrange their faces? --- sorry --- one, two, three .... and that was it; end of story.
3). Probably the worst thing about all of that was that UPI and Huffington Post printed that crap, with the HP featuring it in their title.
4). Another commenter whom they are happy to quote says: a). "nothing in that lobby moves except it". DUH --- the store is apparently closed and the event took TWO SECONDS! [you dork ... whoops, sorry]. and b). "then suddenly after it disappears, we see a man who is walking by apparently unbaffled "... you know the stupidity which occurs through denial is unlimited. That idiot [whoops, sorry] either is a braindead fool [SORRRRY, just can't help it on stuff like this], or he watched the video backwards. His "analysis" has the sequence of the video completely wrong!! HOW is that possible?
5). And once again HP printed the debunking garbage.
So, did an angel or anything mysterious appear in that Jakarta "mall" area? We really have no idea. Certainly UPI and HP don't. At an absolute minimum, whether the camera footage was from an outdoor security camera would have to be known. If it was not, then the rigging of such a light manifestation on a personal camera [with some cleverness] could probably be done easily, and then all one would need would be a few friends to run across the street immediately to the area with a flashlight.
If it WAS the outside security camera, then the hoax gets tougher, especially if you didn't have an inside guy capable of getting the official cassette to work on. The fake probably would have to include a rather large lightsource to blast on the opposite side of the street and somehow giving the impression of something suspended in the air. It seems to me to be a little more of an "explanatory difficulty" if the camera were a formal security system one. And then we'd need a few "witness testimonies" wouldn't we?
But we seem to have none of that --- so off to the gigantic gray-basket this goes. Some people are claiming to see a humanoid inside the lightform. Someone even claimed to see it turn its head. I don't see anywhere near enough detail for anything at all, let alone that. COULD it have been some sort of "intrusion" from elsewhere? Until we have a lot better information, why not? There are certainly bunches of incidents in UFO files which smack of such a possibility.
Of one thing I'm fairly sure: this screwed up species of ours is never going to discover answers to any of these "forbidden categories" things until we stop printing the nonsense which spews forth from certain "Analysts'" heads. There may be a hidden reason why "analysis" and "anal" are of the same spelling.
Sorry.... well, maybe not TOO sorry.
Ooer!
ReplyDeleteProf your use of 'anal''s practically bad language for you - you must be REALLY bummed!
I wonder if they'd used 'time traveller' or 'interdimensional hopper' instead of 'angel' would the responses've been less instantly dismissively febrile if not outright hostile...?
As for me I'll reserve judgement until I have some idea of the out-of-sight overhead-lighting which to go by some of the reflections in darkened part of the mall might just be twin-globular.
[I've noticed some of the rectangular objects filmed on phones buzzing planes bear a strong resemblance to certain features of the architecture below - this might be algorithmic artefacture but it might also be sampling].
Even then I'd still be left intrigued what it is about this particular piece of tape that marks it out for such special emotional/mental 'engagement'.
Missed the entire point of the post. The post was about shallow debunking not the incident.
DeleteProfessor, your willingness to consider things paranormal and this "other-than-catagorized event" is commendable since all too often the mainstream media and the joe in the street are too soon dismissive of anything that doesn't fit into their tiny concept of reality. However sometimes a pipe is just a pipe and this is simply a passably well done hoax video. Others have commented in other venues about the lack of reflection from such a seemingly strong light source in such darkened surroundings. Sure, the video artist who pinched this one off did a good job of digitally lighting a few areas in the video to give the appearance the object is really there and generating light but note that they didn't touch areas of complete shadow and just "enhanced" flat areas with some low light reflection. Why is that? Because in the areas in total shadow (i.e., like the trees in the planters right next to the object) have no data available in the digital image. Low light areas still have some texture and detail there are can be brightened whereas the "artist" would have to create the illuminated areas of the previously darkened areas from whole cloth and they just aren't that good. Few are, and I fear the day these hoaxers get dedicated enough to fill in the details. It's OK to be open minded, just don't be so much so you let your common sense drop out.
ReplyDeleteThere are NO claims by me in my write-up that I think that this filming is veridical. So no "scolding" of my wavering common sense needs to be issued. I am perfectly willing to be shown why this thing is a hoax. Re-read the writing. The entire point of the post, as stated, was to point out that without any referent to any proper study of anything, the media spun the debunk version of this as their conclusion. THAT's what has always angered me about the social world which we inhabit.
ReplyDeleteAs to whether it IS a hoax, since you insist. I want a serious investigation of things. IF the film is from an outside security camera, and IF there is a reasonable context to the alleged incident and the uncovering of the "evidence" on film, and IF there was a set of witness interviews, THEN we can get down to our and your debunking. Right now all I'm hearing is that it's "obviously" a hoax because of this or that thing which should be or should not be --- from long range armchairs.
But, but, what about unusual reflectivities, lighting effects??? Well, there's an awful lot of exactly that in some pretty darn good UFO reports. I refuse to accept answers either way, which are based on no investigation when the actual acquiring of the evidence is unknown and the basis for concluding is a rapid brush of paint. That's why, on this blog, our gray basket is gigantic compared to our white basket and our garbage pail. My mind is not an "on/off" switch, but closer in analogy to an infinite sliding dial on the belief-a-tometer. Statements like "this is simply a..." are going to have to have some serious substance behind them to get me to head for the dumpster. I, by the way, have consigned many things to that dumpster.
I have "feelings" about this case; they are irrelevant. The leading working hypothesis would be a deliberate hoax. Secondly there would be the idea that some people were making an amateur movie. [innocently of any hoaxing]. Thirdly that there WAS some form of anomalous light manifestation, which if an interdimensional intrusion might well project illumination in limited directions from its partial presence. And there can be several more than any imaginative person could come up with. NONE of them has any good evidence as the case stands.
I read the HP article before yours and the same glaring points of idiocy in it struck me as well. YouTube commenters are the opposite of reliable or intelligent sources. How on earth could a wire service let that through? How could anybody with half a brain quote that UPI article approvingly, then quote some random person as debunking the video who obviously can't even distinguish what came before from what came after?
ReplyDelete*
On the video itself, it seemed like a bad fake to me at first. After watching it several times it now seems like either a good fake or perhaps genuinely anomalous. Since apparent object (AO) looks a lot like a caustic, at first I suspected either a flashlight beam shining on the spot where the AO appears, or perhaps someone off camera shining a light obliquely on the camera and creating a lens flare. Neither of these explanations work. A flashlight beam would be distorted by the surfaces upon which it shines, such as the pavement and the side of the planter box. The observed motion also seems uncharacteristic of a flashlight. A lens flare would not cause the indirect lighting seen on the corner of the left planter or on the storefront above the AO. These spots brighten simultaneously when the AO seems to emit a flash, just before it reaches its lowest point.
Rather than appearing unsymmetric, as in the frame you pointed out, in general it appears to me to be like a surface of revolution. At first it is toroidal and similar in cross section to a magnetic field. When it flattens out, it looks more like a generating function similar to a section of a horizontal French curve or arabesque being revolved around a central vertical axis. After it bounces, it again looks like a magnetic-field shaped plasmoid, but with the axis now inclined to the right. Being partially transparent, yet itself emitting light, where parts overlap from the point of view of the camera, the AO appears brighter and more opaque. There may be hints of a radial filamentary structure. The light intensity seems to vary rapidly from certain directions, for instance there is a flickering visible on the corner of the left planter.
The motion at first seems like a physical, elastic object being decelerated and strained by hitting the ground, then bouncing back upwards. But since the initial motion was straight down and it hit a level surface, yet rather than bouncing straight upward, it instead moved with a accelerating, curved rightward component, it seems perhaps to be self-propelled, but it may instead be moving in response to a local EM field, perhaps concentrated by the rebar in the concrete pavement.
After the AO goes off screen, the patch of ground that it hit is slightly lighter than before - it appears drier than the surrounding pavement, or perhaps the floor polish is gone, or perhaps it's even glowing a bit. The effect fades over a few seconds but does not go away entirely. It seems likely that there was local heating in that spot. This area seems to attract attention from the men afterward, implying that there was something unusual to see there.
My guess is that if it isn't a hoax, it's the first video of real, natural ball lightning. The expected shape, size, behavior, appearance and effects all match. It also might explain why the men didn't continue after it - it may have gone through a wall or simply fizzled out.
Very interesting commentary. Actually adds something to the discussion. And it's pleasing to see that you got my main point of critiquing our biased "social psychology" when dealing with such matters.
ReplyDeleteI REALLY wish that we at least knew if this was actually from a security camera and that therefore there is the probability that we are dealing with a manifestation that is taking place "out there" on that dark street. If that were true, casual sorts of debunking would be out, and we could concentrate on more careful analysis --- as you have done.
If we are dealing with a natural physical plasma-like event, and I'm ready to jump on board on that, then this is a very rare opportunity to have seen such a thing "begin". And it also would be another reason to scream at the quick debunkers who would have missed another opportunity to learn something. I would see this as that mysterious "soft plasma ball" sort of thing that we have a ton of incidents of in the files. Paul Devereux would want to call it a form of Earthlight.
As to the men not pursuing, the thing looked like it was shrinking and disappearing. They could have easily seen it "go out" and knew that pursuit was useless, and that examining the scene was the only intelligent thing to do. Plasma follows subtle lines in the e-m environment all the time, as both ball lightning and some of the lightball phenomena indicate. It's "escape route" [as you say] doesn't indicate anything "intelligent" to me in itself. Thanks for the comments. They re-ordered my hypothesis list for me, as the non-spherical shape fooled me into not thinking of an earthlight.
I have tried to authenticate the video and made some progress. Here's what I have so far:
ReplyDelete(This blog will not accept comments over 4096 characters, so I have cut the post into halves.)
The original version of the security camera footage was "cctv penampakan dicitos" = "CCTV sighting in Citos" which was ploaded by wolesbrai on September 11, 2011. Description: "CCTV clay: Caught a falling object in Citos" ("Clay" appears to be a bad translation which should be "recording".) This user has only uploaded this one video, and had joined YouTube the same day.
I didn't find anything useful in the translation of the comments, but here's the link anyway.
Looking at the video some more, I don't think it would have been that easy to fake. The lighting is right, or at least plausible. The angles of the extra lighting on all surfaces seem consistent with the location of the object. Details of dark areas are revealed by the light that could not have been revealed by simply lightening the original video. The texture of the palm tree in the near planter shows both these effects quite well. It could still be done with more advanced methods, multiple takes, and compositing - if the intent were to create a ball lightning hoax or a movie special effect. But to do an angel hoax video? It seems unlikely.
Angel Caught On CCTV Camera
Story posted 9/19/11. This is an evengelical Catholic blog with a fairly high volume of posts (168 stories in 2011, 248 2010, but seldom any comments) No indication of author or location.
Comments on this story seem to support it somewhat: 2nd hand witness 9/27, non-specific claim of a Jakarta newspaper report 9/27, 1st-hand witness (user name is a dead link, though) 9/29, nonspecific claim of a newspaper report with witness interviews 10/10, another nonspecific claim of a newspaper story 11/5.
The New Covenant story was picked up by Joe Kovacs, an executive news editor for the far-right site World Net Daily on 5/8/12. Kovacs promotes his book on Bible apologetics in the article. There is little of value here other than the links, one of which is to a version of the original security cam video with magnification, slow-motion and extra contrast: "'Winged Being' Chased by Security Guards (Indonesia)!" (mute it and skip to 0:18. Pay no attention to the narrator. The inverted video at about 5:00 also shows some extra detail.)
The slowed, contrast-pushed video does show what appear to be filamentary and sheath structures, as well as a mushroom-shape in the initial frames as a column of glow discharge is created between the plasmoid and the ground. The inverted video reveals turbulent-looking structures in the periphery of the plasmoid.
(part 2 of 3)
ReplyDeleteThe comments on the WND story are almost all the usual rubbish, but one from optomystic links to a video from the people seen in the security footage! "Gokil any strange objects in Citos jatoh" uploaded 9/10/11 by MrGirindraWisesa. This user had joined YouTube the prior May, and had posted some videos of live music before this video.
The date does not match the security footage. The difference in timezones would not change the date for a late dusk video for any American time zone (where the YouTube Servers are likely located) or for UTC/GMT. Even if there were a date change, it would be in the opposite direction - other timezones would be in the day before, not the day after. Maybe this actually happened before dawn? A clip posted before 2PM 9/11 Jakarta time could show up as being posted 9/10 on a California YouTube server. (Another time quirk is the security clip seems to have a clip time rather than real-time indicator - it only has 2-digit minutes, seconds, and frames.) Girindra Wisesa's failure to provide any information or respond to any of the comments on YouTube is also suspicious.
Here's a translation of the comments.
Given the quality, situation and way the camera is held, the video appears to be taken with a cellphone. The camera-holder is at the entrance to a covered but not enclosed mall-like area, preparing to get a group video of three friends, two men and a woman, they are getting into position and saying "happy birthday" when there is a bright, flickering white light coming from outside, off camera to the right. Two of the three subjects are in shadow, presumably because of the corner of the building entrance, and the other is only-half lit. The light lasts about a second before there is a increasing roaring noise for a bit less than a second, then the sound of an explosion or lightning strike together with a flash. There does not seem to be any tension or anticipation from the video subjects until the explosion, when they all duck simultaneously then immediately run towards the event, although they sound frightened.
(part 3 of 3)
DeleteAfter 8-10 seconds of running, the video shows broken pavement, which appears to be either thick tile or a layer of something masonry-like about an inch in thickness over something grey and powdery, likely concrete. The pit appears to be about 4 feet across and three or four inches deep, with a cracked area extending beyond the pit. The figures are very rough, the video is low quality and unsteady.
At 0:22-0:24 one of the men picks up a gray feather, possibly from a pigeon. This might help explain the speculation about angels related to the security video. There is a suspicious increase in quality for those couple of seconds, as if there were suddenly more light. This might be due to the subject getting closer to the camera and its light, though. At 0:44 there may be a steel plate peeking out in the lower right corner from under the debris. When the camera pans upward, the sky is clear, either late dusk or just before dawn. The stores are all closed, so pre-dawn seems more likely - though it seems an odd time to get together with friends for a birthday. Maybe they have been out all night? There also seem to be some sort of light particles drifting in the air. Insects? Pinfeathers? Dust? Remnants of the object, or a material created by the object? I don't know.
If there was steel in the area under the object and the object was some high-current phenomenon, then if that steel is still in place it should show some strong residual magnetism.
Hmm... part 1 has gone missing. I'll post it again in a bit if it doesn't come back. (And just as I typed that lightning hit so close it made me duck, hurt my ear closer to the open window, and set off car alarms.)
DeleteI de-spammed your part #1 so it's on here now. Extremely interesting detective hunt by you, and thank you. If you ever get this to the stage that you feel a little comfortable, you should write Fortean Times or some similar outlet, and ask them whether they'd like an article.
ReplyDelete1). The Huffington Post entitled this something like video of angel called hoax. Their "authority" for this was UPI, who apparently said that they believed it was a hoax based on You-Tube comments!! I mean --- Lord help us! What absolute anti-scientific or even intellectual crap.
ReplyDeleteHERE HERE.
Wow! this angel thing is being commented everywhere... in this spanish blog http://www.elgonzi.com/2012/02/camaras-de-seguridad-capta-un-angel-en.html a link is given to a site where a person even says there was a strong sound prior to the 'angel' appearance! incredible...
ReplyDeleteGuys... Um I have studied CGI for 2 years and let me tell you... Pulling CGI like this would evolve a lot of people, time, and expensive equipment. You can't just "photoshop" and angel in. For something like that you'd most likely need a green screen... And the lighting.. Pixar status.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying it's for real. But lets not just dismiss it.
This video was released from the Axe "fallen angels" ad campaign from a couple of years ago. The campaign shows angels landing in this same manner. See: http://wafflesatnoon.com/2013/05/18/angel-caught-on-tape/
ReplyDeleteThat link had no evidence of any kind of any link with the Axe campaign. The only similarity is a descending flash. I'll repost here what I posted there:
DeleteThose two look nothing at all alike. There in no angel or fashion model in the Indonesia videos (there is another video from a cell phone nearby, which captured the sound of the explosion, also nothing like the Axe video, and showed the 3-inch deep by 4-foot wide crater left in the concrete.) Both videos are in the same mall, and the exact area is visible on Google maps with good resolution. Frame by frame viewing shows a plasmoid (magnetic-field shaped plasma) closely matching historical accounts of ball lightning. The light ball lands for a moment then bounces off in a new direction, accelerating off screen, just before a final explosive flash. No angel or anything similar is seen at any point.
The video may be faked, but nothing internal to it or the circumstances around it shows any real sign of it so far. No link to Axe has been shown at all. I posted a detailed analysis a year ago, [see above.]
Thank you. This blog does not "honor" shallow debunking. This blog is thoughtful about anomalistic claims. Again, as you say, the video could be bogus, but we will not casually accept that conclusion without good reason. We will also not accept simple angelic reality in any of this without good reason.
Delete