It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"UFO Over Temple Mount in Jerusalem" [discussion and analysis of multiple videos HERE]

page: 20
167
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Another thing you will notice in the screen shots, the UFO and city light just to the left of the object are exactly the same in all respects.
I believe the editors used this light to create the UFO.




posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by simples
 


The Temple Mount sits 2,428 feet above sea level. It is about 65 and a half feet tall. One can estimate the distance the light traveled in one second which should be approximately several thousand feet in a second or less. I don’t need to get accurate that this light moved at least 1,100 feet per second which would put it beyond Mach 1 especially a half a mile high already.

Is that good enough for you?



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
These guys are standing on the Mount of Olives about two miles east of the Temple Mount. I was there a few weeks ago and it surely looks like the same place and teh same perspective.

I am not trying to debunk this per se, so I'll take it at face value. But what do you have, really? Already people are saying, "It's not of this earth!" Well, how do you know that? I don't think you can validly make that kind of assumption. You've got a very "compelling," if you will, light in the sky, but where are you going to go with it? Right now we have nothing else. If this is the beginning of something bigger, something bigger has not yet happened. You can put this in the files. You can save it for later. But you're left with what you see, and that's a light in the sky.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
Did a little enhancing and zoom.
First screen shot.
Look closely at the wall all the grout lines are there.

-removed image link to shorten quote-

Second screen shot.
Here we see evidence of video editing look at the dark line on the subjects back from cropping,also the poor cropping at the tree line resulting in a blur effect to clean it up.This is also evident on the wall and around the subject.If the light does come from the object the tree outline would have been very clear as well as top of the wall and buildings below.
Instead we see the cropped frame washed out due to the flash effect.

-removed image link to shorten quote-

Third screen shot was actually two frames.
This one compared with the first frame you see the blurring they used to clean it up washed out some the wall grout.This would have been impossible with the light source coming from that object.
If you do a side by side of the first and last screen shots the trees are also highlighted by the flash effect in the last.Why? because they did not bother to crop it like the first flash.


I understand fully what you are saying about the blur effect used to mask bad chops. However, I challenge your analysis on the basis that you are assuming the video is coming from a clean source. Allow me to clarify:

If the video had been shot with a 1080p HD camera, no doubt I would totally agree with you. However, anybody who has worked with subpar video equipment like cell phones and cheap video cameras is VERY familiar with the strange exposure bracketing these devices are known to exhibit. Basically they do not have the high-end processors necessary to correctly adjust to sudden and dramatic changes in lighting. Many times I remember vividly filming with my old Hi-8 Sony video camera at night, and having a car headlight glance the edge of the frame and throw parts or the entire frame into strange washed out land.

I argue that the sub-par quality of the recording equipment, plus the compression of uploading to YouTube, is actually what you are seeing in the video and NOT evidence of video editing. IMO, if the tree WERE cleanly masked, THAT would be clear evidence of editing. I think the video demonstrates what happens when sub-par equipment tries to compensate for conditions it was never designed for.

Sure, my DSLR camera can easily record video that compensates for this and I have none of those types of weird anomalies (much less willing UFO's to record, chuckles). However, if I pick up my old Sony Hi-8 and attempt the same video, much of the time I will have strange lighting effects, nearly identical to the ones seen in this video.

Moreover, using screenshots from the original video taken after bringing the contrast and brightness up, I used Photoshop to measure the distance between the top of the wall and the top of the city light on the horizon as my horizon reference. I found that the parallax that the gentleman previously "showed" in his video was simply an optical illusion brought by his contrast adjustments. The wall moves relative to the horizon correctly, as you can easily measure with screen shots and Photoshop using the Ruler tool. Moreover, remove the contrast and brightness adjustments, and simply view the video and ignore the "UFO" and you don't see any strange parallax movement.

I'm STILL trying to reproduce the parallax effect that was previously posted and as yet having 0 luck. Everytime I do a contrast adjusted video render, it looks exactly like the original with no abnomalies. Take from that what you will.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Bending space!!! are you serious.

This UFO is not bending space. It is accelerating through our atmosphere. You can see it move.

If it had bent space within our atmosphere, could you have imagined what that would have caused?

Probably the greatest event witnessed by man. The UFO would have been peanuts in comparison.



IF and that is a big IF, this ufo is real, then do you really think that our laws of physics really apply as 'aerodynamics' to a space craft? Does a UFO need wings and a stabilizer? No, because it doesn't require AIR to move. It doesn't matter you can see it, it is quite clearly there and in our atmosphere and yet still defies the laws of physics.

Its apparent you have not done much research on UFOs and quantum theories and I highly doubt you would be able to tell by looking, if space is being bent. Instead what you would see what would appear that something is traveling extremely fast but in reality, the occupants on the craft would not experience any such g-force.

This is all because of element 15 if you subscribe to Bob Lazar. But you probably haven't heard that name before ya? Bending space and time is not fantasy, it can be achieved with gravity, lots of it. So what's the problem?
edit on 30-1-2011 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


It's still in OUR atmosphere. Our known laws of physics apply, no getting around the lack of a sonic boom, it's our air.

If you prefer to make up different molecular behaviors for any event you want us to imagine then we have reached a quagmire.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
This is obviously a doctored video, the take-off should erase any doubt whatsoever. Le sigh...one of these days I'll get my alien invasion doom, but this ain't that day.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by FlySolo
 


It's still in OUR atmosphere. Our known laws of physics apply, no getting around the lack of a sonic boom, it's our air.

If you prefer to make up different molecular behaviors for any event you want us to imagine then we have reached a quagmire.


Our laws of physics do not apply! Why is that so hard to comprehend? Its like your stuck in a box or something. Just because you are witnessing it, does not make it so. I'm not going to subscribe to conventional wisdom such as 'Sonic Booms" to prove it doesn't exist when it has nothing to do with it
edit on 30-1-2011 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Dramier
 


Even with HD video the tree would have been relatively easy to crop against that a dark background as well as the other subjects.However if such an object was to flash so brightly"even" with the poor quality the tree still would have been highlighted in better detail all be it pix-elated.
Instead we see the screen cropped area highlighted but none the less the effect awash in all the frame.In fact looks superimposed on top of the image"not in the image".
Poor video quality will not make this go away.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Ok, I just saw a post by Disclosure about the synced videos. I sent him a U2U thanking him for posting the vids, as I had not seen this thread previously.

I have seen, with a witness, a sighting identical to this one, except without the flash. I wrote about it a long time ago in a post here.

It was also *very* close. When it must have "arrived", I noticed silence, everything stopped, frogs, crickets, all ambient noise was gone. When it shot off, there was nothing, no wind, not any noise, no pressure, nothing. Seeing the videos brought it all flooding back, it is something I shall never, ever forget.

I made the post in the Gray Area simply because I had no proof or evidence, but you can see from my description the events are almost identical, all the way to the red blinking lights as it flew away to disappear in the dark. The light pattern was something I was unable to really describe, as I could not call it random, or circular, or zig-zag, but it was definitely something that seemed patterned to me.

I have spent most of my life searching for something that came even close to what I saw, and this video, in particular, the second one, is it. It was, for the most part, the main reason that I joined ATS.

For all of the "debunkers", I have debunked quite a few videos, so I am not a blind believer. I do know what I saw way back then, and I am telling you, this is what I saw. It was, however, literally only yards away from me. I am glad to see these videos posted, because it finally makes me feel validated. This, alone, made it so entirely worthwhile for all the searching and feelings of aloneness this has caused in me. It is really difficult for me to express in words how it feels to finally see something concrete. If this was hoaxed, then someone read my post and posted an exact description of what I saw, in these videos. I don't believe that.

I do not profess to be a scientist, a physicist, or anything of the sort, but I can tell you that when I saw what I saw, there was no sonic booms - there was only the lights. As quickly as it left, the ambient sounds came back, and everything seemed normal as if nothing had happened.

I do not expect anyone to take this post as being proof of anything, what I take from the videos is exremely personal, and my testimony, well, as I stated, was posted in the Gray Area for lack of proof. All any of us can do is take from these things, personally. I strongly feel that if it were meant to be believed by everyone, then everyone would see such things. I cannot tell you why, but this is just how I feel, and so testifying is really meaningless, except to me.

Thanks for reading.

Link
posted on 7-10-2009 @ 06:17 PM

"One night, we had decided to go fishing. We thought we may catch some catfish and perhaps some brim to cook up the next day. It was about 10:30 pm. We were sitting on the dock over the water when I noticed it was very still and calm. This man was sitting with me, to my right, right next to me. I got an odd feeling, as though someone was watching me. He must have felt the same thing, because as I turned my head slightly to the right and then looked up into the sky behind us, I could see him in my peripheral vision doing the exact same thing.

There was no sound, just a huge..inexplicably close.. object hovering above and behind us. At almost the exact moment we laid eyes upon it, it shot off out in front of us, out over the lake and beyond - in mere instants. The glimpses I got, I will also remember the rest of my life. I remember windows, no sound, no wind, no crickets, no.. nothing.. but windows, and the very distinct feeling someone was watching us.

I remember lights around it, at first, I thought the lights flashed in a circle, but as it moved away, it took on almost a zig-zag appearance, and I am no longer certain if the lights flashed in a circle or if it was some type of flight pattern. It vanished off the horizon, which was a good way off. It went up as it went out and across, and I am a horrible judge of distance. Just suffice to say, this is a smallish lake, but the horizon stretches on."


edit on 30-1-2011 by Libertygal because: spelling



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Is it just me or it takes a genius to see that the second video is taken from a mobile phone camera directed to a screen showing the first? I mean seriously??? people keep debating this? No wonder trolls thrive...



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


A bright flash in the scene would reveal details not seen in this video, and the man's body would not consistently brighten uniformly all over, it would have a back glow and we would see leaves in the tree and at least some building outlines in the city if not an entirely different looking scene altogether. This is apparently some alien cloaking technology with not only sound, but light as well.

I'm sold that these two kids are the only people in a highly populated area that have documented this event with no other news to be found, quite sound case they bring to light. *sarcasm filter off*



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


But that's -precisely- what I'm saying. Crappy quality cameras like the ones in mobile phones and cheap video cameras simply don't correctly meter exposure.

The main culprit is the delay in their processing. I can replicate this effect over and over using either my Iphone or my Rebel 350D. Take a 60D or a 7D though and you will not see the same effect. In the 350D for instance, when I am shooting at night, a sudden bright light will cause part of the frame to suddenly be overexposed, and other parts to be underexposed in a manner identical to what you see in the video. The camera simply is not fast enough to compensate.

And yes, it will literally take a defined detailed structure like a tree and turn it into a simple block because it works on a digital processor, which by nature handles things in a square digital way, not in a fractal natural way.

I am trying to figure out a way to replicate this on my Iphone and capture it in a video to illustrate my point, and if I can do that I will promptly upload the video. I promise you I have seen this effect many many times in both digital photography and video, and it's always an artifact of subpar video equipment.

You simply have to remember that the reality of what you are seeing may behave in predictable ways, however when passed through a digital filter of cheap quality, you have some strange results that emerge. Spend a few weeks analyzing "ghost" pictures taken by cheap point and shoot cameras and you will realize what I'm talking about.

Granted, I'm not saying 100% this video is real, but based on an experience I personally had, and experience with debunking ghost and ufo videos and pictures, I simply am not seeing the things I normally look for in hoax videos. People keep saying it's one video, and yet if you take the two AUDIO streams and compare them, you will find two seperate streams that are not the same. These are two SEPERATE videos taken by different cameras. Whether or not one or both is a composite is still open to debate.

I would dearly love to see the original footage without it being passed through YT's compression. That would help tremendously.

I understand and see your logic quite clearly, but I must respectfully disagree based on my own experiences and work.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


LOL I guess your right.
I guess I'm hoping some will see the light



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Do you mean this light?



They don't appear at all to be the same brightness. Logically, were I faking this video, I would copy the light from each frame, thus making it "twinkle" naturally and then offset it by a few frames so it didn't match the cloned source. I'm assuming this is the technique you have in mind.

With that technique, I would expect to see some pixelation around the "UFO" at some point or even a "looped" effect, since most people particularly hoaxers, are too lazy to actually sample a complete copy for the duration of the video. They either spent far more time on making the cloned light appear random than I give them credit for, or it's not cloned in that manner.

What do you think?



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
This guy removed my youtube comment.

Yesterday I had posted and made reference to the fact that the reactions of the witnesses didn't seem genuine in respect to the strangeness of what they were witnessing, especially at the point when the light descends dramatically towards the town.

My contention is that they would have been much more scared, and much more vocal at that point. The light is dropping at a very high rate of speed and in an almost threatening manner, and their reactions just aren't natural under those circumstances.

I guess he wants to censor opinion. Take that for what it is. Personally, I think it stinks. If you post a video of a UFO on youtube - a video that you yourself took - you should remain confident enough to allow for conjecture and critical commentary. Clearly he it not.

Having said that, the video itself strikes me as fake. I'm no technical specialist, but I'm smart enough to know that in this day and age, ANY video or photographic evidence of UFOs can be faked, and faked WELL. The fact that there is now a 2nd video tells us nothing more than when there was one. Why? Because this is a hoax, and they planned all along to come out with the first vid, then allow for a small delay and release the second video for dramatic effect.

If there are other corroborating witnesses to the light and the flashing, I'll be more convinced that something went on here, but so far no one has posted any info of that nature.

As far as exactly what did happen (if something did) those of you who are immediately jumping on the "It's got to be an extra-terrestrial" bandwagon are simply lost puppies. For many of you, it seems that if there is an anomalous object in the sky, 100% of the time it's an "extra-terrestrial craft".

You need to stop, calm yourselves, and remember that critical thinking is vital in the function of our analysis of evidence such as this video.

As drkylefletcher stated in the other thread, "I'm glad there were seemingly two recordings of the event, to quell some baseless speculation about it."

That's the kind of BS I'm talking about here: CRITICAL THINKING does not equal "baseless speculation". If anything, until proven otherwise in this digital age, when we first see any photographic or video evidence of UFOs we should start with notion that it is probably fake, not the other way around.

Being gullible doesn't make finding the truth about UFOs any easier.

My vote here is fake - a well done fake, kind of like the video version of the UFO drone photos. Remember them? I knew ya would



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Sonic boom or no sonic boom required of UFOs?

I would like to bring forth the remembrance of the O'Hare UFO - which punched a hole in the clouds above the radar tower at the airport. With all of the witnesses, not one states there was a sonic boom. The O'Hare UFO sighting is one of the best documented - since pilots and ground personnel all saw it and documented it.

Since it can be presumed that we don't have the technology to reproduce such an acceleration - we can not assume the same laws of physics apply to it.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by JRCrowley
This guy removed my youtube comment.

Yesterday I had posted and made reference to the fact that the reactions of the witnesses didn't seem genuine in respect to the strangeness of what they were witnessing, especially at the point when the light descends dramatically towards the town.

My contention is that they would have been much more scared, and much more vocal at that point. The light is dropping at a very high rate of speed and in an almost threatening manner, and their reactions just aren't natural under those circumstances.

I guess he wants to censor opinion. Take that for what it is. Personally, I think it stinks. If you post a video of a UFO on youtube - a video that you yourself took - you should remain confident enough to allow for conjecture and critical commentary. Clearly he it not.

Having said that, the video itself strikes me as fake. I'm no technical specialist, but I'm smart enough to know that in this day and age, ANY video or photographic evidence of UFOs can be faked, and faked WELL. The fact that there is now a 2nd video tells us nothing more than when there was one. Why? Because this is a hoax, and they planned all along to come out with the first vid, then allow for a small delay and release the second video for dramatic effect.

If there are other corroborating witnesses to the light and the flashing, I'll be more convinced that something went on here, but so far no one has posted any info of that nature.

As far as exactly what did happen (if something did) those of you who are immediately jumping on the "It's got to be an extra-terrestrial" bandwagon are simply lost puppies. For many of you, it seems that if there is an anomalous object in the sky, 100% of the time it's an "extra-terrestrial craft".

You need to stop, calm yourselves, and remember that critical thinking is vital in the function of our analysis of evidence such as this video.

As drkylefletcher stated in the other thread, "I'm glad there were seemingly two recordings of the event, to quell some baseless speculation about it."

That's the kind of BS I'm talking about here: CRITICAL THINKING does not equal "baseless speculation". If anything, until proven otherwise in this digital age, when we first see any photographic or video evidence of UFOs we should start with notion that it is probably fake, not the other way around.

Being gullible doesn't make finding the truth about UFOs any easier.

My vote here is fake - a well done fake, kind of like the video version of the UFO drone photos. Remember them? I knew ya would




I have to agree with the calmness of the witnesses assessment you made, however, people react in different ways, so it's really impossible to speculate on whether their reaction is "genuine." Ever been in a combat situation? You see some people do some really strange things.

I totally agree with your speculation on the release timing of the second video, and the unwillingness to allow comments definitely makes me suspicious. I leave those areas alone but fully agree with your reasoning. Psychology is not my forte though so...

I'll shed light on why this video really got my attention more than any other that's been posted in the last few years. Way back in 2004, a friend of mine and I witnessed a light we could not explain. Honestly, had he not been there and saw it too, I would have thought I was hallucinating or imagining it. However, it moved as fast as this light in this video does, and I can assure you it was no earthly craft.

Allow me to explain: Let's assume for a second that the light in the video is absolutely real. Let's further assume it to be a flying physical object and not an emitted beam, hologram or projected image of any type. Now, the initial descent is no big deal, and neither is the hovering. However, the exit speed is somewhere in the neighborhood of the speed of a meteor. The average meteor if I recall correctly travels at about 35,000 mph or something of that nature. Just by the visual nature of that object's flight, we can safely conclude it travels at least 10,000mph, accelerating nearly instantly. Barring the fact that we have no known craft on earth that can move that fast or accelerate that fast, the mere g-forces involved in that acceleration would instantly reduce interior occupants to organic mush. (The object we witnessed in '04 moved in different directions, which led us to conclude it was intelligently controlled if not occupied.)

That means if the object in the video is real, and a physical craft, then it is either unmanned (or "unalien-ed"? lol) and remotely controlled, or possesses technology to counteract the physical forces of acceleration. Based on that logic, the only conclusion is that it is not man-made due to the fact we simply don't have that technology in either regard.

There are a number of other things I could point out, such as how is it emitting light? How does that light survive the acceleration? How does it move without breaking the sound barrier or causing any kind of audible noise? etc.

Just adding more to the pot. Feel free to stir or discard. =P



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Regarding everyone who is stating that the video from the second witness was taken in front of a TV which was showing the first, original video, sorry to burst your bubble but you're wrong.

I think everyone has played "Find the 10 differences between the two pictures" game when they were young, take this important skill you all obtained when you were kids and use it here.

Now, can any of you explain to me why in the second video (on the right of the split) the lights from the city don't seem to be blocked by "Witness 2" the way they were blocked in the first video (one on the left)? So, this means NO! These are not one and the same video for sure! If this is a hoax, then it has to be one of the best ever achieved.

I understand that it's hard for you to comprehend the reality of this phenomenon (I'm not saying aliens! I'm saying aliens OR military tech that's so far from all we seem to know) but you're getting ridiculous in your attempts to discredit one of the few GREAT videos we have on here...
edit on 30-1-2011 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JRCrowley
This guy removed my youtube comment.

My contention is that they would have been much more scared, and much more vocal at that point. The light is dropping at a very high rate of speed and in an almost threatening manner, and their reactions just aren't natural under those circumstances.


I think that says more about the general way you feel about the unknown.

I witnessed what to me was a UFO recently in Bendigo Australia and felt rather calm (maybe a little excited).
Those men seem to be more in AWE of what they were witnessing and its that reaction rather than running around screaming that i find to be more believable.



new topics

top topics



 
167
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join