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: 52
167
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I guess you can't get in to see the rock, even if your an alien no muslim
Good video though, wish it was a lot more easier to see the object. But even a professional camera has problem without lighting.




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eyes4Life
reply to post by ufoeyes
 


Aliens are realbelieve



Not believing in something that people can't prove exist. Of course if you rather "believe" then look at evidence...that's your thing.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I don't have the credit to start a new thread on ATS, I personally would like someone
to start a intelligent thread far away from this never ending hoax, something that's
make us growing in our search for the truth.

Best Regards.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by callacas
 


What is the proof this is a hoax?..Im not convinced...



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by King Triad
reply to post by callacas
 


What is the proof this is a hoax?..Im not convinced...

have you read this thread at all?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
blogs.howstuffworks.com...

bunch of videos that basically show how it may have hoaxed.

worth posting again



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Why is it that the "this is real " group will not address the other issues that are screaming hoax? You all keep avoiding the questions that have been asked and our tunneled on the parallax issue. Would someone PLEASE answer these questions below that have been asked more than once but not answered at least not that I'm aware of. Prove to us why it's real without bringing up the parallax issue, which at this point is somewhat moot, seeing that it could be multiple issues on either side of the debate.
1. Explain the flash;
Where is it coming from?
Whats producing it and why?
Why doesn't the degree of brightness at time of flash not change from the point of origin to a mile away?
2. Why does the ph/camera screen NOT match the video it's supposed to be filming?
3.Why has no one else (we know is not affiliated) reported seeing this?
4. Why does the tracking rate or the screen not match between photographer and the footage of object in descent or ascent?
5. Are the red lights flashing the mother ship or _?
6. Why did the the guy in the first vid stay in the back and not try and get as close as he could to the object but felt content after seeing this UFO drop from the sky to not move to the wall but stand behind some guy thats blocking an open field of view?
7.Why does it seem painfully obvious that the guy in back is trying to make sure the guy with the ph stays in the vid but slightly off to the right, does this not seem like they're leaving rm for the zoom effect(cell footage) in order to pull off the hoax?
8.Why isn't the audio very convincing while witnessing something of this magnitude?
9. Why does the object look so fake, what is it you want us to believe is there?
10.Seeing it's been proved that this vid could be easily faked why do you still think it's real?

Is it possible for one of you guys or gals that feel the footage is real, to answer and explain these questions that no one seems to want to address and keeps going unanswered?
The skeptics have gone a long way to answer your questions can you intelligently answer some of ours please.
I think most of us are in this together trying to find the truth and I'm not trying to divide the forum into"believers" and "non-believers" because I think probably 99% of the people in this thread believe there's life out there but there's a lot of side stepping going on here.

edit on 1-2-2011 by mtnshredder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mtnshredder
Is it possible for one of you guys or gals that feel the footage is real, to answer and explain these questions that no one seems to want to address and keeps going unanswered?

This is where you are getting us wrong. Just because we're not satisfied with the evidence of hoaxing provided so far, it doesn't mean we think it is real. There are one or two people who have stated they believe it is real and if your post is only addressing those people then I apologise.

There are a greater number on the side sceptical of the debunkers who simply do not like to see something absolutely discarded as a hoax when there has been no conclusive proof. The questions raised in your post are all very valid but they are not what we are looking for. We've been looking for the inevitable error that a hoaxer will have made. So far the most compelling candidate for such an error is the mismatch between the screen of the cellphone and the image it was supposedly recording. That's still not quite proof as we don't know for sure that there isn't some mode on that phone that captures video using a non standard user interface.

What has got some people irritated is the keenness of certain people to discard this as a hoax based upon circumstantial evidence. They say "case closed", we say "probably fake but case still open at the moment".



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I've actually heard this is a viral marketing video for the upcomming movie "Battle over L.A.".



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle
I've actually heard this is a viral marketing video for the upcomming movie "Battle over L.A."


From where?

Really??

-m0r



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
geeksofdoom.com...

This is where I heard that it may be a viral marketing...

Just a thought.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by MentorsRiddle
 


Any chance of a concise explanation without the JavaScript?

Cause I hate giving hit and I hit ginen em' all the more the sites that rape my browser!

Can my third line say; f*ck you?

-m0r



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Crayfish
 




There are a greater number on the side sceptical of the debunkers who simply do not like to see something absolutely discarded as a hoax when there has been no conclusive proof.

I disagree, there's been a lot of IMO overwhelming conclusive proof this is a hoax, you just don't want to accept it.



The questions raised in your post are all very valid but they are not what we are looking for.

Well you may speak for yourself and a few others but they are what me and a lot others are looking for. Some of these questions are ever bit as much of the equation as the parallax debate if not even more so. If they're "very valid" as you stated, then answer them, stop ignoring and avoiding the questions asked that prove this is a hoax. You can't just avoid them and say they're not what "we're" looking for, can you?




We've been looking for the inevitable error that a hoaxer will have made.

The error(s) have been found many pages ago. Have you read this entire thread?
I'm sorry but I cannot see with all the evidence presented, how anyone could still think they're seeing a real UFO over Jerusalem and real flashing red orbs in the sky.
I'm not saying the red lights don't exist because they do, there's been to many eyewitnesses of light's in the sky for them not to be real Ours or ET, they're there. I'm just saying this case is not one of them and no one seems to want to explain all the other evidence that screams hoax.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mtnshredder
 


So far nobody has been able to find any errors in the video.

Are we now calling this one real?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

watch the above link

nothing is wrong with the parralax in the original video.


SO FAR NOBODY CAN PROVE ITS A HOAX



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
This is not a viral marketing video. Please stop acting so desperate to search for anything to explain away this convincing evidence that its legitimate. So far nobody has been able to prove this is a hoax.

posting a link to a Geekforum is just as bad as posting a link to ANW you basically dicredit yourself and make yourself out to look like you don't know what it takes to do an investigation.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mtnshredder
The error(s) have been found many pages ago. Have you read this entire thread?

Yes, and the calls of hoax have been refuted throughout the thread which is why it is pointless to recycle the debate unless you have not read the thread properly and have not seen the arguments against the attempts at debunking.

The questions that you ask are just not worth the time to address. Take the first question; "Explain the flash". This is unanswerable in any meaningful sense. If it is a hoax then the flash is there because the hoaxers thought it would be cool, if it were really an alien visitation then asking me to explain the flash would be like asking a rabbit to explain car headlights.

Although some guys have made very good attempts to debunk this video footage, one cannot help wondering if their pursuit is in the interest of truth or of ego.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 

You may indeed be right, what with all the fakery doing the rounds at the moment. Might I suggest you go to UFO Casebook, and click on the thread entitled "Dugway Proving Ground Lockdown" (dated 30/1/2011). There are some striking similarities between this case, and the aforementioned, particularly the red lights in the sky, (second Temple Mount Video). Cheers!



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Here is something i noticed after stabilizing the video myself. I just wanted to point it out because its hard to tell.

The orb does not just come down and sit in 1 place, it actually moves to the right. Its over a course of about 15-20 seconds..

I took screen shots and made an animated gif:



edit on 1-2-2011 by gmax111 because: (no reason given)


Ex

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I thought the negative of this image is very interesting.

Orginal



Negative





edit on 2/1/2011 by Ex because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
167
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join