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: 53
167
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by csimon
 




hey just been trolling the net and mainly youtube and found 3 videos
the original
www.youtube.com...

2nd www.youtube.com...

and found this one which.... well ill let you judge but i think we can all agree that this one is .... craptackular?
www.youtube.com...
cheers!




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crayfish

Originally posted by mtnshredder



The questions that you ask are just not worth the time to address.

Why are they not worth the time to be answered, if they're so worthless than they should be easy and quick for you or someone else to answer?


Take the first question; "Explain the flash". This is unanswerable in any meaningful sense.

Why is it unanswerable in any meaningful sense? It's been explained why the flash can't be real, did you really read the thread or debate the people that have explained why the flash isn't real and their reasons behind their conclusions?



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.

I say it leans more to the truth w/a little ego and or over compassion at times but I think mostly just the truth. It can be frustrating sometimes at least for me, trying to explain exactly what I'm seeing or thinking over a forum. Sometimes the subject matter get mis-interpertrated or taken out of context of the posters original intent, if you know what I mean.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
And so we have video #4......



This looks as fake as the 3rd video to me, but figured id post it anyways.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mtnshredder
Why is it unanswerable in any meaningful sense? It's been explained why the flash can't be real, did you really read the thread or debate the people that have explained why the flash isn't real and their reasons behind their conclusions?

The only times in this thread when people questioned the reality of the flash, other members gave opposing hypothesis that answered those questions. I gave my own reasons why I considered there to be a strong case that the flash was genuine on page 34 of this thread.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by samureyed
And so we have video #4......



This looks as fake as the 3rd video to me, but figured id post it anyways.


I had a feeling we'd be seeing more. This one is pretty bad.. at least in the other three videos, the light hovers over the temple for ~22 seconds. It's less than 10 seconds on this one. The time stamp is also off but I suppose it was filmed by a tourist from a timezone that's 3 hours earlier, naturally. They're getting sloppy.

I wanted this is to be real as much as the next believer but yeah.. I'm thinking viral marketing for something, most likely that Apollo 18 flick. The hole 'secret document' thing they're doing leads me to think they could be behind this as well.

I commented on the video to ask where he got it. It's set up so comments need approval on this one.

Cheers!



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Do we have the exact location on Google map, is there a stone wall, tree, light...`?


Originally posted by samureyed
And so we have video #4......

pointless hoax IMO,



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by phresh
 


I completely agree it looks like a sloppy hoax, just wanted to keep the thread up to date



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
So the consensus is guys that the first two videos are of the real object while the other two are hoaxes?. I agree with this by the way becuase of both the image from wikipedia, the differences in time frames and the abscense of flashes.
edit on 1-2-2011 by johnthejedi24 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
You can see the flash more easily in this slo-mo. Even better freeze frame the flash in the slo-mo at 39 seconds. You will see several effects, (1) the whole camera screen is lightened, (2) there is a circle of light in the subject area, which is brighter again, (3) the flash is also in the camera background as it lights up the man standing in front, on his back. There is also a secondary flash in the subject area, which also appears to light up the man's back.

www.youtube.com...


This seems to be the same two guys, with their videos synchronised... it's getting stranger, anyone?

www.youtube.com...

Just to add the differences are only in the camera work, the guy in front's camera scrolls upwards sooner. BTW, the "tourist" video looks like a still picture, with an added audience.
edit on 1-2-2011 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
waiting on another real video..



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
OK chaps, I did the 4th vid. The main mistake in mine as pointed out was the time span of the flare in the vid. I'm grateful for the heads up.

I have a mixed bag of vids on my channel, debunked and hoaxed. The reason being I want to learn all the techniques involved in creating hoaxed vids then turning that knowledge into plausible debunking with the backup of experience.

Thanks for the insight on how your minds work, a valuable lesson for my future vids.

edit

optical flares used
edit on 1-2-2011 by EnigmaAgent because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by EnigmaAgent
 


Oh, you! *shakes fist*

Well it looked decent besides the short duration. It certainly didn't feel like whoever (was supposed to have) filmed it was seeing what you added, though, assuming you didn't create that from a still photo. What I mean is they didn't really appear to react to it as you'd expect. I suppose it would be pretty hard to shift the view up towards the sky if you're faking with a photo.

Must admit I let out a sigh of relief after you allowed critical comments through and I noticed you have many debunking videos.

So, you obviously have some relevant knowledge. What do you think about the first two videos?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Why do I keep hearing the first and second are manipulated? Nothing is manipulated. Sure, the UFO could be fake, and it almost looks like the camera used a totally different shutter speed on the Ufo than evrything else.

As I took the time to watch the third, and paid attention to the freaking voices, there is no possible way it could be real.

The fourth video shouldn't even be put up for speculation.

In the first, it seems people care more about the background than the UFO. If the background is indeed faked, and spliced from another, which is highly likely, though I doubt it it is true. The men can't be that cleanly masked into the footage without signs that they have been spliced. No program works that good. The lights, in my opinion, are faked.

In the second video, you can take the first one, add some filters, crop it, and pan it a little with some zoom to make it look real. Why? Because if you notice in the first and second, it hardly seems as if there is any angle difference.

My overall opinion: Stop acting like you know what you know from othere people's posts, without having the prior knowledge yourself. The amount of times I see people referencing othere's videos is hilarious. Post your own opinions, come up with your own conclusions.

I base all my opininosn on my knowledge in fake UFO videos, seemingly real UFO videos, CS5 Photoshop, Adobe After Affects, and Vegas 10 Pro



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Another thing: the second video looks like it could be the first video recorded though a external camera. IE the first video edited on a computer screen, with a cell phone camera videoing that. I don't know. It's a possiblity.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr10k
Why do I keep hearing the first and second are manipulated? Nothing is manipulated. Sure, the UFO could be fake, and it almost looks like the camera used a totally different shutter speed on the Ufo than evrything else.

As I took the time to watch the third, and paid attention to the freaking voices, there is no possible way it could be real.

The fourth video shouldn't even be put up for speculation.

In the first, it seems people care more about the background than the UFO. If the background is indeed faked, and spliced from another, which is highly likely, though I doubt it it is true. The men can't be that cleanly masked into the footage without signs that they have been spliced. No program works that good. The lights, in my opinion, are faked.

In the second video, you can take the first one, add some filters, crop it, and pan it a little with some zoom to make it look real. Why? Because if you notice in the first and second, it hardly seems as if there is any angle difference.

My overall opinion: Stop acting like you know what you know from othere people's posts, without having the prior knowledge yourself. The amount of times I see people referencing othere's videos is hilarious. Post your own opinions, come up with your own conclusions.

I base all my opininosn on my knowledge in fake UFO videos, seemingly real UFO videos, CS5 Photoshop, Adobe After Affects, and Vegas 10 Pro

Hi Mr,
Did you have a look at the two men's videos, (the two men from the original video that is) side by side in the link at my last post, they are the same in content, but do have differences in the camera work. You can tell that easily, I don't think there is any background manipulation either.
edit on 1-2-2011 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bobrules
waiting on another real video..


Oh dear, you will be waiting for quite some time. Watch the gentleman's legs in the first video, the bottom half of his body is out of sync with the top half.

As much as everyone would love this to be real, reasonable doubt prevails. The best thing to do is discuss the points that make it real, or fake, to you in a clear manor... No more "THERE IS NO PROOF ITS FAKED" or, "ITS FAKE BECAUSE ALEIN DOSENT REAL!11" etc.

Its one of the hottest topics in the field right now, so calm down and respect each other



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by KoraX
Oh dear, you will be waiting for quite some time. Watch the gentleman's legs in the first video, the bottom half of his body is out of sync with the top half.

Google for "camera jello effect" and you'll see that this is a known phenomena in DV cameras and not an indicator of any post production manipulation.

edit on 1-2-2011 by Crayfish because: "well known" - > "known" - it's obviously not well known



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
I believe the camera work may be real, but the object is fake. Possibly lighted ball on a string. Look at my pic. If the object is the same distance from the cameras as that ground object, then why does the cell phone vid seem to place the object more to the left. That could only mean the object is actually much closer and being affected by the slightly to the right camera position of the cellphone as evidenced by closer objects on the ground. I'm thinking like this, if two people are at one end of a football field but standing next to each other, the poles at the opposite end will look the same distance apart to each individual. The vids show that each observer has a different distance between those poles, meaning the poles aren't the same distance from the viewers.




Two other things: these guys sure aren't that overwhelmed about seeing this thing. Also, why post REAL evidence of UFOs on youtube, wouldn't you shop it to the highest bidder if it were your exclusive video? Just my thought.
edit on 1-2-2011 by agentsparrow because: added clarity



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crayfish

Originally posted by KoraX
Oh dear, you will be waiting for quite some time. Watch the gentleman's legs in the first video, the bottom half of his body is out of sync with the top half.

Google for "camera jello effect" and you'll see that this is a known phenomena in DV cameras and not an indicator of any post production manipulation.

edit on 1-2-2011 by Crayfish because: "well known" - > "known" - it's obviously not well known


That may be a 'well known' phenomenon with DV cameras, its also WAY too pronounced for the tiny amount of movement that the cameraman happens to make.

Also;


Is just another problem that I no doubt will be put down to another well known phenomena.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I first thought it was real, then thought it was fake but now I've seen this video I think it's real.

www.youtube.com...
edit on 1-2-2011 by lebaron because: (no reason given)

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




top topics



 
167
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join