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: 58
167
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   
The lunatic fringe will regard this series of HOAX videos as the HOLY grail of "smoking gun evidence" before you know it. Ignore all laws of physics, nope it does not apply as long as you believe . Lets just step aside folks, the Holy CGI ET's came to save these people from being subjected to logic and facts. They will sprinkle the masses with pixie dust in chem trails until they force Disclosure. They have the ability to manifest themselves in computer's and splice 2 different videos together and throw in a generated image of their craft because they are that good people. They beamed thoughts in to Micheal Cohens mind to grab a bowl of Captain Crunch and search youtube for "Jerusalem ufo" because he is a "psychic" that communicates with the Holy CG ET's. ANW is here to save us from our skepticism for we know nothing. Newtons law will be a thing of the past, what goes down most go up.


Just believe it no matter if it is fake it will then become "real" smh
edit on 2-2-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by zezba9000
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


You can try and Sweet talk your way out of this to everyone else on here, but its not going to work on me.
Do you get paid to put HOAX in front of everything(I'm really asking here)?? Just wondering because behind the scenes you seem very hypocritical. You say I am not addressing the issue, but you are very wrong on that regard.


I assure you, I do not get paid to call anything a hoax or not.



Sorry if this sounds rude, but i'm having a hard time not understanding why someone at your skill level can't understand what i'm pointing out.


No need to apologize for saying what you think.

As for skill level, I assure you my skill level is very low when it comes to digital editing...but as far as perspective goes- I know my stuff.

Intimately studying perspective all my life has lead me to fully believe in what I am telling you. as well as agreeing with those pointing out that the parallax does not behave correctly.



The background moves dependently upon the eye. So does the foreground. The only difference is there speed of motion in relationship to there depth from the eye. The independence you refer to is in Fact correct.


I strongly disagree.



Of course your not going to see any parallax on the lights, because they are simply to far away & the camera is only moving a small amount in relation to that distance.


Again, wrong. Look at it this way-

Close one eye and look at the moon.

Now close the other eye and look at the moon.

Do not move your head or body while doing this.

Now see the laws on perspective relating to parallax and say what you did above again without feeling you are wrong....if you can.



Can you see the parallax in a stone wall 100 feet away simply by moving the camera 6 inc?? No you cant,


You absolutely can.

And if you disagree...well, just know you are disagreeing with laws observed and detailed since the 4th century BC, and understood even hundreds of years before that.

Any movement of the optical eye shall echo in the form of all objects in the viewable horizon and foreground moving in a way that coincides with the laws of perspective.

The lights in the city do not change in depth, angle or perspective in relation to the movement of the camera's eye. It is THAT simple.

The foreground moves detached from the background. It has been shown to you in more than one example. To continue saying it doesn't also makes "me" wonder what you are getting "paid" for.

Or is the payment a thing of pride?



so the same apply's to the lights in relation to there distance from the eye.


I don't get what you mean here.

But I do notice the flashing light doesn't behave how I would guess it should (it doesn't light up details of the city nor does it produce silhouettes as I'd assume it would). But I am no expert on the effects of light and have remained unattached to debunking the flash for those reasons.

But...as far as perspective law goes, I have spent years understanding such. I have been schooled in understanding such. I have personally spent hundreds and hundreds of hours in one-on-one teaching sessions with more than one professional/successful artist learning such.

Hell, I even gave up every lunch class and study hall for four years of my life having these laws banged into my head by those who fully understood them as they attempting to make sure I also understood them.

Like I have said...we are arguing something that any artist learns in highschool. To fail in understanding perspective law, is to fail in passing any advanced art class, it is also a sure way to make mistake in thinking the perspective of this first clip is "legitimate".

MM


edit on 2-2-2011 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by m0r1arty
 


Originally posted by m0r1arty
Up, down, like a merry-go round and round, like a forest fire down, down.



-m0r


Dang. This is getting way to complex to believe its some kind of hoax now . I'm off the fence now . I still want some witness interviews badly tho. Thanks to Disclosure3 for the work here by the way)

edit on 2-2-2011 by bluemooone2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


It appears as though all of the uploaded videos are from the same group of kids using different cameras...can this be confirmed??? See my previous post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If they're all from the same kids, we can contact them through their ytube channels and at least ask if they're fake, though they'll probably say they're not because there's attention being paid, tons of views, and where there's tons of views, there's money.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


You know I think if we worked together we would probably get along... Argue a lot yes, but get along.
I think this argument is getting us nowhere as I think we would have to be in a room together pointing things out by hand. I'm a 3D computer programmer(a coder). Iv'e been doing it for sense I was quite young. I think we could both learn some stuff from eachother.
Eventually I think we might understand eachother, but this just is not working out. I still think your missing something here, but I think we have both made our case.

BTW I asked "enektyk"(YouTube user) to sync the 3 main(1, 2 & 4) video's side by side. If this is a HOAX its very good. The best I would say.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by zezba9000
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


You can try and Sweet talk your way out of this to everyone else on here, but its not going to work on me.
Do you get paid to put HOAX in front of everything(I'm really asking here)??


You can count me in, we are all "paid debunkers" here to cover up the truth with scientific fact and laws of physics. Scientists , Institutions, Colleges they are in on it too. Your opinion is a threat to the "cover up" of course. All the better Mr Mask uses Comics to debunk you



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by zezba9000
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


You know I think if we worked together we would probably get along... Argue a lot yes, but get along.
I think this argument is getting us nowhere as I think we would have to be in a room together pointing things out by hand. I'm a 3D computer programmer(a coder). Iv'e been doing it for sense I was quite young. I think we could both learn some stuff from eachother.
Eventually I think we might understand eachother, but this just is not working out. I still think your missing something here, but I think we have both made our case.

BTW I asked "enektyk"(YouTube user) to sync the 3 main(1, 2 & 4) video's side by side. If this is a HOAX its very good. The best I would say.



Other than the 3 YouTube users who have posted the 3 videos, I have been in contact with two other YouTube users who claim to have footage. yuli020 and DJmnMichael. Each of them claim to have filmed the event with friends, and each claim to be arguging with friends over who should post it. I do not know if they are referring to each other. I feel they are stalling though and so believe them less than I did at first.
edit on 2-2-2011 by enektyk because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by zezba9000
 


Interesting, but not impossible to do if you have the original footage from your friends, and insert it into the same after effects project file containing your effect. But no, not impossible.

At any rate, it seems suspicious to me. The user has three versions of the same video uploaded to his ytube channel "eligael" all with different names, and one video of just a sky ufo which reeks of viral marketing as opposed to uploading genuine footage.

edit on 2-2-2011 by AutOmatIc because: viral marketing



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by enektyk
 


I forgot to add the channel of "shshsh331", who also only has one upload.

known channels for this:

shshsh331
eligael
YDMU1
DJmnMichael (no footage but mentioned by enektyk and is subscribed to by eligael)


edit on 2-2-2011 by AutOmatIc because: list



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by enektyk
 


Those kids are going to have to send me some money for all my time wasted on their crap hoax here. My "debunker check" does not pay for the overtime that I put in. It works by commission where every person i convince it is a HOAX works like a sale. Working hard for that bonus check, maybe I should go in to CGI hoaxing myself. I heard it pays well these days to youtube partners and allhoaxwebsites.


Those kids are going to have to go back out tonight and do it all over again, too much controversy to stop now?
edit on 2-2-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by AutOmatIc
 


This is reminding me more and more of the Spain UFO HOAX:




Those kids may all be paid actors, like in the above video.

edit on 2-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   
And now a word from our sponsors:



Time to start having sex with your neighbour whilst eating chilli cheese nachos and gulping beer guys.

The big man is pissed.

-m0r



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 





I strongly disagree.

-- How so?? Because what I said is correct when dealing with static objects.




Again, wrong. Look at it this way- Close one eye and look at the moon. Now close the other eye and look at the moon. Do not move your head or body while doing this. Now see the laws on perspective relating to parallax and say what you did above again without feeling you are wrong....if you can.

-- Haha, that proves nothing! Can you see parallax on the big black craters on the moon?? NO!
Have you ever been to the grand canon?? Try closing one eye there, then the other... O thats right you guessed it, no parallax can be seen. You know why, because of depth!



I don't get what you mean here.

I can see that & that is why I am trying to point out the flaw in your perception of perspective lol.
Those lights are to far away for 6in of movement to pick up on any parallax . Its that simple. Thats where you are wrong. I can even program a DEMO app to prove this as well if you would like.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by m0r1arty
 


Nice, I was wondering what those blips of particles were doing there...spelling out hebrew symbols! lol really? Nice try kids!

edit on 2-2-2011 by AutOmatIc because: really?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by AutOmatIc
 





Interesting, but not impossible to do if you have the original footage from your friends, and insert it into the same after effects project file containing your effect.

I had thought of that too, and agree. It could be something like that.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 





You can count me in, we are all "paid debunkers" here to cover up the truth with scientific fact and laws of physics

Haha O ya, cuz thats what your using.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by m0r1arty
 


The 4th video seems to be a little bit behind the first two, it could be synchronized better. I might give it a try.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by WhizPhiz
 


It was synced at the point of the double flash. Which part looks off to you?

Also, this tag from the YouTube page of the 4th video is also highly suspicious.

img31.imageshack.us...



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   




Of course your not going to see any parallax on the lights, because they are simply to far away & the camera is only moving a small amount in relation to that distance.


Again, wrong. Look at it this way-

When I look out at the trees that cover the hills in the distance, even very large movements will not cause a noticeable degree of parallax, they all basically move together as "one picture".

reply to post by enektyk
 




It was synced at the point of the double flash. Which part looks off to you?
Yeah, I figured that much, but it still seems to be like a couple of hundred milliseconds behind. And that tag is pretty suspicious, good catch.


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



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 



I am currently communicating with one of the youths in the 4th video via e-mail. Does anyone have any questions they would like to ask him? I have already requested the original copy of the video... we'll see if he is interested in helping out.



new topics

top topics



 
167
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join