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: 64
167
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by strato
 


I think the debunkers here are afraid to find the truth. so they side with ignorance...




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I’d like to try a different angle on this, if only because most of you - of whatever opinion – totally outshine my technical knowledge and analytical ability!

If these are hoaxes – some or all of them – who benefits, or has at least tried to benefit? I’m intrigued by Mr Alfred Labremont Webre’s early and excited response on behalf of the Exopolitics movement.

Exopolitics baffles me at the best of times, if only because it relies so heavily on uninvestigated reports and wild assumptions about what governments might know. And, more, it seems to have developed into a faith movement, whose members are desperately seeking proof to support their beliefs.

This is a prime example of that desperation. Who, applying any sort of reason or caution, would immediately ask whether “the ET or interdimensional intelligence behind the Dome of the Rock UFO ORBS (is) sending an intentional, meaningful “context communication” to humanity by this UFO event?”, or that “the Dome of the Rock event fit(s) the pattern predicted by former NORAD officer Stanley A Fulham in his Dec 3, 2010 communique?” Yes, Webre also gave ‘hoax’ as an option, but with little enthusiasm.

It seems to me that the upper echelon of Exopolitics risks becoming ufology’s answer to the worst street preachers, who shout too loud and go on too long about their cherished beliefs, giving nobody else a chance to speak. This is embarrassing to many groups and individuals attempting to investigate and discuss phenomena carefully and rationally, and I wish they would stop for a bit, and ask themselves whether what they are doing is really any help at all in establishing the truth about anything.

With regard to the Jerusalem material, it is clear that it suits Exopolitics, currently relying on a very dodgy prophet, and exaggerated confirmations (New York, etc) of his prophecies. I don’t see any reason why the ‘Secret Government’ would bother with this, so I’m left with two favourites for a hoax. A source sympathetic to Exopolitics, or a source attempting to make Exopolitics look even sillier than it appears already. Does anyone else have a view?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
63 pages discussing 10mins (if that) of video footage.............

Thank god it wasn't an hour eh?.....


I do have a question however......

IF it's a fake.... and proved to be.........

Why would anyone bother?

As never looking for or being interested in the subject..... i can only put it against what i do know........

Usually when someone fakes something it's so they will gain from it..... fraud etc......

What is there to gain here?..... can the fakers make money?..... if so how much?....

and .... can i download the software from TPB??

Also ..... why make such a obv fake as vid 3?.... when the rest are much better quality??

Just questions....

nanoo nanoo



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
OK, I'm quite satisfied that this is a hoax (should we crown it Hoax of the Year yet?). However, I have these questions for FX experts here @flyingfish, @mr.Mask, @GiftofProphecy:

-Are these CGI's laborious to create? Can you give some brief description of major steps and time it might take?
-Could ordinary hobbyist capable of this? or do you believe it's a paid gig? If it's a paid gig, what's the ROI?
-Are these 4~5 clips from the same source? It seems the sophistication level various, as if someone saw #3 and said, "let me show you how it is done. (makes video #4)".



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I'm still unconvinced that ANYTHING has been proven either way. IMO what we are witnessing is 100% real but you have to make your own decisions.

Anyway, I've compiled a video of the 3 recordings of this object that I believe are authentic. They seem to sync up quite well.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by discl0sur3
 


What do you mean, when you say "I've compiled" ?

Did you put this video of the 3 different viewpoints together yourself ?

I only ask because there's quite a few of these types of videos on youtube already...



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by discl0sur3
I'm still unconvinced that ANYTHING has been proven either way. IMO what we are witnessing is 100% real but you have to make your own decisions.

Anyway, I've compiled a video of the 3 recordings of this object that I believe are authentic. They seem to sync up quite well.


So do we have three actual different vids from three different witnesses here. if not, we need more witnesses to step up to the mark on this incident.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
You can prove its a hoax if you can somehow zoom in on the guys phone screen. If it shows the ufo on his phone screen, its your proof right there...they couldnt possible hoax that. But its so small..probably cant be done.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by discl0sur3
 


What do you mean, when you say "I've compiled" ?

Did you put this video of the 3 different viewpoints together yourself ?

I only ask because there's quite a few of these types of videos on youtube already...


If you view my Youtube channel, it will make more sense. I've created multiple videos on this subject using videos downloaded from various sources.
The video in question was "compiled" by using the original side by side recordings then adding the fourth video using P.I.P.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Did you put this video of the 3 different viewpoints together yourself ?


He did and he was the first too.

I believe this to be a set of hoaxes but I do grant credit where it is due for hard work and DISCLOSUR3 put it in within hours of the 4th video and before anyone else.

Had you just clicked on this video and then done a YouTube search with upload date as the defining parameter you would be able to see this for yourself.

It's not rocket science.

-m0r



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yummy Freelunch
You can prove its a hoax if you can somehow zoom in on the guys phone screen.


Esper technology is still a few years away. But one day...



-m0r



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
OMFG I CANT BELIEVE IT! dgffdgdgv rdgfsdgvtrfdghbyet hbd

I had this huge fing post written out in the other thread about the "fourth video" and they must've deleted the post while I was writting it, becuase once I went to submit, it said it was gone.

sdzgvdtrdebyhbffhbg


Anyways I'll just get to the damn point

I'm new posting here

I believe theres life in the universe, I believe that it's extremely possible that ufo's could be not from earth, some videos just can't be explained and you cant dismiss that.

I've been a hobbyist music producer for over 13 yrs



These videos are fake!

How can I be so certain? Where will I succeed where other debunkers that tried to debunk this have failed?

Simple

The audio in 1 and 2 are the exact same audio, except the audio in the 2nd has had the volumes tampered with to make it seem like it's from HIS camera (make the main guy sound like he's far away and the other guy sound closer to the mic).

Don't believe me? listen yourself

what your listening for is after they both go "woah, woah". Actor A (guy filming video 1) makes a sound like hes saying # & laughing at the same time, so it comes out kinda like "chh"

I will show you visually how it will sound, and how the sounds overlap eachother, I'll also use caps to show you the volume aswell

in video 1 it goes like this

CHHH....CHH (actor A)
.............dae dae dAE! (actor B)

since actor A is closer to his mic than actor B is to actors A mic, the words (dae dae dae) will sound distant, and his "chhh" sound will sound loud and close.

in video 2 it goes like this

CHH (actor A)
dae dae dAE! (actor B)

the 2 "CHH" sounds was basically at the same volume in video 1, in video 2 you can faintly hear "chh" very softly, but when you hear "dae dae dAE" you hear CHH louder than the words that actor B is saying. Only way this would be possible in video 2 is if actor A was standing right infront of actor B and was closer to the mic than actor B, which clearly we know hes a good 8 feet or so BEHIND him, so why is his little sound FX louder in actor B's camera, than actor B himself? because adjusted the audio levels of the track ignorantly.

You can also tell they messed with it by listening to the second video, when they both go woah, woah. It looks like this

Video 1

WOAH (actor A)
woah! (actor B)

Video 2
woah (actor A)
WOAH! (actor B)

they adjusted to volumes to make it sound like one was far away from the mic and 1 was close. In video 2 this mistake is evident because when the second woah (remember actor B is filming video 2) that's coming from actor B, you can also hear the background noise increase as well, because you cant increase his woah without also increasing the background noise (hiss) also.





Video 1 56 secs
Video 2 40 secs

you can see the unnecessary audio spike here, where they increased the volume.






Bottom line, they're amateurs and they didn't think it through completely. I hope they don't go to school for these trades (audio engineering, VFX) because if they do, they just made my day better, knowing that without formal training, I was able to catch them.


What pisses me off is that they clearly went extremely out of their way to hoax this. It's crap like that's the reason why whenever there is a UFO story on CNN or your local news, the newscasters always got some spiffy jokes to say when they present the footages.


How can we deduct that this whole string of events didnt happen from finding this out? Let's connect the dots.

Video 2 has a fake audio track, which is from actor A but the video is taken at the same vantage point & time as actor A
Since Video 2 is fake and was tooken at the same location at the same time as video 1, this proves video 1 is fake also
which makes video 3 and 4 not even possible because these 2 videos claim to be of the same time, showing the exact same fake flash, orb, and red lights in the sky as both video 1 and 2, which have just been proven to be fake.

All 4 videos are faked, its been debunked, time to move onto the Utah video, now those cant truely be explained. They're not faked for sure, but as to what was actually recorded I have no clue


edit on 2-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: added a final thought



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by m0r1arty

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Did you put this video of the 3 different viewpoints together yourself ?


He did and he was the first too.

I believe this to be a set of hoaxes but I do grant credit where it is due for hard work and DISCLOSUR3 put it in within hours of the 4th video and before anyone else.

Had you just clicked on this video and then done a YouTube search with upload date as the defining parameter you would be able to see this for yourself.

It's not rocket science.

-m0r


Thanks for that m0r



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
Apparently the original author of this story is ANW. ANW is a hoax site and we do not give them free publicity here. **PLEASE READ THIS FOR MORE INFORMATION***

There is absolutely NO original source for this story other than ANW.

edit on February 2nd 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)


The original author or the original footage? It has to have come from somewhere. I'm curious, how do you know ANW was the original source? Not to sound confrontational but how do you know this?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeboWilliams
OMFG I CANT BELIEVE IT! dgffdgdgv rdgfsdgvtrfdghbyet hbd

I had this huge fing post written out in the other thread about the "fourth video" and they must've deleted the post while I was writting it, becuase once I went to submit, it said it was gone.

sdzgvdtrdebyhbffhbg


Anyways I'll just get to the damn point

I'm new posting here

I believe theres life in the universe, I believe that it's extremely possible that ufo's could be not from earth, some videos just can't be explained and you cant dismiss that.

I've been a hobbyist music producer for over 13 yrs



These videos are fake!

How can I be so certain? Where will I succeed where other debunkers that tried to debunk this have failed?

Simple

The audio in 1 and 2 are the exact same audio, except the audio in the 2nd has had the volumes tampered with to make it seem like it's from HIS camera (make the main guy sound like he's far away and the other guy sound closer to the mic).

Don't believe me? listen yourself

what your listening for is after they both go "woah, woah". Actor A (guy filming video 1) makes a sound like hes saying # & laughing at the same time, so it comes out kinda like "chh"

I will show you visually how it will sound, and how the sounds overlap eachother, I'll also use caps to show you the volume aswell

in video 1 it goes like this

CHHH....CHH (actor A)
.............dae dae dAE! (actor B)

since actor A is closer to his mic than actor B is to actors A mic, the words (dae dae dae) will sound distant, and his "chhh" sound will sound loud and close.

in video 2 it goes like this

CHH (actor A)
dae dae dAE! (actor B)

the 2 "CHH" sounds was basically at the same volume in video 1, in video 2 you can faintly hear "chh" very softly, but when you hear "dae dae dAE" you hear CHH louder than the words that actor B is saying. Only way this would be possible in video 2 is if actor A was standing right infront of actor B and was closer to the mic than actor B, which clearly we know hes a good 8 feet or so BEHIND him, so why is his little sound FX louder in actor B's camera, than actor B himself? because adjusted the audio levels of the track ignorantly.

You can also tell they messed with it by listening to the second video, when they both go woah, woah. It looks like this

Video 1

WOAH (actor A)
woah! (actor B)

Video 2
woah (actor A)
WOAH! (actor B)

they adjusted to volumes to make it sound like one was far away from the mic and 1 was close. In video 2 this mistake is evident because when the second woah (remember actor B is filming video 2) that's coming from actor B, you can also hear the background noise increase as well, because you cant increase his woah without also increasing the background noise (hiss) also.





Video 1 56 secs
Video 2 40 secs

you can see the unnecessary audio spike here, where they increased the volume.






Bottom line, they're amateurs and they didn't think it through completely. I hope they don't go to school for these trades (audio engineering, VFX) because if they do, they just made my day better, knowing that without formal training, I was able to catch them.


What pisses me off is that they clearly went extremely out of their way to hoax this. It's crap like that's the reason why whenever there is a UFO story on CNN or your local news, the newscasters always got some spiffy jokes to say when they present the footages.

All these 4 videos are faked, its been debunked, time to move onto the Utah video, now those cant truely be explained. They're not faked for sure, but as to what was actually recorded I have no clue







edit on 2-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: fix


Star for you mister. Everyone should read this post...



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by csimon
 


The light is actually part of the city but has been detatched and started above its original position. Then the camera is reversed that makes it look to be descending back into the city lights.

You can tell the film is altered by watching the movements of the observer and surrounding eniroment.


I am impressed I didnt see bird, chinese lantern, or balloon on the first page of this thread. Shows improvement



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by discl0sur3
 


Cool.

So the first two videos clearly are from just about the same perspective, if you use the background as a guide. Were these two shot by people from the same group?

The 3rd vid is suspect. That one starts with the light as it's already hovering. We're not able to judge how long that light had been hovering before the video gets going. We have to assume I guess that filming began a half a second after it descended. Given that you sync the 3rd video in your compilation with the lights from the 1st two videos as they just about complete their descent.

Thing is, that 3rd light gives no indication that it had just finished descending.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


Star for you, fantastic post and great that someone studied the audio too.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by m0r1arty

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Did you put this video of the 3 different viewpoints together yourself ?


He did and he was the first too.

I believe this to be a set of hoaxes but I do grant credit where it is due for hard work and DISCLOSUR3 put it in within hours of the 4th video and before anyone else.

Had you just clicked on this video and then done a YouTube search with upload date as the defining parameter you would be able to see this for yourself.

It's not rocket science.

-m0r


Thanks, but with all do respect, you can step down off of your soap box now.

I believe I was asking the guy a very simple question to clarify something. Just as easy to do that then sift through 20 pages of these videos on youtube.

He's a big boy and can handle answering that very simple question himself.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


With all due respect, and yes I do mean that, this thread has been allowed to continue for 63 pages, all based on a story that supposedly started on a site that is not allowed to be referenced here, and I was using no such references.

Also, I feel like you maybe avoided my question. How do we know for certain this is originally from this so called untrustworthy source? Key word there, originally?

Aren't all the videos based off of the same 'event'? It's viral by now. I could post information from almost any news agency. But where did it originate from?

Why are the mods not ripping this one down? Are they themselves not sure about a story on an alleged hoax site? Or is it simply because its generating so much of a response from everywhere that they feel the need to keep it up?

If this was clearly a hoax, the thread would be gone by now...or at least placed in the appropriate forum.

for the record, after seeing some of the arguments, I've gone from "thinking it's real" to "on the fence."

Done.



new topics

top topics



 
167
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join