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: 71
167
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask

Originally posted by Ashtrei

there is an area the shape of a black triangle with a large blue light on the edge of the triangle closest to the city lights on the left of the stills from vid one and two, but in the still from the 4th vid, that black triangle is not there, and the blue light looks like its just to the left of the dome in the 4th vid still.
Ergo the angles are very different, the rock wall could not be the same as in the first vid
edit on 2-2-2011 by Ashtrei because: (no reason given)


With respect-

If you believe what I do- that is that clip one's background was digitally added to the foreground, then you have kids standing behind a brick wall that looks very much like the brick wall in clip 4 (its four right? The pee pee clip?).

Now...if that is the case, then we have all these clips not showing the location it was filmed by because the temple background was added. The only thing (if you buy the background being added) to determine the location is that wall and tree in the first clip , and the road/wall of the pee clip.

Now...if I am wrong...then we have this amazing similarity.

Young dudes...two to be exact...who sound very similar in base/tone, standing at the same minute/hour, all near stone walls that are very alike, filming the very same UFO, and all of them catching the upward motion of the UFO perfectly with their camera's.

Now that isn't impossible...but I find it odd that two guys filmed this UFO by a wall in one location.

Then two guys filmed the same UFO near a wall looking identical in another.

Add that to many other reasons I find this debunked....and well...man...did my head just explode?

No really...look at my head...is it still there?

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


the city like most is laid out in a grid , you can see the "grain" in the first 2 are different to the 4th.
Notwithstanding we have confirmation these have been shot from diffent locations
why would you bother to travel to both locations and film from that angle only to superimpose that background behind a single common rock wall ? its easier to just film each location and add your light to the footage.
the "backgrounds" are clearly from differnt angles/locations why would they superimpose the background shot from the north behind a rock wall from a lookout from the south ?




Hey,
I live in Jerusalem and for your information:
Videos 1 and 2 are supposedly filmed at the Armon HaNatziv promenade, which is south of the old city. Meaning looking north.
In Video 4's description it reads in Hebrew that they shot it at Mount Scopus - Har HaTzofim (The description read "Zofim muonten"]. This makes sense in terms of geography of the drive, and the angle it was shot.
Mt Scopus is north of the Old City, looking south.
So they are practically shooting each-other, but standing a few miles apart.

There are walls all around the old city, and it can be seen from the south (Armon HaNatziv/East Talpiot promenade), North (Mt. Scopus), East (Mount of Olives. No video from that angle) and from the west.







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




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by haketem
 


Searching on the 26th and look what i found in the sky. What is that?. Watch it yourself ( www.02ws.com... )





posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by haketem
You should consider that most Jerusalemites aren't "online" as much as North Americans, and not everyone holds a camera at 01:00am looking at the Dome of the Rock in the middle of winter (It's there during the day, and in the summer too. Been there for almost 1500 years
)


Yes. So most "Jerusalemites" wouldn't be filming the dome at 1am with their cell phones, which lends suspicion to the premise behind those first 2 videos...

HOWEVER- if the 2 guys whipped out their cameras because they saw the light and wanted to film it, then I guess my above argument holds no water in this case...

What I am pretty sure of at this point, and excuse me if I'm re-stating the obvious here, is that the guy seen off to the right in the first video holding the cell phone and filming the light is the creator of the 2nd video. So vids 1 and 2 were filmed at the same time by 2 guys who were at the same location..

So in this case, in order to prove or debunk this event either way- the first 2 videos must be used.

And to hell with any of the others....
edit on 2-2-2011 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by digitalf



Good going! I have the guys from the first video placed a little tiny bit further North and East at Richard Ve-Rhoda Goldman Promenade, it's only about 50 meters from your position but gives the view required to see the Mosque.

Good to see that the supposed sites over look the target from two entirely separate locations - be nice to get a spotter out to each location to verify this if possible.

-m0r



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I'm all for people proving hoaxes and all (I at first thought this was legit before some intelligent folk came along and noted some small details, I now realize this is most likely a hoax.), but I wish you debunkers would be nicer when doing it.
Don't be an outright arse about it... Just present the proof that the said encounter is a hoax, and be nice about it.

Just a small request.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by haketem
You should consider that most Jerusalemites aren't "online" as much as North Americans, and not everyone holds a camera at 01:00am looking at the Dome of the Rock in the middle of winter (It's there during the day, and in the summer too. Been there for almost 1500 years
)


Yes. So most "Jerusalemites" wouldn't be filming the dome at 1am with their cell phones, which lends suspicion to the premise behind those first 2 videos...

HOWEVER- if the 2 guys whipped out their cameras because they saw the light and wanted to film it, then I guess my above argument holds no water in this case...

What I am pretty sure of at this point, and excuse me if I'm re-stating the obvious here, is that the guy seen off to the right in the first video holding the cell phone and filming the light is the creator of the 2nd video. So vids 1 and 2 were filmed at the same time by 2 guys who were together.

So in this case, in order to prove or debunk this event either way- the first 2 videos must be used.

And to hell with any of the others....
edit on 2-2-2011 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)


Thats how i read it, two guys up on a lookout see a light in the sky over a known no fly zone, they whip out their phones/cameras and start filming it.
Im not saying this is real footage, but i dont see anything strange about the alleged circumstances in which it was filmed.
Ppl have said why didnt others report the flash, but its 1 in the morning, if you hadnt seen the object itself it seems reasonable they might just assume it was a lightning flash

i cant stand hoaxers either, but this matter still has more questions than answers from my pov



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by m0r1arty

Originally posted by digitalf



Good going! I have the guys from the first video placed a little tiny bit further North and East at Richard Ve-Rhoda Goldman Promenade, it's only about 50 meters from your position but gives the view required to see the Mosque.

Good to see that the supposed sites over look the target from two entirely separate locations - be nice to get a spotter out to each location to verify this if possible.

-m0r


This also makes sense when reviewing the footage, the red dots seem larger in the 4th vid but then they would because its shot much closer than the first one. If a hoax its been well done



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeboWilliams


I hope this helps clarify things easier
edit on 2-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)


Ok...I listened to what you had to say and then watched this clip you made, then went and listened to the clips.

You are 100% correct.

The second clip contains an altered/edited version of clip one's audio.

Good ear. You are correct, before the "deh deh deh" in clip one, there is audio clearly removed (clipped out of) from clip two.

Sir, you have just stabbed another stake into the evil heart of this hoaxed event.

Working/recording sound for over 15 years- I can tell you- you are right. Good job!

Good luck convincing anyone else though...its my experience here that many disagree with blatant logical facts presented to them in well a presented video.

You are right.

Clip two's audio is altered and edited.

I have no idea why they would have done that...its really stupid.

MM



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I wouldnt normally post a link to the OM cesspool, but the points raised here are worth looking into

lucianarchy.proboards.com...



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier

Originally posted by astralpanda
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


It's not about being invested or wanting to believe. We see something legit amongst the pile of garbage that most UFO videos are and it's exciting. Then you see somebody such as yourself come in and try to # all over it and it's baffling.

The issue is open-minded skeptics vs. closed-minded skeptics. I'm still waiting for somebody to come in and duplicate these videos. Show us how easy it is. We're all seeking truth here.



Oh chin up now... it will be OK. Once you have been knocked off your horse so many times it does not hurt so much. Sooner or later you will become immune to BS like many of us. That is of course if you refuse to just keep on living the dream. The UFO subject can break your heart sometimes. This is what separates the fringe from the curious and jaded. There are plenty of unsolved and legitimate videos out there like the fish said. This site is full of great cases and evidence that compliments it.

Someone has duplicated these videos actually, the video is pages back and im not going to do the work this time. Just have a gander at around 30 something pages i believe. And because it can be "recreated" does not mean it is fake however it is example how easy it can be done.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Wow, fine work so far from everyone concerning these videos, makes me proud to be a member here
as for location issue, it wouldn't be hard to:

1. Have one group film from both locations at the same time.

2. Film footage from one vantage point, then move to another and film the same type of thing.

(apologies if this has been brought up earlier I'm still catching up
)

...well organized hoax in my opinion, but opposing arguments are indeed always welcome here, that's what makes this place great!



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ashtrei

the city like most is laid out in a grid , you can see the "grain" in the first 2 are different to the 4th.
Notwithstanding we have confirmation these have been shot from diffent locations



Ok, maybe I wasn't clear...I apologize if that's the case.

Let me be perfectly blunt.

Evidence shows that the back ground of clip one was superimposed onto a foreground that is not really "in front of the temple".

Perspective laws prove that the clip was doctored and the background was added...meaning...its a fake view from some "place with a wall".

The forth clip shows two dudes (who sound exactly the same as the two dudes in clip one) going to pee by a wall that looks to be the same wall.

You ask "why go to another location to film".

My answer is this- these hoaxers didn't. They filmed themselves by that wall for clip one and clip four.

The reason they superimposed a false background over clip one, is so they could reuse clip one's special effect shot , remove the foreground, and then act as if its an entirely new clip.

This would insure that clip two matched clip one's action perfectly without having to do the work of rematching the shot.

Yes...it is my total belief that clip one contains a false background, for reasoning being the background moves independently (and against the laws of perspective) from the foreground).

The virtual clip made to dispute this "fact" actually proves it.

Also, you quote the "new guy from Jerusalem" here-



Hey,
I live in Jerusalem and for your information:
Videos 1 and 2 are supposedly filmed at the Armon HaNatziv promenade, which is south of the old city. Meaning looking north.
In Video 4's description it reads in Hebrew that they shot it at Mount Scopus - Har HaTzofim (The description read "Zofim muonten"]. This makes sense in terms of geography of the drive, and the angle it was shot.
Mt Scopus is north of the Old City, looking south.
So they are practically shooting each-other, but standing a few miles apart.

There are walls all around the old city, and it can be seen from the south (Armon HaNatziv/East Talpiot promenade), North (Mt. Scopus), East (Mount of Olives. No video from that angle) and from the west.



In risk of offending this poster (sorry), I must say I do not hold his words as any form of fact due to the date of his joining and the subject he has quickly arrived to join.

I'm not sure if you noticed people have already been banned today joining this site on the same date this member has joined, claiming the same sort of stuff "that he is from the area and aware of the details of the event".

Not saying he is fake...just saying I wouldn't call his testimony factual just yet. I've requested the staff do a background check to see if this guy is the same dude(s) who has/have been banned more then once today.

If he is legit, I apologize sincerely...but seeing how this story is now getting national attention and we have problems with trolls trolling- it may be wise to reserve judgment on people magically showing up claiming they know stuff abut this area and event.

Sorry if that sounds harsh or unwise.

MM





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



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
So what's the deal?

Hoax/No Hoax....

Please let me know asap so i can decide to keep reading or go to bed...

Thanks!



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Anyone posted Video #4 yet? Sorry hadn't been keeping up



Also it seems Dr Roger Leir... the implant guy... is saying they are real


www.alienscalpel.com...



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 

Sorry, about the free floating quote there folks. I am slowly making my way through every post on this thread and I am on page 60. Have been doing this for two days now along with the rest of you and wanted to catch up. Yes, I am brand new to ATS but not the subject matter. After all these years this event was interesting enough that I could not resist signing up. Glad I did. I am hoping to have something useful or at least entertaining to contribute when I am all caught up. In the meantime I wanted to take a break to say that I totally agree with Unknown Soldier's sentiment above. Yeah, it is heartbreaking. Especially when you do indeed realize that there are some damaged folks out there that really do get off on creating hoaxes and roleplaying all this stuff. When Unknown Soldier talks about hoax-cults this can at least be taken in it's simplest sense as groups of people getting together to create this stuff. Hoax-teams maybe. Think of the Haiti hoax. I am guessing but I bet more than one person was involved. So that being said: I actually agree so far with WhizPhiz and Crayfish. Seriously guys that 'Mene Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin' thing is spooky. If it's a hoax it's the best yet. I am totally enjoying this. And Oh, Unknown Soldier; I have been knocked off my horse over and over again. But I just keep lining up for more hoping to get smarter as I go along. Didn't Hunter Thompson have something to say about people not being able to deal with complete and utter failure? Seems to me that with Ufology you get used to it or find another hobby. Right?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeboWilliams

Originally posted by burntoast
i hate how everyone on this freaking website tries to prove that the real videos are fake!

i wonder if a fake video was uploaded would the people (FOOLS!) try and debunk it even tho it says fake all over it lol

you guys waste to much time trying to debunk stuff when clearly there real you idiots

ATS PISSES ME OFF NOW SO MUCH BS! if its real its real dont try and prove its fake when its not


Don't you think it's odd that there's more evidence that it's fake then real? Lets look at the facts

Video 3 is clearly faked

Video 2 has obvious tampering in it, not original audio track (copied from video 1 and altered). This doesn't scream legit to me. Not only that, but just look by the blue light in video 2, the one thats towards the middle bottom, compare those lights that near that blue light (the yellow ones) with the lights from the other video in the same area, the light configuration are different. How is that possible when both are supposedly being recorded at the same time?. Anyone else notice the flash of light trajectorys are different? in video 1 the first flash seems to be coming from or towards our camera man, and the second smaller flash is towards our camera man aswell, but in video 2, theres 3 flashes, and 1 is going slightly off to the left, second is middle right ish, and third is middle left. Whats up with that? With as far away as our camera men are, theyre PoV of the flashing lights would be the same, lets not forget 1 has 2 flashes and 2 has 3 flashes.

There's also pretty much every reason to believe that the person who uploaded video 2 is either A) The guy that's seen filming in video 1, or B) The person who made video one, pretending to be the guy that's seen filming in video 1. You can gather this information by looking at their youtube profiles. Both live in isreal, first video poster is 42 second video poster is 35, videos was posted a day apart, and since video 2 is fake, how did he have enough time to make a video that looks PERFECTLY like the first one, unlike the other 2 videos which came out a few days later, and are not consistent. So if the second video is fake, and it is, then how did he have enough time to make a perfect matching CGI in not even a day?

Video 4 is fake because 1-2-3 are.

I wish these was real, or that there was nothing sketchy about 'em. But I'm not about to believe in some lies or bs, if that was the case I'd just go to church!

People come on. If you STILL believe this was a actual event, then........

I have a business proposition for you, I just need you to invest 20 grand! your guaranteed triple returned!



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


Mr. Debo. If you would please answer my question that I am now going to ask you for the 3rd time concerning the wind. I asked you once in reply to your first analysis and then through a personal message. Here is the personal message I sent you again.
Hello Mr. Williams. I had a simple question that I thought would be nice if you brought to light for everyone here. I quoted you and your excellent analysis of the audio, and was wanting to know the effects of wind speed and trajectory in this case. Would it or would it not play a big role as to your outcome on the analysis posted?

I am asking because if anyone else here plays golf then you should know that if the wind is blowing just a few miles per hour then you can usually here the guys/gals playing a few yards away on the next hole, they can't here you if the wind is blowing towards them if you are speaking at a normal tone, but you can hear them if you are downstream of the wind direction from them. Also, I noticed that it seems there is a little breeze maybe, hence the coats everyone is wearing too. I noticed the tree moving a bit, and the 4th clip (the full version) when the girl gets out of the car (4 min mark) her hair moves just a bit towards her right shoulder. Then when she reaches "the pisser" it seems to be towards her right shoulder as well. Now there is someone who lives in Jerusalem that posted that they are two different spots, so it seems that the locations can be validated. So if these teens filmed it from the side, then the two phone camera guys filmed towards let's say the rear of the object as opposed to the side, then it looks like the wind would be blowing in the right direction and the perspective factor are right . I'm not sure, anyone else see where I am going with this?
edit on 2-2-2011 by believerofgod because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by nakiannunaki
So what's the deal?

Hoax/No Hoax....

Please let me know asap so i can decide to keep reading or go to bed...

Thanks!


Off to bed for you. Looks like a hoax.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


hi zorgon
as a "old" timer i respect you take on all this lol
what is your opinion?

xploder



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
ell when a article gets here www.digitaljournal.com... i think has got to be some unexplained technology being used what do you think???



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Not that I don't believe this isn't a hoax based on the video analysis throughout this thread - to add some balance to the argument I have reviewed the movement of the object in both the 1st and 4th videos.

In the 1st video (south observation site), the object slowly moved left to right before going upward.
In the 4th video (north observation site), the object slowly moved right to left before going upward.

This and the apparent distances between the observation site and the reported locations is consistent.
So what has me perplexed is this - if the actual video is composited and essentially easy to debunk based on perspective it seems odd that the two match up so closely on the finer details (like timing and movement of the object) ....

The images inline to my google earth screencap are just before the object ascent.


edit on 2-2-2011 by digitalf because: typo







 
167
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join