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: 75
167
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ashtrei
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater isnt logical imo.


I agree, when I read the moderator note in the OP I thought the youtube account of video #1 was somehow connected to the banned website.




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Well, the 3rd and 4th video, with the american tourists speaking is obviously a hoax. Even an amateur can see it looks fake.

But what about the original, recorded with 2 cell phone cameras? If you believe in conspiratorial, and you probably do because you're viewing this thread, you might think the 3rd and 4th video was made to discredit the original video.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
1. Just because the camera shake could be replicated by a program does not mean it's a hoax.


Wrong, I am NOT saying that, you got it backwards. I am saying that a human can not replicate the shake you see in the video. They would have to be a robot.


Originally posted by JPhish
2. Pretty sure there are cameras that function like that.


There is no difference between digital zoom on a camera, and digital zoom in a video editor....


Originally posted by JPhish
3. Just because the lightning can be replicated does not mean it's a hoax.


The lighting is not even real.... The fact that a computer which has fake lighting techniques could replicate the video lighting proves the video is closer to being fake than real.



Originally posted by JPhish
The video is either

A. Real
B. Inconclusive
C. A Hoax


The video is C. With out a doubt.

I am telling you now... I am making a prediction, and my predictions are never wrong. In the future you will find out this is an elaborate hoax, and you will be amazed that you didn't see it right from the start



Originally posted by JPhish
You have to find things that are impossible or wrong, not things that can be replicated.


The camera shake is impossible and wrong...



Originally posted by JPhish
I did however just realize something that may make this a hoax.

The apparent darkness of the dome after the UFO ascends seems WAY too dark.

I'd have to compare it to other pictures of the dome at night though.

Off to work for now . . . looking forward to updates in this thread when i return.


Now you are catching on... the entire top of the dome is fake.
edit on 2-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Well, the 3rd and 4th video, with the american tourists speaking is obviously a hoax. Even an amateur can see it looks fake.

But what about the original, recorded with 2 cell phone cameras? If you believe in conspiracy theories, and you probably do because you're viewing this thread, you might think the 3rd and 4th video was made to discredit the original video.
edit on 2-2-2011 by Shades1035 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by gmax111
 


gmax... the flash effect was layered on top of everything.... That is why light is on top of the guy, wall, etc.... some reason the missed the tree.


THIS IS CRAP..

Its called Diffraction of Light..



Diffraction of Light light bending around an object Diffraction is the slight bending of light as it passes around the edge of an object. The amount of bending depends on the relative size of the wavelength of light to the size of the opening. If the opening is much larger than the light's wavelength, the bending will be almost unnoticeable. However, if the two are closer in size or equal, the amount of bending is considerable, and easily seen with the naked eye.

Source: ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu...





posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by gmax111
 


Uh, yes. Thanks for proving you don't know anything about physics...

I think you need to Google diffraction a few more times then come back after reading at least for about 5 hours.
edit on 2-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Mr. Mask, I hope you did not miss my post as I would really love to see you produce something in this thread besides your "100% fact" type of opinions..

www.abovetopsecret.com...



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

Originally posted by Shades1035
Well, the 3rd and 4th video, with the american tourists speaking is obviously a hoax. Even an amateur can see it looks fake.

But what about the original, recorded with 2 cell phone cameras? If you believe in conspiratorial, and you probably do because you're viewing this thread, you might think the 3rd and 4th video was made to discredit the original video.

Hmm as videos start to surface it does make you wonder. Video 3 was terrible, doesn't even have the flashes, Video 4 on the other hand, if hoaxed, is much better than the previous 2 imo. I think some of the debunking of video 4 related to digital zoom over optical zoom, this is believable in camera phones that don't often have an optical zoom capability. Reviewing Video 4 in slow motion is even more interesting, if cgi is responsible someone really did take their time with attention to detail, lighting, camera shake, positioning of the object in relation to the described observation location and the flash has lots of realism. Personally I think no.4 is a professional showing the hoxers of 1 & 2 how it's really done =)



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

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy

Originally posted by JPhish
1. Just because the camera shake could be replicated by a program does not mean it's a hoax.


Wrong, I am NOT saying that, you got it backwards. I am saying that a human can not replicate the shake you see in the video. They would have to be a robot.


Originally posted by JPhish
2. Pretty sure there are cameras that function like that.


There is no difference between digital zoom on a camera, and digital zoom in a video editor....


Originally posted by JPhish
3. Just because the lightning can be replicated does not mean it's a hoax.


The lighting is not even real.... The fact that a computer which has fake lighting techniques could replicate the video lighting proves the video is closer to being fake than real.



Originally posted by JPhish
The video is either

A. Real
B. Inconclusive
C. A Hoax


The video is C. With out a doubt.

I am telling you now... I am making a prediction, and my predictions are never wrong. In the future you will find out this is an elaborate hoax, and you will be amazed that you didn't see it right from the start



Originally posted by JPhish
You have to find things that are impossible or wrong, not things that can be replicated.


The camera shake is impossible and wrong...



Originally posted by JPhish
I did however just realize something that may make this a hoax.

The apparent darkness of the dome after the UFO ascends seems WAY too dark.

I'd have to compare it to other pictures of the dome at night though.

Off to work for now . . . looking forward to updates in this thread when i return.


Now you are catching on... the entire top of the dome is fake.
edit on 2-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)


Patiently awaiting for your response to my last reply. Seeing as how you are still stick on it, reply to mine now please. One more question: what proof is it that brought you to your finally conclusion on the first 2 clips if you don't mind me asking, I mean the final straw that broke the camel's back for you?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask

Originally posted by Ashtrei

Wasnt that long ago you were stating as absolute fact that the wall was the same wall in clips one/two and four.
But one has a black hand rail (which i think shows in the flash) the other doesnt


No hand rail is seen in any clip involved with these UFO clips.

And I did not say it was a fact that both walls are the same.

I said they are similar and alike. But also said I would'nt stake my entire case on it and find that to be side evidence.



We have seen daytime footage of the walls from the north and south locations, they dont match.
If the flash is showing the handrail (as the daytime footage shows is there) then we are seeing two different walls in the first and fourth videos.
But youve been saying its the same wall........................


Do you hear me when I tell you I don't think they were where this new member says they were?

Do you understand me when I am telling you I think they used faked background clips to put under the foreground clips?

If they were in that area "for real" wouldn't they just film the Temple Mount?

What I am assuming is they filmed this far away from the Temple Mount, somewhere near or in Jerusalem and then placed clips and pictures under a foreground.

This could have been filmed at the park in my town for all I know.

You really don't get what I getting at, or are you messen with ol Masky? Seriously...are you?

MM


I think its you who is being delibertly obtuse here masky.

These daytime vids are independant of your suspicions re: the new poster





now you say


- the actors in clip one are standing in front of the wall that is in clip 5


and again


has those dishonest goons jumping out the car to take a leak near the exact same wall in clip one.


compare those words of yours with this


And I did not say it was a fact that both walls are the same


Hmmmmmmmm.....................

now those two daylight clips are independant of this matter, and one shows a black metal handrail, in the gif posted earlier as the flash goes off you can see a black line above the rock wall, i contend its likely (given the independant daylight clip shows this metail rail) that that line is the very same rail.

When we look at the full version of the car clip we see the wall matches the independant daylight footage.

i dont think this statement


to take a leak near the exact same wall in clip one


Holds up when the data is reviewed




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



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by DakmindAK
 


I can't keep up with the amount of replies, but there were various mentions in the media, none of them showed too much research, mainly about the buzz on the internet, for example:
www.mako.co.il...
news.nana10.co.il...
net.nana10.co.il...
www.nrg.co.il...

In the first one the reporter said they spoke with the creator of the movie who confirmed it's a fake. But they didn't say which one (they showed mainly #3).
In the last one there's a response by a woman who says she saw the flashes but didn't pay too much attention to it because she was tired. (comment #143)

And so am I. good night!



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by believerofgod

Originally posted by believerofgod

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)


For the record and for everyone here can you please answer this question for me Mr. Debo?


This is now the fifth time Mr. Debo, if you are looking from the outside in please come back and answer my question concerning the wind in this case. You know you have a ton of people convinced because of your analysis, however I don't think you have covered all the areas of it. My observation being the wind factor.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by haketem
reply to post by DakmindAK
 


I can't keep up with the amount of replies, but there were various mentions in the media, none of them showed too much research, mainly about the buzz on the internet, for example:
www.mako.co.il...
news.nana10.co.il...
net.nana10.co.il...
www.nrg.co.il...

In the first one the reporter said they spoke with the creator of the movie who confirmed it's a fake. But they didn't say which one (they showed mainly #3).
In the last one there's a response by a woman who says she saw the flashes but didn't pay too much attention to it because she was tired. (comment #143)

And so am I. good night!


Thanks Haketem, youve been very helpful today, personally i found your input valuable



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Hmmm, seems gift0fpr0phesy has left the building without answering my observations and I'm still waiting on DeboWilliams to show back up. Oh well, in my opinion there has been no conclusive evidence as to this being a hoax on the 3 clips in question. I will patiently await the response of the two who seem to have it down and pleasure myself to some casino action since I am in a city that allows such play. Be back later.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by gmax111
 


Uh, yes. Thanks for proving you don't know anything about physics...

I think you need to Google detraction a few more times then come back after reading at least for about 5 hours.


What are you talking about?? detraction?

Here is the definition straight from harvard.edu


diffraction The ability that waves have to bend around corners. The diffraction of light establishes its nature as a wave.

Source: chandra.harvard.edu...

Oh wow, go figure.. I think you need to google how to spell diffraction so you can understand it..



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by believerofgod
 


You quite obviously didn't watch the video.....

I hate when people reply without watching the video...


One of the best posts in the entire thread, and worthy of being a signature in itself!

I laughed.

MM




Do you really? I don't think it was in least bit.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by gmax111
 


Actually what you caught was a typing error which was auto changed by the spell checker built into my browser. I changed it long before you posted, but you seemed to have cross posted it.

Good for you, you can catch spelling mistakes...

Now, would you like me to school you on what diffraction is? Or are you going to learn before you speak?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Well it's seems as though there is still a lot to debate.

So can we have this thread removed from the hoax section until it is completely 100% proven to be either real or hoaxed?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by believerofgod

Do you really? I don't think it was in least bit.


I'm sorry... you're right. I have a horrible sense of humor.

MM



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Namaste1001
 
ats are doing a good good, i only saw this vid once, and knew straight away it was a hoax.
obvious hoax's dont deserve debates.
pls use squishy grey stuff between ears...



new topics

top topics



 
167
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join