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 Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

page: 101
216
<< 98  99  100    102  103  104 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 


That video you just posted only proves that the "object" when straight up and vertical. Wow you really found something interesting, as if we did not already know that the "object" when straight up.


Sir if you think that is what the presentation really proves, I am very sorry for you.

Let me educate you further, since you failed to read the last post that painstakingly was written just for you.

I'll make it as simple as I can without dying of simplicity.

UFO goes straight-

Background moves-

UFO is part of field of vision and fixed in time and space with relevance to background-

UFO's visible path doesn't move with background as camera shakes but continues to go straight.ignoring the shake.

MEANING THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for it to have been part of the observable scene unless it did a magic little jig to appear perfectly isync with the random jitter of camera.

Notice when everythig in the picture moves to the left? But not the UFO? That means its not part of the picture. It should move with the rest of the scene.

That is not open for debate or some theory. That is a hundred percent science and math and can not be argued.

The end.

Do you get that?

Let me gues...no?

I'm shocked...no really...tell David I hope he makes a little cash off this hoax before everyone involved is busted and dragged into the mud.

Ok Dave? I mean...Dude?

MM



edit on 5-2-2011 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2011 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 



I have looked at your analysis, its very weak and shady.


How is that exactly? Have you something valid to contribute in comparison yet?



I am following David Biedny's research and David Beidny calls this one (Not a Hoax) his experience in CGI is much more than yours.


How would you know about his experience vs mine? Several people have pointed out that it is indeed a hoax. people with "CGI" knowledge. Video experts, Audio engineers ect. You are only turning on def ears with selective attention to one side.



First of all this is the first video I can think of were a real UFO accelerated from 0 to (blazing speed) guessing 10,000 and it was video taped on a cellphone.


Can be easily done with CGI, that means it is no more tangible then an idea.


Your using 3rd generation Youtube video and not original video



The fakery is easily spotted with any of the the MPG/ MP4/ Flash youtube format. That format is the same format used when the user uploads it. As opposed to analog digital is the same. They used a digital camera and digital phone cam in digital format. Not done with a camcorder. When you say 'third generation" you sound silly.



Your evidence for a hoax is soo weak I can't even put it into words.


A limited vocabulary? Well for what it's worth nah nah nah nah boo boo to you too


To back up your claims "that this is hoax" you must provide more data than this.


The burden of proof is not in my hands, it is not my work. Im simply giving what information I have available to me.. ya know behind a computer. My input and analysis. Something you lack besides in saying "its real" in pretty weak if anything. David Beidny's work is a grain of salt in a sand box in comparison to the abundant debunking information available in this thread and abroad. You sound eerily similar to a certain hoaxer connected to this that was banned just before you arrived.

Just saying

edit on 5-2-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


There are downsides to conducting all your research behind a computer, and thinking that is all you have to do. There is much more to investigation.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   
The 'hoax crowd' are at least trying to supply some solid evidence why it's a hoax, all you're doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and going "not listening, it's real, it's real", without any evidence to back it up.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
reply to post by esteay812
 


Their vessted interests are that "UFOs cannot be real" they have not seen one therefore they cannot exsist. When a solid UFO video like this one comes forward they are so concerned that it might be legitimate, as this one appears to be, that they over reach and point out irellevant artifacts that "IN THEIR OWN MIND's EYE" according to them is evidence.

In other words they are looking for something to satisfy their believe. This time their believe is "THIS IS A HOAX"

The "this is a hoax" crowd is just as bad as the " true believer crowd"



I've seen 4 myself with my own eyes, 2 of which remain Unexplained.
My agenda is Facts, Evidence, Scientific Method - The Truth.

So what's my "vested interest?"


And what makes these video's "solid"?
Even for those sitting on the fence there is certainly plenty involved to at least raise a certain level of doubt.
Yet you seem to have the inside line that says there can be no doubt.
What is it you know that no-one else does?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
reply to post by esteay812
 


Their vessted interests are that "UFOs cannot be real" they have not seen one therefore they cannot exsist.


More poppycock.

UFOs are real, and anyone saying otherwise is as mislead, dishonest and/or delusional as someone saying "no evidence" stands to speculate this to be a hoax case.

MM



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


There are downsides to conducting all your research behind a computer, and thinking that is all you have to do. There is much more to investigation.


There are downsides to ignoring facts.

Facts that have been shoved in your face and painfully explained.

MM



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by esteay812
 


The goal and purpose of this thread according to these above posts is to DEBUNK this, or prove its a hoax. Basically that is the tone of this thread, I disagree with that approach.

I am responding to the frantic attempts to debunk it.

So far the evidence of a HOAX is very very weak.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Paradigm2012
 


I myself would be called a 'believer' by most standards. However, I like to get to the rock hard, bare-bones evidence that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that something like this could be real OR fake. It is so important to me, when concerning this topic, to be sure that the evidence is more than rock solid, because I want to see and know that what I believe is undeniably fact. Something that just doesn't hold water is not good enough.

Something that only holds 99% of a glass of water is not good enough. I want to have it be 100%. I am selfish that way.

So, I do not fault a skeptic, because I believe they are really believers as well. I believe they are looking for the real deal and most, if not all, of them just don't like seeing BS put off on people who want to believe in something like this, those who may not be such great critical thinkers or those who are brainwashed - they are definitely out there... if you are thinking you are not brainwashed, you probably are, haha, j/k

I am sure there are people on this site that have interests in seeing a hoax perpetuated and those who might go the opposite direction. As long as both parties will not accept anything but 100% fact as passable evidence then neither party is worse of by having the other one around. So long as each party doesn't try to take jabs at each other or develop a personal agenda against someone else....

Should be easy to work together, instead of having a verbal fist fight with someone, because they dis-agree. Would be easier to learn from them and if you feel they are wrong, pull apart their theory or evidence with facts.


edit on 5-2-2011 by esteay812 because: Classified



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Paradigm2012
 


I am very sorry to say I disagree with the observation that the evidence is weak that this is a hoax. It is not the best rock solid evidence ever put forth for a hoax, but it is decent evidence. Decent evidence for a hoax is better than weak evidence for truth. Which is exactly what there is for truth, weak evidence. The evidence for truth is made weak by the decent evidence for hoax, but this is just my opinion, I am not a scholar or an expert in this particular field.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by esteay812
reply to post by Paradigm2012
 


I am not a scholar or an expert in this particular field.


I am a scholar and pretty much an expert in this field. Im definitely not a "tyre kicker". I am completely satisfied it is a hoax



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
reply to post by esteay812
 


The goal and purpose of this thread according to these above posts is to DEBUNK this, or prove its a hoax. Basically that is the tone of this thread, I disagree with that approach.



Another lie...as stated in the OP of this thread, this thread is intended to investigate a case that has already become sensitive due to it being possibly attached to a know hoaxer.

Again...please keep up.

MM



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 


That video you just posted only proves that the "object" when straight up and vertical. Wow you really found something interesting, as if we did not already know that the "object" when straight up.


Sir if you think that is what the presentation really proves, I am very sorry for you.

Let me educate you further, since you failed to read the last post that painstakingly was written just for you.

I'll make it as simple as I can without dying of simplicity.

UFO goes straight-

Background moves-

UFO is part of field of vision and fixed in time and space with relevance to background-

UFO's visible path doesn't move with background as camera shakes but continues to go straight.ignoring the shake.

MEANING THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for it to have been part of the observable scene unless it did a magic little jig to appear perfectly isync with the random jitter of camera.

Notice when everythig in the picture moves to the left? But not the UFO? That means its not part of the picture. It should move with the rest of the scene.

That is not open for debate or some theory. That is a hundred percent science and math and can not be argued.

The end.

Do you get that?

Let me gues...no?

I'm shocked...no really...tell David I hope he makes a little cash off this hoax before everyone involved is busted and dragged into the mud.

Ok Dave? I mean...Dude?

MM



edit on 5-2-2011 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2011 by Mr Mask
because: (no reason given)


Thanks MM for explanation. So the interpretation is - the UFO is not composited on the picture! Or did I misinterpreted the other way?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
reply to post by esteay812
 


The goal and purpose of this thread according to these above posts is to DEBUNK this, or prove its a hoax. Basically that is the tone of this thread, I disagree with that approach.


You don't understand the reason behind debunking do you? We debunk what we can and whatever is left standing that remains unidentified and unexplained can then be considered as evidence depending on the circumstances. This is how things are solved by actually INVESTIGATING! lol


I am responding to the frantic attempts to debunk it.


You are the only one that is frantic and irate with name calling and lashing out every time someone provides evidence of a hoax.


So far the evidence of a HOAX is very very weak.


You call an apple an orange, it does not help your agenda rather you continue making an embarrassment of yourself. Stop lying to yourself will ya?





edit on 5-2-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by aemetta


Thanks MM for explanation. So the interpretation is - the UFO is not composited on the picture! Or did I misinterpreted the other way?


That is what the evidence presented is trying to prove, yes.

Of course, anyone can and will say "well digital cameras do weird stuff, like image lag".

But that can't cut it...again...and again...and again.

Its like I take four movies with a fairy in the background, but all four do not add up to representing an accurate three dimensional space by the laws of physics....and then saying- well an error happened in all four. In a way that said error normally doesn't happen. And its localized only on the fairy and the rest of the picture is fine.

The fairy isn't fake...the camera is confused...in all four cases...all four cameras...yknow...it happens. Digital lotto.

Yeah...anyways...yes, that is what the evidence in that area of the case is suggesting.

MM



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by pezza
 


Hi pezza. Do you mind if I ask what qualifies you as an expert in this field?

Also, didn't mean to imply I am not a scholar, but meant to imply I am not a scholar in this field, or expert by any means


edit on 5-2-2011 by esteay812 because: addition



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
reply to post by esteay812
 


The goal and purpose of this thread according to these above posts is to DEBUNK this, or prove its a hoax. Basically that is the tone of this thread, I disagree with that approach.

I am responding to the frantic attempts to debunk it.

So far the evidence of a HOAX is very very weak.


Unfortunately, even if you look at it from that angle, the evidence of these being REAL is even weaker.

I've said this numerous times. Out of all these vantage points, the only things that is consistent between all videos is the fact that its night, and the cameras are focus towards the sky, that's it

None of these videos, which are supposedly taken at the same time, have shown the ability to collaborate what each other is capturing.

Between video 1 and 2, theres audio discrepancies, flash of light discrepancies (video 1 shows 2 flashs, video 2 shows 3), missing lights (video 2 shows more lights on the ground than video 1). parallax problems, interlaced / progressive artifacts.

Video 4 you have video anomalies with the orb, the orb is not the same shape Oval with a cross of light vs Spherical

We got kids riding around at 1am with their dome light on, We got the FIRST witness that uploaded his video blatantly lieing about even recording it. ELIGAEL DIDN'T EVEN RECORD THE VIDEO

If any 1 of these faults stood alone, then you might be able to just chalk it up to something just not working how it should. But considering the fact that there is something out of the ordinary with each and every video, then add to the fact that it's been 7 days and the witnesses havent really spoken out about it (but are clearly online), the evidence isn't in the favor of this being a actual UFO encounter.

The validity of the posters that seem to knock every bit of evidence NEVER seem to have anything LOGICAL to back it up. There hasn't been a situation shown by the nay-sayers that goes "Hey, what your proposing isn't possible because of _________ and then a link to a video, or a link to a wiki page" that verifies why what was proposed was wrong.

For example, when I seen the webcam footage posted by FlySolo. I went to the webcams site and investigated. Since we was all speculating what was in the webcam video, FIRST we needed PROOF that the cam was even pointed in the direction, for all we know this could've been a video feed from China (exaggerating). Then after confirming that the light couldn't have been the same orb in the video because the camera isn't pointed in the direction, that's when I said "Hey look, heres proof, the camera wasn't pointed towards the dome, so it cant be the exact light". After this, we moved on.

That's how it needs to be done. But, certain people on here don't seem to employ this tactic, instead they speak on opinion alone as to WHY something can't be this way, or WHY something don't work that way, yet never include outside proof that backs this up.

Para, you are one of the many people that I am referring to. It seem's that your agenda is to distract us from providing as legitimate investigation and I feel that you personally have a vested interest in this being conceived as real, based on your blatant disregards of reason, your history of derailing conversations by rambling on about nothingness and your lack of providing any useful information towards either party.


The point is, for this being a supposedly "real" event collaborated by multiple people, at multiple locations using video / audio formats as evidence, nothing is actually being collaborated by the video / audio evidence, except that all cameras was looking towards the sky, and that it was night time when it was filmed. These 2 things are the only TRUE FACTS we have

Simple as that

edit on 5-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   
About the third video that is so obvious fake.

Since it's so extremely bad so that even stupid people can see it's fake and also the fact that it is this video that is shown on mainstream media, such as ABC and others, doesn't that show that there is a clear disinfo campaign against the original videos? Why would they bother with this disinfo if the original videos are fake?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
There are many things that are adding up on this thread that could easily make this turn into a split decision in favor of Hoax. I do believe, before the match is over there will be a definitive knock out blow by Hoax on Real.

I mean, there are just too many big questions that are left without a solid answers and anyone of those answers could completely discredit these videos. Not many of the answers could prove it to be 100% real.

I personally do wish the course of this thread had displayed different results and we were going in a direction of identifying the craft in the video. Wouldn't that be awesome?!

Just wonder how long it has to go before a TKO is declared?
edit on 5-2-2011 by esteay812 because: Punctuation



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shades1035
About the third video that is so obvious fake.

Since it's so extremely bad so that even stupid people can see it's fake and also the fact that it is this video that is shown on mainstream media, such as ABC and others, doesn't that show that there is a clear disinfo campaign against the original videos? Why would they bother with this disinfo if the original videos are fake?


While I did notice this scenario in SOME of the reports (not every news report ONLY showed the fake one) (and find it odd), it's most likely because this video was brighter, clear, show more detail in the environment / location (the dome is closest to the camera in that video) and the object is bigger.

My gut says they just chose that because it was the best looking footage, not because of how convincing it is for the 5 seconds it would be flashed on screen.



new topics

top topics



 
216
<< 98  99  100    102  103  104 >>

log in

join