UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

Epic thread, Mask. I'm jealous.

S+F!

Someone just informed me that the "mirror image" is actually a hotel and that it is a real image?

I just checked and you can to, that hotel is at that exact spot.
Go to google maps , type in Armon hanatziv-then look for yemin Moshe-then confrim that the windmill is in the Yemin Moshe-also bear in mind that the view of the old city from Armon hanatziv is the side . Then i checked Google and it is exactly there. You thought-what could the chances of a structure so symetrical be on the edge of a video you a sure is hoax. That is curse of Hynek. And that should be a lesson that sometimes things are not as you swear you think they might be

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8ee57cfe9799.jpg[/atsimg]

Thoughts anyone?





WE may be wrong after all.

I still have yet to see any true empirical evidence in the posts to suggest this is fake. The many attempts fail to understand the millions of anomalies when you do not take into account the hundreds of camera and processing peculiarities, cross-platform, video card to screen ratios and supporting formats, cross-app and processing lossy algorithmic video application codecs and their analogs.


Real investigation demands:

Locations on maps for each camera.
Type, model and conditions of each camera.
Lens configuration, augmented lens shades or shutter types.
Interview of each camera person and witnesses in proximity.
Weather ambient temp. Cloud and relative humidity.
Local radar targets during exact time index. Tower chatter with incoming/outgoing flight personnel.
Military statement of aircraft activity for the area.
Witnesses at the Mosque and surrounding area statements.
Plus several other channels of data to corroborate.

Remember what your conclusions are saying. You are calling a maybe innocent good person a lier. You are saying UFOs are real or not. Can you be responsible for your mistakes. Is anyone that good and infallible?

What I see here is the equivalent of dismissing people here as fake based on spelling errors, non standard statements, no certified investigative credentials. Proof of training and years of working in video with many cameras, applications, formats and embedded technical processing in hardware and OS understandings are needed, and takes a team in most cases. Anyone? I know a couple fellow F.I.'s I trust.

It's good practice what you all are doing, but many conclusions are based on no actual understanding of details or contexts that I can see are not yet considered or even as yet recognized.

Also, without the original camera plugged into a professional video workstation and fed directly without in-line processing to a spectral analyzer and video scope waveform window to confirm signal integrity, hundreds if not thousands of things can account for the little errors you see in this video. Even the overlay showing an assumed horizon is a big mistake for anyone knowing perspective and distortion from a line of sight and lenticular survey. If you do not have relative altitudes and GPS or approximate positions, all assumptions are just that. Assumptions.

Science does not allow assumptive data. That is called Qualitative Data.

I begged ATS years ago to allow large formats of original files. The individual camera person must be contacted and convinced to allow receipt and modification with an NDA and copyright allowance.

Saying to all the world, not just the ATS audience, that this is a hoax or faked is pretty premature without any of the data above listed at all. Fun to play otherwise though. Like playing army with no real threat of danger so we can pretend to be captains and generals who are the heroes. In this subject, and for this venue, that is inappropriate behavior however if you truly Deny Ignorance.

Welcome to the great teacher called HUMILITY.

This teaches us to not take ourselves too seriously. We need to check data against other data and be fastidious about the details. otherwise you are doing a great disservice to general awareness and knowledge.

Bearing false witness is a big negative in many ideological and official standards held by most civilized and even aboriginal cultures throughout history. So when you say "THIS IS A HOAX" you had better have better evidence. If you can't get it, you can't say one way or another with any certainty at all.

You can have an opinion, impression or even an internal certainty based on whatever. but in reality, we need much more to say anything else at all.

Go look through the MUFON database. Read the FI reports, or if you can find real investigative manuals look at how rigorous the demand for data is. Copies or non-original video is inadmissible evidence period. Any conclusions derived from video file copies are not viable until duplicated efforts achieve same results with the actual original video.

Hey, science is a bitch. Like reality.

There are mathematical probabilities we can sense by being trained observers, but that only gets you to the commit to do the science.

I think (sense) there is a 70-80% probability of this being a true case of an unknown. Being unknown is not proof by any means, but the best you can hope for in a UFO case study is UNKNOWN.

I'll say again, ATS is not the place to prove or disprove anything. Discussion might however lead to real value for pointing research viable directions.

Have fun, but let's not take ourselves that seriously until good science is applied.

ZG

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
Someone just informed me that the "mirror image" is actually a hotel and that it is a real image?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8ee57cfe9799.jpg[/atsimg]

Wow! I was just about to leave this thread for good after the symmetry issue...I mean what are the chances that there would be something symmetrical in the horizon in this footage and it be real. Now can anyone confirm it is in the right location?

reply to post by Unknown Soldier


IT LIVES!!!!!!!

What about the fact that there's more than just the building being mirrored?
What about the mirrored images on the other sides of the video?

If this gets moved back to the Aliens/UFO board I'm turning in my membership card.

reply to post by ZeroGhost


Zer0,
You have made more sense to me than anyone else on this forum. If this forum had 100 more members like you, it would do us all good. These three videos deserve and warrant a scientific study just as you outlined. I just hope someone with the money and resources puts together a team to analyse the videos, as the implications of the videos are quite large...if proven authentic. Zer0, thank you for attempting to bring this discussion back to sanity.

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
reply to post by Unknown Soldier

 

IT LIVES!!!!!!!

What about the fact that there's more than just the building being mirrored?
What about the mirrored images on the other sides of the video?

If this gets moved back to the Aliens/UFO board I'm turning in my membership card.

Mmm yes that is true.


This could just be someone looking for symmetrical buildings in that area. Making sure this corpse does not have a heart beat if you know what I mean

reply to post by Unknown Soldier


So a reason for the "identical" statement was true to the fraction of an inch in the structure, but categorically wrong in the assumption it was due to digital modification.

I thought of other reasons besides digital manipulation too so dismissed the seemingly clear evidence of modification. Like for instance, lens sunshade or barrel material being too reflective due to wear or hand oil regularizing the usually flat anodized metal and making a smooth enough surface for a direct reflection. And that is just one consideration I had.

I'm telling everyone, many such mistakes are possible. Many too many to draw any conclusions for any proof of anything.

Start looking for information on cameras and people involved. Forget conclusions. We are many nautical miles from anything we can call proof or fake.


ZG

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
reply to post by Unknown Soldier

 

I thought of other reasons besides digital manipulation too so dismissed the seemingly clear evidence of modification. Like for instance, lens sunshade or barrel material being too reflective due to wear or hand oil regularizing the usually flat anodized metal and making a smooth enough surface for a direct reflection. And that is just one consideration I had.


ZG

Rofl I'm sorry to put out a 1 liner, but did you just official refer to swamp gases?

reply to post by DeboWilliams




Not really. Funny. No swamps in the city, but who knows. I saw a ski slope in Saudi Arabia, and tasty waves in a Japan public pool.

ZG

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
reply to post by DeboWilliams

 

Not really. Funny. No swamps in the city, but who knows. I saw a ski slope in Saudi Arabia, and tasty waves in a Japan public pool.

ZG

There does seem to be a lot of people, skilled and otherwise who are anxious to put this thing to bed. Maybe it's time to go back and look at the original video as first posted.

Now, take a look at this picture. And notice it is the exact same perspective and vantage point as the background of the clip. Now before you say "no its not" I am sitting here looking at it on a transparent layer, hooked up over the UFO clip's background, and they are identical in perspective, shape and the majority of all the lights are there (with some removed near the lower part of the frame and a couple added as well.)

Picture is Here

Now, right now I am trying to find a way to fade that picture into a transparent layer that disappears over the background of this clip and turn that into a little movie.

I am using the long grid of lights on the left of the temple, and the double set of long lighted walls on the right of the man's head in the ufo clip.

Everything matches up perfectly.

I actually dismissed this picture as being the source image days ago due t a few lights actually missing or a few there that are not there in the UFO clip. But the rest aligns perfectly.

Meaning, they removed and added a couple points of light and used this pic (the number one first pic to show up in any search engine when you search "Temple Mount night")

OR

These kids accidently filmed a UFO in the exact same perspective shot from the same vantage place as the most popular picture of temple at mount at night on the entire net.

Now notice...that hotel is not in the picture of this skyline where it is said to be in the UFO clip.

Can anyone layer these and transition them to see this?

Taking the two pics, the one above, and this one HERE

A little resizing and matching key points of the pictures will plainly show you this is either the exact (to the very perspective as the UFO clip) same vantage point...or more likely, the actual picture that was used to falsify the background.


Further more, anyone notice that exactly at 55 seconds into clip one, right when the UFO leaves, above the man's left wrist a light almost identical to the UFO also leaves the scene? At the exact same moment the UFO leaves?


Anyways...interested in anyone confirming this.

PS- that shot, even if not used as the background (I suspect it totally is) still shows the exact vantage point with exact perspective. Notice...no hotel.

PSS- also, the mirroring effect also happens at the bottom of the screen (as first displayed by laymenskeptic) and shows itself by mirroring the blue city light near the man's left arm after the UFO leaves.

Again, interested in other's thoughts.

MM

mmm compelling evidence and arguments for both sides

Originally posted by Mr Mask
Further more, anyone notice that exactly at 55 seconds into clip one, right when the UFO leaves, above the man's left wrist a light almost identical to the UFO also leaves the scene? At the exact same moment the UFO leaves?

I just noticed that too. It's like someone down there turned out a light or something.

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
Someone just informed me that the "mirror image" is actually a hotel and that it is a real image?

I just checked and you can to, that hotel is at that exact spot.
Go to google maps , type in Armon hanatziv-then look for yemin Moshe-then confrim that the windmill is in the Yemin Moshe-also bear in mind that the view of the old city from Armon hanatziv is the side . Then i checked Google and it is exactly there. You thought-what could the chances of a structure so symetrical be on the edge of a video you a sure is hoax. That is curse of Hynek. And that should be a lesson that sometimes things are not as you swear you think they might be

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8ee57cfe9799.jpg[/atsimg]

Thoughts anyone?

WE may be wrong after all.

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

Damn it I've spent literally most of the day looking for an image like this because I've noticed so much symmetry matching the "mirrored image" in the architecture around jerusalem. LOL good job.

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
I still have yet to see any true empirical evidence in the posts to suggest this is fake. The many attempts fail to understand the millions of anomalies when you do not take into account the hundreds of camera and processing peculiarities, cross-platform, video card to screen ratios and supporting formats, cross-app and processing lossy algorithmic video application codecs and their analogs.

Actually common and uncommon anomolies have been taken in account. But people keep referencing the basic idea of "digital anomolies" and assuming them to be able to perform magic tricks that they cant.

Like mirroring entire sides of a city and reversing them to fill space.

And separating a foreground and background intelligently and moving them within "legitimate" perspective plains that do not correspond to each other.

As well as saying things like image lag can make interlaced video appear side by side near progressive video.

Another impossible thing...things we have had experts and vide champs plainly demonstrate.

Real investigation demands:

Locations on maps for each camera.

Type, model and conditions of each camera.

Lens configuration, augmented lens shades or shutter types.

Interview of each camera person and witnesses in proximity.

Weather ambient temp. Cloud and relative humidity.

Local radar targets during exact time index. Tower chatter with incoming/outgoing flight personnel.

Military statement of aircraft activity for the area.

Witnesses at the Mosque and surrounding area statements.

Plus several other channels of data to corroborate.

Real footage demands perspective plains to obey the law. This is not wobble...this is not image lag...it is TWO perfectly defined plates , intelligently separated, with the lights in the city going BEHIND the foreground intelligently without ever blurring together or losing their integrity.

In fact, wobble is plainly seen in the foreground but magically cuts off and stops at the boarder of the foreground, never interacting with or tamping with the background. The background has no wobble at all. Yet the foreground does. And this wobble STOPS at the boarder of the foreground.

Remember what your conclusions are saying. You are calling a maybe innocent good person a lier. You are saying UFOs are real or not. Can you be responsible for your mistakes. Is anyone that good and infallible?

UFOs are real.

Also nobody has said they are not.

We are calling a liar a liar. There is no way this footage is legitimate due to the evidence provided. I'm sorry you think mentioning anomalies happen in video smehw makes yu think that disputes all that has been proven here in the past 4 days.

What I see here is the equivalent of dismissing people here as fake based on spelling errors, non standard statements, no certified investigative credentials.

REALLY?

What I see here is some person with no evidence, just a little jib to push and some hopeful talk that has n chance of even beginning to deal with the empirical evidence shown thus far.

Proof of training and years of working in video with many cameras, applications, formats and embedded technical processing in hardware and OS understandings are needed, and takes a team in most cases. Anyone? I know a couple fellow F.I.'s I trust.

I think between all involved we have over 200 years worth of camera use.

We have professional programmers, sound engineers and experts in CGI effects here as well.

And you are what?

It's good practice what you all are doing, but many conclusions are based on no actual understanding of details or contexts that I can see are not yet considered or even as yet recognized.

You just had programers show you how it was done, as well as show you the mistakes that were made.

You JUST SAW interlaced video elements side by side with progressive video...do you know what that means?

No? Well g back and learn...or research it. It means tampering has taken place.

Also, without the original camera plugged into a professional video workstation and fed directly without in-line processing to a spectral analyzer and video scope waveform window to confirm signal integrity, hundreds if not thousands of things can account for the little errors you see in this video.

Wrong...you can prove this video tampered with with nothing more then an overly keen ear or a decent understanding of perspective.

You can also judge the exact distance to a star in the eighteen hundreds ding the same...without electricty, and without flaw.

Math tells all sorts of things...would you argue ballistics as well?

Even the overlay showing an assumed horizon is a big mistake for anyone knowing perspective and distortion from a line of sight and lenticular survey. If you do not have relative altitudes and GPS or approximate positions, all assumptions are just that. Assumptions.

NOW you have hit where I feel I am very apt at saying personally "wrong".

Perspective doesn't lie and is as exact as any math. You can use it to locate where mars will be forty years from now. You can use it to tell how tall a mountain is with a stick and one eye, as long as you take one step forward or backward. Accurately and down to the footage.

Maybe it is "you" who misunderstands these things, and not those trying to teach them to you?

Science does not allow assumptive data. That is called Qualitative Data.

Science accepts perspective law as an absolute.

It can be used to convict a man to death.

It can not be wrong...its perspective law. Its physics and it governs all space and time.

Saying to all the world, not just the ATS audience, that this is a hoax or faked is pretty premature without any of the data above listed at all.

Wow...you really have no idea what just took place here...do you?

Fun to play otherwise though. Like playing army with no real threat of danger so we can pretend to be captains and generals who are the heroes. In this subject, and for this venue, that is inappropriate behavior however if you truly Deny Ignorance.

Its a lot more fun then pretending you know something you obviously do not.

I wouldn't trust you with a map, never mind an investigation if you think things like intergrated video elements can appear with progressive film, or that perspective law has sme sort of loops holes to it.

No offence...but this is why experts and peope with understanding of the evidence are being called in, and the case isn't just trusted to someone who says "nope, nothing can be confirmed here at all, nope".

ALL EVIDENCE needed to see a hoax is here and can be proven...one needs only to have the knowledge and skills to do so.

You seem to have...none of those?

Welcome to the great teacher called HUMILITY.

And a big howdy-doo to quackery, I see.

This teaches us to not take ourselves too seriously. We need to check data against other data and be fastidious about the details. otherwise you are doing a great disservice to general awareness and knowledge.

Riiiiight...you seem very concerned with checking data and evidence.

Can you explain why the video shows direct signs of tampering on multiple levels?

Bearing false witness is a big negative in many ideological and official standards held by most civilized and even aboriginal cultures throughout history.

I agree...hence why you should right now stop doing that. But feel free to continue, its your right to invent flowery concepts that do nothing to sway the facts at hand.

So when you say "THIS IS A HOAX" you had better have better evidence.

Better evidence then seeing impossible anomolies that can not exisit within this vide other then digital altering for the sound and images? Ok...sure...should we go for magic? Or do we need to contact aliens first and ask them?

No...I think what is needed, is for you to d what I did...weigh the evidence, research what these people have said, and see if its true. You will find a wealth of information all over the net dealing with film and photography as well as physics and "logic", to prove to you that you are barking up an invisible tree.

You can have an opinion, impression or even an internal certainty based on whatever. but in reality, we need much more to say anything else at all.

YOU need more then proof. Because proof seems not enough to you.

I wonder what it means when proof is not good enough for you?

It means you are lazy...you can verify everything these guys have said easy. But you don't and allow your absence of knowledge be your proof that the prof is not real.

Sounds um...bad.

Go look through the MUFON database.

Ha...MUFON...I almost fell off my chair.

I thought this was about legitimate research and facts...not MUFON.

Hey, science is a bitch. Like reality.

How would you know? You seem to keep a fair distance from such a concept as science.

There are mathematical probabilities we can sense by being trained observers, but that only gets you to the commit to do the science.

Wow...you don't get it do you? You want to lecture people who just showed you MATH and SCIENCE, while you belittle both.

I think (sense) there is a 70-80% probability of this being a true case of an unknown. Being unknown is not proof by any means, but the best you can hope for in a UFO case study is UNKNOWN.

Holy crap...really?

Wow...then I think there is a 200% chance that you don't know a damn thing about anything being discussed here. Just my opinion....sorry.

I'll say again, ATS is not the place to prove or disprove anything.

THE HELL ITS NOT. Dear God...I see how you roll.

Its a shame really...we are here to deny ignorance...not make love to it and help it spread.

Discussion might however lead to real value for pointing research viable directions.

Not if we all continue forward how you are here. If we did what you are doing, hell we would all be worshiping digital effects created in After-Effects with bad parallax problems and integrated effects on top of progressive video. Man...this site would SUCK THEN.

Thank god for people who know your way of thinking is not only wrong, but absolutely debunkable.

Have fun, but let's not take ourselves that seriously until good science is applied.

Haahahahah...science eh? Like the science you just dropped on folks who are experts in the technologies that they are systematically showing you is behind this hoax?

Or should we wait for Steven Hawkin to talk to us directly?

Naw...don't answer...you are wrong.

Thanks for your time...I do not value your false insights and find much of what you just typed sickening to the "science lover inside me".

Good luck out there.

MM

reply to post by pharaohmoan


it was satan...hahahahaha

There is actually a ton of symmetry around the city look at several pictures taken from Armon HaNatziv, there's twin buildings side by side, there's buildings that make up visual pyramids, groupings of same size buildings etc...case not closed imo and it shouldn't be in the hoax forums

Originally posted by QuantumDisciple


I just noticed that too. It's like someone down there turned out a light or something.

That is possible.

But right now I'm working on trying to make a transitioning vid to show this background is that picture to the very tee.

In fact, I'm sure the hoaxers are seeing this and saying "bout time guys, we only used the two most famous pics of temple mount online for clips one two and three"

I want to see just one of these supposed? video experts on ATS come even merely close to creating a video hoax that could match or surpass this video footage.

they cant...none of them...because its REAL

also because none of them are experts ....snip





[Mod Edit - snipped name calling]

Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory