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: 112
216
<< 109  110  111    113  114  115 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Well, so far this thread has made my head spin.... and now it hurts since I've had to bang my head on my desk due to the disappearing reply box.


Seriously though, there is some pretty good work though guys and gals, some pretty stellar (and less than such) debate here so far.. many good points raised.

Now, where was I?
Ahh, yes... since the debate still rages on about the possibility of audio tampering, I thought I'd chime in here since I'm familiar with many aspects of audio recording, editing etc. Being that there are a few skilled individuals here working on that, I feel comfortable to ask: What about doing a frequency analysis on #1 and #2?
While it might not be conclusive evidence of forgery in the audio department, it should... in theory tell us a little more about what lies in those audio files and whether one source was used to record the audio. Let me explain:
(I'll try to keep it simple)
It's a fact, no two different microphones will record exactly the same frequencies... it's a little difficult to explain but to put it into layman terms, all mics have what could be called a "sonic fingerprint" just the same as every person's voice is different, each of which contains certain things that make it unique. Follow me yet?

It should be fairly simple to sync both of the audio files, and run a frequency analysis on them... which would tell if they were recorded by the same input mic and circuitry... sounds simple huh? For fun, you could save that readout as a jpg screenshot to overlay them with a difference layer in photoshop... just to backcheck it.

It's possible, that during the frequency analysis there will be large differences in both files... I've yet to do it, but I'd suspect that will be the case. That does not necessarily mean that both audio files were recorded on different sources, it could have been post treated with equalization. That is where it really gets complex and hard to nail... and so far outside the realm that I think it's a job better left to forensics guys with supercomputers like the no-such.

Debo has a solid point that I can understand, editing wise... I won't say that I agree with it, since I haven't even attempted to duplicate it. But, I say thanks for his contribution to the thread here. Is audio manipulation conclusive evidence of a hoax? Maybe, maybe not... but it has it's weight.

Too many known unknowns....
Rant off.
T-




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask
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 thee 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






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

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

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

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

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


The 55 seconds thing looks like no more than the guy in front obscuring a light. Quite frankly, and without reference to you, this thread and and also it's earlier origins have been messed about so much here at ATS, I think it safer to look at how other forums have dealt with it. There is even a post here somewhere. which supposedly shows the original video, with the UFO descending to the dome, stopping, then taking a dog leg to the right??



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
HAs anyone seen the 5th release of this vid. its actually done really well



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Has anyone analyzed the the red lights in Utah and compared them to the red lights of the Jerusalem VID? Curios if any similarities or discrepancies have been discovered. Would that be good place to also receive some extensive research , sense both have shared the same red light phenomena. What are they? Flares, Et's paratroopers, ship, new military distraction techniques_or?
edit on 5-2-2011 by mtnshredder because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Yes sir, I also agree the light at 55 is not conclusive, but I wanted t point it out.

What "is" pretty impressive to me right now is the fact that I think I located the source image for the background.

I would really like to collaborate with a photoshop/video guy here on skype if possible in the next two hours at some time to explain my findings and get a peer review on what I have here on my desk...as well as see if anyone can present it in video form if they also agree its really the same pic.

MM



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask
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"



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


It is quite distubing to me what you call a "fact" and what you are "sure" of.

I really wish you would learn the meaning of fact and opinion.

I find your opinion of to seperate plains, a separate foreground and background, completely asinine. Do you realize the amount of work and money it would imply? Do you understand how compositing works? The size of Chroma screen needed to make this look halfway decent with such crap cameras? The lighting it takes to even light a screen that big? How far the screen would need to be from any of the foreground so it doesn't get contaminated?

Let me ask you this. If this is two separate images that are overlayed, which one is a fake image? Was the foreground shot on a stage with a green screen behind it? Or was the green screen erected at the real foreground site to cover the city? Please tell me how you see this being done becuase now your entering my area of expertise.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
"ding ding ding"

Confirmation...I just solved the false image background by recreating from the UFO clip the background from the pic I mentioned a few posts ago.

That pic is no dubt the background used for the UFO clip.

Its over.

I shall now work on a way to display that in my crappy photoshop ways.

Give me time to make the vid...or I bet smewhere someoone else will do it based on my info thus far.

BACK GROUND IS BUSTED and NO there is NO hotel there.







MM



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by QuantumDisciple
 


Sir...facts have been presented.

And now I have factual proof they used the still pic noted.

Its so simple I dunno why I didn't find this pic earlier...I just assumed "video dude, your lost, you aint video.comn Mask, what you know about after effects?"...the answer was in photoshop...

Soo guess what...we proved it was a phoney paralallax due to a false background...but people said no.

We proved it was interlaced effects over progressive....people said...huh...wha?

Now I will show you that the background is a still pic, further proving both prior PROVEN FACTS to be proven.

Anyways...get this...another fact is coming now that ends it all.

Showing that all these things told to you to be facts...are....and producing the false background perfectly on the money showing they used that picture...is the final kick this pig can take.

Its done...once I figure out how to go about making the movie to show it...or after one of the movie guys says "hey dude, we know you are a lil slow, lemmie help ya there".

Either way...done.

MM



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



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Guys, I think I have the final conclusive proof!!

Pay attention to how this chick says "IS THAT A UFO"

HERE


We've seen em in Mississippi like this.. But never like this


Ey guys, I was just watching that part a few times and it literately had me in tears

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



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


You guys still trying to "debunk" a video that is once again in the hoax bin??

Really?

Go get some rest fellas, it will still be here next week!



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


So if they used the pictures, are you telling us they also animated cars driving around realistically through the streets? Because in the fourth video there is all kinds of activity in the "still picture"...

MSM is still saying experts are perplexed by this and I am sure that they are not referencing this site. No disrespect, just doubt they are.This is a great site for discussing things of this nature, but contrary to the popular belief among some members, this is in no way a place where the absolute truth can be decided. I am not saying I believe the sightings were real. What I am saying is that even if they were, you guys would still be trying to disprove it with a passion. Like many have said before me; if you are so sure it is a hoax how come no one has come close to recreating it believably, to a T? If there are so many audio/video "experts" on here, surely in a week you guys could have thrown something together. We believers have supported many a video and this is arguably the most scrutiny Ive ever seen over a case like this. You guys could go back through the archives and dismantle everything until it doesn't make sense any more, then move it to the hoax forum. I am staying on the fence, cause ya never know what might happen, what might come to light.

And the thread rolls on...

edit on 5-2-2011 by Claytonius because: retawdedness



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
my my, so quick to prove everything wrong, here is a fact, ANYTHING can be recreated, any event deemed real i promise you can be recreated with cgi. all you are proving is that you can recreate what you are seeing in the video, you are not actually proving that it was a hoax. i believe you are all going about the ufo phenomenon as a whole in the wrong way. fire must be fought with fire, and so cloak and dagger must be fought with cloak and dagger, everyone goes public much too soon, to a public where this topic is mostly discounted and swept under the rug by the media. no one keeps a low profile long enough to gather the good evidence. in fact i find that most of the network out there this site included is full of much confusion and disinformation, and has been infiltrated to keep that stuff going. but thats okay keep doing what you are doing and keep getting the same results, that is the definition of insanity. so please by all means keep up your insane ways of getting nowhere with the ufo issue, while those of us who have decided to do something different get things done. he who shall not be named wants redemption, those in the shadows want deception, and you are all playing right into their hands. but you know keep up the good work. it makes me smile.

From the Shadows,
Scorpion



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ScorpionIsrael
 


Round and round and round....Hey man! Are you actually in Israel? Help us all out here.





[Mod Edit - replaced unnecessary quote with Reply To Tab]
edit on 5/2/2011 by Sauron because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


?
Why is that?
I don't understand why that would be so funny?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Zeptepi
 


I'm sorry dude,
"In the hoax bin"???!? Have you been paying attention at all?
edit on 2/5/2011 by FoJAk because: to quote you



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Claytonius
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


So if they used the pictures, are you telling us they also animated cars driving around realistically through the streets? Because in the fourth video there is all kinds of activity in the "still picture"...


Stop new member...please.

I am going to show you the background from clip one is a fake still image. Therefore destroying the entire series of events.

The end.

MM



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Claytonius
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


So if they used the pictures, are you telling us they also animated cars driving around realistically through the streets? Because in the fourth video there is all kinds of activity in the "still picture"...

MSM is still saying experts are perplexed by this and I am sure that they are not referencing this site. No disrespect, just doubt they are.This is a great site for discussing things of this nature, but contrary to the popular belief among some members, this is in no way a place where the absolute truth can be decided. I am not saying I believe the sightings were real. What I am saying is that even if they were, you guys would still be trying to disprove it with a passion. Like many have said before me; if you are so sure it is a hoax how come no one has come close to recreating it believably, to a T? If there are so many audio/video "experts" on here, surely in a week you guys could have thrown something together. We believers have supported many a video and this is arguably the most scrutiny Ive ever seen over a case like this. You guys could go back through the archives and dismantle everything until it doesn't make sense any more, then move it to the hoax forum. I am staying on the fence, cause ya never know what might happen, what might come to light.

And the thread rolls on...

edit on 5-2-2011 by Claytonius because: retawdedness


I don't particularly care for fence sitters. They seem to just sway with the crowd, whatever the general consensus is must be true. They generally show reluctance to stand for what they believe to be true, while feeling they don't have a responsibility to defend their stance.

If you believe these video is real, great, show me with facts why it's real
If you believe these video is a hoax, sweet, prove with facts why it's fake

But fence sitters, they do nothing because they feel they have nothing to prove, since it MAY or MAY NOT be real.




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by FoJAk
 


Scroll back up to the top of this page.
were it say HOAX.
Now, whos paying attention?

[HOAX!]: Dedicated forum for ATS threads that have been proven to be hoaxes, frauds, or part of deceptive schemes on a variety of topics. Topics in this forum will range from those that have proven to be an actual hoax to those where a significant majority of ATS members believe the subject matter to be based on fraudulent material.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ScorpionIsrael
 


New member...relax...you will like this.

It proves clip one a hoax and therefore removes the evil cancer from the conspiracy well, also damaging the hoaxer's story and income made from.

Oh...mind telling me "what site has the news reporting about this"? If you are sure ATS is not one of them?

Um...why are so many new members so interested in defending this clip?

MM



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
You guys do realize if this were/is real, authority figures would have descended upon these teens so fast, that they would have had barely enough time to set up youtube accounts before they were either threatened or paid off.
The biggest thing that bugs me is that MSM keeps showing off the goofiest video of the four. Surely they know of the gut-wrenchingly scary, 4TH VIDEO. Come on guys, believers and non-believers, can we at least agree that the fourth video made you poop yourself a little bit? Maybe thats why you guys are scrambling to disprove it so feverishly... YOU are scared. Do you realize what would happen if this were to be proven real???



new topics

top topics



 
216
<< 109  110  111    113  114  115 >>

log in

join