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: 114
216
<< 111  112  113    115  116  117 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask
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.

MM



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


It's interesting to me how you have choosen to ignore the 4th video, the most detailed. With a your jump in logic believe if you can prove the 1st video hoax the 4th must follow.

But I'll play along...

Let's take a look again at your presented "facts" but this time lets do it in a unbiased way.

The parrallax:
You have choosen to ignored the any counter arguement such as this.

www.youtube.com...

And further elaborated here.
www.youtube.com...

The interlace/progressive scan:

A member easily demonstrated how scan can appear interlaced with motion...oh yeah, you ignored this too.

Originally posted by zerotensor
reply to post by laymanskeptic
 


Not so fast... The effect you point-out could be due to the fact that the lights on the ground are flickering, as the high-intensity discharge lamps in almost all streetlights do. I have often noticed that the blurs of streetlights captured by a moving progressive-frame camera display exactly this sort of "dotted-line" appearance when blurred due to camera motion.

Here's a crop of a video-still created by taking my 720p camera outside and shaking it around while pointing it towards a streetlight.


We also have all the lights getting brighter with the flash, right? But you ignored how it happens exactly the same with lightning. Seen here .26 - .29


You have choosen to ignore the weather camera showing anamolous objects in the same timeframe as the videos.
quote]Originally posted by BenCambell
reply to post by ExCloud
 


Ok, let's see if this works. On the video of the 28.01.2010 from the Jerusalem Weather Station a bluish light comes in from the left/top and moves slowly down in a gently curve over a period of a couple of hours. Here are some of the screen shots I've taken for those who can't play the video.








Jerusalem Weather Station


edit on 4-2-2011 by BenCambell because: typos


You ignored new eye witnesses that have come out.

You waved off a EXPERT in the field of CGI and graphics:

Originally posted by davidbiedny
Folks,

Looking at the 4th video, knowing the 3rd one is bogus, I'd go so far as to say you're seeing some of the best genuine UFO footage shot in recent memory. I'm kind of stunned that there was so much discussion on here about the stabilized footage, a basic understanding of parallax tells you the obvious, and this fourth video is nothing short of stunning. I'd love to be in Israel tracking down primary witnesses - I suspect that others saw this thing besides the sources of the videos. Outside of determining the precise provenance, and doing some actual analysis work on the original video data, not the compressed Youtube files, I'd say this is a hot one.

I think there's something here. I don't think the three compelling videos will be debunked. You can quote me on that... but I always reserve the right to be wrong.

I'm saddened by the fact that nutjobs like Webre are putting out nonsense on the event, it deserves some serious, sober journalism. The primary prerequisite is that the investigation needs to happen in Israel proper.

David Biedny

P.S. Mr. Mask, thanks for reopening the topic.
edit on 4-2-2011 by davidbiedny
edit on 4-2-2011 by davidbiedny because: (no reason given)


and


Originally posted by davidbiedny
Here is a sequence of 10 stills I captured from a download of the 4th video from Youtube (the 720p version)

www.facebook.com...

I don't think this particular video is going to be debunked, folks. Looks quite real to me.

dB
edit on 4-2-2011 by davidbiedny because: (no reason given)


Here is a FACT for you. There are no nails and there are no coffins! The biased mediation you have done on this thread is a sad atrocity. You have used every bit of psuedo science you can gather to push your agenda. I don't know if it's to save your paradigm or to please your employer but now these amazing videos are in the hoax bin without any real science. I hope you are happy. extra DIV




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by QuantumDisciple


It's interesting to me how you have choosen to ignore the 4th video, the most detailed. With a your jump in logic believe if you can prove the 1st video hoax the 4th must follow.


The parrallax:



Shhh...enjoy this.

This is a traditin on ATS, we all gather around the Hoax and eat it raw while it begs to be believed.

MM



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by kazanoom
I've been following this closely and was prepared to eat crow when the mirrored evidence was presented. However, I don't think this should be hoaxed just yet especially with the testimonial of the Israeli guy describing how the religious day and how the old city has an explainable lack of traffic. Also, the symmetrical hotel or whatever it is adds credence especially if it is determined to be in the same spot.

The audio analysis has been the biggest disappointment for me. I'm an audio engineer and some of that stuff was so disjointed and in left field it was as if they were trying to convince themselves and not present empirical evidence.


Then I question exactly how much audio engineering experience you have, if any at all sir.

Since you are claiming to have experience in this area. For the sake of bringing a new head into this debate, can you provide any evidence that would undoubtedly dismiss why the audio tracks are the way they are? I patiently await your analysis



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


I'm sorry Mr mask...were is this proof?
To add: you are not seeming very objectionable at this point...
edit on 2/5/2011 by FoJAk because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by QuantumDisciple
 


You are very invested in this hoax...

I see...


Makes notes...

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



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoJAk
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


I'm sorry Mr mask...were is this proof?


The proof is what got it put in the hoax bin sir.

What I'm providing is just the final "how they did it"...something we can appreciate...right?

MM



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   
On the record...the only hoaxers behind this I may actually forgive...is 4chan.

If its them...I think its messed up...but I forgive them and wish some sort truce could be made.

As for all those hack website owning hoaxers who prey on people here...you suck. And you deserve to be arrested for this.

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



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


I'm invested in the truth! Which you sir are obviously not.

Note that.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 



The proof is what got it put in the hoax bin sir.


That's my question. What is there to appreciate? I am still not very convinced either way. And the fact that it got put in the hoax bin is hardly the reason to accept this "reality". Just because whomever put it in the hoax bin disagrees is not therefore the reason to believe them. There is still no absolute PROOF.That logic does not sit right with me. Without good reason, aren't you really just being a sheep herder yourself then?

edit on 2/5/2011 by FoJAk because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/5/2011 by FoJAk because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by QuantumDisciple
We also have all the lights getting brighter with the flash, right? But you ignored how it happens exactly the same with lightning. Seen here .26 - .29


Umm, that video shows that when lighting strikes on camera, it's flash from the lighting INCREASES the detail in the scene, I.E. buildings that was dark now become illuminated. Look at .30 onwards. Yet this does not happen in the ufos shown in video 1 -2 and 4. The scene just gets mystirously BRIGHTER without increasing ANY details in the scene. Ontop of that, the origins of the light from your example is the sky, where clearly these lights illumates from somewhere else closer to the earth.

You make a bad point and clearly validates the anomaly of flashes non concurring with science.



You have choosen to ignore the weather camera showing anamolous objects in the same timeframe as the videos.


That data has been voided already, have you chosen to ignore this? Check the message board (at the bottom, page 2 or 3, posts by "James" (aka me) to the 02wsManager) of the website that host that footage, the camera wasnt even pointed in the direction of the dome, as proven by the MANAGER himself

This is what I'm talking about. People just ignoring things thats already been established. Blantant disregard of solid information
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 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


believe me my intentions for getting on this site have nothing to do with this particular video this just seemed like the hot topic button where i could get a sense of things here and get uncomfortably comfortable, i am just making the rounds getting set up to be involved with these sites in the near future, videos don't mean much to me to be honest, unless one comes around that is close encounters of the third kind quality, i just wanted to get a feel for some of the people i may be sharing information and debating with, your integrity seems pretty solid to me, look forward to future discussions. and being that you found that other comment i left funny,(i also found your remarks of wit humorous as well), i'd like to know if you know who my journalistic inspiration is, because than i know you have good taste as well as integrity. stick to your guns mm, now it's the believers turn to come up with evidence that it has not been hoaxed. good luck.

With a Sh&! eating grin,
Scorpion
edit on 5-2-2011 by ScorpionIsrael because: forgot some points i wanted to make



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ScorpionIsrael
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


believe me my intentions for getting on this site have nothing to do with this particular video, i am just making the rounds getting set up to be involved with these sites in the near future, videos don't mean much to me to be honest, unless one comes around that is close encounters of the third kind quality, i just wanted to get a feel for some of the people i may be sharing information and debating with, your integrity seems pretty solid to me, look forward to future discussions. and being that you found that other comment i left funny, i'd like to know if you know who my journalistic inspiration is, because than i know you have good taste as well as integrity.


This isnt a direct response to you, just moreless something I'm adding / rambling about.

I find it odd that, even after all this time, and after years of footage, this footage is claimed by some to be a true alien encounter, yet its still the same shady quality, and characteristics of similar videos in the past, yet this is regarded as the holy grail of proof by some.

Lets see,

It's night time
Shady quality of video
A ball of light with no solid definition
Last only few seconds
No credible witnesses

So someone please explain to me how is this stands out



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



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74

Originally posted by Zaydie
Forgive me if someone has posted this already.

I found a view of the city that shows why the video appears to have a "cloned" area .

From this image it seems that the building I have circled is a type of structure that is the same on
both sides. In other words, it's a mirror of it's self. I can't find a view that shows the entire
building but it certainly appears that it is the building and area in question

i5.photobucket.com...

I know many of you may be very busy patting yourselves on the back and self congratulating your superiority
but have a look and see what you think.
edit on 2/5/2011 by Zaydie because: (no reason given)


theres that one circled, the hotel on the previous page and the buildings behind the dome which would appear to the left of the dome if the video were shot from further left of the dome, as appears is the case from the video. Good catch

edit on 5-2-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)


Thanks, but I'm afraid it will be lost in the shuffle for anyone else to have a look at it.
Not that it will make any difference.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Claytonius


MSM is still saying experts are perplexed by this


With all due respect.........news organisations often use the "experts are perplexed" or "experts are baffled" tagline when reporting such "sensational" news....but that is only to try to "sell" the story to the viewer or reader.

When news organisations use the "experts are perplexed" line they seldom actually back it up by interviewing a number of "experts" who say to camera......"I'm an expert and I'm perplexed!".

A UK news story said "experts are baffled" by Jerusalem UFO...........but the only "expert" they quoted was Nick Pope ......and even he didn't say he was baffled!

So really when you read that tag line about "experts".......don't take it literally unless you actually see the aforementioned experts saying they are baffled or perplexed.


Oh just a side note:

The best laugh I had was when one of the UK newspapers ran with a story which read:

"Scientific expert thinks lost space probe was captured by aliens" (or words close to it)

Intrigued I read futher to find out who this "scientific expert" was.........and as it turns out this guy wasn't a scientist let alone an expert, but a Sci fi novelist!............some "expert" hey

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

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

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

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

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



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 

it doesn't stand out, like all "supernatural" phenomenon, that takes place in the age of portable HD cameras, it seems that only people with 1988 sony camcorders are around to take the video. i wish i could take stock in video footage of ufo's,cryptids, and ugh ghosts, but i can not do it, no video will ever be conclusive, unless it comes from a scientific, government, or media source. and that is the sad truth. i take eyewitness accounts that are not accompanied by video to be more credible than most video sources have ever been. i am actually glad that i did not record the two ufo encounters i have had in my life, have i come to a conclusion about them, no, i saw something i can't explain, and i hope to be able to explain it someday, for my own peace of mind and i am open to all possibilites natural and unnatural.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Now. before anyone starts getting crazy and misconstruing what I'm about to say. Lets cover very important facts.

Both original pictures. Both you "may" argue are simply from the same vantage points because a few lights are off a hair or finger nail. And someone must have taken a similar pic from the same cliff is all.

Now...lets be very critical here and think about this.

I stretched the top layer, elongating it incredibly to make 90% of the lights fit into place (with a bit of time I think I could get them all in place without cutting the image and simply stretching)

Now...if I manhandled its perspective by almost doubling its length, it should now become a Jerusalem that "can not fit perfectly enough to appear to be from that vantage point"... because it should now be a Jerusalem too warped and too long to ever fit over its double. It is in effect mutated and no longer similar to Jerusalem's shape, length, size, perspective distances between all lights and elements.

Yet...unstretched, it fits over no picture of Jerusalem. But once you elongate it to almost twice its normal width, it instantly becomes the number one most popular picture of the temple mount on all search engines.

Follow me further and please...just get this.

If I just stretched the entire city, it should not fit perfectly within a perfect model of the city. There should be no possible vantage point that allows this new Jerusalem to fit perfectly.

Again, alls I did was drag the picture and make it longer to the left.

And we get this...a perfect perspective picture of Jerusalem, keeping the same colors between crappy phone eye and more powerful camera...both picking up the same thing.

yet one shouldn't be allow to fit.

Its the same pic. The made it shorter and used it. Plain and simple.

Digest...think...MM is done.

PS- All new members who demand this is bad science or this case is real will be met with intense scrutiny and be placed on a "beware of poster" mental list for all future interactions.

Now go ahead...say things can technically happen that can not.




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)



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by QuantumDisciple
 


Bravo sir! Bravo! At least new folks to this forum will be able to see what you have presented here. Scary thing is most people will come to this thread and think that these people have actually debunked it, when it's not 100%.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one
When news organisations use the "experts are perplexed" line they seldom actually back it up by interviewing a number of "experts" who say to camera......"I'm an expert and I'm perplexed!".

Rofl, I agree with you. It seems in MSM, experts are always easily confused

A UK news story said "experts are baffled" by Jerusalem UFO...........but the only "expert" they quoted was Nick Pope ......and even he didn't say he was baffled!


lol!



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by Claytonius


MSM is still saying experts are perplexed by this


With all due respect.........news organisations often use the "experts are perplexed" or "experts are baffled" tagline when reporting such "sensational" news....but that is only to try to "sell" the story to the viewer or reader.

When news organisations use the "experts are perplexed" line they seldom actually back it up by interviewing a number of "experts" who say to camera......"I'm an expert and I'm perplexed!".

A UK news story said "experts are baffled" by Jerusalem UFO...........but the only "expert" they quoted was Nick Pope ......and even he didn't say he was baffled!

So really when you read that tag line about "experts".......don't take it literally unless you actually see the aforementioned experts saying they are baffled or perplexed.


Oh just a side note:

The best laugh I had was when one of the UK newspapers ran with a story which read:

"Scientific expert thinks lost space probe was captured by aliens" (or words close to it)

Intrigued I read futher to find out who this "scientific expert" was.........and as it turns out this guy wasn't a scientist let alone an expert, but a Sci fi novelist!............some "expert" hey

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

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

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

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

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


Fair enough. I see your point.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
To make it even simpler in a way that ANYONE can instantly understand.

You may argue this just means two similar pictures were taken from a similar vantage point.

No.

The UFO pic in that thread has been elongated...stretched.

So Imagine I take a picture of your face and stretch it to be a "half face longer"...you big fatty head you.

That picture of your new fat face could NEVER fit directly over a picture of your normal face. Its not your physical dimensions. It would look like elephant man...you would make me puke honestly...anyways.

So...you are looking at Jerusalem stretched, its fatty head should not fit over any picture and match its perspective perfectly. Not even close enough to be confused.

If you google "Temple Mount night"...that is the most searched pic of the place.

This picture should be too long and distorted to fit perfectly over the most imaged searched Temple Mount pic in the world. Yet...once stretched...its perfectly perfect.

Impossible.

MM





edit on 6-2-2011 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
216
<< 111  112  113    115  116  117 >>

log in

join