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: 115
216
<< 112  113  114    116  117  118 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


Hmmmm, a little bit confusing this idea. It will take me a minute to fully comprehend this which you are talking about.
After re-looking through a lot I have seen some interesting points towards a hoaxing, but still not fully convinced. I think people are being much to quick to throw this one away.

edit on 2/6/2011 by FoJAk because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlowerMachine
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%.


You know, there has to come to a point when the overwhelming evidence stacks up to a satisfactory decision. The thing is, there hasn't been any creditable evidence that proves what we see is real. Nothing is backing it up other than other videos popping up on youtube DAYS after the first, which happens all the time.

Maybe we shouldn't call these scenarios definitively debunked and 100% fake, unless the said parties involved confesses. Maybe we should just say that "The amount of evidence stacked against it favors the unlikeliness of being True" which no longer warrants devoted attention.
edit on 6-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeboWilliams
Maybe we shouldn't call these scenarios Debunked and Fake 100%.


After 110 pages of your various opinions and dialog this is the most intelligent thing I've heard you say.
edit on 6-2-2011 by QuantumDisciple because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by QuantumDisciple

Originally posted by DeboWilliams
Maybe we shouldn't call these scenarios Debunked and Fake 100%.


After 110 pages of your various opinions and dialog this is the most intelligent thing I've heard you say.
edit on 6-2-2011 by QuantumDisciple because: (no reason given)


I'm happy to please you, but could careless for your attack agianst my opinions, because I honestly have yet to see anything worth considering coming from your direction in regards to this topic

The point is, theres always going to be people who believes in something, even when theres no proof of it's existance, and a overwhelming stack of proof agianst it.

I mean, look at religion

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



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask

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

No, just the first two, because the 4th one is not on a still picture. How did they do the fourth video? Do you think someone else is responsible for that film. If so, lets see someone debunk the parallax and the audio/lighting in that video. If anything just because. What could it hurt, if you are so sure.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by FlowerMachine
 


The fourth movie was a hoax...in fact, it was the worst one since it jumped the shark. Real writers of good hoaxes never jump the shark my friend.

Comon now. All were bad...it would have saved us 4 days if the makers just came out and said "hi, we make crappy effects at home. We got macs.". Big deal...bad effects...bad plot...bad hoax.

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



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoJAk
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


Hmmmm, a little bit confusing this idea. It will take me a minute to fully comprehend this which you are talking about.
After re-looking through a lot I have seen some interesting points towards a hoaxing, but still not fully convinced. I think people are being much to quick to throw this one away.

edit on 2/6/2011 by FoJAk because: (no reason given)

"Motion Tile -> Mirror Edges"
www.youtube.com...




posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by vulcanus

Originally posted by FoJAk
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


Hmmmm, a little bit confusing this idea. It will take me a minute to fully comprehend this which you are talking about.
After re-looking through a lot I have seen some interesting points towards a hoaxing, but still not fully convinced. I think people are being much to quick to throw this one away.

edit on 2/6/2011 by FoJAk because: (no reason given)

"Motion Tile -> Mirror Edges"
www.youtube.com...



That circled area on the left of the screen is probably actually a building (was posted a few pages back) Case not closed.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   

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




Thoughts anyone?






WE may be wrong after all.
edit on 5-2-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)


This one.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
So case closed, what about the right side, I don't see mirrors, and streching of picture? i don't know how far are they from Temple Mount but just looking at video I give it at least 6 or 8 miles, hmm is it the same distance of the picture or maybe its 15 or maybe 5 mile, it will create a diffrent size of lighting and background,

Well is closed I guees people who knows about CGI should know better then me. I am still waiting to see the real thing with my own eyes, I probably get debunk too.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74

That circled area on the left of the screen is probably actually a building (was posted a few pages back) Case not closed.


Actually no...look in the source image, there is no hotel there.




posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:51 AM
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.

But I'll play along...



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.



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.





I wil just repost my reply to this question brought up pages ago.




I have considered what you mentioned above.

But in the photos I posted, notice that you can perceive a general "grilling" which ALL LINE UP horizontally. If these were all individual flickers as you say, then the individual flicker of each light source in the entire visible city must be flickering at the same frequency and at the exact same phase (meaning their waveforms all line up in perfect timing across the entire city), but that they would also have to be geographically located in a certain way so that these all line up geometrically on our screen in perfect horizontal alignment. Do you think that is the case? Should thousands of individual lights flickering at night with the exact same frequency, have their phases coincidentally line up geometrically, so that they will, by sheer chance, create the perfectly lined-up "grilling" we see in the photo? (below)
edit on 4-2-2011 by laymanskeptic because: (no reason given)


The horizontal "grilling" in question:

Skip to frames 5, 6, 7 and 8



No one responded to my question. Or provided an alternative answer THAT WILL NOT MAKE ANY NEW ASSUMPTIONS THAN WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW and can sufficiently explain said observed phenomena.

I see a lot of words being thrown around. Don't think in words. Think in physical mechanics, you'll find things to be much more clearer. If your mental language is inadequate to comprehend certain things, practice.

The world is not just about words.
edit on 6-2-2011 by laymanskeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   


THAT WILL NOT MAKE ANY NEW ASSUMPTIONS THAN WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW


Notice that, based on the long version of the video#4, camera was using interlaced scan, NOT progressive.
edit on 6-2-2011 by laymanskeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
A lot of posts in this thread questioning proof of hoax root from basic WEAKNESS IN VISUAL PERCEPTION.

I suspect that a lot of people here neglect their visualization abilities in favor of using too much words instead.

A little bit of effort in "seeing" (in your head) said proofs saves us a lot of useless back and forth pingpong of paragraphs made up of sentences made up of words.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74

Originally posted by vulcanus

Originally posted by FoJAk
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


Hmmmm, a little bit confusing this idea. It will take me a minute to fully comprehend this which you are talking about.
After re-looking through a lot I have seen some interesting points towards a hoaxing, but still not fully convinced. I think people are being much to quick to throw this one away.

edit on 2/6/2011 by FoJAk because: (no reason given)

"Motion Tile -> Mirror Edges"
www.youtube.com...



That circled area on the left of the screen is probably actually a building (was posted a few pages back) Case not closed.


Look below, can these building lights (or even vehicle lights) found at the bottom of the frame change their positions relative to each other IN A SPAN OF 4 FRAMES? AND IN A PERCEPTUALLY SYMMETRIC WAY?

Notice the axis of symmetry (animated)



Without the axis. See for yourself. Remember, use your visual perception, not words.



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



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
This post is gonna upset some people, but I don't mind!

Just a bit sick of the completely pointless posts regarding people's qualifications which don't address a single point brought up. They're just pathetic, and add nothing to the debate. Who cares who has an Oscar when the information is right there to be verified?

If you think someone is faking being an expert then why can't you actually keep up with them? If they're faking it, why don't you just break out the googles and prove them wrong?


Originally posted by ZeroGhost
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've never seen someone post their resume on this site and have it go well. I've also has a very limited number of people agree to have a real time chat about these things.

Generally posting your resume just results in a bunch of people breaking out the photoshops on you to try and prove you made up your certificates. Then you get emails from people that tracked you down asking if you're really you. Then shazaam ... a bunch of muppets have your real life contact details.


Originally posted by anumohi
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


Right. Really?

There are different level of experts, and I would agree that not all the expert persons at ATS would be say ... considered an expert by an associate producer ILM. However, half of these people don't call themselves experts. They just point out valid information that you could verify on the internet or by taking a jog over to VFXtalk.com and having an ask there.

Instead of doing that, people put down these silly challenges, or just brashly state that these people don't know what they're talking about.

People have full time jobs. Do you think they have time to knock out your silly light video??? Why can't you just check if their information is true or not and do some work *yourself*. Would you ask someone who claims to knit to make a jumper in front of you? Or would you verify their woolly information yourself?

I've even pointed people to show reels from VFX education ... did any of the nay sayers bother to look? Nope. It would have given them a good idea as to what is seen as junior level in the VFX world though. (I'll point out its more than was done in these 'super pro' videos)


Originally posted by jennybee35
For those of us with zero technical knowledge, all of these re-worked videos mean jack-crap-all. Too much techy information that argues with itself. But, the cctv images are impossible to argue with, as far as I can tell.

I think that is why it's been avoided til now.


This is the next one. Sorry for singling you out, Jenny, but this stuff drives me nutso.

You want to refer to the vicious debunkers, and challenge them, and tell them they're not getting anywhere ... Yet you can't simply hit the googles and verify some publicly available information?

That maybe explains why you have zero technical knowledge at all. It also maybe explains why you have no examples of technical information that argues with itself in your post.

If you had done some reading and fact checking ... you would have been able to discern the handful of decent well meaning persons with information from the shill faux experts that were dancing around promoting this video. There's one very vocal person on the believer side whose only claim to VFX knowledge was a big mouth and undeserved undying praise for the persons that may have made this video. Didn't post a single piece of information, but continued unheeded.

I'd ask people to stop being a passenger. Stop getting dragged along in the tide. You can't want the truth but only when it's served to you in convenient bite sized chunks!

And in the end ... if you've got nothing to say. Don't say it. If your evidence wouldn't be enough to prove Mister or Mz.X doesn't know what they talking about ... ie ... would you consider someone saying 'I don't think this UFO is real' good evidence? Then why would you consider saying ... 'I don't think X knows what they're talking about' a good evidence of anything?

At least finish a post with a proper question that gives someone the opportunity to defend themselves or, if you got nothing, keep it at nothing. If you're confused, if it's too technical, and you can't google it ... Ask them to break it down!

Danke.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   
I am almost convinced...

To help put me over the top, so I really know it's fake - I'd need to see someone fly to Jerusalem, figure out where these guys were standing then take a video of someone taking a video of the sky.

Also, we'll need a secret word...


Yeah.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
This Ufo is real, and the flash you seen was someone being abducted from the site where it was hovering and quickly zipped away. if you watch this video, you will quickly realize the significance of the amount of flash that was discharged when this happened, even in the case of Travis Walton, how he and others described it.


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



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by laymanskeptic
 


what your seeing in the bottom screen its a glitch maybe was done when they transfer the phone files to the computer. this is not clonning or what ever you call it. I wish i could have programm that would let me see the frame per seconds, i know for a fact that all youtube videos run 30fps, if this video was made at 30 fps or less like 15 fps then when they converted the video, for some reason a glitch was created.

I know that I would never make a diffrence until I show you with proof. So i guess I going to get ignore.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   
How is this still going? How? This is debunked. I worked in photography for 3years I do webdesign and graphic design in my spare time. The last image with mirroring was damning. Its done. I popped them open and blew them up looked at them was going to attempt to refute these guys and I couldn't.

IMO just mine.... Hoax now. Look at all of there evidence. in video 1,2 I argued kill the video they have a lot of evidence all together pointing at a possible hoax. Not proof with the video though. They got that proof stack that with all the rest of the evidence we lost guys.



new topics

top topics



 
216
<< 112  113  114    116  117  118 >>

log in

join