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: 122
216
<< 119  120  121    123  124  125 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by Mr Mask
 
then where did the first three videos come form YT @ ???? so you know the the fourth came from 50nfit which has been deemed a hoax, no augment there but the other 3 where did they come from, go back a few post and you will see i said i had proof well...??



Just like clip three's background was stolen and added from a popular image from the internet- clips one, two and four's background was also stolen from popular internet images.

Clip one's background image that was stolen HERE

Here is my animation showing the two on top of each other and fading into each other-



The image fit perfectly when stretched to almost double its size. Any lights slightly off is due to the image being further warped, but a close look will show you where each light came from off the stolen image.

Clip four's stolen image can be found HERE
Something I discovered after finding that clip one's background (along with clip two) was a stolen image (as I've been insisting must be the case since page 30-something of the old thread due to parallax issues pointed out by another member).

This is the final key in proving all other research done here legit.

Each clip's background can be completely proven to be these images I present to you. There is no loop hole or alternitive logic that can prove otherwise.

Those are the pics in the clips...I found them due to knowing perspective was broken and knew there had to be separate background images "somewhere online" that the hoaxers stole to create backgrounds.

This shows me the hoaxers spoke hebrew, but didn't have access to the Temple's view or the ability to record it themselves.

I hope this makes sense...cus its water tight and true.

MM




edit on 7-2-2011 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 01:24 AM
link   
For the record. Here is the image Mr Mask linked to earlier employed within a video I produced which took me 10 mins of never having worked with the program or having any prior knowledge of it. In total it took 10 mins to produce (including effects and sound) so imagine what someone could do if given enough time and knowledge in the area.



10 mins, no prior knowledge, you can't trust any footage of something extraordinary.

-m0r



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 



Some people are completely ignoring the stolen static photos, I wonder why that is? I find it hard to believe they are not receptive to such sobering facts. I have reason to believe the hoaxers are posting on this site. And I probably need not bother saying who if it is not obvious by now


Great job



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 


I suspect, Unknown, that those involved are maybe trying to build a name for themselves.

IE ... if they're film students and they can say 'oh not even big hollywood experts could replicate our results' then perhaps they can get a job or some kind of gain from the reveal of the hoax?

There seems to be a lot of emphasis on how 'fantastic' these persons allegedly are at their job. If this is the case though they've missed a very important point ... they might managed to fool a bunch of people outside of industry that this stuff is great, and amazing, and difficult to accomplish ... but who actually inside the industry is going to care?

I hope they enjoy making corporate videos if this is the case.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   
Hi all,

I'm new around here and am pleasantly surprised by the intelligent nature of the discourse on these forums. I really needed to dig to the bottom of this and find the best place where there is active dialogue and research going on regarding this, or even a few fellahs stepping up claiming to be witnesses or further information that will confirm what was going on here...

Seems to be that it's swung in the favour of this being a hoax for sure, that inverted image thing sold that for me.. Although I do retain an open mind and am open to potential retorts if anyone can dig up good information about compression mechanisms or some sort of funny programming written into some phones / cameras..

I'm not too sure how much I agree with the theory that freely downloadable images where used for all of the videos as backdrops. The evidence supplied isn't that overwhelming, and there are arguments against this being the case that almost hold as much water , for example the twinkling of the lights, the car ( why bother with adding a car into the picture if you can do one without, it's certainly not going to be a make or break and would take quite some time to perfect that). Not to mention if these are really Israelis, which they appear to be, a visit to the old city is most certainly not out of the picture for them, it would be much easier to just go there than setup a backdrop and edit things into the image to make it appear alive...

Consider that different cameras warp the backgrounds in different ways, and the limited number of sites that have good views of the old city. It's pretty much guaranteed that standing anywhere at these particular view sites is going to size to the downloadable images given a bit of warping and optimizing etc.

I don't think the twinkling of the lights has been described sufficiently personally, though that tile effect is probably the most convincing thing I've read that throws this into the hoax category...

Another thing which I think adds to this being a hoax, though, is the way the videos where brought online... Why would people upload them and call them 'the first video' , 'the 4'th video' etc. Wouldn't they just upload to youtube?? Also the uploaders all appear to have uploaded very similar things...

The lack of any other witnesses (not one) that is willing to speak to the media is speaking for itself. I think a good interviewable witness would bring this back out of the 'hoax' category, but until that happens...



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Oh another thing, I don't know if I've missed it ( I don't want to read all 120 pages of people blablbalbalba'ing ), but why hasn't anyone mentioned the actual movement of the light in the 4'th video ? It does not hover over the dome at all, it moves slowly to the left in this video. Though this is not apparent in the first and second videos,, which would only be possible if the light was moving toward or away from the viewer, though in this case I'd assume it'd be a slow motion towards..



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
reply to post by Mr Mask
 



Some people are completely ignoring the stolen static photos, I wonder why that is? I find it hard to believe they are not receptive to such sobering facts. I have reason to believe the hoaxers are posting on this site. And I probably need not bother saying who if it is not obvious by now


Great job


You can say that with any city landscape or video. You must actually think that because you can Google that image then put in on ATS and say "OH they must have stolen this image" that you have done something.

All you proved is that you can GOOGLE an image.

it says nothing about this case.

Keep trying though and dont forget to Google it.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr.Mask
 


Nice little illustration there Mr. Mask, but any city or video can be googled and an image will be found. L.A., Chicago, New York etc.

Sorry to oinform you but that googled image you posted proves nothing other than you have a large imagination and you can google an image.

Your not as smart as you pretend to be.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   
wow, you leave for a couple of days, come back and its all a hoax!

amazing

actually, came across this article

www.news.com.au...

which prompted me to come back to see what was happening. To be honest I never wanted to come back because I spent 12hrs coding up some pretty robust analysis to pretty much kill this hoax with one punch. And you know what, the next 20 pages was filled with comments of the type;

"there is nothing that has been posted so far that comes anywhere near showing this is a hoax"

it was a hoax all along, makes you wonder if a half decent hoax popped up would we have a fighting chance of putting out the fire. I dont look forward to the day



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marsoups
Oh another thing, I don't know if I've missed it ( I don't want to read all 120 pages of people blablbalbalba'ing ), but why hasn't anyone mentioned the actual movement of the light in the 4'th video ?



That has to be about the dumbest comment I have seen so far in this thread... you haven't read the pages but you don't know if you missed it...and ask why no one has posted something?





posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Those lights are not actually blinking... The image was taken from 3 frames at different parts of the video at various rates of camera movement. Because those lights are so small, video compression and quick camera movement made those lights appear to twinkle. If you watch the original video those lights are always on.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   
The motto of this place is supposed to be 'Deny Ignorance', yet it seems that facts go routinely ignored, while coincidences are gleefully embraced. Take video 4 for example:

Fact:

The object continues to rise in straight line despite significant camera movement to the side - IGNORED.

Coincidence:

Four people just happen to be driving around at 1am filming each other with the car's internal light on. They stop to let some guy have a pee at what looks to be a pretty public place, which just happens to have a great view of Temple Mount. They then start to film a UFO, exactly at the right time and immediately in focus, but cease filming immediately after it disappears, rather than capturing each other's reactions - EMBRACED!

I despair sometimes, I really do.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 

What a strange argument. There's almost nothing identical in that picture.
Except it's taken from the same location. All lights are different.

I didn't follow the discussion here, so I'm not speaking out on the core of the discussion.
I just think your picture overlay is incorrect.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


Mask, although you did find a picture from the same angle of video 4 I actually think they did use video on video 4 and not a picture. But, that doesn't matter because it is still a hoax.

It got me thinking though... do you see how similar video 1, 2, and 4 are? They just happen to be from a high vantage point over looking the city. This all would have been more slightly believable if they had a view from the city streets maybe, instead of from these perfect popular high vantage points.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Before I state my case, let me introduce myself: I'm a developer of a digital image editor (CodedColor.com) in Germany, so I know a little bit about digital photography, but probably not enough about video editing and CGI.
I was almost convinced this whole thing is a hoax until I looked at video 4 zoomed and frame by frame. Let me sum up my understanding at this point:

* Video 1: Agreed, the (still?) image has been extended to the left and bottom in order to add pixels for a camera shake. I don't see pixels "sucked in" at the axis, like some of you demonstrated, but nevertheless - a mirror fake is a fake.
* Video 2: If video 1 is a fake, this implies video 2 is also a fake.
* Video 3: hahah… i guess I have to go to Mississippi to find out more
* Video 4: ok, this is where I disagree with many of you. Let me explain:

Obviously someone made video 3 in order to show off or provide food for debunkers. If this is the case, why could this not apply to video1/2 also? Why are the debunkers here so fast in discrediting the whole thing due to 3/4. Are some of them part of the plan? It makes me feel uneasy, like someone is trying to point me into a certain direction to ignore other evidence on the side, meaning the 4th video. Let me explain why I believe the 4th video should be analyzed scientifically:

1. There seem to be real cars driving all over the place. Look at it zoomed!

2. Lanterns on the bottom right are flickering, probably due to lens impurity and movement

3. Lens focus is sometimes lost for a second, and this includes the floating object. (I know this can be done by software)

4. The dome has a reflection, which coincides with the slowly moving object. Can also be faked, but not so easy.

5. The object seems to have "life" in it. It behaves something like a plasma gas cloud. Very hard to fake.

6. The double flash of the object produces very realistic light effects on parts of the city and some surrounding objects. IMO, this can NOT be explained by professional image editing only.

7. I don't agree with the interlaced/progressive theory of 2 overlayed images/films. The "interlace" effect (if it is one) comes from a fast camera movement, involving many pixels (city lights) in short time. The movement of object includes only a few pixels compared to the size of the image, and this can leave a completely different light path on the camera chip. This is where we need science, not amateur video knowledge.

8. The voices and spectator behavior sounds very realistic, even though I don't know what they are saying. Hard to dub or act.

9. Video 4 came in two parts. It seems the owner of the phone stopped the filming when exiting the car, and turned it on again after a minute of disbeliev, in order to film what he was already wondering about. This appears to be a realistic scenario. He missed the object hovering at high altitude, and turned on the camera again a little late, when the object was already close to the dome. Why would a hoxer go to the trouble of providing minutes of meaningless film in video 1, just to cut short in video 2, assuming they are really linked together. Voice analysis of the girl should prove this point.

10. I know this last point is highly subjective: The whole movie has a crispy "real" feel to it. I've seen many fake UFO movies - this one is either a masterpiece of some film academy graduates, or it is real (not automatically implying that we are talking about aliens here).

Now let me ask all experts in this forum: Could it not be that we are blinded by hoxes 1-3 purposely, or because of some show-offs, tag-alongs and/or computer creeps, and are dismissing video 4 much too soon because of some amateur theory? Finding 3 faked moves on youtube does not automatically make the 4rth one fake too, right? I'm no conspiracy fan, just using plain logic, but I believe there are plenty of good reasons to cover up an alien/military encounter in a highly explosive spiritual location. Please, all of you video experts out there, throw 1-3 in the bin, BUT use the same detailed analysis and effort on video 4, parts 1 & 2. Not having any witness accounts does suggest a fake, but before we - again - jump to conclusions, let's analyse what we have and not what we don't have.

What do you think of my questions?



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by time2fly
Now let me ask all experts in this forum: Could it not be that we are blinded by hoxes 1-3 purposely, or because of some show-offs, tag-alongs and/or computer creeps, and are dismissing video 4 much too soon because of some amateur theory?...


What do you think of my questions?


Okay, I have to be sceptical here. It is possible that the fourth video could be the real deal. It's' possible that this group were seen filming a real light over the Dome and some top brass sent their best to create 3 videos to undermine its authenticity. These three videos were made with haste (and hence the mistakes within them) and then uploaded before the 4th video author ever got round to uploading their realistic set of events.

The fact there is rumour that these guys are part of a small video production company only gives credence to the fact they are with camera at the time and doesn't indicate hoax whatsoever.

This could be how the scenario played out. It's highly unlikely and is open for ridicule as a concept but if I'm being sceptical about it then I have to agree it could happen.

Now with that said there is that small area of doubt related to the motion tile handycam shake, the fact it was uploaded 3 days after the first, the cut away prior to the 'interesting UFO' part, the lack of any witnesses to the event and the high vantage point over the city which is too good to be true.

So your idea of the scenario is possible, it's just highly improbable in my opinion.

-m0r



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by time2fly
7. I don't agree with the interlaced/progressive theory of 2 overlayed images/films. The "interlace" effect (if it is one) comes from a fast camera movement, involving many pixels (city lights) in short time. The movement of object includes only a few pixels compared to the size of the image, and this can leave a completely different light path on the camera chip. This is where we need science, not amateur video knowledge.

...

Now let me ask all experts in this forum: Could it not be that we are blinded by hoxes 1-3 purposely, or because of some show-offs, tag-alongs and/or computer creeps, and are dismissing video 4 much too soon because of some amateur theory? Finding 3 faked moves on youtube does not automatically make the 4rth one fake too, right? I'm no conspiracy fan, just using plain logic, but I believe there are plenty of good reasons to cover up an alien/military encounter in a highly explosive spiritual location. Please, all of you video experts out there, throw 1-3 in the bin, BUT use the same detailed analysis and effort on video 4, parts 1 & 2. Not having any witness accounts does suggest a fake, but before we - again - jump to conclusions, let's analyse what we have and not what we don't have.

What do you think of my questions?


I've been shooting AND editing all types of footage long enough to know what interlaced and progressive footage should look like.

I've shot, edited, directed, and produced film and television projects on 35mm film, Red One Camera, Panasonic AG-HVX 200 (the "P2"), Panasonic DVX 100b, Sony Z1-U, Sony F23, Canon 5D and 7D, and a variety of lesser cameras. I have systematically troubleshot all different types of problems involving nuances of these video formats.

5K, 4K, 1080i, 720p, all types of resolutions, framerates, color temperatures, etc.

I've done lectures and workshops on these things too.

Those 8 specific frames I've pointed out, they shouldn't happen. It's an anomaly that can only be explained with tampering. No amount of fast camera movement and apparent object size can make it appear that way.

Can you please demonstrate, in temporal and spatial terms, image sensor, physical movement, physical size, and other bits of knowledge you can use, how these 8 specific frames appear to be the way they are?

Thanks. Welcome to ATS :-)
edit on 7-2-2011 by laymanskeptic because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2011 by laymanskeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   
I did a frame by frame study of the video of the UFO from the people who were in the car that saw it. Then i did a color study. I discovered tow things. The first was that it was emitting flames, and the second was that it was a person and not a machine or device. Do this study yourself and you will see what I mean.




top topics



 
216
<< 119  120  121    123  124  125 >>

log in

join