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: 127
216
<< 124  125  126    128  129  130 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by Mr Mask
Damn...I forgot to edit out that UFO.


Yeah and I forgot to remove the hotel
Hey cut me some slack those ears was a 3 sec cut and flip paste






posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


HA!

Didn't even notice you added ears to the building in the back.

MM



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by time2fly
 


I already analysed video 4.

www.youtube.com...

I found that camera shake is fake. The camera zoom matches CGI zoom. The lighting on the dome is really easy to do. Also, the flashes can pretty much be reproduced using a 3D light in After Effects.


Yes, I found it now - that was also a good job.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeboWilliams

Originally posted by kazanoom


You've made the presumption that the audio is from one device and meticulously muddied up for use with the cheaper cellphone and really you have not proved anything other than your lack of knowledge regarding psychoacoustics and audio. It is true about the audio level compression, reflections etc.. but also it's apparent by the video quality of the second that it is a cheaper phone and invariably will have lesser quality mic and A/D converters which accounts for the ambiance, more artifacts and generally murkier capture. Keep grasping at straws.


Oh yea, wheres your proof that shows this to be the case? I'll wait.

Thats the point, yall keep trying so hard to throw your bs empty statements in my directions, with nothing to back it up. Yall have yet to show me HOW this is possible, show me a example that would account completely dismiss what I've proven. Know why you won't be able? because it just not possible and you keep fishing in the dark.

But I'll tell you what you will do, you'll simply respond with another useless, baseless statement that holds nothing more then your ignorant opinion.

Please, please, please prove me wrong.


Oh nonsense, your lack of civility throughout this thread doesn't exactly bolster your theory and a theory is not proof. I watched your vids several times and your disjointed presentation simply does not hold water. The "sshhhh" business is not the same sound copied and pasted and you don't have to have sonic ears to make that out. As far as "empty statements" goes: saying with such certainty that a far fetched theory is written in stone proof over and over until someone might actually believe you, is pretty darn empty. You came up with this quacky theory and the onus of proof is on you.

Instead of reaching into conspiracy land territory, why don't you get 2 guys outside, one with a crappy cellphone and another with something more state of the art. Have them converse while shooting the same direction, standing a few feet apart. Now compare the wave files side to side. You'll see and hear how the noise floor, ambiance, compression artifacts, mic/conversion quality, early reflections, delay and proximity effect will be affected in the same way as the two videos.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   




Didnt I just say you was going to do that? Did I not say you was going to reply with some nonsense babbling about nothing, with no evidence to provide to back up your claims, except something from your own mouth?
Wow.....

Go and do that test, because thats the exact same test I was telling people to do. Yet noone has done it. If you can't understand basic english, I can't help you.

I'll break this scenario down for the people who cant keep up.

Bob and Billy both have a camera
Bob and Billy are both talking to each other while recording
Bob and Billy are 10 feet away from each other
Bob's voice will be louder than Billy in Bob's Video
Billy will be louder than Bob in Billy's Video
Billy will not be the same volume in Both Videos

Can you understand that now? is that simple enough?
edit on 7-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Paradigm2012
 


Why are you distorting the truth? Why are you making stuff up? Why are you ignoring facts?

So you want to play video war huh?




posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by BenCambell
 


It probably does happen on the smaller shakes but not enough for you to actually see the effect since it is so dark and there is not many things to mirror. It happens mostly on the large shakes because the entire video frame is moving large distances and it exposes the edges of the video frame more which forces the motion tiling to show more.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by kazanoom
 


I agree with Debo's theory here:
www.youtube.com...

I confirmed his analysis, and so did many others.

That "test" that you ask him to do, well, it really doesn't need to be done because we already know the results will not match and it will only prove us right.

How about YOU do the test and prove us wrong. I won't hold my breath for that.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   




Ha I'm not going to go back and forth with you like you've done with others for way too many pages and I think your oversimplification might be for your understanding not mine.

My point being with any investigative work you test the obvious first. When you run out of gas you don't try and jump start it. You didn't do that but instead jumped head first into "oh it must be the same audio altered!".

Have fun talking in circles. I'm not convinced and your "debunking" holds up as flimsily as HOAXKILLER. (yea ALL CAPS he must know what he's talking about)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
HI what do you think about this:
You know everbody Here the Fake Video from 50nfit
www.youtube.com...
She is 49 and from USA
SHe is a member on Youtube since 16. September 2009.
She upload this Fake Video on 30.Januar.2011
She have a Twitter Account too:
twitter.com...#!/50nfit

What i mean?
I have found a nother name on Youtube:
5onfit created on 3 Februar 2011
www.youtube.com.../a/u/0/QE0sQlqZXdU

So,now look at the Video from the Huffington Post:
www.huffingtonpost.com...
Look at the Video there or Here directly over ITNNEWS:
www.youtube.com...

On this Video you read the name for the Owner of this Third Video:5onfit
Not 50nfit from Youtube with more over 1.212.971 Views.

And the Video on ITNNEWES is from the 2Februar,and 5onfit is Member since 3Februar on Youtube.

Whats Wrong here???

edit on 7-2-2011 by werner76 because: some Dates correct



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   


So, they mentioned me on the Jerusalem Post:

Jerusalem Post - Close encounters of the fabricated kind.

...I guess some jokes about my mother are flying around...
...funny stuff...



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy


So, they mentioned me on the Jerusalem Post:

Jerusalem Post - Close encounters of the fabricated kind.

...I guess some jokes about my mother are flying around...
...funny stuff...





It's about time a MSM site made some sense

ROFL@ The part about your mother, star for you sir haha

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



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
well now, the cat is out of the bag. I went to YT, you tube to see if there was a common link to all 4 and to see what order they were, the videos posted in
We know the 3rd 50nFit is a fake that leaves the other 3 1st,eligael, 2nd,shshsh331, and lastly 4th,YDMU1, now for the up date YDMU1 claims to have copy rights to the video , the other 2 have changed the post, as to the first time i had seen there site's, there is no direct link, they only link to all 4 is the sites they used to up loaded their videos using 2 UFO sites, one is UFO central 2 used this one the other is UFO today where the other 2 up loaded theirs, so there you have it the direct link to the YT release.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I'm getting very irritated with all these "professional" and "reliable" news sources citing the Obviously Faked! version of the Dome of the Rock incident. You can tell because it is obviously an orb superimposed over a still picture (notice there are no flickering street lights, everything is stagnant). The video I'm referring to is used in the above segment. Like i said, any "professional" report of this story cites the same version. Either anchors are becoming extremely lazy OR news corps and the PTB are bent on promoting the obviously faked video because there is already too much smoke to keep the general population from looking for the fire.

Furthermore, those claiming that this was a hoax are the most guilty of all. To all you denouncers, the video you are most likely claiming as proof of the 'hoax' (where the guy breaks it down in a virtual environment, explaining the relation of the horizon to the wall in the near foreground) actually states at the end and in the caption that his concept/analysis actually adds merit to the video.

In my opinion, this is a link to the most compelling evidence. And for those who may claim that the creator of this video altered the speed of the videos in order to get them to line up... BOGUS. I did this on my own, immediately after the 4th (3rd in this clip) video went viral. This was also before the attached clip was available.

www.youtube.com...#



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TomServo
 
yes this is odd one out of 4 when 3rd video,50nFit's video, the one they use is a fake, no flash, now if the flash was added then ??? but why not show the other 3??? and why no one is saying a word about the red lights??? just the orb ??? now what got me was this, YDMU1 saying they had copy rights, now why it is all over the web? and they were the 4th to post it.


edit on 7-2-2011 by bekod because: word corection



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I've just joined this site to join in with the discussions. Firstly the sound comparison that member debo made is inconclusive, it's just a suggestion of how it could have been duplicated, but does not prove that it really was manipulated. If he knows so much about sound editing he would have mentioned about inverting the phase of one so called copy to cancel out the other, but he didn't divulge that important piece of information, either because he has limited sound knowledge or that he wanted to exclude that for a reason.

Anyone could do what he did in soundforge, even people who are not sound engineers, but a supposed sound engineer would know that if you layer 2 identical waveforms and invert one of them they should cancel each other out and be reduced to silence. Even if there were slight changes made most of the sound would disappear.

There are too many possible reasons to explain what he is basing his theory on. So that is not enough evidence to call this a fake. Just because you might convince one or two people who do not understand sound physcs that well doesn't mean this is a fake, that's just an opinion, but one that can easily be debunked because you did not do a thorough job.

As for the person making a 10 min animation and saying anyone could do that, what you made was a mockery of the situation, we all know what is possible with editing software, we have all been to the movies, and your video proves nothing, except that you like to joke about.

It seems to me that even if the truth was staring us all in the face, someone would still try top debunk it. I've noticed people say that believers will argue until they are blue in the face, but the same could be said for debunkers. And it's also funny that some debunkers say they are believers to give their argument more weight, and call me cynical, but I can see that is just a tactic to make them seem more authentic. Just my 2 pence worth..



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TomServo
I'm getting very irritated with all these "professional" and "reliable" news sources citing the Obviously Faked! version of the Dome of the Rock incident. You can tell because it is obviously an orb superimposed over a still picture (notice there are no flickering street lights, everything is stagnant). The video I'm referring to is used in the above segment. Like i said, any "professional" report of this story cites the same version. Either anchors are becoming extremely lazy OR news corps and the PTB are bent on promoting the obviously faked video because there is already too much smoke to keep the general population from looking for the fire.

Furthermore, those claiming that this was a hoax are the most guilty of all. To all you denouncers, the video you are most likely claiming as proof of the 'hoax' (where the guy breaks it down in a virtual environment, explaining the relation of the horizon to the wall in the near foreground) actually states at the end and in the caption that his concept/analysis actually adds merit to the video.

In my opinion, this is a link to the most compelling evidence. And for those who may claim that the creator of this video altered the speed of the videos in order to get them to line up... BOGUS. I did this on my own, immediately after the 4th (3rd in this clip) video went viral. This was also before the attached clip was available.

www.youtube.com...#



Will any of you believer please tell us what this infamous "LINK" is

What makes this real?
What evidence shown makes this a true event
What first party interview or quote can you pull out of your fairy tale

The funny part is, you blind followers are defending these video more than the people who filmed them.

HA


WHERE IS ANYTHING THAT EVEN REMOTELY MAKES THIS BELIEVABLE?

Do us a favor, why don't you guys just put "I believe in the tooth fairy" in your sig so we know whose posts should be ignored.
edit on 7-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeboWilliams

The funny part is, you blind followers are defending these video more than the people who filmed them.

WHERE IS ANYTHING THAT EVEN REMOTELY MAKES THIS BELIEVABLE?



Seems like you are defending the supposed fakeness more than anyone here! This thread would be closed if it had been proven 100% to be a hoax. Your soundforge attempt was not in the slightest bit believable. Just because you think you debunked something doesn't mean you can go around throwing insults at people, chill winston, you proved nothing, keep your ego in check.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
What do you think about my Post here in the Middle?



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by 4hero
 


Sorry to burst your bubble, but they don't close threads when the are 100% proven to be a hoax. They throw them in the HOAX forum where this topic currently resides. In fact, the words HOAX even got added to the title.

Anyone still arguing about Debo's observation obviously doesn't understand Debo's observation. Nor has the ears to hear it.



new topics

top topics



 
216
<< 124  125  126    128  129  130 >>

log in

join