UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

reply to post by Kali74


There is no building that matches, that is a hoax too. It's not a building...

See? www.youtube.com...

There is no such camera effect or distortion that will cause this... period.. The "distortion" you see moves independently from the view-port, yet follows the camera shake... there is nothing that could cause this other than computer generated fake camera shake and motion tiling.

Get over it.

Originally posted by 4hero
Debo, you say 'phase cancellation doesnt work if 2 sources are of different quality. Oh, but you knew this already before suggestion this didnt you'.

I know how it works, hence why I said if there are differences some will disappear not all, but you stated it was a copy so phase cancellation will work for most of it, I've personally made acapellas using this technique, and by using different file sources, if you know what you are doing, and it is tricky, you can achieve results, it's just easier to do if it's an exact copy, but not impossible to do if it isn't. It will just mean you will have some sound left over, but most can be removed.

Yea, the audio sources are a copy, but you fail to hear where I state / show that they have clearly manipulated the audio, IE where they both go WOAH, the volumes was altered, you can hear this happen.

I've tried to phase cancel, and it does remove alot of the details, however not enough for me to come out and show, since apparently people would say "well, it doesnt completely silence the audio, so it must be a different audio recording". You gotta remember most people dont even know what a wave form looks like, let alone trying to understand why phase cancellation would happen. Anyway's for this to work 100% I would need both videos, unaltered and before they was uploaded to youtube. This will never happen, so I decided not to use phase cancellation as a method to prove these was originally from 1 audio source.

I've heard alot of people try to throw "compression" as to why the audio is the way it is. This just make me laugh because the point of audio compression is to balance the audio levels / keep them consistent. What is seen in the files show the complete opposite.

All of the anomalies present have no purpose being in "both" recordings unless they was from 1 recording. If you have done work with "acapella"s, then I question the quality of the work you done on those recordings.

Case is bunk, audio is bunk

reply to post by RexTheNavigator


Also I the red light formations, has anyone analysed those yet??

I guess if you scream loud enough you get your way.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by RexTheNavigator
reply to post by RexTheNavigator

 

Also I the red light formations, has anyone analysed those yet??

Yea somewhere in the thread, maybe between pages 100-110. Someone posted a youtube vid

"You though find it believable, which is perfectly fine. And many here share that stance. I'm just trying to understand why when something like that defies all logic and physical laws, we still believe it to be real. Even when very good evidence of tampering with the videos has been made to light. And even when the actual witnesses to this event haven't come forward".

OK, lets not forget that UFO's have been sighted and reported for a long time now, so if this was the first report of it's kind I might be skeptical, but lets face it, there has been far too many reports over the years, and when a new one comes along, such as this it does make you think there is a possibility that it is real, surely not everone in all those years has told a lie? Have you seen 'I know what I saw'? That's quite compelling.

The fact video 2 & 4 have not been called a hoax but 3 (obviously) and 1 (supposedly) are then why have 2 & 4 not been? Anyway, I know that if I continue posting here I will distance myself from my real life outside this virtual world and get nothing done, so I've said what i think about the sound, and will leave it at that because I know that there will always be someone disagreeing, which is cool, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don't have all day to go round in circles going over the same things time and time again.

Hopefully when I get time to check back more info will have surfaced, either way..

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


I think it's possible. No need to be rude.

reply to post by Kali74


Sorry it is very frustrating to have to repeat this... ITS NOT POSSIBLE.

.. to have someone who doesn't understand that it is impossible say that it is possible is very annoying.

Do you understand what it means when I said the mirrored edges follow the camera shake but not the view-port? Do you?

Originally posted by soulfox
Has VID4 been debunked yet??

Its funny you should ask. Earlier today I thought I found the image stolen to use for the false background but then assumed I was wrong...guess what...I was right.

I guess nobody around here gets anywhere with their presentation unless they make their own video to go with it. So here is my video showing you proof that the hoaxers used one of the most popular searched images of Temple Mount for the background of clip 4. They did the same for clip one, two and three as well.



And here is the gif I posted earlier to show the same technique being used for clip one and two.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4346a10df03a.gif[/atsimg]

Notice the same technique was used for all clips. Stretching and warping to hide the source image.

Hope you enjoy.

That is all three backgrounds I have successfully matched to all clips. All matched to popular Jerusalem Temple Mount pictures found online.

I hope people listen to this now... because that is pretty damn damning.

MM

Originally posted by 4hero
"You though find it believable, which is perfectly fine. And many here share that stance. I'm just trying to understand why when something like that defies all logic and physical laws, we still believe it to be real. Even when very good evidence of tampering with the videos has been made to light. And even when the actual witnesses to this event haven't come forward".

OK, lets not forget that UFO's have been sighted and reported for a long time now, so if this was the first report of it's kind I might be skeptical, but lets face it, there has been far too many reports over the years, and when a new one comes along, such as this it does make you think there is a possibility that it is real, surely not everone in all those years has told a lie? Have you seen 'I know what I saw'? That's quite compelling.

The fact video 2 & 4 have not been called a hoax but 3 (obviously) and 1 (supposedly) are then why have 2 & 4 not been? Anyway, I know that if I continue posting here I will distance myself from my real life outside this virtual world and get nothing done, so I've said what i think about the sound, and will leave it at that because I know that there will always be someone disagreeing, which is cool, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don't have all day to go round in circles going over the same things time and time again.

Hopefully when I get time to check back more info will have surfaced, either way..

2 has been called a hoax, which 2 has been collaberated by the first video uploader (eligael) to be the person seen filming.

So that makes 2 a hoax, and 1 a hoax as well, along with 3 clearly being a hoax.

Since Video 1 was uploaded before any other videos, and it is a hoax, how the hell can video 4 be real?

You also are perpetuation the arguement that UFOs have been sighted for along time. We arent here to dismiss UFOs as a whole, just this event.


How can Christopher Columbus been competent enough to sail across the Ocean to america, yet must have been insane when he and a associate seen lights out across the waters?

Or FAA flight controllers are sane enough to land your plane, but had a moment of temporary insanity when they see something that doesnt conform to known specs. These are trained people

Or Military Fighter pilots, ok to defend our country by air, but must have gone stir crazy for that 10 seconds of UFO sighting.

All throughout history, there has been MAJOR reports of UFOs, during times when man made flight wasnt even conceivable . How can this be dismissed?

UFOs = real phenomena, These 4 videos = A spit in the face

And it pisses me off that they was actually able to fool the uninformed. This is why I still post in this thread.

Originally posted by 4hero

OK, lets not forget that UFO's have been sighted and reported for a long time now, so if this was the first report of it's kind I might be skeptical, but lets face it, there has been far too many reports over the years, and when a new one comes along, such as this it does make you think there is a possibility that it is real, surely not everone in all those years has told a lie? Have you seen 'I know what I saw'? That's quite compelling.
.

I did see it. Good show. Had me intrigued. Not sure what I believe except that people see things they can't readily identify all the time. These in my humble opinion are not always UFO's, but MFO's- misidentified flying objects. Either way it doesn't make them alien or angelic. However thats off topic.

With regards to this particular video, it doesn't carry an overall sense of believability for me. The whole premise seems too cliche and some what cheesy. I mean, the 4th video really stops short of making that light look like an angel. Did you notice the form it takes in that video? I mean, come on... and angel floating over the Temple Mount... It's the The 2nd coming!! ( thats not meant to be a knock on anyones religious beliefs )

But you're right. Everyone here is entitled to believe what they want. ATS is a fun place but can be a very frustrating place when those beliefs clash.

Good luck in your journey finding truth..

Jeez that Jpost article is lazy journalism at it's best.

In an attempt to lend reliability to the first video, a second appeared the same day, showing the same view from much closer, with the same soundtrack.

They don't even explain it's the guy in fronts cellphone in the second. What cynical bologna.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


I get thet you're frustrated, I probably would be too, you put a lot of work in...in fact I am too just for different reasons. With all due respect though, I think there's a chance you are wrong.

I just showed you all the background images are stolen offline and very popular searchable images.

Anyone arguing with the technical side of things can understand easily "stolen background images".

I even made a movie with a vocal explanation. Don't be shy...watch it. Its above.

MM

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

 

I get thet you're frustrated, I probably would be too, you put a lot of work in...in fact I am too just for different reasons. With all due respect though, I think there's a chance you are wrong.

No chance.

It has been officially debunked beyond a doubt. In multiple inescapable ways.

If you can't see that by seeing the evidence...well...the problem isnt with the evidence.

Get me?

MM

I think these UFO videos are real because I think so.

Plus I don't have anything else going on in my life, so I really NEED this to be true...

Originally posted by 4hero

One thing that is still puzzling me was the weather cameras showing a light on the day it happened at the same time, but I wont comment on that because it's not my area of expertise.

That light on the weather camera is a big RED HERRING, I watched the 24 weather cam video, and the light that
you refer to appears both BEFORE and several times AFTER the time of alleged UFO was spotted over Dome.
(I counted at least 5 occassion that the light appeared)

So in other words the light on the weather cam is NOT the light that appears in these Dome UFO videos.

Hopefully it's no longer a puzzle for you any longer.

reply to post by Mr Mask


Oh, I get you alright.