UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

reply to post by Mr Mask


complete with batman villan style narration, the first picture has different lights on in different places, they do look similar but could that not be that they were taken from similar vantage points?

reply to post by Mr Mask

Notice the same technique was used for all clips. Stretching and warping to hide the source image. If you look closely at clip 4's UFO pic, you can plainly see black blocks that were added to hide much of the bottom of the image, as well as the dividing line where the image should end (on the left where pic ends) but they added more lights.

There are a lot of different light sources in the video compared to the image you found... That's why for video 4 I'm not sure how right that is, especially considering the amount of manipulation work that would be required to draw in some more lights, put in a few cars and city activity as well as the big act by the peoples..

I think your animation would probably work better to show the discrepancy if a dissolve was not used in the .gif, two frames of lights on and lights off would reveal the difference more easily..

The acting / situational filming that was put in, is without a doubt very compelling and by that, it is a very well put-together hoax, whoever is behind this really wanted to get their fake word out there.

I'm inclined to believe that these people honestly went up to the viewpoint in the video, and filming was done over the actual site. They could then include the other details using after-effects and motion tracking plugins.

The daytime western wall video that was uploaded didn't get nearly as much attention as this, I wondered if this worked as inspiration for the hoaxers or whether they're a part of the production of that video as well (but didn't take off)

Originally posted by HenryJamsAlot
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...

That seems to be the general statement coming from some of the nay-sayers

You sir deserve a star

reply to post by Logical one

what other evidence do we have that the weather cam is not reliable? it occuring several times in a night does not dicount it surely??

Hi folks... trying to get caught up on this madness, at least from a video standpoint.

For the purposes of getting the originals in one place, could someone post the links to all four (?) original videos?

Also... where does this one factor in?



Thanks.

Originally posted by RexTheNavigator
reply to post by Logical one

 

what other evidence do we have that the weather cam is not reliable? it occuring several times in a night does not dicount it surely??

The webcam was NOT pointed in the direction of the dome. Hence the light cannot be the same light in the videos. I contacted the manager of the site that ran the webcam here click on page 4, look for james

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


That one is Number 4..

I have been gathering it all on my site, but not caught up on all the evidence... When done I can copy it to ATS media or something. Just the evidence but I have a few (50ish) pages to glean yet

www.thelivingmoon.com...

Originally posted by RexTheNavigator
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

complete with batman villan style narration, the first picture has different lights on in different places, they do look similar but could that not be that they were taken from similar vantage points?

Put it this way...I almost doubled the pic's width by stretching it.

If I stretched your face, or your car, or new york city, or anything physical and with definable shape to almost twice its length while leaving its height alone, would it fit over a picture of it perfectly?

No.

So...when you stretch all pics involved to almost double their width while leaving their height alone, they magically fit the three most popular night time Temple Mount pics online.

Go ahead...take a picture of your house, stretch its length but leave its height alone, and see if it ever fits perfectly over a picture of your house from any angle.

Think about that...

MM

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


The OP of this thread covered the chronological order of all clips.

With links.

MM

reply to post by DeboWilliams


i can see the weathercam view, the tall white building to the left is the crowne plaza hotel, it is not to far left of the dome, if the cam is in gilo and the hotel is in the left of shot then the dome has to be in view (albeit out of sight), i will check the distance between the hotel and dome and check back.

gilo(cam) is about 4 miles south of the hotel, dome is about a maile and a half east of hotel

Originally posted by RexTheNavigator
reply to post by Logical one

 

what other evidence do we have that the weather cam is not reliable? it occuring several times in a night does not dicount it surely??

It does if you consider that we have supposedly 4 people video the lights at 0:57.......but nobody videod or reported seeing it at 11:30PM,12:30 AM or at 1:30AM (note times approx, I can' t recall exact times ,but I posted them a few days back) Also people would have waited and trained their cameras of the vicinity of the 0:57 sighting hoping for a return sighting of some sort, I'm sure they would have also spotted the 1:30AM appearance too, and the perhaps the 4:30 AM. as well.
So yes we can safely conclude that the weather cam light was not the Dome UFO.

reply to post by RexTheNavigator


The manager changed is story after the "light" was mentioned. IMO.

reply to post by Marsoups


The reason they added moving cars is because that is the fourth clip, released two days after we all debunked there was no movement in the city.

Notice there is still no movement in the city but three lights that try to be cars.

Look, you "can't" have a picture of Jerusalem that is almost double its length stretched, fit over a nonaltered picture of jerusalem.

Its a hard concept to get your head around, and again deals with perspective. You CAN'T have a picture of your head stretched to almost double its length, and then fit perfectly over an unaltered pic of your head.

Same with all physical objects with definable sides and proportions.

Further more, all pics involved have elongated light sources ONLY where warp is obvious from the original. Meaning, I elongated the entire pic, yet all the lights remain round...the only ones that elongate into ovals are the ones near the sides where they warped them overly.

Alls I did was align the pic with the original and look for how they squashed it, and unsquashed it.

MM

Originally posted by 4hero
I'm dego, 4hero!

I hope you're not. One of our best producers can't be pushing phase cancellation as a debunk of a debunk.
Given the technologies and compression involved in getting a phone recording onto youtube the chances of a phase-cancelled source with artefacts being adequate to claim bs on the debunk rapidly approach nil.
After the stunning work you've done over your career, I'd have thought you'd know better.
Now I'm sad.

Also seeing how clip three was proven to be a warped picture stolen from wikipedia's entry on Temple Mount (popular pic), it leads to reason the same people made this clips as well and did the same to other popular pics.

You may think you see lights that don't line up...look closer...you will see them very near by.

The entire pic in all cases shows intense signs of using photoshop warping. Its evident in almost everything, including the Temple's side walls that slant once the are returned to correct perspective.

You can see lights smeared across the screen, yet perspective lines up perfectly. Know why?

Warping.

MM

reply to post by Mr Mask


THis is possibly too much to ask, but if forum members that live in Israel could go to these sites, take photos as well as film the horizon, then we could get some material in which to make comparisons. My thoughts is that you have some good points, but it would be good to be able to compare actual footage at the site with the hypothesis.

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by RexTheNavigator
reply to post by Logical one

 

what other evidence do we have that the weather cam is not reliable? it occuring several times in a night does not dicount it surely??

It does if you consider that we have supposedly 4 people video the lights at 0:57.......but nobody videod or reported seeing it at 11:30PM,12:30 AM or at 1:30AM (note times approx, I can' t recall exact times ,but I posted them a few days back) Also people would have waited and trained their cameras of the vicinity of the 0:57 sighting hoping for a return sighting of some sort, I'm sure they would have also spotted the 1:30AM appearance too, and the perhaps the 4:30 AM. as well.
So yes we can safely conclude that the weather cam light was not the light over the Dome UFO.

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

I see it happen at 12, 1, 1:30, & 4:30 ish, but why on that night only?, what i really would like to know is wether the light appears over the dome in the cam shot.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by RexTheNavigator

 

The manager changed is story after the "light" was mentioned. IMO.

sorry I am not with you, could you elaborate please?

Originally posted by Marsoups
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

THis is possibly too much to ask, but if forum members that live in Israel could go to these sites, take photos as well as film the horizon, then we could get some material in which to make comparisons. My thoughts is that you have some good points, but it would be good to be able to compare actual footage at the site with the hypothesis.

There are more points to that movie I made...but they are complex. You really need to think about perspective.

Notice, everything on the left flows out to the left compared to the original.

Everything to the right, flows out to the right compared to the original.

Yet everything in the middle stays dead on and in proper perspective with the picture.

How can that be? I stretched the entire thing to almost double its normal size...nothing should align in the entire thing. No two points in the entire thing should match perfectly to that picture due to me recreating a new size/length of it.

Think...

You will get it if you really think.

Stretch a picture of ANYTHING and then try to fit it over an original unaltered pic of it.

Its impossible.

Stretch a skinny girl into a fat girl...she will not fit over her skinny self.

Stretch a beach ball, into a beach oval...it will not fit over a picture of its original self.

Stretch a square into a rectangle...you get the point.

This is perspective...what you see happening in my movie is impossible.

After ruining a pictures perspective by stretching it overly, it should never fit over itself again. But strangley, ALL pics in ALL four clips suddenly fit perfectly over their originals "only after" you completely stretch them.

Example- look at the gif in my post of the first clip. The man no longer fits over his original body from clip one...he is now almost twice his width, too fat...thats because I stretched him and he no longer "fits his size and shape".

The same should go for Jerusalem or anything with a definable shape and size.

I hope someone gets this.


MM

Originally posted by RexTheNavigator
reply to post by DeboWilliams

 

i can see the weathercam view, the tall white building to the left is the crowne plaza hotel, it is not to far left of the dome, if the cam is in gilo and the hotel is in the left of shot then the dome has to be in view (albeit out of sight), i will check the distance between the hotel and dome and check back.

gilo(cam) is about 4 miles south of the hotel, dome is about a maile and a half east of hotel

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

why is this so hard to understand

The camera is pointed to the left of the dome.
This means the dome is to the RIGHT of the cameras view
It is not in frame
It is not somewhere in the middle

Gilo is 7 miles from the dome

Are you trying to say that the manager, that lives there, does not know what he is talking about? and you, someone who mostlikely never even been there, let alone live / work there, knows the landscape better then him

The camera cannot see the light above the dome, because the dome is not in the cameras field of view.

Please stop beating this dead horse