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: 135
216
<< 132  133  134    136  137  138 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Anyone who's still believing this rubbish is legit at this point is simply a zealot. Seriously..I haven't heard a legitimate rebuttal in pages..now it's just people taking this personally, who sound like they're literally foaming at the mouth. You obviously have so little going on in your lives that you NEED this to be true out of hope that the world will drastically change, so you don't have to get off your asses and make your reality better yourselves.

YOU'RE WRONG, BECAUSE I CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE YOU.
YOUR FACTS ARE WRONG, BUT I WON'T DEMONSTRATE HOW THAT IS.
NOBODY HAS PROVED ANYTHING, I IGNORED YOUR EVIDENCE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE IT.
Etc.

Show rather than tell, if you actually have substance to your delusional claims.




posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pharaohmoan
 


Ok, I wasn't keen on the music and I think the 'enhancements' could be bias but a nicely put together video none-the-least which I can't knock for style or trying to suggest meaning.

I do think though that generalising is much safer than specifying without evidence to back up that claim.

It's clear that you think it's an angel (or what would have been construed as an angel millennia ago) and you've presented that in a reasonable fashion. Can you counter the issues with the mirrored tiling over the composite background though?

And lack of witnesses?

Either would do - no need to try and explain it all unless you are up for it.

-m0r



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by pharaohmoan

sorry but no-one has been able to recreate this using CGI and get anywhere near the acuracy of the 4th video, the full 4th video has been released indicating the authenticity of the voices and the obviousness that those concerned were not CUA agents!!!

MORE EVIDENCE THAT VIDEO 4 IS A FAKE: SMOKING GUN!

Okay everyone, I believe I have spotted a futher smoking gun to support the hoax theory.

A few days ago I looked at this video the full version of the 4th video www.youtube.com...

Now at the time 2 things struck me as odd, No music whatsoever playing in the car, and the driver never utters a word to the other guy before finally getting out of the car to join the girl.
I mentioned this in the comments (MrWolffish my youtube name) and the uploader replies (well you can read his comments which I paste further down or on the youtube comments section)

I have now revisted this video just now, and to my surprise they now have some music in the car "ring my bell" and E.L.O's "Don't bring me Down", Also the driver now mutters a few words before he gets out of the car.

Just to check about the music I took a close look at the CD player display (clearly displayed when the girl is just getting out of the car and also very clear when she has exited the car around 4:05 ).....the CD player has nothing reading on the display......meaning that it is not even on!
Yet ELO keeps being played.....something I would definitley have picked up upon on my original firstime viewing because it use to be one of my favourite records which I purchased when growing up as a teenager!

So I can categorically say that the audio on this video has been redited with music added in and the drivers mutterings added in. (I checked and yes you can edit audio on already uploaded videos).

Still not convinced......then look at the uploaders response to my comment (I'll paste them here):

@MrWolffish #1 you assume their drunk, #2 you assume they would have music on #3 you assume that kids never record there friends without their friends knowledge #4 you try to understand what you believe drunk teenagers are thinking. conclusion all 4 assumptions are just that and could get you into trouble.

NOTICE the uploder on #2 doesn't try to correct me and say music was in fact playing!

Yep video 4 is definitely a hoax, otherwise why bother to alter the audio!




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
There is no way video 4 is based on a static image, look closely and you will see it is full of life. You can see several vehicles moving and the paths they take, and even someone walking (perhaps several people throughout) at the path towards the center. There is far too much detail for this all to be based upon a static image.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Reluctantly, I post this.

I've spent some time with the fourth video, and there are aspects that have me intrigued. I don't say this lightly, and I'll post more detailed analysis soon.

However... to be clear, my interest is specific to the apparent quality of the video, not the possible authenticity that the video documents an actual event.
edit on 10-2-2011 by SkepticOverlord because: clarifications



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 

Thank you! Is it really happening? Could the recent "secret" shuttle launch, the changing of the EBS, and the talks Hillary called for be related? And this?!



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by pharaohmoan
 


Your choice of music on that video completely discredits your opinion in my eyes (joking, but serious the music wasn't necessary).

Why have you guys faithfully backed these videos without any proof for yourselves. It's like, your shown something, and you immediately believe it to be true, no matter what. Do you think Transformers are real? They look pretty realistic to me, just how I'd imagine a transformer to look if I went outside and one was there. But just because you see it on video, does it make it real.

A common response I hear is "I've seen UFOs" "Ive experienced a first encounter", and I don't doubt these to be true. But the evidence provided states, logically, these videos have been intentionally manipulated. Tampering with evidence in any situation voids that evidence.

You could say "Hey Debo, the audio was copied, but who cares, the video is real", but this would mean that, audio wise, they went out of their way to deceive. How can someone be trusted on any fronts, if they have been shown to intentionally go out of their way to deceive you. How can you still trust them. Why would they copy and edit the audio in the first place.

You could also say "Yo, well, they added camera shake after the video was shot, so what", but then what purpose would editing in some camera shake do? If they are showing us footage which is to be a true and accurate account of what they experienced, why add in glamor and sparkle, the purpose of the video is to be proof, not to entertain.

Disregarding my own findings (aswell as others), if I was to believe these to be true, I would ask myself "If this is real, why haven't these people spoken out about this yet? It's been over a week and they have been online (shown by their last logins on youtube), so they had the chance to even say something about this. Why havent they spoken with the news yet and done a interview? What purpose do they have for intentionally remaining silent?" These are the first questions that would come to my mind, regardless of evidence or facts.

Some of you claim that my audio findings are false, or that theres a reasonable explination as to why the way it is. I have yet to have someone say "No Debo, your wrong, here why _______ look at .com or /youtube video as proof to back my claims". This will never happen, because what I have shown is to be without a doubt, not even the slightest, to be true. But then you guys easily dismiss me, but not the people who filmed this video. In that aspect, wouldnt you think, just for the slightest moment, that I would be more likely to tell the truth, rather than them, because atleast I have the audacity to defend my claims. They just plopped the videos and bounced.

I can somewhat understand some peoples reluctance to my claims, because its outside your knowledge. Most of you I'm sure never even seen a waveform, let alone understand what I've tried to described is happening. This is understandable as I would be reluctant as well if the only evidence I had to go on was the theory of interlaced artifacts inside a progressive video, since I have no knowledge of that area, and couldnt be certain if it was indeed possible or not.

But you guys seemed to be cut from a different cloth, you say your skeptics or that you think outside the box, yet you still seem to unquestionably follow what is placed in front of you.

Does it even raise a flag that you guys are defending the videos more than the people who filmed it? Are you guys curious why they haven't spoken about the event, especially since you know they havent been detained by the PTB since they keep logging online.

Doesn't it bother you that, Eligael, the person who first uploaded video 1, has lied about filming the video? He didnt film the video, he said a friend did, yet on HIS youtube page, he states in the video discription "I was witness(with another guy)", Yet on his facebook page when asked " You filmed this?" he replies "My freind".

The same on his wife's facebook page, she was asked the same and she responded "Nao Tel, foi um amigo do Gali. Nao e incrivel?" which translate to "Tel (name of guy who asked) No, it was a friend of Gali. Is not it amazing?". Here you have him clearly lieing to you, but you still think hes telling the truth?

So even if you want to dismiss evidence here because your lack of knowledge on the subjects involved, how do you dismiss the social aspect of those individuals involved.

Think back to any UFO videos you've seen on the news, wasn't there always someones face plastered to it saying"I was walking home and looked up and there it was, so I took out my camera"?

But yet we don't have a face to associate with. We have no face saying "I filmed this, this was crazy". Why would this be? I know if I had recorded something even remotely as clear as what these guys claim they did, I'd be the first to plaster my face next to it.

This is the reason why I am extremely annoyed with the community here. This has been the first topic which I have decided to be apart of, and if this is any evidence of other topics on here, I'll most likely not involve myself. Which is a shame because even if you don't care for my demeanor, at least you could say, even if you don't agree with what I show, that I put forth effort to provide new information to the subject


Anyways, I'm going to bed, I'll be back

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



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Okay... sorry for not being able to jump in on this until this evening. I was traveling on business last week, and as a result, my weekend belonged to Mrs. Overlord.



Of the four videos, the "fourth" is generally the most intriguing to me... and, on its own, shows only minor evidence of tampering or fabrication (in my opinion). But still cannot be classified as a video of a live event.

For reference, I obtained a decent quality original of the video using "keepvid.com" and have made it available here:
temple-ufo-4.mov (12 mb).

I've also applied some stabilization to the important sequences of the two flashes and the ascent of the "object" here in this animated GIF to preserve clarity:

Stills of the image were increased by 200% with no pixel distortion.

Here is what I see:













While I'd like to have a much better quality original, there does appear to be some scant indications that light from the object is having an effect on the surroundings, consistent with the objects motion and "flashes."

Now, it's certainly possible that someone skilled with desktop video software could produce this, but up until the artificial motion blur, the effects are subtle -- someone creating hoaxes tends not to be so subtle. Unless, of course, such a person has been keeping track of the comments here on ATS, and addressing the critiques posted by those criticizing the earlier videos.


There it is. On it's own, a very good video. But it's not on its own, it's part of a serious of videos of a hoaxed event -- and a video that appears to address all the criticisms of earlier videos. However, a critical error on the part of the hoaxer, clearly identified motion blur applied to a still image.


If there are other definitive aspects debunking this video that I've missed -- I'm sorry. I haven't been able to read this entire thread in one evening.

edit on 10-2-2011 by SkepticOverlord because: clarifications



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I'm happy that you've looked this over despite it being labled hoax, will you be analyzing the other 2 now as well? Thanks!



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Thank you for demonstrating what I've been trying to say.

As I said earlier, if this is a forgery it is the best I've ever seen. It is a masterpiece and even more so from a 16 year old kid.

The details you pointed out would be a tall order for even the top VFX houses in Hollywood to pull off even with a very large budget/crew. Even then it would probably look too perfect. IMHO

Can we at least separate the 4th video from the rest and reopen a thread outside of the hoax bin?

Thank you for your post...much needed.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   
I suspected these were hoaxes. I mean, again (again and again) we have a blurry object on low quality video. How many times do we have to put up with this kind of trash? Maybe the hoaxers need to strike. But this sequence of videos shows that at least one hoaxer or hoaxer(s) is getting better. Now, give us something more close up.

Thanks.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 
ok let me understand you,are you saying the photo you have up could be the real deal? and on the same token could be fake but with a lot of PS photo shop experience? as far as you can tell.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by QuantumDisciple
The details you pointed out would be a tall order for even the top VFX houses in Hollywood to pull off even with a very large budget/crew.

No, not really. Given enough time and desire, I believe I could create something similarly compelling.

The quality of output on capable desktop computer with high-end video software is rather stunning.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


He didn't even mention the person (I assume the girl) going in and out of the foreground in the botton right. If she is real it adds a whole new level to the time and expense it would take to fake this.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
It would be nearly impossible to recreate this event unless you were using a helicopter and real pyrotechnics. now being the fact that its a sacred site and an absolute no fly zone. it can only be something of the extreme. not photo or digital manipulation.....and I'm sure there are pristine high quality footages taken by the government and Media crews ,amongst others, that will soon come forwards...just wait and keep watching



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by QuantumDisciple
The details you pointed out would be a tall order for even the top VFX houses in Hollywood to pull off even with a very large budget/crew.

No, not really. Given enough time and desire, I believe I could create something similarly compelling.

The quality of output on capable desktop computer with high-end video software is rather stunning.


I would never under estimate the power of time and desire. And I believe you are capable of great work. But as you alluded to earlier, the devil is in the detail...the subtlty. As you said, hoaxers tend to over do it. I believe Hollywood is no different. Look at Pirates or Transformers. I know that just the first Pirates of the Caribbean had a VFX budget of nearly $75 million and a crew of close to 100 people. I understand that it's a whole different ballgame with resolution that large but you can look at any given visual effects scene and tear it apart in terms of lack of subtle detail. I do not dismiss the possibility that a couple of kids with mad skill and serious time could have made this. I think they would want some recognition for their efforts. Instead they are hiding...perhaps scared. Regardless, I have yet to see any evidence that debunks video 4 and wish it was being handled appropriately.
edit on 8-2-2011 by QuantumDisciple because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-2-2011 by QuantumDisciple because: spell



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask
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


Why can't you prove that background images were stolen offline. You should prove it.

Your speculation is not evidence.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paradigm2012

Originally posted by Mr Mask
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


Why can't you prove that background images were stolen offline. You should prove it.

Your speculation is not evidence.



The people that agree....






edit on 8-2-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


very good work, the 4th video seems to be the hardest to pick fault with and has the best footage of the red lights afterwards too, however on first viewing of that video i was not convinced it was real, its the staged feeling car ride that does not fit with me, it has since emerged that the camerman is possibly a film maker which convinces the closed minds that this has to be fake, I mean why would a filmaker be driving around Filming?? and why would he have friends with him who are alegedly on the same course?? the answers are in the questions.. he is a film maker and therefore definately more likely to film random events, he is at college with these people on the same course, is it to far a stretch of the imagination for a student to hang out with students whom they share a common intrest with?
I do feel that the car ride may have been edited in, but if i was a film student and had filmed a strange orb over a religious landmark (or anywhere for that matter) I would consider edidting myself in to the video too


I too am waiting for concrete proof to sugest that it is an ELOBORATE hoax before dissmissing it out of hand, but I have yet to see anyone convincingly debunk the 4th vid, the weather cam, the red lights or the photos presented by someone believing it not be a UFO but rather a celestial being?

I sit back and wait for the elite to treat you with the same contempt they have shown the rest of us who are not satisfied with their analysis.. although I wont hold my breath.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   
We should really be grateful to the believers for their time and effort here.
It has been most illuminating.
I have learned that many of them are Fundamentalists of the worst kind.

We have people saying they "know" its real because their "light children" intuition tells them this is a light being, so they don't need any evidence, they just "know"
Then we have others saying they "know" its a real alien-craft because of the way it moved and only aliens have that technology, so they don't need any evidence, they just "know".

They don't even NOTICE that they are contradicting each other. It passes them by without a flicker.
Only a fundamentalist can ignore blatant contradictions and carry on believing. It is their nature.

Once you understand the nature of fundamentalism, its no longer a mystery as to why even after 200+ pages and dozens of videos showing numerous CGI errors in these videos they refuse to see anything that contradicts their belief.
It also explains why the believers haven't even bothered checking any of that evidence and never will.
They don't need to. They already "know" its real.

Of course this doesn't bode well. Fundamentalism usually points at religious beliefs.
And I think that's what this whole hoax has essentially brought plainly into the light.
The "UFO" field has now attracted and built up a collection of religious fundamentalist nutters.
This is a NOT a good thing. UFO's are a new religion complete with Fundies and hatred of anyone questioning the "Gospel according to Youtube".



new topics

top topics



 
216
<< 132  133  134    136  137  138 >>

log in

join