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: 138
216
<< 135  136  137    139  140  141 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by RexTheNavigator
 


I see i was spot in my prediction that his curiosity would not be approached in the same manner ours is


this outweighs any debunk i have seen so far..




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




posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   
I read the lot and you guys haven't debunked it. You just keep going on with claims that this could happen and this should happen!

I want to ask a few questions
1. Were the videos shot from different locations uploaded by the same people? If not did these people know each other? If they do why were they filming?

2. No one has answered any question about the lights? One fellow mentioned lasers thats it.

3.Has anyone got the raw footage yet?

4.No one has made a multi angled "fake" to help others understand how it could be done?



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by RexTheNavigator

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
reply to post by RexTheNavigator
 


It is posted in this thread, you want to be lazy about it then we cant help you. Start by page 1 and then make your way to page 2, and read ALL the responses up until here then come back and we can talk.

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


I got to page 50 (for the 5th time), did the evidence appear after that, what i saw till that point was not convincing, there must have been a better case put forward since then...no?
please do not post why you think i should do it myself and back your stance up with undeniable facts..please.



Apparently you have not reviewed the evidence and given it any thought. If so please tell me what videos, data, audio analysis that you have a problem interpreting. I find it hard to believe you have any idea in such a statement.




it has been determined to be a hoax but not proved to be a hoax, how does that happen, where is the concrete evidence..


In this thread, how many times must I explain that? Have you paid any attention?


someone please post it if only to shut me up..


It has been posted over and over and over again and people keep registering today and asking the same dumb question. Read the thread and stop asking questions about WHERE THE INFORMATION IS. This is PROVEN to be a hoax.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeboWilliams

The audio in 1 and 2 are the exact same audio, except the audio in the 2nd has had the volumes tampered with to make it seem like it's from HIS camera (make the main guy sound like he's far away and the other guy sound closer to the mic).


I agree that this particular audio analysis is essential to do ,but to me it's just another 50/50. Most of the audio would match the 'real' event. Small piece could be hoaxer's error.
I believe that it is certainly possible that you get this phaenomena even from real recordings considering the directional effect of the mouth, the recording devices and also the reflections of the sounds. I think that washing any audio from a similar clip can prove 'tampering'.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slipdig1
I read the lot and you guys haven't debunked it. You just keep going on with claims that this could happen and this should happen!

which is why i gave up around the 50 page mark, did anyone put forward even a decent case for debunk in your opinion?



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Hi SkepticOverlord, thanks for your view on the video, one thing though, have you looked at the full un-edited version, as I think the piece needs to be looked at as a whole. To me it seems clear that the quality of footage filmed in the car is much better than the quality taken once the witnesses exit the car.

Also, can you confirm that you are not saying this isn't a hoax? If that's the case this video is in the wrong thread.
edit on 8-2-2011 by mirare because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 


LOL. Why are the debunkers ignoring SkepticOverlord's analysis of video 4? This of course doesn't make it not a hoax, but surely it points out the why's of people saying there is logic to believing it's real.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 


stop quoting me and filling more pages then, for all the newcomers who will ultimately jump to the later page post the most current and up to date proof(which you claim to have).



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by returnee

Originally posted by DeboWilliams

The audio in 1 and 2 are the exact same audio, except the audio in the 2nd has had the volumes tampered with to make it seem like it's from HIS camera (make the main guy sound like he's far away and the other guy sound closer to the mic).


I agree that this particular audio analysis is essential to do ,but to me it's just another 50/50. Most of the audio would match the 'real' event. Small piece could be hoaxer's error.
I believe that it is certainly possible that you get this phaenomena even from real recordings considering the directional effect of the mouth, the recording devices and also the reflections of the sounds. I think that washing any audio from a similar clip can prove 'tampering'.


The big give away on the audio is much simpler than that. It's the edit point, in the wave form you can clearly see the splice section cut as a peak and hear it pop on both audio pieces.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slipdig1
I read the lot and you guys haven't debunked it. You just keep going on with claims that this could happen and this should happen!


You have not read " a lot" then, It was debunked... you must have missed it? Yopu keep just going on and on with no evidence or proof this is real rather you get debunked.


I want to ask a few questions
1. Were the videos shot from different locations uploaded by the same people? If not did these people know each other? If they do why were they filming?


All these questions have been answered, if you read the thread you would not be asking such a stupid question.


2. No one has answered any question about the lights? One fellow mentioned lasers thats it.


What thread did you read again? Do you have ADD?


3.Has anyone got the raw footage yet?


Raw Footage? You mean new hoax footage?


4.No one has made a multi angled "fake" to help others understand how it could be done?


Noone has has made love to a cactus, but im sure it has been done you jst dont hear about it.

Just stop trolling, I know what you are doing

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



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 


LOL. Why are the debunkers ignoring SkepticOverlord's analysis of video 4? This of course doesn't make it not a hoax, but surely it points out the why's of people saying there is logic to believing it's real.


Who's ignoring it? I still maintain that if video 1 is a hoax then all the rest of the following videos are, that's logic.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirare

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 


LOL. Why are the debunkers ignoring SkepticOverlord's analysis of video 4? This of course doesn't make it not a hoax, but surely it points out the why's of people saying there is logic to believing it's real.


Who's ignoring it? I still maintain that if video 1 is a hoax then all the rest of the following videos are, that's logic.


link to proof that vid 1 is fake please?



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Did you read what I wrote, I said IF. I think there is more evidence to support a hoax than not. How about you provide some links to show it isn't?



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirare

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 


LOL. Why are the debunkers ignoring SkepticOverlord's analysis of video 4? This of course doesn't make it not a hoax, but surely it points out the why's of people saying there is logic to believing it's real.


Who's ignoring it? I still maintain that if video 1 is a hoax then all the rest of the following videos are, that's logic.


On the same token if one can be proven legit it validates the 1st two, doesn't?



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirare
Did you read what I wrote, I said IF. I think there is more evidence to support a hoax than not. How about you provide some links to show it isn't?



and if ya granny had b@lls she would be your grandad, do i really need to provide links to vids 1,2 & 4, the weathercam & the photos taken at street level?? please link me where anyone has posted a debunk video that proves it is all a hoax, or any one of those individualy.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 


LOL. Why are the debunkers ignoring SkepticOverlord's analysis of video 4? This of course doesn't make it not a hoax, but surely it points out the why's of people saying there is logic to believing it's real.



You apparently have no idea what you are talking about, video 4 is a production as proven IN THIS THREAD.






Originally posted by RexTheNavigator
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 


stop quoting me and filling more pages then, for all the newcomers who will ultimately jump to the later page post the most current and up to date proof(which you claim to have).


What on earth are you talking about? The truth does not bode well with you, i dont have proof however this thread proves it is a Hoax by many people.

Where did i state that i had proof? Now you are just trolling if anything.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   
My thinking is this, rather than look at all the videos concentrate on the first one, all others follow that. Work forward from that point, to do it in reverse makes no sense to me.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by RexTheNavigator

Originally posted by mirare
Did you read what I wrote, I said IF. I think there is more evidence to support a hoax than not. How about you provide some links to show it isn't?



and if ya granny had b@lls she would be your grandad, do i really need to provide links to vids 1,2 & 4, the weathercam & the photos taken at street level?? please link me where anyone has posted a debunk video that proves it is all a hoax, or any one of those individualy.


Cut the insults please, my gran passed away very recently.
You do know where theburden of proof lies don't you?



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   




you claim it has been proved in that very post you hypocrite, how can it have been proved without proof?



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 


It's not my analysis, it's one of the site owners which provides evidence that it isn't a hoax...lol



new topics

top topics



 
216
<< 135  136  137    139  140  141 >>

log in

join