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: 146
216
<< 143  144  145    147  148  149 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Paradigm2012
 


I am still researching the possibility that the symmetrical structure you see on the left of video 1 could actually be this "hotel" building which is located ---directly in that exact same spot







edit on 8-2-2011 by Paradigm2012 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 


I think it's a huge mistake to rule out the religious/social aspect of this case, if it's not a hoax that is, which other than the american video I don't think it's a hoax. Every debunk has had a logical counter, everytime it's thought ok ya this is a hoax, something new pops up. I think there's something to be said for that in and of itself. These witnesses have been pounded since the videos went up, people checking their FB's and everyone on their FB's.

The media isn't letting this die down either so maybe at some point we will here from the witnesses, or maybe they feel examined enough as is and don't want to talk about it all. It was 1:00 A.M. on Shabbat, many many residents probably were asleep. As far as tourists go, who knows...it happened in less than 5 minutes. Many people in the area probably were at the Western Wall in prayer. There are towering walls all over that city some may have seen a flash of light and nothing more. A good lot may well have seen it but their religious views will not allow them to trust their eyes.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by penttbom
reply to post by m0r1arty
 


this is a new video. it's a lot closer than any of the others:
www.youtube.com...

i may have missed it if it's already been debunked.


That video penttborn is one that came out recently......but it is 100% fake.

The audio is an amalgam of the various videos already posted.....including the "Is that a UFO" "We get them in Mississippi" video and the 4th video (Young people in car video)audio.
edit on 8-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Does this sight not have the capability of a members poll. As it would be interesting to gauge how many think real, hoax or unsure.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Please. STOP. you must watch this video. You can believe what you want, but seriously, this video openly demonstrates the use of Motion Tile effects.



Now watch this:


and tell me it's not present in the first video?

I'm sorry. This story has no real evidence, no real witnesses and a fool from ANW hijacking someone else's hoax to try and direct traffic to his site.

One day, they will come, i'm convinced of it!

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

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



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnigmaAgent
Does this sight not have the capability of a members poll. As it would be interesting to gauge how many think real, hoax or unsure.

Since the only people claiming to have seen this highly extraordinary event are those who uploaded videos to YouTube, and no one nearby, what would make you think it's not a hoax?

Additionally, anyone who had a genuine video of such a "light' descending over such a significant landmark wouldn't just anonymously post it to YouTube... they'd sell it to the highest mainstream media bidder.

While I appreciate the quality of the fourth video -- I still call this event hoax without any reservation.



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


Not to go off topic, but that's a very CEOesque stance you got there in that picture. It's almost like a official "xxxx for pres" stance lol


Someone pointed out the video that I shown to discredit the light reflecting off the dome via cgi was indeed correct. In the example I chosen, a clip from the movie Watchmen, the character was indeed wearing real led lights when filming the scene, later he was replaced with cgi, but the blue led lighting was real. Thanks for pointing this out, I'll have to dig deeper into some more cgi films and see what I can find.

Also has anyone noticed that YDMU1 (aka 4th video uploader) deleted the 5min video? Makes you wonder


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



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord


Additionally, anyone who had a genuine video of such a "light' descending over such a significant landmark wouldn't just anonymously post it to YouTube... they'd sell it to the highest mainstream media bidder.


I discussed this aspect with a poster(Pro It's REAL camp) a while back, he didn't agree.
I am totally in agreement with you Overlord

But I am surprised how little this aspect has been discussed here.

Youtube has become the Haven for deliberate hoaxes to hoaxes poking fun at the subject.
For example if you were on the hunt for genuine footage that might have ghostly images and you typed in Ghost videos......you'll get overwhelmed with all the deliberate fake and "boo I scared you" videos, whilst there may be some genuinely serious footage amongst them......you spend most of your time trying to weed them out.

So like you say, If you want to show the world you have genuine remarkable footage that just might be the video of the century, then YouTube ain't the place to go as your initial port of call.

If it were me and I caught a ghost on film, I would firstly take my footage to a TV station or newspaper and subject the film to any test that they wanted to subject it to inorder to authenticate it, money would be nice too, but authenticity verification would be my main goal....once verified as authentic non tampered footage then the bucks may surely follow.

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

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

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



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 



There appears to be reflective surfaces not visible before the flash, that are visible during the flash. The two frames above both received the same amount of increased brightness/contrast, in an attempt to see if histogram tweaking could reveal something in the dark that could have been enhanced -- in those highlight spots (via the green circles), there appears to be no light on those objects before the flash.


I don't agree with this. I turned up the exposure (2nd photo below) and the "reflective surfaces" started to show. The information is there before the flash.







THANK YOU !!! What I've been trying to say all the time...

pezza concluded: "The fact that zero new information is revealed about the terrain (and emphasis on *zero*) tells me the light is 100% synthetic. If a burst of light high up in the sky, having the most direct line of site to the most amount of terrain in the image, and is also about 10x brighter then any light in the video, and that light does not reveal any new features in the underexposed regions of the image, you really need to question what the role of light is in our universe. "

I concluded after my own analysis: "I compared two frames before and during the flash, and there is NO indication of previously unlightened objects. Only brighter pixels seems to have been lightened. It's a simple brightness increase (HSL), not even Gamma."




posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
time2fly:

Please keep in mind that there is massive haze in the area. Therefore, the flash does lighten up *everything* - this is normal. The more lightened up fog between you and what you see, theres fewer contrast. However, if you look closely, especially with the first flash: It does reveal more about the landscape, especially the tree down left in the view. It's much more detailed than on any previous images. Furthermore, by using brightness and/or gamma, you cannot get those details out of that tree. If you use brightness/gamma, you also increase all light sources exceptionally and some buildings edges get lost. That does *not* happen with the brighter first flash which does increase the edges of some buildings. Light sources also do not increase in brightness/size as much as when you try brightness/gamma! That light sources do increase a little bit (as you have shown!) is normal: the haze is illuminated, thus adds to their light a little bit.

The lightning does behave pretty much as I would expect it, while I've not been able to get this result by adjusting brightness and gamma. You may also want to have a look at the histograms of those two images. I fail to reach something similar by adjusting brightness and gamma.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
SkepticOverlord and I were discussing this earlier this morning on the phone... Video 4 is by far the best of the lot, but, the single, instantly damning thing for ALL of these videos in my mind, is the utter lack of hundreds, if not thousands, of direct witness testimony from the people who were there.

Think about it, this locale could fairly be called the most "sacred" real estate on the planet to millions of the religious faithful in several major religions. It is almost never void of people, and usually there are thousands of them. An event like this would have sparked a huge response from these people and their organizations IMHO.

Springer...


Not to mention the hundreds of surveillance and security cameras in the area, that would have surely recorded at least the flashes. And after all the media about this, someone would have surfaced and presented one of these videos. The lack of any further evidence except 4 movies of some frustrated would-be video geeks does not live up even to the slightest standards of logic.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by werner76
Mr.Mask, although your video to debunk the Kids vid (#4) is nice, it's got image quality problems and I've still trouble to follow your analysis.


My first video was ignored or dismissed by many. I assume this was because I failed to clearly show the evidence. This video attempts to do just that.

Pay close attention to the end where you can plainly see this is the exact same pic that was used for the background.

If anything- its a nice beat.

The ending shows a nice fade into the picture used for the false background. IT IS the same pic.

The same thing can be done for all the UFO clips.

Also notice, though the perspective fits perfectly, some of the back mountain's lights end up off the horizon and in the air...while a few others remain completely warped from where they should be. Impossible, they should remain on the ground since the perspective meets perfectly. The image used in the UFO clip was warped, you can even see smearing from it.



MM





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

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

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



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
So nobody wants to comment on this?




You know, this has to be pretty much as good as it's going to get when it comes down to recreating the cgi, namely the flash. These 2 flashes extra , which was shown to be made relatively easily, react generally the same as the originals. While maybe 1 or 2 pixels are off, if these was real flashes, they shouldnt have been duplicated with so much ease. Some people seem to forget that its 50x harder to recreate something than it is to create. This is because when Said person originally made the flashes, he did not have a guideline that he must follow, he just created what he believed to look good.

You guys seem to be quickly dismissing what hoaxkiller did here. People have been shouting "recreate!" and he did, then you guys shut up about it and let a video like this just get buried in all the backpages.

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

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



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by werner76
Please keep in mind that there is massive haze in the area. Therefore, the flash does lighten up *everything* - this is normal. The more lightened up fog between you and what you see, theres fewer contrast. However, if you look closely, especially with the first flash: It does reveal more about the landscape, especially the tree down left in the view. It's much more detailed than on any previous images. Furthermore, by using brightness and/or gamma, you cannot get those details out of that tree. If you use brightness/gamma, you also increase all light sources exceptionally and some buildings edges get lost. That does *not* happen with the brighter first flash which does increase the edges of some buildings. Light sources also do not increase in brightness/size as much as when you try brightness/gamma! That light sources do increase a little bit (as you have shown!) is normal: the haze is illuminated, thus adds to their light a little bit.

The lightning does behave pretty much as I would expect it, while I've not been able to get this result by adjusting brightness and gamma. You may also want to have a look at the histograms of those two images. I fail to reach something similar by adjusting brightness and gamma.


Believe me, I took 2 frames, before and during the flash burst, and did a pixel by pixel comparison of the whole image. I found absolutely no texture, objects or pixels that appeared in frame 2, that were not already visible in much lesser brightness in frame 1. Surely, in a video with this low resolution, a flash of that magnitude would have reflected in windows, metal objects and even trees, that would otherwise be completely black. It's a very easy analysis. Try it using CodedColor PhotoStudio, which you can download on the web.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by EnigmaAgent
Does this sight not have the capability of a members poll. As it would be interesting to gauge how many think real, hoax or unsure.

Since the only people claiming to have seen this highly extraordinary event are those who uploaded videos to YouTube, and no one nearby, what would make you think it's not a hoax?

Additionally, anyone who had a genuine video of such a "light' descending over such a significant landmark wouldn't just anonymously post it to YouTube... they'd sell it to the highest mainstream media bidder.

While I appreciate the quality of the fourth video -- I still call this event hoax without any reservation.


Well, it's pretty dissapointing to see it ultimately debunked based on "what I would do" and how "you" think a situation should play out. Personally I think YT is the perfect place to go to with something you feel is proof of UFO's because, who are you going to go to? Jaime Maussan is flying to Israel to interview all the uploaders and see if there's other eyewitness but I'm sure that will be dismissed with lol's, which again proves my point.

It seems there is no winning situation for video/photographic proof, if you bring it to an Israeli news station it more than likely will be confiscated never to be seen again, if you go to a public ufology figure no one will believe you anyway and chances are you would be exploited in the situation which almost did happen with Michael Cohen, who is still trying to manipulate this. Even if it ended up in the hands of a reliable source 95% of the world would never see it in a UFO show or documentary.

If it were me with real video footage, putting it on YT is exactly what I would do. At least that way the media catches it if it goes viral. Debunk the videos to beyond a shadow of a doubt, not the motivations, reasoning or actions of people you have never met.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
How many people a) look up! In my neighborhood, we did, and the only others not in their own media run paradigm bias's were the natives on the rez bordering the townhouses, which were on the edge of town. I discovered that there were others who were very discreet about seeing the same things I saw over their yards, natives keep to themselves, don't share info wtih the MAN, us white folk, and distrust media paradigms immensely.

Alright, so who amongst my neighbors witnessed this? No one. When we had a house guest over for a week, who did experience things, and sitings, he made alot of noise outback and embarrassed me, but for the first time we had neighbors admit the craft was completely anamolous: ie, very low, soundless, small, no wingspan, directly over the roof, and all the planes over the roof at a higher altitude, had a wingspan and noticeably 3 lights, white, red and what some say is green though I often see blue. His relative who he phoned said, knee jerk reaction, this craft flying very low and soundless over our roof was a satelite.
Yes siree, they certainly fly very low in airspace over houses, instead of out of the atmosphere!!!! And most people think anything is a plane, no matter what the specifics are about it. So....

b) misidentify!

Did the old folks in the trailer park notice? If anyone did they kept it to themselves!!!!

Did the various games that were filled with spectators and often went to past 11 with loud music in the summer time in the sports field across the road notice? No reports that I know of? My whole family witnessed them, my son would call me out, including, black choppers showing up and trailing after them, and scout planes, when I was writing and sharing more of what had happened with another experiencer, that was joined by a TR3B, that flew very very low over our roof, no noise but a vibrational hum, and multi colored lights along the edge. That was the end of winter, by the way, 09. That triangle flew out in early evening 6 30 roughly, pm. A bit ego, no concern at all who saw, and what they thought, and hovered behind the evergreens alarming my then 17 year old son, he's now 19. He thought, its too late in the year to suddenly decorate the outdoor group of evergreens and went to the glass sliding doors. Ergo, same thing as was with the scout planes, I guess they use those in the wintertime for some close up surveillance.

Kind of proves free energy and anti gravity exists and works really well. Those ones are ours!

So who looks up? Who does? The ones they nudge and call out, in other words no coincidences when you see it. And natives are pretty much out of the mainstream boxes we're in and more of them notice or are also nudged and called out.

So I don't buy the argument that only 4 videos or so showed up. So what? From personal experience, that means nothing. Most wouldn't think twice at lights in the sky, no matter how much they don't add up to anything they see.
edit on 8-2-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
Personally I think YT is the perfect place to go to with something you feel is proof of UFO's because, who are you going to go to?

A free-for-all anonymous service with no vetting capability is the best place to upload an earth-shattering video so that it may be auto-converted to poor quality and placed among the LOLs and hoaxes is the best place? Really?



Jaime Maussan is flying to Israel to interview all the uploaders and see if there's other eyewitness

If there are others, why isn't the news already filled with their account of an extraordinary light descending on one of the holiest places on the planet?



It seems there is no winning situation for video/photographic proof,

Blame the hoaxers, UFO con-men, and sensationalists.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 

Now look again at video 4 and ignore the ufo, instead watch the traffic.
Right side, just below center.

To me that's no background still from another picture.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


After reading your post, I was left with a sizable headache. I'm not exactly sure what you was trying to say, but I believe you was trying to point out that not everyone pays attention to the sky?

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



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Movhisattva
 


With due respect, clip 4 came out after the debunkers on this site and a few others all pointed towards the first three clips lacking any city movement.

since the hoaxers obviously are watching the debunking, don't you think they may add some movement in the new clip?

Another thing, there are a few pictures online of that exact vantage point, all have a very important detail that the UFO clip is missing, a large bright street light in the intersection of the main road.

In the UFO clip it is missing.

Funny how you can find many pictures of that cross section, from that vantage point, and that light is there...but its missing in the video clip.

Strange also that its the exact place the cars move through.

Meaning- it was "cleared away" by photo editing to make a clear path for the cars.

Don't believe me? Look closely at the UFO clip and notice more then a few things missing in detail. You can see at the tee-section of the main road, it is mysteriously smooth and without any identifiable details, while all photos of that area seem to show lights there.

Stationary, permanent bright lights.

Please explain?

MM



new topics

top topics



 
216
<< 143  144  145    147  148  149 >>

log in

join