UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

reply to post by QuantumDisciple


Nor would Israel want to give any kind of a nod to Islam. I'm glad to hear Mufon is going to check it out, thanks for sharing that info.

reply to post by Kali74


There appears to be a lot of weight pressing these videos down. Almost every large media source that has mentioned this story will talk about the 1st and 2nd video and then use the third to debunk them all. Here we are, 150 pages of discussion and debate without a clear and defined proof that one of these videos are a hoax let alone all three, yet and we are still doing it in the the hoax forum.

"Dedicated forum for ATS threads that have been proven to be hoaxes, frauds, or part of deceptive schemes on a variety of topics"

Originally posted by QuantumDisciple
reply to post by Kali74

 

There appears to be a lot of weight pressing these videos down. Almost every large media source that has mentioned this story will talk about the 1st and 2nd video and then use the third to debunk them all. Here we are, 150 pages of discussion and debate without a clear and defined proof that one of these videos are a hoax let alone all three, yet and we are still doing it in the the hoax forum.

"Dedicated forum for ATS threads that have been proven to be hoaxes, frauds, or part of deceptive schemes on a variety of topics"

Just look back at the last page, mind telling me where those lights came from / went? How more obvious do you need, aside from EVERYTHING else that has been brought to the table.

Want to know why we have 150 pages of discussion? It's because theres alot of people who are speaking about seeing angels in the light, red lights that are engines not cloaked by their cloaking tech, 2nd coming of baby jesus and all other types of lunny. THAT is why theres 150 pages. Also alot of

Bob says "prove this"
Tom proclaims "I proved that already, _______ see?"
Bob says"well I still dont believe you just because the bible started with the word IN"
Tom said "what's that got to do with anything?"
Bob states "flying saucers are ufos, I seen a ghost when I was a newborn"
Tom says "that's not even coherent"
Bob says "what is contain it everything?"

The point is, these are fake, and the insurmountable evidence clearly outlines this conclusion, yet we still continue to dance this dance

Jerusalem UFO clip 4 Offical Mr. Mask Debunk Video III.

WARNING: Highly technical and probably only for the big science/math types.

DISCLAIMER: Due to intense subject manner there was accidently use of the F word twice in this video. Maybe three. But it was entirely impossible to make these scientific statements without using that word as many times as I used it. In fear of losing "completeness" of point I decided not to censure this video.

EDITOR"S NOTE: This video is the end result of many hours of research and dedication to the mysterious flying CGI UFO that was digitally inserted into pictures to appear above of the Temple Mount. It seems at this time my theories are over looked and not seen as the "end all smoking gun" as of yet.

Though this case rests already on firm ground, I present to you my official Jerusalem UFO clip-4 Debunk pt3

Originally posted by QuantumDisciple
reply to post by Kali74

 

Here we are, 150 pages of discussion and debate without a clear and defined proof that one of these videos are a hoax let alone all three, yet and we are still doing it in the the hoax forum.

I don't know what you going on about.. The majority of people in here see this proof as being solid and unquestionable.

If anything, the onus is on unswayable believers to disprove that the shake effect was *NOT* being used on these videos and to sway us into agreeing that you have a point. So do you have proof that it was *not* a shake effect ? Please describe in detail or at least re-read the thread 'cos it is pretty darn obvious by now.

Originally posted by DeboWilliams

Originally posted by QuantumDisciple
reply to post by Kali74

 

There appears to be a lot of weight pressing these videos down. Almost every large media source that has mentioned this story will talk about the 1st and 2nd video and then use the third to debunk them all. Here we are, 150 pages of discussion and debate without a clear and defined proof that one of these videos are a hoax let alone all three, yet and we are still doing it in the the hoax forum.

"Dedicated forum for ATS threads that have been proven to be hoaxes, frauds, or part of deceptive schemes on a variety of topics"

Just look back at the last page, mind telling me where those lights came from / went? How more obvious do you need, aside from EVERYTHING else that has been brought to the table.

Want to know why we have 150 pages of discussion? It's because theres alot of people who are speaking about seeing angels in the light, red lights that are engines not cloaked by their cloaking tech, 2nd coming of baby jesus and all other types of lunny. THAT is why theres 150 pages. Also alot of

Bob says "prove this"
Tom proclaims "I proved that already, _______ see?"
Bob says"well I still dont believe you just because the bible started with the word IN"
Tom said "what's that got to do with anything?"
Bob states "flying saucers are ufos, I seen a ghost when I was a newborn"
Tom says "that's not even coherent"
Bob says "what is contain it everything?"

The point is, these are fake, and the insurmountable evidence clearly outlines this conclusion, yet we still continue to dance this dance

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

I do not know where those lights came from and I don't believe you do either. There are so many variable in a motion picture of a city panorama. You don't know what is in front or behind those lights, if they are just reflections, if they are CMOS jello, if they are even on the same focal plane. Is it really crazy to see something that appears to be symmetrical, or a mirror image, or even a pattern that resembles a elephant in a cityscape and not believe it's fake?

I disagree with you. I think we have a 150 pages because you along with others have made a weak case. The way that you have ignored all counter-points and the way you have ganged up with MM and used mind games to try and make anyone who doesn't buy your opinions as fact feel stupid has made many suspicious of you. You have used the same tactics over and over that the mainstream media has used on this story. Find a weakness in one to disprove them all. But guess what? We aren't buying it.

reply to post by Mr Mask


It's not a Mach III, it's a Plenbian 5 Mach IV inter-dimensional space craft.

But beside that - nicely done!!

-m0r

reply to post by Mr Mask

Bravo! You still have not got any rest?

People, where are the witnesses?

The Mississippi lady would have sung like a bird when she got back home.

BIG MONEY!

Unless they detained the entire population........muwahhhhaaaaa

Sorry MM, nothing more to add.

Originally posted by Mr Mask
Jerusalem UFO clip 4 Offical Mr. Mask Debunk Video III.

WARNING: Highly technical and probably only for the big science/math types.

You've very funny Mr. Mask Nice work there!!

I still see slight differences in configuration and alignment in those two images... For me they would have to have spent quite a lengthy amount of time rendering out differences to the stock image and even slightly moving things around.. You have to admit that filming it directly would be a lot less time consuming and effort to give it a realistic feel than using a stock photo and giving that life. To me it's pretty clear, Israeli's talking in a car, stopping off at what looks like a viewpoint, cars and life in the video, I just think that'd either be dumb or living elsewhere to have used a stock photo when they could have simply put a camera on a tripod and filmed it for 5 minutes. Then they wouldn't need to put in realistic looking moving cars, people etc.

Consider that a viewing spot is a viewing spot. There's one in my town that many people have taken photographs from. The perspective of those shots is not going to differ very highly if somebody else took a photo or video of the viewpoint. If we saw a glaring lack of disparity between the two I'd be more convinced but there are still lots of differences in lights etc.,, which is tons of work for no reward.

reply to post by Mr Mask


I stumbled upon something Incredibly Interesting watching Space Documentaries on the Tube.

Imagine this Technology 3-5 Years Older and On a Larger Scale..



Last Night I was Watching synced Videos of the Jerusalem Temple Mount UFO and Found a Video by "TiborasaurusRex" who believes the Event is related to Project Bluebeam.

4-5 Minutes into the Video he describes an Article he found about about 2 Massive Electric Generators being brought to the Mount on January 25th, source is supposedly an Israeli News Site.



Just wanted to say, I'm leaning more and more on a Psy-Op after seeing the Laser Propelled Craft on a small scale and if the News is true about the Generators!

I'm not saying or agreeing its related to Bluebeam but the Generator info is compelling.

Thanx in Advance for your Warm Welcome to the ATS Community!

Originally posted by timewalker
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

Bravo! You still have not got any rest?

How can I rest when the internet people still don't know the truth?

One day they'll say...Mask knew...dear god Mask knew.

MM

reply to post by AbleEndangered


Welcome new member...you are in the hoax forum.

The UFO was actually technology of a cheaper variety.

CGI over photo.

Hoax...

reply to post by Mr Mask






MM,

This solidly counters your still image theft theory. Please READ the post...don't just look at the pretty pictures. Did you have any other ideas why the 4th video might be a fake?

This could be CGI cleverly done with:

4 (3 if you Include the still Image theory) Video Recordings Devices, the worse the Recording Quality the Better.
Google Earth
GPS Handheld Device
3D studio Max or Maya with:
_____4 Seperate Rendering Cameras positioned to scale with GPS refinement,
_____The Temple Mount and Local Geometry of Buildings and terrain in 3D format modeled to Scale
_____Just Rendering the Light, then Composite with a Video Editor like
Adobe After Effects or Final Cut with:
_____Camera Shake (simulated or matched to cameras movement) added to Light Rendering Composite Layer
_____Still Image will be Edited here to appear Video Like along
_____Along with various Blur, motion Blur, Posterization, etc.. Editing Filters the Composite Light layer could be blurred up and res'd down to look like crap like it's capturing device counterpart
8-10 Very Convincing and Talented Actors ranging Racially and Culturally

But yeah it could be pulled off with CGI Techniques and some simple trigonometry that a 3D Rendering Application can handle for you if you work in scale.

I'm personally still leaning on Psy-Op....

Especially if this Baby News is true!

reply to post by Marsoups


Perhaps I am not clear. That background is the stock image I just showed you.

In fact, all three are the same stock image, one just is a glamor version of the other with the tree in the left hand corner darkened out (look close, youll see it).

The UFO clip, is the exact same picture. Down to a tee.

Considerably time? Heck no..."control T" and then "hold apple key while pull", is all that was done.

If you know photoshop, and look in the details, you will automatically see it.

Its a pulled version...in your head, unpull it.

Bah, when the hoaxers get called out, you'll know then.

Till then, enjoy.

MM

Originally posted by QuantumDisciple

MM,

This solidly counters your still image theft theory. Please READ the post...don't just look at the pretty pictures. Did you have any other ideas why the 4th video might be a fake?

I already have. More then once. All my colleagues and anti-bunkers alike seem to think its a moving city scene.

But I assure you- it is not- that IS the picture.

MM

Originally posted by QuantumDisciple
This solidly counters your still image theft theory.

No. Not really.

But it does point out that someone spent time on the details. Details which were highlighted by ATS members prior to the appearance of video four.

Originally posted by AbleEndangered
This could be CGI cleverly done with:
4 (3 if you Include the still Image theory) Video Recordings Devices, the worse the Recording Quality the Better....

Stop right there.

I have a Mac Pro with the most-current suite of Final Cut tools... lots of HD space, and a great big color-calibrated monitor. I assure you that the scene in video 4 could be replicated (or better) with the equipment at my disposal and a high-res digital photo.

I just have to laugh now I think, this whole thread has been more like a popularity contest or a political election...complete with negative campaigning equating anyone questioning debunk with blind belief. We even had third party zealots and conspiracy theorists detracting from the underdog. Recount?

In all seriousness though, while I think the explanations debunkers gave I believe there's alternative explanations that are justified because of use of cellphones. Regardless though they deserve recognition for the hard work they put in (in case I never made that clear before).

I'm done with it even though I think truth wasn't served, I've made every argument I can made every demonstration that I had the means to and not backed down from insult thrown at me...and honestly spent way too much time doing so. Later.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Yeah if all 4 are in fact the same single image.

The Possibility still exists it was in fact 4 video recording devices all taken from the same vantage point. With in 20 feet of each other.

Your Viewing angle would only be off a fraction of a degree.

Try it yourself. View a building a 1000 meters away. Move over 20 feet. does the View Change that drastically?

Only if a tree blocking the view is present, I wish the tree there was more pronounced in the videos.

If this is a Hoax, it is probably one of the most elaborate and toughest to convince otherwise.

Are there Eyewitness's on the ground reporting this to back up these 4 Videos??????????????