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: 157
216
<< 154  155  156    158  159  160 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slipdig1
Maybe if they end up real, as I think its still inconclusive, they will make you look the fool.


I look forward to that day.

I just hope you understand until that day that you look the fool.

It might not be said often here but there are plenty of intelligent folk around the world laughing at you personally right now.

I'm sure if, and when, 'they' ever come they'll join in.

I hope that puts things into perspective.

-m0r




posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by m0r1arty
If you think that making a big issue out of this for hits and therefore advertising revenue then I accept that - you are a business afterall.

In the scheme of our overall traffic, this topic is less than 1%. Our traffic (and resulting ad revenue) would be healthy without it, and likely unaltered by this idea.



If you wish for the scrutiny and scepticism of people who can do so with due diligence and decency then I ask for a reprisal of November 2010 policy which saw many members head off to...

I wouldn't call it "many," perhaps a handful at best. But I have no idea what policy you're referring to. We've always embraced a healthy balance and promoted active invalidation of UFO sightings when needed.



...and perhaps apologise to those who have been culled...

There has been no "culling," though some have experienced action on their accounts due to rude behavior.



Thing is I don't think you are asking a genuine question about how ATS should be but rather make a statement on a popular thread.

Apparently you misunderstand the intent. We can take advantage of our existing high-traffic, as well as the existing well-placed search returns on this topic, to better inform visitors as to the reality of this event. It's a hoax.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
 


Just to add.... If I "didn't know what I was talking about", then why would Robert Sheaffer support my analysis, and then Space.com support Robert Sheaffer's support of my analysis, and even get mentioned by Discovery.com?

I guess all these websites and people "don't know what they are talking about"?

Where is your work?
edit on 9-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)


* It means you have some friends over at Discovery and maybe a few peers within the science community that take what you say and present mostly on face value. Shame on them.



* My work? My work I would never post on a public message board, or contact people all over the media scape about what I do.

Btw you probably couldn't afford my work, so I'm not showing it to you.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
 


Just to fix your inaccurate statements...

The original debunk of the first video when it came out was that there is parallax issues, and perspective issues. This lead me to believe the background was static, and a composite. Then after finding evidence of motion tiling which is commonly used when adding fake camera shake, this confirmed the parallax and perspective issues. The camera was moving artificially so there was no real parallax, and this messed up the geometry/perspective as well.

I stand by my original conclusion that the parallax and perspective is incorrect, and it is further supported by evidence of fake camera shake and motion tiling.

There is some evidence that the background of video 1 is a static image and Mr. Mask has researched that path further... I am not 100% sure about that anymore, but when this all started it was one of many explanations for the parallax and perspective issues, and can still be and additional factor.

Nobody has proven it wrong to date. There were several amateur attempts, but the person attempting to prove it wrong didn't even understand the original argument and measurements, and didn't understand the issues. Half the points made were irrelevant.

So what do you have?
edit on 9-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: typos


Re- response:

Read and noted.

So?



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Jesus man I hate having to do this.

I hoe somewhere in your heart you at least appreciate that!


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
In the scheme of our overall traffic, this topic is less than 1%. Our traffic (and resulting ad revenue) would be healthy without it, and likely unaltered by this idea.


1% of everything is much better than 100% of nothing. You also have to prescribe time scales and links to that affect. So it is known I am not looking for either them or a response that I either am or am not.


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I wouldn't call it "many," perhaps a handful at best. But I have no idea what policy you're referring to. We've always embraced a healthy balance and promoted active invalidation of UFO sightings when needed.


Again, the value you place upon the singular or the few does not amount to their worth. It does not take a reasoned mind much to see the attitude towards reasonable and decent sceptics here on ATS within the middle of November 2010 and December 2010 and how many of them are here and posting now.

I cannot speak for any other than myself but I feel a kinship with some and can state we have lost valuable members for no other reason that an attack on scepticism from the administration and moderation of ATS and you can read my, and others, opinion about this on the prior linked site - which it seemed you used to take part in.

I, in no way infer your lack of taking part in that site, can presume why you have come to the decisions you have made but I can state that I have not felt comfortable here and I know that many of those who I would call my intellectual superiors or at the very least excellent investigators feel in a similar vein to me.

By way of a brilliant and shining example; where is Phage*?


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
MISQUOTE BY M0R1ARTY - but still who's perfect? - it's my reply to SO's reply!

Apparently you misunderstand the intent. We can take advantage of our existing high-traffic, as well as the existing well-placed search returns on this topic, to better inform visitors as to the reality of this event. It's a hoax.

I have no issue with ATS taking a decent return on its output (user generated output - I must add). You are a business and, as such, must make money to keep yourself afloat. I wish you the best in that venture. However bypassing some attributes of your delivery system does make you look foolish and whether or not you are reflective to see that is irrelevant. Someone else will pick up your business model, one you have defined I have to state, and make it better.

I'm not even talking about simple things like URLs with content included in their names I'm talking about a reflective and cited working practise - the modern internet,

Again; it's your business and who am I to criticise it. Or anyone else for that matter. Why don't we let you go on and do things we know are silly? I suppose it's the sceptic in us, it's also the same passion you had when you joined this team or when Simon and Springer started it.

When all is said and done - you either win with this model or it adapts to something else.

We both know adaptation is the only way

Why does my idea sound so silly to you

-m0r
edit on 9/2/2011 by m0r1arty because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I had alot more than that Mor1arty....



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Slipdig1
 


There's a zero in m0r1arty!

And what did you have a lot more of than I?

-m0r
edit on 9/2/2011 by m0r1arty because: Oune of the feu tymes recantly I cuaght myself having a speelling mystook



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by m0r1arty

Originally posted by Slipdig1
Maybe if they end up real, as I think its still inconclusive, they will make you look the fool.


I look forward to that day.

I just hope you understand until that day that you look the fool.

-m0r


Why would I look the fool I haven't stated whether I think these are real? I never said that they are definitely Aliens or UFO's or Angels.
Your the one who has definitely stated they aren't.

I have said either way its inconclusive.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Slipdig1
 


Task, task my dear person.

I've stated that at this point in time they are hoaxes as proven by the evidence to state they are,

My opinion is always open to being changed; I'm a sceptic for unproven-god's sake!

-m0r



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Sorry will remember the zero, I had alot about my reasons why it hasn't been debunked, but I'll come back and post tomorrow as its like 3:00 am in the morning where i am.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
If the people here in the majority agree that this is a hoax then I believe them.

I think a lot of people here would of loved this to be the real deal.

It does not make sense when the evidence is presented that this is a hoax to keep
holding onto it because you want it to be real.

Question everything before you believe it.

Make your own decision, but I believe this is a hoax, I wish it was not, but the evidence says otherwise.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Go for it, when it comes about that mirrored tiling was nothing more than a result of sh!tty quality video phones (the reason? it only happened with rapid motion, have none of you seen similar examples of video from cell phones? LOL) and that there is indeed a pyramid like building in the very spot that one of these glitches happens and that some cameras pick up more light sources than others, this site will look foolish. Witnesses will and are starting to come forward and the uploaders themselves will be interviewed.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Not sure if you noticed but I completely went against the parallax issue due to me being able to achieve it on my very reasonable Panasonic Hard Drive camera (their first ever actually) due to my living in a country where it's 12 hours of day and dark.

But I must admit that the mirror titling cannot be achieved on that, or any number of phones/cameras/drug induced occasions that I have ever had.

It is definitive to me. But I salute your asking it not to be. Now supply some evidence to that affect.

-m0r



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I find it puzzling that no one has commented on:

-The new @TheJerusalemUFO twitter account tied to the Space.com site around the same time that site put out an article saying it's a hoax
-The absence of witnesses who say they were in area and didn't see the UFO.
-The Jerusalem live web cam videos not working anymore, although they did work at first...this is the only video we have to work with that I know of besides the original videos
-The Hebrew-language witness accounts of the UFO on the forum
-And no one can answer my question: did ALL FOUR UFO videos posted get *100%* debunked, regardless of order posted and all that stuff? If there's even just one video out there that has not been totally debunked...then the case isn't over. I've seen videos debunking the debunked videos. Who am I supposed to trust? Why is it stupid of me to still be open minded in absence of clear unbiased analysis?

And btw, that YouTube cover up blog post is still gone...maybe author is just editing it or something? haha



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by m0r1arty
 


What exactly did you achieve with your camera?

Were you able to film a foreground object and a background object moving together as one object while moving the camera as much as seen in video 1?



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by m0r1arty
Jesus man I hate having to do this.

So do I... seriously. This issue has been beaten to death and beyond.



It does not take a reasoned mind much to see the attitude towards reasonable and decent sceptics here on ATS within the middle of November 2010 and December 2010...

"Decent skeptics?" We've always been supportive of skeptical analysis for the purpose of discovering the truth. However, "angry skeptics" have opted to purposefully misconstrue our intentions which have always been focused on civility and decorum. If a "skeptic" (or anyone) cannot contribute in a civilized manner, ATS is not the venue for them.



...for no other reason that an attack on scepticism from the administration and moderation of ATS...

The purposeful misinterpretation of our intentions continue.



However bypassing some attributes of your delivery system does make you look foolish and whether or not you are reflective to see that is irrelevant.

How so? This would not be the first time we've sought to aggregate the findings of our users in a more noticeable and easily-digested manner on a high-profile topic. And if you noticed, I put the query to the participants of this thread before moving forward.



it's also the same passion you had when you joined this team or when Simon and Springer started it.

Your information on the origins is flawed... just as it is on the intentions we communicated regarding the habitually uncivil contributions of those choosing a skeptical stance.

We've put the clear information out there. It's not my fault if you choose to see it differently than clearly portrayed, or worse, intentionally obfuscate our position.



The issue remains. We have good work illustrating the clear fabrication of a UFO "event" within this thread here on ATS... most of which is difficult for the new visitor to find and/or piece together. A concise summary will certainly add to the common-good of accurate information within the realm of UFOlogy.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
With the tiles why can there not be two buildings that look the same in the one city?
edit on 9-2-2011 by Slipdig1 because: forgot g



new topics

top topics



 
216
<< 154  155  156    158  159  160 >>

log in

join