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: 158
216
<< 155  156  157    159  160  161 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
By the way hillynilly...

Just believing what the majority believes is the opposite of questioning everything before you believe in it...




posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by hootlj
And seriously, I think the Jerusalem web cams working until someone spotted the orb...and then not working after that would be worth noting in a summary.

But that's just me ; )


Working fine for me. And l see the orb was back on Saturday morning at 5.24, and again on Saturday evening at 18.24, and this time it hung around for 10 minutes.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Really, you can see the past web cams? From past dates? how did you do it? haha!

It used to work and now old web cams load perpetually.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I know Zorgon is keeping records of all that is happening with this case.

I also know Gif0f and Tranny both di a lot of the debunking that showed these clips were 100% fake.
A few others here have also done a lot to add to or help with bringing the facts in the face of all the blatent disinfo and confusion.

If such a thread was to be created, I'd highly suggested asking any of them first, or maybe creating it yourself to assure completeness.

I would offer my time and energy to collecting data, questioning others involved, and detailing the events but I was basically handed this thread by Staff and I don't think its fair to give ol Masky another free meal like that-

So yeah- I think a detailed report of this "after proven to be hoax" would be a good addition next to this thread that was obviously made "before proven to be hoax".

Yknow, a run down of events and an "after-party" of sorts.

But make no mistake, there will be endless people claiming the evidence is stupid or inconclusive...but hey, thems the breaks.

MM



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


It can be an end-all summary post within this thread, that is lined-to directly. I don't think we need another thread.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


no we do nee danother thread
think of all of those that have read threw all this crap bitching and slagging
just post a new thread with all the vitals at the begining
theres to much trash to scroll threw in this thread!
use your melon!



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
So I guess we're just speculating that this is all made up? www.ufoeyes.com...

Someone wanting attention on a thread? What do we think of the guy who tracked this down, ATS' haketem ?



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
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?


To be honest GoP I've filmed many things like that on may camera, They've always been at night, whilst I'm drunk and in a Thai light condition (much in the foreground overlit with fairylights and the like) due to the fact I live on a bay which overlooks an industrial site which is plenty lit.

That was my only dispute towards the moving parallax as I've seen it myself. Ask Mr Mask - I spoke with him personally on the matter. However with the focus put upon the mirrored tiling I cannot dispute the parallax behaviour as that is absolute in my opinion. No sign, whatsoever, of truth making - everything else,bar the sounds which I still dispute, does to show that.

As for the sounds, I made a freely available and for use with an open source (free program) to look at and I've got to say whilst I'm not concluded on that alone. The slight sounds of tampering which align with the CGI do show a sign of cheap and almost comical effort..

So I hope you now understand I have been sceptical about this the entire time. It's just that the evidence presented seems to shine entirely favourably upon the hoax opinion.

I meant onion sorry - I love onions!

-m0r



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
From what I heard it seemed that the original video was indeed genuine and the follow-ups were intentionally created to discredit the original.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 



Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
If a "skeptic" (or anyone) cannot contribute in a civilized manner, ATS is not the venue for them.


It's kind of hard to remain civil when trolls say things like:


Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
... internet buffoons ... debunking clowns ... what scum they are ...



....and admin do nothing about.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by hootlj
Really, you can see the past web cams? From past dates?


Yep. And I got a hell of a shock looking at 28/1/2010 until I realised it was the setting Moon I was seeing



It used to work and now old web cams load perpetually.


Oh. Well, can't really help you, I'm afraid...have you tried switching it off and on again?



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by m0r1arty
 


I assure you that you did not film such a thing, and if you showed me the video, I would show you the parallax.

The motion tiling proves there is fake camera shake, and if there is fake camera movement that explains the parallax issues.

I am not talking about the "moving wall", I am talking about zero movement of the foreground object (the man) against the background object (the city lights). Even the smallest change of angle in the camera will cause movement of the foreground object against the background, there is no escaping it. That is missing in the video, obviously because the camera is not changing angles, the movement is fake.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by m0r1arty
 


Well, I don't have sound where I am atm so I don't know if there's anything innapropriate in here, apologies if so. It's just the 1st video I came across that looks like it may have what I'm trying to say after typing in "uploaded from phone" maybe someone if they feel bothered to, can check it out.



edit on 9-2-2011 by Kali74 because: well crap hang on


www.youtube.com...
edit on 9-2-2011 by Kali74 because: Link sorry can't seem to get it to show in window



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by m0r1arty
That was my only dispute towards the moving parallax as I've seen it myself.

Parallax becomes more pronounced as real-world perspective lengthens for distant objects. The same/similar issue has been a point of contention in many of the 9/11 "TV Fakery" topics... a misunderstanding of the effects of parallax through camera lenses... especially telephoto.

The more intriguing point of this possibility with video-1 relates the possibility of image compositing of the foreground wall & person over an apparent still image of Jerusalem... there's no green-screen ghosting, which would be apparent in such a low-lit composite.

Also, there was discussion of an interlaced video effect at the end of the 4th video, as the camera pans up. After several looks, it's not the result of interlacing, which always gives a sharp-edge in digital videos that have not been de-interlaced -- I'm now certain that it's artificial motion blur.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask
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.


Mr Mask, that is actually a little known (but very useful) analysis method, liberally applying the F word has positive effects even if the initial reaction is a negative one.

Failing that I like to pull out my wooden baseball bat and play a game of squash



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
It's kind of hard to remain civil when trolls say things like:

Did anyone alert us to that? (where is it?)

Even though I've recently been somewhat active in this thread, I've missed it.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
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.


1) A camera phone doesn't add tiling to the sides of pics.

2) A camera phone (or any camera) has no need to add tiles to a pic, because tiles are added only after a picture is altered and moved around a screen using digital effects. If the image is not altered digitally then all the sides are full with the original picture- and have no reason to add tiling.

3) It is impossible for a camera phone to add mirrored tiles to a screen image that is impossibly moving "off its own screen".

4) Your post is filled with lies and they are so obvious in their attempts.

MM



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I alerted one post twice, and the second once.

I even sent you a U2U with links to the posts.

You even quoted the "internet buffoons" comment.
edit on 9-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Since non video editing experts can't do anything but trust what you guys say...I have to guess it's all a hoax. I still say though that if there is just one video that you guys don't think for sure is a hoax, don't rule out the others as attempts to discredit it. it is not clear to me, the layman, if the debunkers 100% agree on the analysis of EACH of the 4 videos - and that's why there's still a big question mark in my mind. Only one of the videos needs to be real, guys, and that's something that continually is not getting addressed. Even when you guys say here that a video has been debunked, you'll say "it's almost entirely been proven..." etc. So, I'm sure you're right in your analysis, but you don't all seem to be in 100% agreement about every single video you've been debunking...I can't read an argument about whether mirror tiling happened in the video between two people who know more than me, and then decide who's right. So, I have to go off other things.

I don't know who the unbiased video editors and whatnot are, I have to go off EVERYTHING I'm seeing and hearing - including people saying they saw the UFO in a forum.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


haha shows you the great work they do to stop it all!
i should have this as a signature!

classic



new topics

top topics



 
216
<< 155  156  157    159  160  161 >>

log in

join