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: 160
216
<< 157  158  159    161  162  163 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by hootlj
Do want to add in the interview where Michael Cohen talks about talking to witness, he does say more than 1 video is a fraud..or that at least 1 video had been re-edited and re-released to look like a hoax.

Again, I find all this to be far-fetched - that Michael Cohen talked to the guy, I mean - so I don't trust his take, either.

Just wanted to add that to the plate here.


I've been intouch with Cohen, I didn't take the ATS hate with me, I approached it quite honestly with no bias. I conclude after brief dialogue with him and his cronies (via facebook) that the guy is using this to drive traffic to the site we shall not speak of. They point blank refuse to take onboard any of the evidence presented. He claims to be intouch with the witnesses, but has gained absolutely no information than that which we already know. He now claims that the witnesses have "disappeared". The guy is rude and arrogant and can not be trusted as an official voice on anything as far as i'm concerned. I now know why mention of his site is banned here.
edit on 9-2-2011 by ceetee because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Hello, Stragglers. This thread is beginning to remind me of the Douglas Adams books I read as a teenager. Wasn't there a 'longest running party in the universe' going on in one of the last books? Anyway, I am now sure that I will be able to log into ATS a year from now and this will still be happening.
Here is why #1 is an absolute fake to me: CMOS chips in video cameras have a problem. Remember this when you go to bestbuy. Vibration and movement cause the CMOS chip to produce an effect or 'artifact' called 'jello'. I have included a good 'Jello' video link again so you can check it out. In video 1 you see this jello on everything but the fake background. Watch the video. The foreground video was shot, in my opinion, with a camera with a CMOS chip in it. There is 'jello all over the tree and the wall and the guy in the foreground. That is why the legs and upper torso of the guy in front are doing the funky fandango. But there is no jello on the fake backdrop of the city of Jerusalem. Because it is a still picture. Honestly how can you look at # 1 and not see this now. I can understand at first or second viewing but at this point I think that you folks are being obstinate.
It helped me early on to go back and look at all the video again as though it were confirmed a hoax. This may aid your perception a little. Try it as an exercise. Look at the fake background in #1. Let it sink in.

Jello Demo: www.youtube.com...
Hoax Vid #1: www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
No, that's not it at all.

In order to silence the debate, the best thign to do is also disprove the cover up...which honestly with one hoax video not even looking anything like the others, that was a red flag for me in the early days.

You can say it's probably a hoax because of the others, but there's still a chance there was a legit video that someone tried to discredit.

I'm not asking for the best fake video, I'm trying to find out if there is a video of all of these that has yet to be fully debunked or even debunked at all. Because if there is a legit video among fake ones, this is still of interest to a site like this.

Not to even mention the debunking is still coming from this little incestuous group of video editors who are both pointing hands at each other...

Again, you guys probably don't realize this, but I do think this is all probably a hoax. I think we would have heard more from the locals by now if it wasn't...but the fact of the matter is the case IS still open and it is still early on to close it down.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
And also, I do trust these ATS people more than anyone else...why else would I be here?

I'd just love a quick sum up of someone debunking the most authentic of the videos. That's all, it should be easy enough to do? It's so hard to search these pages...and the technical speak doesn't mean anything to me!

And thanks for clarifications about Michael Cohen...yeah I don't think he's legit either.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by hootlj
 


People can claim to see anything to ride the wave. or maybe, just cos they feel like lying.

without more footage from a solid source, we cannot continue this investigation. it's just another complete waste of time. arguing about it will never fix it. I suggest we all just shut up about it until something else happens. The only thing that really matters for disclosure/acceptance of ET is mass belief; the planet thinks this is a hoax so that's it, dead.

Bring on the next thing.

edit on 9-2-2011 by ceetee because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-2-2011 by ceetee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by hootlj
 


Just look at Mister Mask's final video if you are hung up on #4. It's right there. I agree with MM when he points out the heavy handed editing that produced space for 'cars' to move around in.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
To understand where I'm coming from - I'm an extremely detail oriented person who is good at her job because I don't miss those details. Sometimes they're the most telling. So, you guys give me a simple explanation of how the most authentic video is a fake, and I really will be very appreciative. I just want to know as much as possible, and people refuting some but not all of the videos just doesn't give me much to work with, especially when one of hte hoax videos is so different than the others...just makes you believe more in a cover up!



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Ok great so video #4 is the most authentic? That's all I needed to know, guys!!! I'll go and review the video. : )



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by hootlj
To understand where I'm coming from - I'm an extremely detail oriented person who is good at her job because I don't miss those details. Sometimes they're the most telling. So, you guys give me a simple explanation of how the most authentic video is a fake, and I really will be very appreciative. I just want to know as much as possible, and people refuting some but not all of the videos just doesn't give me much to work with, especially when one of hte hoax videos is so different than the others...just makes you believe more in a cover up!


i've covered all the fakes on my site. Most of the information comes from these threads, its just easier to read without all the bickering
... not to hijack the thread but you can read it here As far as i'm concerned (and i've spent a stupid amount of time on this) I simply cannot refute the Motion Tiling evidence, it's plain to see, especially when you see it recreated in the videos.


edit on 9-2-2011 by ceetee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by werner76
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.



PALEEAASE....Do a pixel comparison!! How many time do I have to ask you all? And if you can shop me ANY new texture that is not present in the before-flash frame, then I take my hat. Everything else ist image editing, and you don't seem to know how clever Adobe and likewise algorithms are. It like you're assuming that 2 fingerprints don't look identical from a distance. Please do a proper forensic analysis = pixel comparison, and don't tell me to "look closely" at what you "expect" how something "should behave". This is all subjective, don't you get it?



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy

Originally posted by redoubt
I think it is one of many explanations based on an opinion of the individual presenting it.


One of many explanations? Oh really? Care to list those many explanations?


Originally posted by redoubt
Most of the time, when these kinds of vids and photos surface, the scramble is by those who deny rather than accept. There are always umpteen dozen who will absolute call something a fraud... while very few who call it undeniably ET.

The thing here, in my opinion, is to avoid being one of the absolutists... shutting down the discussion or even continued observation because you (or anyone) think that everyone else should bow to a single viewpoint.


Cop-out. You are taking the road of uncertainty... You lean towards it being real but claim to stay in uncertainty.... That road leads nowhere.


Originally posted by redoubt
That's not denying ignorance. That's guaranteeing it.


No, what you are doing is guaranteeing ignorance... you keep avoiding trying to find answers... so you never get them.
edit on 9-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)


So... it's your way or the highway? No room for anyone who disagrees. If they do, you insult them.

Gotchya.

It is exactly this kind of attitude that keeps the subject of UFOs in the basement... and scares off others who don't want to be dragged around for expressing an opinion.

Congratulations.
edit on 9-2-2011 by redoubt because: typo



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by time2fly
This is all subjective, don't you get it?


that's exactly right. Most of us have no idea about CGI. I work with computers, live computers. I don't really follow graphics and although I knew you could do impressive stuff on a PC these days (I play the odd game), I was blown away when I looked into adobe after effects and watched some of the demos on their site. Basically, anything is possible now, and by using presets. This now means that anyone can spend as long as they like faking a UFO and with care and attention, it can be pretty convincing. If they read these threads and don't make the same mistakes again, I think they'll eventually hoax even the sternest debunkers. video evidence is pretty useless these days unless it's captured by many people on completely different devices and is corroborated by mass witness statements. Believing anything you find appearing on Youtube alone is madness.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Very good points ceetee.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceetee

Originally posted by time2fly
This is all subjective, don't you get it?


that's exactly right. Most of us have no idea about CGI. I work with computers, live computers. I don't really follow graphics and although I knew you could do impressive stuff on a PC these days (I play the odd game), I was blown away when I looked into adobe after effects and watched some of the demos on their site. Basically, anything is possible now, and by using presets. This now means that anyone can spend as long as they like faking a UFO and with care and attention, it can be pretty convincing. If they read these threads and don't make the same mistakes again, I think they'll eventually hoax even the sternest debunkers. video evidence is pretty useless these days unless it's captured by many people on completely different devices and is corroborated by mass witness statements. Believing anything you find appearing on Youtube alone is madness.


The thing here is to avoid assuming the worst without assuming the best. Just because something can be hoaxed, doesn't mean that it has to be a hoax.

You don't have to buy those videos as anything except interesting. You have the right to reserve final judgment no matter what anyone says.

Anyone can follow a parade. But sometimes it's better to let it just pass by and then see what's in the road when all the horse dung is swept up afterwards.




posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by hootlj
What is the most authentic video of the batch?

#4 exhibits the best "production values," but does not hold up under scrutiny as it has several questionable items, including post-production artificial motion blur.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
So, I'd love to ask a question to you die-hard ATS members...especially the video experts and stuff. What's your take on the increased UFO sightings? People just looking up at the sky more? Or something else?



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Michael Cohen, I might add, is also taking credit for leaking the original UFO videos...I don't think he's clever enough to be behind the hoax, but just FYI.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by hootlj
 


Attention-seeking.

After having been involved in UFO sightings since the pre-MUFON days, I can say (without hesitation) than 80% of all experienced "sightings" are misunderstood objects and people get carried away.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
"Update : 2

Today we have receive another email according to which the maker of Temple Mount video has admitted that his video is a hoax to the Israeli channel 2 news. Still waiting for news link.. "

From www.ufo-blogger.com...



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by pezza

Originally posted by time2fly

Originally posted by pezza
hi there time2fly

I provided a scientific analysis of the 4th video here that in my opinion is 100% bullet proof

www.abovetopsecret.com...

thanks for the kind words. I see where you are coming from. But the fact that zero new information is revealed about the terrain (and emphasis on *zero*) tells me the light is 100% synthetic. I even went to the extent of characterising/parameterising this effect on not just one feature in the image but systematically to the entire image. Thats a bit heavy and over the top for a site like ATS but i think was worthwhile for some here that may want to take their debunking skills past qualitative only based assessments and occums razors. So it has some value i think and i was even prepared to deploy the software i developed as an open source package for anyone to use. But to my dissapointment not one person asked or U2U'd me for copy (or to call my bluff
). So i was a little bit saddened by that.

Greetings:

I appreciate the humor you and Zorgon can still manage to find in the carping going on more earnestly in the last 20 pages or so. The new players are quite vociferous in their demands...and seemingly lazy.

I had to read and assimilate every page in order to get to where I am now; to ask for a shortcut would seem to invalidate any conclusions because of the 'filter" of the poster who chose what information to post in said shortcut. I find your analysis to be spot on and agree...HOAX!

I have been interested in DBUNK 1.0 since you mentioned it on page 59. Your comment, "I will try and compile a sanitised version for release. I think i will call it DBUNK1.0," implies that the product is actually "vaporware" and not available. I, for one, would be interested in being involved in the "beta testing" if that is possible.

And, I think that with the package "out there" on a broader basis, it would give more of us "a leg up" on analyzing these and future videos for our own edification and enjoyment.

Is it available for the Mac? (Snow Leopard Power Mac G5 Quad Core/16 GB/2.5 GHz).

Now, I have to catch up from page 143 to add to the notebook. I love this place!

Oh, to response to m0r1arty's request for a show of hands: HOAX ALL XXXX

Thank you for your time and consideration and valuable knowledge and input.

In Peace & Light

tfw



new topics

top topics



 
216
<< 157  158  159    161  162  163 >>

log in

join