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: 168
216
<< 165  166  167    169  170  171 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Slipdig1
 


Please....... A kid can do that..... All they did was use "Turbulent Displace" on some random object to make it look like fire...

Here is a kid who hardly knows how to read explaining how to do it:



Just because you don't get an answer right away doesn't mean whatever you say is right...




edit on 10-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
That didn't answer my question at all, this is why you debunkers keep getting shot down. How is fire an angel? I get that you can obiviously create an angel, but can you make it glow like that? From far away will it look like that in the picture or hold its form more? Is there any CGI mistakes in the angels form? You answer questions in the most ridiculous ways.

You also seem to have classed me as a believer, I still haven't decided.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Is that paradigm dude stephen basset?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   
My problem with the debunkers is even they say they're not 100% sure every single video is fake. And really it's only putting all the videos together that makes them so sure of it. But if there was a cover up, that's exactly the smartest way the government could do it...by discrediting the original by putting out weird hoax videos alongside it. It's the inconsistency of the hoax videos, still image vs CGI, that struck me as odd.

You can disagree that this is what's going on, but this is the issue...not whether all the videos are genuine.

If you looked at every single video independently and judged them on their own merits, if even just one of the videos could possibly be genuine in that scenario...then we should keep the case open until we discover more. Otherwise what's the point of investigating? We have to assume cover up is possible and guard against that...without giving the hoaxers more attention than they deserve. I know, easier said than done.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Slipdig1
 


That is the problem with YOU, I show you exactly how it was done, and you still don't understand.

Did you not watch the video? Did you not watch the part he adds "glow". The Glow is 100% adjustable and customizable, it can look any way your little mind can imagine, including like the video. You can layer the glow more and more and more, and make it look any single way you want....

The object in the UFO video also is animated and shows signs of using Turbulent Displace which is shown in the video I showed you. It looks like fake fire, like the video I showed you. The only difference between the video I showed you and the UFO object is the way it was drawn... The video I showed can be used for an unrealistic fire, or the UFO in the video....

How about instead of asking people questions then shooting them down when they answer them, you actually LEARN something on your own??

LEARN! Watch this video:
www.videocopilot.net...

You can make any type of orb any way you want... the only limitation is your imagination... Yes, the "angel" you see in the video could be done EASILY.
edit on 10-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
oh, i forgot, the $100 challenge. This is the one to show im not kidding. Im actually throwing this one away.

So the 5 lobsters are at a location in Sydney, Australia. I am now going to describe where it is and how to get it.

The money is located at the following exact location;

33°57'19.89"S
151°15'20.13"E


It is buried 10cm in the soil directly below a steak in the grass with a "W" letter pinned to it, just like the movie. The area is a park frequented by joggers, recreation, dog walking. It has a carpark just north of it. There are also people doing "thai chi" ? (pardon spelling) where the old people make karate moves for relaxation. At the western end of the park there are these other folks rolling on the ground with what looks like sticks. I dont know this one, might be a variation of thai chi.

So basically enter the park near the middle and walk east. Walk towards the red stake in the ground (there is only one), pull it out and dig. The money is just under the dirt. No shovel needed.

Actually, i'll try and find out when those dudes doing thai chi stix rock up. Wait till then cos its really cool.

Im off to bed. I'll try and post those times in the morning



edit on 10-2-2011 by pezza because: spelling



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Let's also bring this to attention:

-There are only so many people on the web claiming to be experts on determining video hoaxes. But I've seen people deconstruct 911 videos and say those were hoaxes. So, I trust the ATS group here, but it seems like your expectations can help you prove just about anything.

-I've watched lots of videos debunking the UFO videos. I've also watched videos debunking the debunking. Regardless, I still have not been convinced that you guys are convinced that every single video, on its own merits without context, is a 100% fake. And if we're dealing with a YouTube cover up, we at least have to entertain the idea that there could be the genuine one in the mix, potentially even edited by authorities later. Again, maybe this is crazy to you - I tend to think so, too. : ) But let's not misunderstand what people are arguing about here!

And it's okay to speculate on the actual odd nature of the hoaxes. If you're for sure they're hoaxes, don't stop your mind from wondering...why such different types of hoaxes - still crappy image vs. misleading CGI ?? What's the point of that?
edit on 10-2-2011 by hootlj because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I have this Postet in another Thread here.

What do you think about this Obejcts:
Video 4 Jerusalem second 0.11 make stop
www.youtube.com...

Video Nasa Objects
Make stop at 5.49 Minute
www.youtube.com...

Random or?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slipdig1
Is there any CGI mistakes in the angels form?


That is like asking if there is any mistakes in a Picasso painting....

The orb is random, custom, there is no right way or wrong way to create it, there is no way to make a mistake. It's a random orb that appears to look life fire if you study it closely. The glow can be done 100's of different ways...


Originally posted by Slipdig1
You answer questions in the most ridiculous ways.
.


You are asking the more ridiculous questions... It's CGI, ANYTHING CAN BE DONE.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
OH and for what it's worth.

After that one blog went down, I really wanted to watch everything that went out on the Internet about the hoax in real-time.

So,w hen this very thread 404ed last night without explanation - for the whole night - I GOT NERVOUS. Like I felt weird looking up info, like somehow maybe we were onto something. Probably pretty self-important of me, hehe.

But I had this eerie feeling and almost weird desire to drop the issue, and I was thinking...wow, if I really did see a UFO or come on to something, I totally could see how people wouldn't come forward about issues like these - even without being threatened by anyone in particular.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
And something to keep in mind:

By the hoaxers releasing one of the better videos and just that one, we'd have more doubts about it being a hoax. Cuz we'd only have the one video analysis and all that. By releasing a clear hoax one alongside it and others, too, it doesn't help the hoaxers' case. I think this alone is worth thinking about - is someone trying to see how we respond to this stuff or something? Is it a studio perhaps trying to get us talking about the hoax issue in general? etc



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Please too All.
Watch the Videos in my Post and told me what do you think.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
exactly so you could debunk anything because it all can be done. Is there any anomalies is what i asked you?

Would it look like that under zoom? or when zoomed out?I watched your videos too. I get it. I just like to force the conclusive answer.

One thing I don't like is the tone of your post. I assure you, if were you sitting across from me at a table, you would not be man enough to challenge the capacity of my mind. So don't hide behind a computer screen and try to belittle me with your comments of my "little mind". That is utter rudeness. As i have stated i'm not causing trouble or on anyones side. I came here to learn. That shows an intellect of my own. Learn some manners and stop giving examples of how your a pet in here.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
The debunkers here are also just posting and saying the same stuff over and over again, as if we haven't watched their brilliant analysis multiple times. And as if they're not listening to what we're saying

-Unless we have conclusive evidence that every single one of the UFO videos is a clear hoax, there is a chance that there is a cover up going on or that there are at least hoaxers riding off coattails of this. Again, I think this is far-fetched. But that's what investigating and stuff is all about. I'm surprised you analytical video expert types aren't amused by how different the hoax videos are, and aren't asking questions because of it.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Again...

how come we don't have a response from ATS about why this very thread was 404ed for several hours last night???



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by hootlj
But I've seen people deconstruct 911 videos and say those were hoaxes.

Those "TV Fakery" videos/theories have been proven to be either hoaxes, or gross misinterpretation of poor-quality videos and the parallax from telephoto lenses. And in the case of 9/11, there are thousands of eye witnesses who saw the event -- there are no such witnesses with this event in Jerusalem.

Think about it...

A mysterious light descends over an area that is supremely holy for three of the planet's major religions. Countless residential buildings have windows that face the general area. Countless people frequent the area, even at night. If this event really happened, there would be:
1) Several eye witness accounts describing what was seen in these videos
2) Religious leaders commenting on what the eye witnesses saw
3) Throngs of people gathering in the hopes that it would happen again
4) Ever-increasing news articles, blogs, tweets, FaceBook comments from people planning to go to Jerusalem
5) Inescapable and overwhelming "buzz" about the event

We have none of that.

How many times have we seen thousands upon thousands of people engage in "pilgrimages" to witness what appears to be blood or tears emanating from a statue of a holy personage? This suppose "event" is several magnitudes more important to the devout among these religions... the reaction would be overwhelming. There is none.

Why is there no reaction from the devout among Christians, Jews, and Muslims? Because it never happened.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by hootlj
how come we don't have a response from ATS about why this very thread was 404ed for several hours last night???

There was an accidental click from a staff member that sent the thread to the "Trash Bin." Once noticed, it was corrected.

Nothing within the thread was altered.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I knew this was false from the start. It had a " Blair Witch" feel. Good try with the collaboration between taping groups. Some one should look in to find out if these were all the same people, just different sets ad different shots.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slipdig1
exactly so you could debunk anything because it all can be done.


Nobody is debunking this case because it can be done in CGI. This case has been debunked because of issues that were found to be unrealistic and not possible without manipulation.

In very rare cases can you debunk something by showing it being done in CGI, and one of those cases would be (In my opinion) when the CGI effect is simple and easy to do. For example, when I made the video with the extra CGI flashes from the UFO... You originally couldn't tell the difference between the flashes because the flash effect was so similar to the CGI effect. I assure you that if a real light source flashed above a city it would not be easy to recreate it with CGI. Possible, but not easily. Since it was easy, it shows that it more than likely was a CGI effect...


Originally posted by Slipdig1
Is there any anomalies is what i asked you?


...and why are you asking? I will give you an answer, and you will pretend to shoot it down, and then you will say some annoying thing like "you debunkers keep getting shot down".

I already pointed out many anomalies... have you been ignoring them?


Originally posted by Slipdig1
Would it look like that under zoom? or when zoomed out?


It depends what type of zoom it is. Is it digital zoom, or optical zoom? If it is digital zoom (fake zoom), then the pixels will just get bigger and nothing will change. If it is optical zoom, then the light would bend in different ways and look different from zoomed out and zoomed in. I already pointed out that the zoom on video 4 is digital (fake) so nothing changes except the size.


Originally posted by Slipdig1
I watched your videos too. I get it. I just like to force the conclusive answer.


The answer is, anything can be done in CGI. Some things more easily than others.


Originally posted by Slipdig1
One thing I don't like is the tone of your post. I assure you, if were you sitting across from me at a table, you would not be man enough to challenge the capacity of my mind.


I assure you I would be man enough...


Originally posted by Slipdig1
So don't hide behind a computer screen and try to belittle me with your comments of my "little mind". That is utter rudeness. As i have stated i'm not causing trouble or on anyones side. I came here to learn. That shows an intellect of my own. Learn some manners and stop giving examples of how your a pet in here.


Why don't you reflect on your own rudeness.... You keep saying annoying rude things like "you debunkers keep getting shot down", or "you debunkers this and that", or "you debunkers never give a straight answer". Do you realize how annoying and rude that is?

You should be lucky anyone like myself even replies to your constant rudeness. Maybe that is why nobody is replying to you, have you ever thought of that? If you are rude to people, expect it back. Especially from people like me who are man enough to do it in your face or behind a computer.

edit on 10-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Ok, good to know. : )

I'm also not disagreeing with you about this all being some big hoax. But it's because people refuse to think about it all clearly, and are harping on certain points while ignoring others, that there continues to be so much discussion/argument:

Again, if there was a cover up, you would see witnesses somehow silenced. We're all making a lot of assumptions about what this UFO in theory would have been like in person, how many people would have seen it at the time, and then - of the people who saw it, how they would react and come forward. Especially if there was some kind of cover up, you just don't know! At first, skeptics said it's unlikely someone would see this at 1 am and video it, so how is it real. So, it totally depends on how you look at it.

Barely anyone I talked to has ever heard about the Phoenix Lights incident, you know?

I've also not seen anyone from the area talk about how they were there at time and DIDN'T see the UFO - in fact the only locals that have talked about it apparently support the sighting. So that's all we have to go on.

----

REGARDLESS. Let's focus on what is odd about this case if we're going to continue it - the total inconsistency of all the hoax videos. Do you guys guess it was one hoax and other hoaxers followed?




top topics



 
216
<< 165  166  167    169  170  171 >>

log in

join