UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

why is everyone acting like a) they know how many witnesses saw this apparently small UFO at 1 am, and b) know how they would react if they did see it...assuming again there is a cover up. Because if it is real, we're for sure people are trying to discredit for hoaxes. That's not a leap of lodgic by any means.

AGain, speculating on how witnesses would behave is just that - speculating. If credible witnesses come forward, I would obviously trust them over some ATS video analysists.

Again, we have more evidence this is all a hoax still. But since we're talking about subjective video analysis, if more evidence comes in, you have to look at it.

I just suspect coming from ALLNEWSWEB, it's not trust-worthy. The other blog about witness testimony - seeing lights and no flash - did not orginate there, however.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by dplum517

 

It's already proven that the Jerusalem UFO is CGI and FAKE.... any "witness" that comes forward is a liar or a fabrication.

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

Thank you for caring enough to share. I promise to weigh it carefully BUT i would like to see and
hear more about eyewitness interviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------
It makes sense that most people only saw the red lights up in the sky.
The UFO was completely silent. People saw the big flash and walked outside to see what was
happening.
-----------------------------------------
Wow! Look at the group of red lights up there!

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

It makes sense that most people only saw the red lights up in the sky.
The UFO was completely silent. People saw the big flash and walked outside to see what was
happening.
-----------------------------------------
Wow! Look at the group of red lights up there!

But nobody is actually reporting seeing any flash!

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


Hmmm well.... since the video's were presented as "authentic" then it is up to you to provide proof. I never claimed to have credentials in that field. I do work in IT but that doesn't matter.

It would be nice if maybe a computer science department from multiple universities was able to put together a technical document describing how it was faked.... or maybe even the animation department from Disney or some other major animations studio. I mean...that would be a great lesson for a class if you were in a computer science class.

So, we take the witness testimony seriously or we don't. If they're saying they saw red lights, they saw red lights. If they're lying, they didn't see them. Why is whether they saw the flash too an issue? It actually gives the idea more legs ... why would hoaxers or locals pretending to have seen it discredit their testimony by being counter to video? Doesn't make sense.

Unless they just saw something funky at 1 am and are associating it with this story.

But I'm sorry - again I'm seeing you guys being illogical just to prove your point.

Originally posted by dplum517
Hmmm well.... since the video's were presented as "authentic" then it is up to you to provide proof.

What world do you live in? Honestly...

The burden of proof is on the people/persons that present the video as authentic. They have to prove it is authentic.... That never happened.

That is why this HOAX is so laughable. I find it incredible that humans are actually believing this UFO event happened without any proof of it outside of YouTube....

Originally posted by dplum517
I never claimed to have credentials in that field.

Then according to your logic, your opinion is worthless.

Face it, you guys are just mad that we're not taking your analysis as seriously as you'd like - becauase we're not analysists ourselves, so we can only just accept your reasoning and stuff, and we know this and are guarded as a result. I'm convinced by every single video analysis I see. Even when I see people debunking the debunkers. This is my point. I'm not knowledgeable enough in the area to decide. And even if I was, I'm sure tehre are all kinds of anomolies and factors that come into play when you're reviewing a video that you have extremely limited context for, and it's not like any of you are in posession of the original.

So, as there's yet to be a formal investigation of the videos - even by a TV show (I really hope this will happen and really end this debate for once and for all, haha) - if witnesses come forward, or there are other hints this could be real, I'm not going to just immediately ignore it.

That's fine fo ryou guys to - I totally understand, you fully trust your analysis. But stop getting so mad at those who continue this...this thread is labled hoax after all, and your videos have been watched and appreciated. Chill. : )

Originally posted by hootlj
So, we take the witness testimony seriously or we don't. If they're saying they saw red lights, they saw red lights. If they're lying, they didn't see them. Why is whether they saw the flash too an issue? It actually gives the idea more legs ... why would hoaxers or locals pretending to have seen it discredit their testimony by being counter to video? Doesn't make sense.

Unless they just saw something funky at 1 am and are associating it with this story.

But I'm sorry - again I'm seeing you guys being illogical just to prove your point.

Errr If no one has reported seeing the flash, then that hardly lends any weight to the Youtube videos.

Perhaps a small number of people (a very small number it looks like!) did see red lights, but so what.........it's not beyond possibility that the Youtube up loader saw and videoed the red lights and decided to make up his UFO/Angel hoax around it.

Originally posted by hootlj
why is everyone acting like a) they know how many witnesses saw this apparently small UFO at 1 am, and b) know how they would react if they did see it...assuming again there is a cover up. Because if it is real, we're for sure people are trying to discredit for hoaxes. That's not a leap of lodgic by any means.

It is not real therefore there are no witnesses to account for.

AGain, speculating on how witnesses would behave is just that - speculating. If credible witnesses come forward, I would obviously trust them over some ATS video analysists.

So you are saying you would trust someone that is dishonest, creates fake UFO videos, then you are obviously incredibly foolish in doing so.

Again, we have more evidence this is all a hoax still. But since we're talking about subjective video analysis, if more evidence comes in, you have to look at it.

Why waste time on hoax video 5 or hoax video 6 and so fourth? Where is the logic in that? Why would aliens in a UFO copy the hoax videos?

I just suspect coming from ALLNEWSWEB, it's not trust-worthy. The other blog about witness testimony - seeing lights and no flash - did not orginate there, however.

ANW is a shill web site of course it is not "trusted" and that blog holds no water.

However we do have a UFO and Alien section. I noticed you just signed up and seem only interested in this thread? Might i suggest you have a look at the UFO and Alien section you might find something that actually does hold water besides this orchestrated hoax. This hoax is a rotting carcass covered in flies, it really is not that interesting now.

reply to post by Unknown Soldier

Oh, i had not heard that.
So he paid those guys to stand on the hill and make the video???
I like the translated version.
---------------------------------------------------
Maybe even hoaxers get lucky with a real ufo video.

reply to post by anumohi


Real investigators!

-post retracted-

now im in a state of pure Puzzlement!
The Full video as well as showing the cars moving in the foreground also shows movement in the background, and the red lights in the sky afterwards are very faint, But when you see the 4th video it shows the red lights very clearly.

Full Video


Fourth Video


I don't like the connection with mc+anw, but from what i'm seeing, Could the full video be the Real video and the Four others Fake or manipulated from the full one?
Im not saying things are genuine because it looks like the cameraman is filming the others, like he isn't just one of their mates out for a jolly!

Originally posted by hootlj
Face it, you guys are just mad that we're not taking your analysis as seriously as you'd like - becauase we're not analysists ourselves, so we can only just accept your reasoning and stuff, and we know this and are guarded as a result.

We are not "mad" at all what a childish thing to say. Your lack of understanding and observation skills is moot. You are in denial somewhere along the line, reasoning is not so much the word rather it being a logical approach and scientific study has been done and completed. It is a hoax and that's the bottom line.

I'm convinced by every single video analysis I see. Even when I see people debunking the debunkers. This is my point.

So you are easily influenced or? You cant think for yourself? Nobody had debunked the debunkers rather argued with them and tried to put a spin on facts.

I'm not knowledgeable enough in the area to decide.

I agree

And even if I was, I'm sure tehre are all kinds of anomolies and factors that come into play when you're reviewing a video that you have extremely limited context for,

All the anomalies and factors have been explained and resolved, limited context? What are you talking about?

and it's not like any of you are in posession of the original.

Let me explain something. The way yt works is when you upload a raw file if it be WMG, MP4, FLV usually with cell phone cameras yt does not change the format you can then download said file in its original format. Unlike a webcam youtube creates the file. So the hoaxers uploaded a series of produced videos that had all kinds of manipulation involved with them. Thus a HOAX.

So, as there's yet to be a formal investigation of the videos - even by a TV show (I really hope this will happen and really end this debate for once and for all, haha) - if witnesses come forward, or there are other hints this could be real, I'm not going to just immediately ignore it.

Of course let's get Jamie Maussan on the case im sure he will prove it real

That's fine fo ryou guys to - I totally understand, you fully trust your analysis. But stop getting so mad at those who continue this...this thread is labled hoax after all, and your videos have been watched and appreciated. Chill. : )

How does one determine a persons emotional state over an internet discussion forum?

Please spare us the condescending BS! People seem mad to you because you are not receptive to what they are saying.

You guys are so high up on your horses, it's comical.

-There have been multiple inconsistent videos released about this UFO sighting. It took a while for you guys to analyze them all, and only one of them was very clearly a hoax (the static image) from the beginning. The rest have been "proven"* hoaxes by you guys.

-The only "proof" these are ALL hoaxes is coming from one group of people on the Internet. Keep in mind there is another group on the Internet debunking the debunkers. The media has not done a better investigation, and there is not some group organizing online and offering up transparency and biographies and credentials, along with their analysis. It's odd to me that this group of people is so confident in their brilliant analysis, that they think the whole web should just follow suit. I, for one, appreciate the investigation and think it's the best evidence - besides the original videos - that we have. BUT IT'S STILL NOT CONCLUSIVE. You can keep saying it is over and over again, but that doesn't make it so.

-If the sighting really did happen, and for any of you to assume it for sure didn't is just retarded (even the Logical One is admitting there could at least have been SOMETHING up in the sky that night)....we would know 2 things. That there was a sighting, and that there was at least 1 hoax video leaked about it. So, if you're going to start speculating about witnesses...you can't only think of it from the perspective of there being no hoax videos/headlines.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by Unknown Soldier

 

Oh, i had not heard that.
So he paid those guys to stand on the hill and make the video???
I like the translated version.
---------------------------------------------------
Maybe even hoaxers get lucky with a real ufo video.

I dont know if he paid them, that is not what im saying but hey that is a possibility. It could have been a buddy thing i dont know. But the hoaxer at ANW claims he is the only party in contact with the hoaxers. The hoaxer at ANW has been to that area before and speaks the language he claims. He is the one hosting the hoax videos on his yt channel now. He claims it is his story and he had a vision or dream of the jerusalem video and just happened to stumble on to the video first thing lol. he claims to be a psychic but actually he steals crap stories around the web "plagiarist" and claims he had a vision or dream of said UFO. His site hosts several CGI fakes and claim they are real ect

I do trust your video analysis. It's the reason I'm here on this board, and the reason I think this whole thing is a hoax.

But people are attacking any new concepts or info provided to the debate. I get that if you're for sure their hoaxes, and you don't want to give them more attention, and so you're trying to get people to move along.

But when you start spouting off with assumptions like you know exactly what the witnesses would do, and even if witnesses came forward you wouldn't "buy" it...on and on...it just makes it seem like you're close minded, which then...

Makes me not trust you! Hence my room for doubt.

Hmm, maybe this will help. I'm an an industry, right, so I know all sorts of stuff about that and my specific job/skill set. So, if I were to tell you stuff about it, you'd be smart to take my word. Especially if I made a scientific case for it. But at the same time, you could never understand it in full...I could be bull#ting you and you'd never know. Or I could be mistaken but so sure of myself and you'd never know. So, you'd have to take anything I said with a grain of salt. I know of people in my industry who make money every day by misinforming their clients. Some of them not even on purpose. I realize I'm comparing apples to oranges, just try to look at things from a non video expert's perspective.

I'm cautious about video analysis, because I've seen people post convincing stuff on both sides. If you guys really want people to trust you, you shouldn't belittle them.