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: 174
216
<< 171  172  173    175  176  177 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

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


Well in that case, how can you ever decide if it is rel or not? Where is the logic?


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


The whole purpose of this thread and the countless efforts is to give you the knowledge to decide. But if someone ignores portions to suit their personal belief... then nothing will be gained. I can see by the deletions in this thread lately that it has gotten to hat point




...it's not like any of you are in posession of the original.
...if witnesses come forward
...or there are other hints this could be real


None of which has happened or will happen at this point... it has been too long. The filmer removing their facebook account is a good sign



I'm not going to just immediately ignore it.


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. : )


It's not anger you are seeing, it is frustration created by some people deliberately pushing buttons and totally ignoring any evidence on purpose. Seems similar to the actions of Bernard Schnittzel


But since other UFOlogist sites are going to milk this story for a long time because they all have no real news and need to keep their viewer coming back (including Dr Leir now) this will not die for a long time. But what does that say about the status of UFOlogy today?




posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by hootlj
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.


That's the same type of thing I commented on a while back, not only that, some people seem to have more license than others in what they say, no matter how insulting.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
In summary

-Very most likely, this is all a big hoax. And we know because the people here have done a great job at analyzing the videos, and since they're the experts we have to rely on them.

-Because the UFO/ET topic is handled so unscientifically in the media and elsewhere, however, we have to rely on these grassroots investigations to get the truth out. So, as "right" as you guys are, you have to continue to expect people to be skeptical of you. Especially since there are others like you who apparently have agendas and put out disinfo/bad video analysis, too.

-Since logically speaking, people will scrutinize your video analysis and the casual UFO watcher won't ever be able to get their heads around it, you're probably going to have to be logical and fair in other ways...to compensate for this. When you start adding on all these other assumptions, not based on scientific evidence (like "I'm for sure right about this" theories about exactly how the witnesses would behave...) it just makes it hard for people to trust your reasoning/evidence in the first place.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by hootlj (even the Logical One is admitting there could at least have been SOMETHING up in the sky that night)....we would know 2 things.


I wouldn't put it that strongly hootlj,

Imagine if it was only the red lights that were uploaded onto YouTube, do you think the video would even have got a fraction of the attention that it has?

The red lights in the sky was the least impressive part of the "sighting", with a whole host of explanations,
edit on 10-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I still don't see how in any regard I have ignored information, or pushed buttons. I have been agreeing with you guys all along that this is very probably a hoax, and I've appreciated your videos.

However, I disagree that you guys have conclusive evidence that every single video is a hoax. And there only needs to be 1 that is real. If there was some formal panel of hoax-killers that I knew all their info for, I could take it as more conclusive. But since there is an element of doubt, I will take all evidence at face value without making assumptions.

It's okay for me to have this opinion.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hootlj
You guys are so high up on your horses, it's comical.


The truth does not bode well with you padewon.


-There have been multiple inconsistent videos released about this UFO sighting.


You think?



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.


yes there have been multiple inconsistent videos, the rest were clearly hoaxes I agree


-The only "proof" these are ALL hoaxes is coming from one group of people on the Internet.


Actually you are wrong, even the Media has even made debunking efforts, blog spots ect. The internet is a hub of information.



Keep in mind there is another group on the Internet debunking the debunkers.



A group on the internet debunking debunkers you say? Do you have a link or something to prove this? What are you saying idgi



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.


You claim to not know much or how these things work then you claim to have some insight on how this should work? ATS has been more the fair, people from all trades have ripped this hoax to shreds. They clearly know what they are talking about and know what they are doing.



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.


What is wrong with being confident? Who says the whole web should follow suit? Oh please, give me a break.



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.


You are trying to minimize this and down play the investigation and work done here. You clearly do not have a clue do you?


-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.


blah blah blah blah

Wrong again, not just one hoax video but 4 hoax videos and probably more.

Hoaxers made hoax videos, hoaxers uploaded them to yt , hoaxers used ANW to propagandize the hoax for an Agenda whatever that may be.

They were debunked!

fin

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



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Paradigm2012
 


Greetings:
Perhaps I have gotten the wrong impression; if so, I ask forgiveness for the following: Paradigm2012, you seem a bit churlish in your posts. Indulge me for a moment, if you please.

Page 94
reply posted on 5-2-2011 @ 03:32 AM by Paradigm2012
“It still appears that video 1, video 2, and video 4 are real. Video 3 was a hoax and I heard that the person who hoaxed it was an ATS member.”

That is the difference between fact and fiction. Where did you hear this?

Page 99
reply posted on 5-2-2011 @ 05:23 AM by Paradigm2012
“This proves nothing at all. This is not strong evidence of a hoax at all. You pretty much seem desperate to find something which is why you have not been able to back up your claims with evidence.”

Page 122
reply posted on 7-2-2011 @ 03:07 AM by Paradigm2012
“You must actually think that because you can Google that image then put in on ATS and say "OH they must have stolen this image" that you have done something.

All you proved is that you can GOOGLE an image.

it says nothing about this case.”

Page 122
reply posted on 7-2-2011 @ 03:11 AM by Paradigm2012
“Nice little illustration there Mr. Mask, but any city or video can be googled and an image will be found. L.A., Chicago, New York etc.

Sorry to oinform you but that googled image you posted proves nothing other than you have a large imagination and you can google an image.

Your not as smart as you pretend to be.”

And you are? How about your qualifications to make any of the above statements?

Page 123
reply posted on 7-2-2011 @ 12:58 PM by Paradigm2012
“So your admitting that the hotel is there and is located exactly were you are using that pixelated cellphone video to prove it. Look at how the lights angle up perfectly with the hotel."

He's not admitting anything. The hotel is not in the picture. How did you miss that?

"And your GIF clip is too short and could be pixelated compression artifact”

Could you please supply an example of this "pixelated compression artifact?

reply posted on 7-2-2011 @ 01:00 PM by Paradigm2012
“Your micro second GIF clip SHOWS NOTHING other than pixelated youtube video.”

reply posted on 7-2-2011 @ 01:14 PM by Paradigm2012
“Please provide evidence of a hoax, you have yet to answer my question. Every thing you talk about as evidence for a hoax has been proven incorrect.”

I guess I missed that. Exactly where is “everything”? Where is any evidence for a hoax been proven incorrect?

Page 135
reply posted on 8-2-2011 @ 02:22 AM by Paradigm2012
Originally posted by Mr Mask
“I just showed you all the background images are stolen offline and very popular searchable images.
Anyone arguing with the technical side of things can understand easily "stolen background images".
I even made a movie with a vocal explanation. Don't be shy...watch it. Its above.”
MM

@ 02:22 AM by Paradigm2012
“Why can't you prove that background images were stolen offline. You should prove it."

Are you really that thick or just being redundant?

"Your speculation is not evidence.”

Page 161
reply posted on 9-2-2011 @ 02:26 PM by Paradigm2012
“Your going to be proven wrong on this case that its not a hoax very soon. I am working on a few details that could break this case open again. this case is not dead."

I cannot wait.

"Just like the Turkey UFO footage you will be proven WRONG in the end!”

reply posted on 9-2-2011 @ 02:28 PM by Paradigm2012
“Everyone was sure the Turkey UFO footage was a hoax just like they do with this."

And who is “everyone.”

" Now we know the Turkey UFO footage was not a hoax."

And who is “we?”

"Do you guys see how your quick judgement comes back to bite ya.”

Mark those words Paradigm...you could be a little more careful here. I agree with zorgon: “You said that before... that you have it all worked out... yet you never produced anything to show us the proof you claim to have.”

reply posted on 9-2-2011 @ 02:31 PM by Paradigm2012
reply to post by zorgon

“Because we proved it and just about everyone knows now that it was not a hoax."

And who is “we? And who is “everyone?”

" I assume you have not spent time on it. "

OOPS! You assume...(Too easy...)

"I have.”

Page 163
reply posted on 9-2-2011 @ 05:04 PM by Paradigm2012
reply to post by Immortalgemini527

“Ok I have finished my investigation and I now agree that the first video has "motion tiled edges". There is no way possible that this could be the inbal hotel."

That is not what you said on Page 123, and subsequent pages.

"I don't like to rush to judgement and slap things together like some of you frantic debunkers."

Frantic? Do you read your own posts?

“Just because the first video has mirrored edges does not mean the entire case is a hoax.
He could have put it into some kind of software after he was done to stablize the video"

(like AfterEffects?

"or
It might have been unintentional!

And how does the mirrored edges effect "unintentionally" find its way onto the video?

I now think that video #1 has mirrored edges, for a brief very brief amount of time.”

What does “a brief very brief amount of time” have to with it? The video was clearly tampered with, therefore invalidating it.

“I have seen zero evidence of tampering with video #2
and I have seen zero evidence of tampering with video #4”

That’s because either you have not read all the pages or do not have the intestinal fortitude to attack others with “proof” the way you attempt to attack MrMask.

Put up or shut up. Go to Pages 59, 64, 81, 102, read and learn and see if you can refute pezza, then come back here with something other than inane gobbledegook.

“Its amazing that some of you rush to judgement before you do any investigation.”

See your quotes above...I agree with m0riarty: “All that those who are claiming this is not a hoax have to do is try to substantiate that claim with evidence. It would seem they think nothing of asking 'sceptics' or 'debunkers' to supply proof - why are they exempt?”

Paradigm2012, I am not intentionally mocking you, but you have left the door wide open for comment. I sincerely hope you find it helpful. I can understand your consternation with the vicissitudes of this thread, but that is life. I thought that being here on ATS makes us all in the same boat, so to speak - DENY IGNORANCE.

It is time to fish or cut bait.

Are you a fisherperson or the Master Baiter?

In Peace & Light
tfw



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
90% chance it's all a hoax.
5% chance there's one legit video in the mix that got over-analyzed
5% something else entirely is going on

5% comes from the fact that the evidence of hoax comes from an imperfect source. The remaining 5% is just there to remind you that we're all relying on our brains to determine any sorts of truths in life, and the human brain is severely limited and adapted for mere survival purposes.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


"The whole purpose of this thread and the countless efforts is to give you the knowledge to decide. But if someone ignores portions to suit their personal belief... then nothing will be gained. I can see by the deletions in this thread lately that it has gotten to hat point "

Hi Zorgon, that has to apply to the experts too, I think you know that from another recent UFO thread, which is as yet not properly debunked, but was in all probabilty misinterpreted by some "experts" as to the exact nature of the "hoax"



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Actually, the media has been reporting what anonymous Internet people and that one UFO skeptic has said about the videos. It has absolutely not done its own investigation.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by hootlj
90% chance it's all a hoax.
5% chance there's one legit video in the mix that got over-analyzed
5% something else entirely is going on

5% comes from the fact that the evidence of hoax comes from an imperfect source. The remaining 5% is just there to remind you that we're all relying on our brains to determine any sorts of truths in life, and the human brain is severely limited and adapted for mere survival purposes.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Is all the condescention necessary though? Take it from a "believers" view, not all UFO's have been able to be explained by conventional means. That means there is something popping up now and then in the skies now and then and we have no idea what and that unknown will not be formally addressed, more so people wanting to know are ridiculed...scientists have been discredited for trying to study and learn the nature of this phenomena. We've been waiting a long time for exhibit-A, something governments could not turn a blind eye to, we thought we had it, how can blame any of "us" for wanting to make damn sure beyond any doubt that it wasn't? Or maybe you just simply need to hear, you were right we were wrong? You can state a point without insinuating someone is an idiot for not seeing something the way you do. Technology is not perfect, no-one was unreasonable for questioning it. Nor was anyone unreasonable for suspecting a cover up.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Where did I hear this? I've just been reading the stories. They're linking to the online debunking of it, not doing their own debunking. Go read them!

I just made up the stats...trying to bring some understanding to the table here.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Kali74

EXACTLY Kali. To me, if this was real and there was a cover up (the multiple hoax videos, 2 edits of the original even), this would be like the Smoking Gun and early on in the phase is the only time you'd get those details and clues and whatnot to solve the puzzle. Seems like it's clever to go into it with your hopes up, you're more likely to stumble upon new evidence or revelations. I think the video analyzers did exactly what they ought to have done, and they should definitely rely on that evidence over the other stuff that has come out. But it does make sense to me that people want to fully and 100% beat this horse to death before burying it. Just to rule stuff out, to be confident we didn't somehow get fooled.

You either go into things thinking hoaxers will do anything to fool you, or the government will do anything to fool you. We should work on both assumptions and explore it all. I just don't see the "harm" in that.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
I mean guys for all we know, this is all a big elaborate hoax planned by the government to get us ignoring something else that's going on or some other legit UFO, haha.

I know that's silly!

But there is such a big unknown out there, when it comes to what different UFOs could be (all the possibilities...tricks of the eye, weather balloons) and when it comes to the tactics a government could use to cover up real UFOs. We're dealing with a BIG UNKNOWN, the unknown stuff outweighs the stuff we know. More people participating in this stuff and keeping an open mind, the better in my opinion.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Hello Kali74, I too am a believer because I have seen UFO's myself and have researched UFO's for over 2 decades now. Yes UFO's are a reality and the evidence says YES there is something here what that is is up for debate. However this is not the issue here. The issue here is that this deserved investigation. And what we got was a series of several videos that were manipulated with CGI, software editing , a notorious hoax website breaking the story and hosting it's BS and propaganda.

Like i told all these newcomers we do have a UFO and Aliens Forum where these things are being discussed in great detail.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


You will find that most of our members believe however are very serious and passionate about the phenomena as I am. Critical thinking separates the wheat from the chaff , you will find the skeptics who happen to believe deep down play a vital role and are of great service. Just like they have done so here they found the results to be disappointing because we would love for this event to have been real but that is certainly not the case. This is NOT a religion, this is not about your beliefs this is about fact finding.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74 Nor was anyone unreasonable for suspecting a cover up.


With the advent of the internet,E-mail,Skype,Facebook Twitter,,, a cover up to suppress eye witnesses in coming forward is becoming increasingly less likely to be achieved successfully.

Wikileaks anyone?


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



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I feel like when you guys talk at us with respect and just say it like it is, we tend to hop on board with you a lot more. It was the big broad assumptions, total 110% confidence in all the video analysis, and whatnot that got us all up in arms again. Let's all just try to look at the facts and the ideas together. Even if you have an opinion one way, if someone offers up something new, your first response shouldn't be to immediately shoot it down. The Logical One I think does this very well. We should all be more like that.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Logical one

I agree about a cover up being difficult. But this thread vanished for hours last night. And another site I was looking at for info went down (that youtube cover up blog I discussed a while back).

So, I'm not being totally unreasonable. If neither of these things had happened, I'm sure I would be entertaining that idea far less.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I mean a blog about a YouTube UFO cover up that this very site even is discussing on another thread, getting taken down within minutes of being advertised on twitter? No trace, explanation?

90% -- coincidence
10% -- odd, food for thought haha
edit on 10-2-2011 by hootlj because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
216
<< 171  172  173    175  176  177 >>

log in

join