UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

reply to post by DeboWilliams


Have you ever used a phone video camera. When you yell at all near it or into it the microphone gets kind of fuzzy at least this is the case with mine. Just saying the hiss or fuzzy ness is most likely the crap mic on his phone. Have someone call you and have them yell near there phone even from a arms distance you will see what I mean.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by Paradigm2012

 

When the camera is shaking around and supposedly hand held yet there is no signs of parallax effect taking place, and the horizon and wall are wiggling about in ways which seemingly defy laws of perspective and geometry, then yes, it's hard to believe the background is actually real, and they are actually standing where they claim.

You must be the type that thinks your local weather man is actually standing on the beach, then the next minute standing in a storm, and then suddenly standing in front of a big TV with the map of the weather....

I mean, is it so hard to believe he is standing on the street pointing at the clouds?

edit on 3-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)

HoaxKillers Parallax theory has been debunked over and over and over and in this thread i posted a video that debunks hoaxkillers flawed theory.

Go look at the video I posted and see why your above statement^^^^^ does not hold water.

Some of you skeptics are literaly making anything up.Just gets to the point where I'm gonna move on to a different topic.

Look, i do motion graphics, i know what to look for. The whole this is a hoax. The problem is no one knows what can be done with software programs so they assume out right it's aliens


trust me, its cgi.

reply to post by Paradigm2012


The question is why do you want it so badly to be genuine?

There's quite enough evidence already that points to a hoax, it's a matter of your personal opinion whether this proof is conclusive or not. In other words, if you don't want to see this as a hoax, then you never will.

And the current post you're reading was written by a believer (and a knower) in the reality of the UFO phenomenon (tired of doing this but - not saying alien or et, just the ufo and the advanced technology connected with it).

p.s. apart from the thing with the comb effect (which holds up for me) other evidence is the lack of any eyewitnesses!!! no matter how you twist your arguements about the authenticity of the videos, you can't change that fact (and now you're off to MUFON to create a fake report just to draw more gravity towards the reality of this sighting).

I don't trust the UFO video or the skeptics evidence..As it clearly is not disproven.

reply to post by Mr Mask


Taken the location of the flash occurring is very famous, in the city and probably full of tourists and others - why nobody from the street has reported anything about it? It must have been a blinding light for those nearby.

Originally posted by andre18
Look, i do motion graphics, i know what to look for. The whole this is a hoax. The problem is no one knows what can be done with software programs so they assume out right it's aliens

trust me, its cgi.

edit on 3-2-2011 by andre18 because: (no reason given)

We all do motion graphics, everyone has a computer, my grandma has one, everyone in the world has one. Knowing graphics and video editing is not a skill anymore.

So what you and 2 billion other people can do motion graphics, its a household thing now.

Originally posted by TMFAP
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

Taken the location of the flash occurring is very famous, in the city and probably full of tourists and others - why nobody from the street has reported anything about it? It must have been a blinding light for those nearby.

If this is not a hoax it is possible the world is so busy doing what they do that they do not have a grasp and clue that this stuff goes on.However without any more eyewitnesses that would point towards favor of a hoax.

Originally posted by redsticker
For myself, my eyes believe the UFO, but I would like to bring a new element into this discussion. I am an acting coach, work with many star actors, and am very savvy as to plausible believability. What I am concerned about is two things: 1) the 'unexceptional' - but long - car ride has about it the distinct flavor of 'Cloverfield'. 2) The photographer in the back seat never says anything, and when the the young lady finally exits the car, he would have lowered the camera to see where she was going. It seems to me, as much as I think the footage is as real looking as it can be, that the set-up to get the young man to leave the car and 'see' the event taking place is extraordinarily specious, and therefore, in all likelihood, an elaborate hoax - undone by a bad script and implausible 'natural' camerawork - sorry, but that is how I see it.

He left the car to "take a pee" the translated version shows thats what they were talking about. He had to pee and they were pranking him, and then they drove off without him.

He had too pee thats why he got out of the car.

CGI? Yes it can all be done with cgi in theory. but in real practice it is unlikely

Can the average man paint an oil painting that is photo-realistic....in theory he can but is he unlikely to have such skills and eye for every little single detail that must be applied.

Originally posted by Quartza
reply to post by laymanskeptic

 

Yes your correct. I see the doubling of the street lights, in the forth frame down.

Thought I don't think you can say that the ufo would have the same doubled effect. Its motion blur looks like progressive due to just how fast it moved and light blooming.

UNLESS the object actually morphed into that exact smeared shape we see in the still frame, and held itself still in space for 1/60th of a second, and then teleported itself to the next position and held it for another 1/60th seconds... the object shouldn't look like that. It is precisely it's fast motion that should reveal the 2 separate fields. In interlaced footage, "motion blur" simply manifests as separate fields revealing themselves.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by Paradigm2012

 

You are stating the obvious.

The wall, the man, the tree, and the light, and person filming are all one shot. But is the horizon and city lights really there? Are they really standing on a hill?

edit on 3-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dd2ad431071c.jpg[/atsimg]

There is no defined horizon, so Hoaxkiller just added in a horizon line were he thought it should be. This is an inaccurate way of doing things. Take a look at the photo can you make out a distinct horizon even when the tree is blocking half of it>

2. The leading edge of the wall is ----out of focus------pixelated---this is the reason for the unstable imaginary line that Hoaxkiller added in.

3. Hoaxkiller could not find the exact horizon line so he had to HOAX it and add the horizon line were it looked good.

this whole debunking scheme itself was a big flat hoax.

Originally posted by TMFAP
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

Taken the location of the flash occurring is very famous, in the city and probably full of tourists and others - why nobody from the street has reported anything about it? It must have been a blinding light for those nearby.

and 1:00 AM you would think most are sleeping.

and most people are watching Egypt

reply to post by manmental


You skeptics are really desperate aren't you? you cant even prove this even a Hoax and yet your calling it a Hoax like a little child without doing his homework, finger pointing it as a Hoax without evidence.

The interlaced vs. progressive argument and evidence is pretty solid in my opinion.

Is there anyway to tell when a video was created and if it was edited via After Effects, etc? Similar to exif data on a photo?

The other thing that bugs me is that the clock in the car is not visible, almost seems intentional but who knows.

It feels as if their is a campaign out there to make fun of UFO videos with soem skeptics funded by governments because SOME not ALL skpetics make absurd attempts with some cases.

reply to post by Paradigm2012


Not meaning to look like a disinfo agent who's trying to derail your line of thought, but maybe you should back off a bit from this case as you're getting a bit hostile towards the debunkers... Just my 2 cents.

Believe me, I was fooled to believe this is the real deal as well, but now I've gotten over it (since there's so much pointing towards this event didn't take place at all). And also, do believe me, I would have been amongst the happiest people on this planet if this was the real deal that finally shows undoubtedly that there are unidentified advanced technology crafts flying in our sky, so it would convince even the die-hard skeptics...

Sadly, this is not the case we have here...

Originally posted by TMFAP
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

Taken the location of the flash occurring is very famous, in the city and probably full of tourists and others - why nobody from the street has reported anything about it? It must have been a blinding light for those nearby.

I agree but the one argument is that it was supposedly at 1am.
Still think there should be CCD footage somewhere. Maybe they are too unaware/lazy to pull it. Or it doesn't exist...or the city owns the footage from that and good luck getting city people to do anything.

Surprised there is no footage from a different angle though that is for sure. Are we believing that all video is taken from the same angle? Doesn't add up for me.

...but I do hope/wish it to be real. I'm not convinced on either side of the argument.