It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 24
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by EBE01
Fox have covered it:

Well, that does it. Now Fox News has to send reporters over there to Jerusalem to interview
the locals and look for a repeat appearance.
The Dome of the Rock has a lot of history. Wow!
Wiki - Dome of the Rock

Sorry to be off topic, but this made me lol. Maybe we can send Anderson Cooper over there and the UFO will come back down and punch him in the face.

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:11 PM

Originally posted by newkid
Just bye doing Google Jeusalem Camera I had like bunch of cameras that live feed from Jerusalem, this link here is good one (I need more proof.)

Congrats on the new thread, I've been trying to catch up on this, but impossible!
Just wanted to say there are a few more live cameras in Jerusalem, maybe someone can contact and ask them if they have an archive:

This site has three:

Also @DakmindAK asked me about a previous thread in private, and I cannot reply:

As to the facebook friendships - I found them and they only became friends after the 4th video was uploaded. That is - At least 3 out of the 4 people in the car (video #4) were friends previously, and they became friends with the original poster of video #1 only after video #4 was posted.

I have some more thoughts, but will post them later.

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:11 PM
OK, anyone still defending this footage :

Can you come up with an explanation to this. How can it be possible to have footage that does what laymanskeptic is talking about here and it still be real? If it's possible for it to still be real someone needs to explain it. (and sorry if it already has been and I missed it.)

Originally posted by laymanskeptic
Hi there, since the previous thread was closed (I was second to the last to post there LOLz, it was a debunking post), I shall migrate my debunking post here (debunking video#4)
Gotcha! Hoax!

Debunking video#4:

But before that, please bear with me as I introduce a quick background on digital cameras and the video they come up with:

(Some quick credentials first: I'm not just an armchair philosopher lolz. I used to be a cameraman, a video editor, and other stuff related to postprod, and I'm currently a producer, with some CGI background as I have worked on several CGI projects in both producing and hands-on capacities, solving and troubleshooting problems on a variety of levels):

Here goes:

Technical background (important):

There are 2 ways a camera can capture moving images (a sequence of still frames):

"Interlaced" capture - each captured frame is a actually made up of 2 separate alternating fields each captured at a slightly different slice of time. In postprod, this creates "combing" effect (where the 2 interlaced fields reveal themselves especially for objects or scenes captured while in motion).

"Progressive" capture - each captured frame is a whole frame. But there are 2 types of shutter variants:

"Rolling Shutter" - each frame is captured one line at a time.

Observable artifact #1: creates wobbly deformation of objects or scenes with respect to the orientation of the image sensor (either horizontal or vertical). Common weakness of cameraphones and DSLRs.

Observable artifact #2: external light flashes captured by the camera appear cut off within a single frame (when the duration of the flash is shorter than the time it takes to expose each frame)

"Universal Shutter" - all pixels (and therefore all lines) of each frame are captured all at the same time.

Observable artifact: no wobble, but creates simple motion blur for moving objects or scenes, regardless of image sensor orientation.

VIDEO#4 Debunk Explanation

1. A digital camera can only take a shot either in progressive or interlaced mode, but not both at the same time.

2. This sequence of frames from Video#4 show both interlacing artifacts and motion blur artifacts (supposedly due to quick motion), IN THE SAME FOOTAGE! This can't happen in reality, because the camera is either shooting in interlaced, or shooting in progressive, but NOT BOTH. Either everything that's revealing in the clip reveals interlacing, or progressive - not both.

3. So Video#4 is tampered with in the following sense:

a. The background footage was shot in interlaced mode as most consumer camcorders do
b. The CGI orb was composited into the interlaced background as a progressive image (in fact, the project settings is done in progressive mode - it can't be done any other way unless you know the "nuts and bolts" of your comp system (many thanks to Pinke's U2U for explaining to me how to do that)
c. The resulting final video is exported in progressive frames
d. Video comes out with a mixture of progressive and interlacing artifacts, which no camera can do, and it wouldn't make sense for a camera to do so.
e. Ergo, HOAX

I shall also debunk Video#2 :-) on a later post.

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:11 PM
reply to post by Paradigm2012

I did go through some of the days in Dec, and even as far back as a few years but never saw anything.

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:12 PM

Originally posted by ch1n1t0
reply to post by Paradigm2012

Well, unless CCTV and other footage start popping up. I'm done.
edit on 3-2-2011 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)

Thats the thing. There is cctv but no one here will talk about it. Look:

Originally posted by liveandletlive

Originally posted by liveandletlive

Originally posted by liveandletlive

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
Not sure if anyone's mentioned this but I thought I'd throw it out there.

Time will tell, but I'm relatively convinced that this was a genuine occurrence. I look forward to seeing any CCTV footage that may come to light. As others have said, the Old City is likely to have at least as many cameras as the Pentagon, so surely we'll see some footage at some point, right?

There is footage but no one wants to talk about it.

What do you mean no one wants to talk about it liveandletlive?

Well everyone seems to be ignoring my question. They just keep insulting each other.

Oh, well maybe they dont want to talk about it because they cant explain it.

Deny Ignorance my *ss!!!!!!!!!

Its like your talking to yourself. Like a thread within a thread.

I cant speak for the videos but whats clear is no one here will talk about the cctv. That by it self has me wondering.

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:13 PM
reply to post by Paradigm2012

I know right? I'm not a skeptic nor a believer of this whole thing, i'm just checking out everyone's evidence. I can say that believers are being a bit sensationalist with the video, and skeptics are pulling at straws to find problems. I think you could pretty much find inconsistencies with ANY video real or fake using the methods these guys have tried. But still, the way the UFO shoots up just looks TO CHEESY for me. But then again, if a video were real, would we ever know? We've been groomed by Hollywood to not take these things seriously, so even if we saw one acting similarly to how they have been portrayed - we would automatically dismiss it as a HOAX.

Here's how I see it, we will argue until kingdom come about the authenticity of this footage - there's no more point in scrutinizing anymore, people are locked in their views. I think it's best to wait for some type of third-party confirmation. A different witness, a security tape, etc. I mean hell, if it is real and was captured on a security video then the people who hold that video are probably thinking "what the hell do we do now?" Seeing as how popular this video is, they certainly are considering whether they should even release what they have or not.
edit on 3-2-2011 by LiberLegit because: spelling

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:14 PM

Originally posted by DeboWilliams
H people record a video at the same time, Then both of you guys talk


Unless the other person is yelling at the top of his lungs and the guy that's recording is whispering, it will NEVER work that way

Just an observation here. Yesterday I was with my Corgi Dog outside, adn my girlfriend called me on the cell. I answered and 15 seconds later 2 friends came near me (2 meters far away), and my girl was like, what are you saying? im only getting your friends on the phone, but not you!! They were not screaming; they were talking like normal persons, and I was talking on a same volume level... try this today...

I'm not saying you're wrong, Im just pointing out that sometimes logic defies the what's actually real.

Why cant my girlfriend hear me on the phone while the mic is stuck to my mouth, and my 2 friends are 2 meters away from the mic and not even faceing the mic!!??

BTW: Cell phones may vary from brand to brand. Mine's an iPhone 4
edit on 3-2-2011 by Kantele because: Added cell detail

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:14 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:16 PM
reply to post by laymanskeptic

Yep, your absolutely right. In all the kerfuffle surrounding this topic I forgot that I had slowed down the downloaded footage considerably! That was why I was a bit confused by the doubling up of the smear.

And as I said at the beginning of all this looking at the video will make you go mad as there are too many unknown variables. However I have to say I am greatly impressed by what has been gleaned from the footage.
Well done everyone and thank you Mr Mask.

Now all we need is an ATSer to do a bit of field work...I believe IsraeliGuy has already said that people there haven't been speaking about it. And of course there's the possible webcam and cctv footage...

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:18 PM
Can a very fast moving object blur on a camera that usually produces interlaced footage? Can an objective move too fast to appear interlaced appearing blurred instead, like on a camera that shoots progressively scanned immages or is that something that just can not happen?
edit on 3-2-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:19 PM
Once Jaime Maussan gets ahold of this it will be all butchered up from Him and every skeptic.

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:21 PM

Originally posted by FlySolo

*SNIPPED exessive quoting*

Well a star from me to you for your work. I think you have a very interesting point of discussion that everyone refuses to challenge or discuss. The videos may be questionable but the ignorance in this thread is clear!


Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.
edit on February 3rd 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:21 PM
Ok a quick recap of some of the points i was making last night in the other thread

Zorgon posted

To bad you picked number 4 to call real... the one made by Sorsha Faal

This is just plain wrong, whats happened here is zorgon has seen the copy made by ANW of the original, and assumed they "made" it. they didnt they simply copied the original and rebadged it to point to their site.

Mr Mask made this claim

has those dishonest goons jumping out the car to take a leak near the exact same wall in clip one

But if we look at this

We can see that the wall in clip one is a straight wall. This is consistant with the first few seconds of this vid taken last year of the same lookout

If you pause this clip at 43 seconds you can see the gully that has no houses to the left of the frame that makes the triangular shadow in the 1st and second UFO vid.

But if we look at an independant daylight clip of the other lookout

we see a curved wall consistant with the wall we see in clip 4 (the full version)

So one lookout has straight walls, the other has curved walls, we see this in both the UFO clips and the independant daylight footage of the lookouts.

These CANNOT be the "exact same wall" as MM asserts as a fact

I agree with the consenus that the 3rd video is highly suspect and likely a fake, but ive seen nothing that proves conclusively that vids one two and four are, and that includes the audio.

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:23 PM
reply to post by liveandletlive

Sorry, I missed that. Will look into it, I decided to quit wondering about the videos and wait out for personal testimony and CCTV. As we have number two, it's an interesting evolvement, however, number one is still missing... or is it?

Someone, I think it was that paradigm kid, mentioned 6 witnesses? Can anyone else confirm this and give a source of this info, since I can't seem to find it.

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:24 PM

Originally posted by FlySoloWell a star from me to you for your work. I think you have a very interesting point of discussion that everyone refuses to challenge or discuss. The videos may be questionable but the ignorance in this thread is clear!

I agree an excellent find, well done


Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.
edit on February 3rd 2011 by greeneyedleo because: snipped exessive quoting

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Jobeycool
I guess what I'm argueing differently is this topic will get crazy once this stuff gets into politics.Because I think this stuff is realy real.Kinda gettign off the topic because I do not know how to do video editing and that sort of stuff.It is fun watching you guys show your side of the evidence though.

Jobey, if you and a friend has a cellphone, why don't you try to do the experiment I suggested in my last post (a few post up). Recreate the conditions it was filmed in. The audio is the smoking gun here because it's so blatantly obvious that it's been tampered with.

Anyone that's a skeptic towards these being a hoax should just do the experiment I suggested in my post, then you'll have a "oooooooohhh yea I see" moment, followed by a "yea it's fake".

I guess in these topics it's easy to forget that when dealing with peoples beliefs / faiths, it's something THEY must to come to the conclusion themselves. There's no more ways I can stress how these ARE fake by my 13 yrs of amatuer audio knowledge.

I don't have ANYTHING to gain by asserting or proving that these are fake.I believe in alien life and I believe its possible of alien crafts visiting us. I wish these WAS real, and at first I thought that it very was possible.

Let's look at it like this

If you was watching a UFO video that was 60 seconds long, the first 30 seconds looked 100% legit, but then the last 30 seconds of it the camera man starts talking about "Buy a honda with no downpayment now at your local honda dealer" what conclusion would you come to? You would immediately go "oh, was just a damn commercial" and the logic center in your brain would kick in and say "this video was NOT about a ufo, but about buying a car with no down payment". Your brain will know this and proccess this as a fact. That's exactly what happened to me once I got to the second video of this event. As soon as I heard the discrepencies in the audio, it clicked in, oh this is fake, damnit

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:24 PM
No one wants this to be THE REAL THING more than me. I'm just saying - look again, take a loooonnnggg
look at the car ride footage, and tell me that it all doesn't seem like the whole Cloverfield set up in style, mood, pace, tempo, scheme, resonance, formula and tone. It might be real. But my whole sense of things has my bs detecters up to full deploy.

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:26 PM
This is a well thought out and produced hoax that I believe is the creation of a Hollywood studio to ramp up interest in the many UFO-themed movies coming in 2011.

Note: Steven Spielberg is a producer for both Super 8 and Cowboys & Aliens. Conclusion, Steven Spielberg is behind this hoax, hence why it's so well produced.

1. Battle: Los Angeles (consequently big Superbowl ad this weekend)

2. Cowboys & Aliens

3. Super 8

4. U.F.O.
edit on 3-2-2011 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:26 PM
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

In regards to your foreground and background movment claim...

So the creators of this "hoax" had the skills to put together the most complex, multi camera, hoax ever created.....but couldn't lock down the foreground and background together....I find that hard to believe.

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:27 PM
reply to post by liveandletlive

Thanks. I think the kicker is the time stamp for both days at exactly 12:57:59 to the second

top topics

<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in