UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment


Flysolo has posted the link to his information HERE on page 1.

One post is enough. And excessive quotes will always be trimmed down. Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

Originally posted by Jonas86
If this is an alien spacecraft:

Why did it appear in the heart of Jerusalem? A religious alien?

depends on what you believe about the Ancient Aliens theory. Vimanas have been reported over religious sites and temples in ancient texts since forever.

Also, the Ark of the Covenant is allegedly under the Temple Mount, maybe "they" want it back?

www.ufostalker.com...

heres an update from MUFON on the UFO over the Jerusalem
Full-screen
Submitted Date: 2011-02-02 00:54 GMT
Event Date: 2011-01-27 19:00 GMT
City: Jerusalem
Country: IL
Summary: Look at UFO Video Hovering over an Israel Temple, not sure if real

Hi all. Here is my opinion and not based on anything but the videos seen. I did not include the obvious postcard hoax and the one over Utah - it wasn't needed for my analysis.

1) The first video titled: UFO - Dome of the Rock - Jerusalem: appears to be the source video for the debunking video admittedly created by giftofprophecy, which IMO is the actual hoax. I will show this when I get to that video. I call the first video the source video because of its clarity. Anytime you make a copy of another video source, especially when not from the original source, becomes second generation, which is a poorer version of the original footage.
2) The video called: Jerusalem UFO: Second video, is from the same angle but it is not from the first video. It looks to be shot from a cell phone camera. IMO, this clip is from the witness who is seen in the first video filming with his cell phone.
3) Giftofprophecy's Hoax - UFO Over Temple Mount in Jerusalem video IMO seems to be an over aggressive debunk of the original video. I've never seen a video copied and reproduced to prove a debunk accepted, and have no idea why that would be considered in the first place because of possible manipulation. I don't and will never understand why someone makes a copy to prove a point, but I will tell you how this one was done.
** The very first thing to do is view each video to see that these videos are NOT IN SYNC. Everything the source video does, the so called debunk video doesn't. This is in visual generation and regenerations. I'll explain:
The original video given for debunking was clear. Black tones are very rich and deep. Also in the upper right corner is a light source (street lamp/building light). The first two seconds of the first video show the object and another interesting figure - a person - in the video. See, he is adjusting with his phone to get a better shot. Also this shot is much wider.
** The alleged Hoax video is missing several things: Clarity of shot, the same rich tones, the light source in the upper right corner and The OBJECT IN QUESTION. Also the person in the shot is not in the same position doing the same thing as the original video.
Second generation quality is when you do not have access to the original footage so you use footage already in existence. This causes pixel degradation in the image.
Next, the original picture's first few seconds don't show the wall of the balcony at all. However, in the Hoax video you see the moving, blurring out of focus, morphing and pixel popping wall.
Jump cuts - these are the image hick-ups you see when an editor cannot sync a video. Perfect example in the hoax video is the person in the video's arm. Look starting at 6 seconds. Man that's one broke arm! See how it flails like it doesn't belong to his arm? Also the guys body mid-waist, is morphing! See how his bottom goes down and moves funny? It appears to be elongating, doing a shimmy and going back. At 26 seconds it goes back and repeats the same motions as at start point 6 seconds. This could be where the presenter was trying to show variation of movement as parallax.
IMO: The first video was backed up by the cell phone video and the different angle video. The different angel video is the best overall, because it has the most to offer on the SUBJECT of the video - the UFO! The Hoax video was taken from the source or first video. The person wanted to use the term parallax usually used for optical illusions viewed by witnesses, but the term can be used as a common editing nightmare, though I get it mostly w/sound. See, sometimes you have video that is not so neat for what you wish to present. So you capture (upload) the video without points (start point/end point) so the video image is not secure. Then you overlay the images by duplicating it (copy/paste in most programs) and use a generator to try to re-blend the images into one. I do it to clean up videos with this common mistake but usually I try to re-capture from the source because it's less work.
This is the reason the images do not resemble each other in the slightest. In Hoax you can see that the clip was zoomed in thus loosing the actual subject of the video entirely. Also the upper right light from the original footage is gone. You can see that the entire Hoax video lost an incredible amount of data (color, black tones are gray), the brick has pixilation degradation because of too many overlays trying to get this image to look like the original. All you should need is the original and you point to the elements that are suspect. This example, IMO is definitely suspect.
Cool videos though. Very interesting.

reply to post by Jonas86


Apparently, Jerusalem is a UFO hot spot. They showed up a month ago.
Act of God or Act of Grey? You decide. High resolution !!!

Originally posted by Qcuailon
What would it possibly take for someone like yourself to entertain the reality and existence of extraterrestrial entities?

Sorry to break this to you, but I already believe in the existence of extraterrestrial entities.

So your entire post is prejudice.

reply to post by Eurisko2012



That one is very interesting. Seems like two different colored objects there and the black one is chasing the white one.

Just watched the video and followed up with a few other links to other youtube videos on the same incident. Amazing to say the least. Sad part is the censorship around here is starting to make me wonder about the structure tree here. When I first found out about this site I assumed it was open free discussion without borders beyond idiots who spam sales and stuff like that, but it seems that the board of volunteers and others are part of a grand scheme to continue the plight of government. Unfortunate. I will be careful not to post stories in this place, just make comments.

Maybe flysolo can create a new thread to discuss his findings seperately. I am interested in members thoughts on this subject but think it will be lost in the HOAX argument going on with the videos.

reply to post by greeneyedleo


Thanks for that but page 1 is only a link to the hoaxed thread where comments have been disabled. I reposted my info on page 23 of the new thread. Just curious why you would redirect people to a thread where Crankuer has already told people to come to this thread?

So i'm new at ATS. I feel qualified enough to comment, ive been creating CGI for several industries for 8 or so years.

Apart from some guy a few pages ago with a great lead on the Audio Lines being tampered with. I havnt seen any irrefutable evidence to suggest either VideoNo1 or VideoNo2 are fakes. VideoNo4 I havnt fully absorbed but must have been shot at a perpendicular angle 'exactly' because obviously the orb moved in shot where as in No1 and No2 it don't, they show the orb static.. Easy right?

To be honest I almost wanted it to be fake.. Why? so then it would go away, I could chill out then you know! Currently I believe there may be more to this, then I stumbled upon this:

www.examiner.com...

When we think of the cultural significance of the site, fake or real, the implications are now large, larger than anything previous for many years.

Sorry if this has already been posted, i been reading all day, maybe it hasnt.

Ta

reply to post by liveandletlive


I think that is a great idea, for flysolo! Poor thing, we have spread him thin today!

As for me, this has worn me out. I'm gonna take a nap! See ya later!

reply to post by Jonas86


Translation on page 5 of this thread

Yuli [the girl]
are you filming?

Dor [driver]
what's that--

Yuli
do you see?

Dor
I can see, what's that?

guy4
say, did we drink too much?

Dor
no no--

Yuli
no no we're all seeing this!

Dor
--what's that?

guy4
[unintelligible, something with 'eyes']

Yuli
shyo!

everyone
yo!!!!

Michael [drunk russian pee guy]
[russian cussing] rod, blat!

Dor
what's that!

Yuli
what's that! mommy! [childish slang for "I'm scared"]

Dor
[breathes heavily] what's that, did you see that?!

Michael
[more russian] yo banivrot.

guy4
did you see that?

Yuli
look there's more there.

Dor
look-look-look over there! what's that!

Girl
mommy, Dor…mommy…

Michael
[drunken nonsense] Judaism, what's this…. it's symbols!…it's…

[silent pause]

Dor
yo, this is not real…

[silence]

Michael
[russian cussing] - Piz dietz..

Dor
[echoing himself] what's that, did you see that…

Girl
mommy…

Dor
what's that….

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by greeneyedleo

 

Thanks for that but page 1 is only a link to the hoaxed thread where comments have been disabled. I reposted my info on page 23 of the new thread. Just curious why you would redirect people to a thread where Crankuer has already told people to come to this thread?

Make your own thread. You deserve credit for your work.
2nd line.

edit to add: Im leaving now. I will see you at the new thread.

Originally posted by samureyed
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.

I have to agree, this evidence is pretty damaging for the case of this being real. Shame it would have been a real game changer I believe.

Originally posted by liveandletlive

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by greeneyedleo

 

Thanks for that but page 1 is only a link to the hoaxed thread where comments have been disabled. I reposted my info on page 23 of the new thread. Just curious why you would redirect people to a thread where Crankuer has already told people to come to this thread?

Make your own thread. You deserve credit for your work.
2nd line.

I already know what would happen if I made a new thread on the topic. GEL would just trash it and tell everyone to post here.

I l

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by greeneyedleo

 

Thanks for that but page 1 is only a link to the hoaxed thread where comments have been disabled. I reposted my info on page 23 of the new thread. Just curious why you would redirect people to a thread where Crankuer has already told people to come to this thread?

I have added your link to your post in this thread. There is only need for one post on it. Thank you for posting it here. Now everyone can see it.

Originally posted by soulfox
So i'm new at ATS. I feel qualified enough to comment, ive been creating CGI for several industries for 8 or so years.

Apart from some guy a few pages ago with a great lead on the Audio Lines being tampered with. I havnt seen any irrefutable evidence to suggest either VideoNo1 or VideoNo2 are fakes. VideoNo4 I havnt fully absorbed but must have been shot at a perpendicular angle 'exactly' because obviously the orb moved in shot where as in No1 and No2 it don't, they show the orb static.. Easy right?

To be honest I almost wanted it to be fake.. Why? so then it would go away, I could chill out then you know! Currently I believe there may be more to this, then I stumbled upon this:

www.examiner.com...

When we think of the cultural significance of the site, fake or real, the implications are now large, larger than anything previous for many years.

Sorry if this has already been posted, i been reading all day, maybe it hasnt.

Ta

Not ture.

You can see in video 1 that the object moves to the right after it drops down

reply to post by DaWhiz
well you do not have the first posting of the YT video, there are only 4 such people and that is not one of them, that person named in your post, most likely has a copied version I do not know how to post them nor do i know how to post the date of YT down load,up load, how ever YT works. It was fun doing all the back tracking to find the original video and the time it was posted.