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: 29
216
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


Getting into an arguement with a MOD regarding his/her duties as one, is not gonna get you anywhere. The very least, it won't serve you any good in your quest to get people to discuss the footage you've brought up.

I think you'd rather create another thread regarding the webcam footage as I for one want to see it discussed as well.




posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jobeycool
I remain skeptical as well.Just cannot understand the absurd attempts at debunking this subject.Classic case is the Chicago O'hare airport where eyewitieeses discribe a metallic disc which punched through the clouded overcast.Offiicial explanation is nothing more than a never heard of weather phenomenon that casues people to see flying disc which speed off and make wholes in clouds.


This is hilarious. The best reason to keep the threads open.
Good sarcasm is all worth it.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1n1t0
reply to post by FlySolo
 


Getting into an arguement with a MOD regarding his/her duties as one, is not gonna get you anywhere. The very least, it won't serve you any good in your quest to get people to discuss the footage you've brought up.

I think you'd rather create another thread regarding the webcam footage as I for one want to see it discussed as well.


You're right.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Has anyone noticed in VideoNo2 the FLASH appears to come in from the left of shot as opposed to being emitted from the orb??
Theres definately a frame that shows light on left of shot in VideoNo2 before the actual FLASH occurs.
It's quite puzzling..



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by DaWhiz
 


You wrote that entire post to claim the video I made was some how manipulated? My video wasn't created for you, it was created for my self, and other friends to study.

Let me outline the process so you can do it your self and get the same results.

1: Go to www.keep-tube.com. Enter the URL of the "original video". Download the video in high quality.

2: Get Adobe After Effects CS4 or above. Import the video in After Effects.

4: Right click the video and click "stabilize motion". Select "position" and "rotation".

5: Put a track point on a single light on the left side of the horizon, and a single track point on a light on the right side of the horizon. Then click "Analyze Forward". And watch the track in process and correct any bad tracks.

6: Click apply. Then your done.

You will have EXACTLY the video I posted. No losses. No manipulation.
edit on 3-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo
Thank you for those of you who have checked out what I investigated last night. For the others who have not seen this and if you would like to have a discussion, I will post my findings again because the original thread has been closed for comments.

There is a weather cam in Jerusalem that points north and shows the old city with the dome to the right. The cam is located HERE.



This is a look into the north horizon of Jerusalem. You can see Malcha at the left side and all the way to the old city at the right.


Hey Fly- interesting find. Can you clear up a few things?

How can we be so sure that the dome is actually in view of the webcam? Quite honestly I can't see it, even in the day time stills. If we're not using the curious little light as a reference, what then becomes the reference for locating the dome since it can't clearly be made out?

Also, how did you determine the exact location of the webcam as south of the Armenian Quarter? Because when I went to the site it says the station is located much farther west of there, in Nayot. See from site Here

From the map, you can see the weather station is noted on the left with a shot from the actual webcam you've used. Off to the far right (east) of there is the Armenian Quarter and farther east of there is the Temple Mount- (marked w red "A)


So if the camera is facing north, is it really feasible that the dome can be seen in it's view?


edit on 3-2-2011 by PhotonEffect because: link



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExCloud

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by EBE01
Fox have covered it:

www.foxnews.com...


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.


Haha wouldn't that be great...how funny! I want to see him interview the aliens with stupid questions like " Uhh....so ...it's pretty cold in space am I right! Whose with me here?" " Don't you just hate space traffic? Always makes you late to the invasions am I right Bahahah"\



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Its a valid point though, there does seem to be a biased approach to this
We saw the same thing at OM during the source A debacle, those promoting the SCA hoax were given leeway to break the T&C left right and centre, while those posting it was a hoax were banned for the slightest infraction.

I guess thats just how it goes, cant say im not disapointed to see it here though, its not a good look

Still its just human nature i guess, ppl tend to protect the view they have a personal vested interest in
edit on 3-2-2011 by Ashtrei because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by soulfox
 


I noticed that and mentioned it in the last topic. I don't know why people ignore it.

On the first video there is two flashes... The first flash is powerful and covers the entire screen. The second flash is weak and only a small circle.

On the second video there is two flashes... But the first flash is not powerful and only illuminates the side of the screen, not even the area the light is supposed to come from. The second flash is more powerful than the first and in the right area.

This to me proved the videos are fake, because the lights are not consistent in both views. The second video's lights don't match at all. The timing is right, but the intensity of the first flash is all wrong...
edit on 3-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


Happy to help



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


For real.. Light source points and residual effects are a first go to point.. I might whip up some images showing this.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


I think flysolo should create a new thread to discuss his findings seperately. Many members are avoiding this thread because of the bickering that has gone on. I tried multiple times to discuss the issue flysolo brought up and the people in this thread refused to discuss it. It stands on its own merit and deserves its own thread. Do you see any problem?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
This stinks of viral video to me.
Leave it to Hollywood to exploit a situation for financial selfish gain.
Hey maybe they can superimpose a CG laser beam shooting from a UFO over the top of innocent civilians being killed, it might be in bad taste but hey, it will sell a movie wont it.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by soulfox
Has anyone noticed in VideoNo2 the FLASH appears to come in from the left of shot as opposed to being emitted from the orb??
Theres definately a frame that shows light on left of shot in VideoNo2 before the actual FLASH occurs.
It's quite puzzling..


The flash could be coming from anywhere, most likely from above, and perhaps northeasterly. Looking at the first video you can see clearly that the man standing at the wall and facing toward the main event has his back lit up in the flash/es. Whatever the main event is, the flash is real.

Credit to MM for restarting this thread.
edit on 3-2-2011 by smurfy because: Add credit.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Former Ministry of Defence UFO investigator Nick Pope told The Sun: 'If these are real, they are some of the most incredible videos ever shot.
'If they are not, then this is a very well-planned and co-ordinated hoax designed to eliminate elements of doubt.'


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
here is the UFO from 5 angles.

I know the one without the flash is a fake but notice the first one on this clip. Take note that as the camera zoom in and out the city lights blur. The object in the sky blurs the same as the city lights in the background which indicates the object is there and not some light inserted into the video.

The fake one is kinda funny with that woman from the south saying "We've seen em like this in Mississippi" LOL

www.youtube.com...

edit on 3-2-2011 by Greensboro1978 because: add text



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Thought I would just fire this up and see what thoughts we could fling at it. I definately think this is irregular.. apoligies if I should be in a hoax thread..

This is an image milliseconds before the first flash!!




posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
ive been following the developments and i feel this is tricky... and its going to change a lot of things no matter how it plays out...

1. if the original video with the accompanying cell footage is just a hoax that is an incredible hoax... it should raise the bar for what a hoax is... if hoaxes have gotten that good the no video clip should ever be held valid of anything ever lol (i mean the sync of the video cam and cell cam was impressive to sau the least) if thats a hoax what a waist of time and talent... now thats not to say it isnt but the resource and effort applied then make u wonder what is the end game of such a spectacular hoax and who wants u that well tricked (im hinting at the fake disclosure theory)

2. the third video (called 2nd) though raises a lot of flags for me though that this isnt a piece of the fake disclosure puzzle because it would seem with the third video someone was cheaply trying to discredit the first 2 clips (why would u need to discredit something thats fake in the first place?) especially since a lot of the limited early coverage of the event wqs focused on the 3rd obviously fake clip

so either way u slice it rather all hoax or real situation hit by disinformation we have a real "event" here... even if this all turns out to be hoax we need to dig deep and investigate who the hoax is funded by what ties if any do the characters in the clips have (i.e. who are the two people really who are in the first clip)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


I would say that there may have been more reports of a large light event, if what your saying is true. Tis interesting though.
Do you not think?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ashtrei
Former Ministry of Defence UFO investigator Nick Pope told The Sun: 'If these are real, they are some of the most incredible videos ever shot.
'If they are not, then this is a very well-planned and co-ordinated hoax designed to eliminate elements of doubt.'


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...


Not to discredit NP, but he says more or less the same thing all the time.



new topics

top topics



 
216
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join