UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

I found a number of things wrong just by watching the video of the split screen with vids 1,2 and 4. Maybe someone's already mentioned them.

1. the ufo in vid #4 illuminates the dome and a few other surrounding objects, yet videos #1 and #2 do not illuminate any buildings once it descends down.

2. at 22 seconds cell phone camera man shifts the phone a little bit left, yet the ufo also moves left (should have moved right if the phone moved left)

3. at about 25 seconds he moves the phone left a little more but the ufo stays centered.

4. At 19 seconds the bushes can be seen in the f.o.v. of the cell phone camera, but where he's standing just doesn't look like the bushes would have been in the picture.

Those are my amateur observations. And while I felt it believable at first, cell phone camera man's movements not matching up with what's on screen make me doubt it, not to mention the illumination on his cell phone screen in the first vid doesn't look like he's filming a dark sky.

If you look at the original 1 and 2 videos without the cropping, the movements still don't match up.

Originally posted by kalamatas
I found a number of things wrong just by watching the video of the split screen with vids 1,2 and 4. Maybe someone's already mentioned them.

1. the ufo in vid #4 illuminates the dome and a few other surrounding objects, yet videos #1 and #2 do not illuminate any buildings once it descends down.

2. at 22 seconds cell phone camera man shifts the phone a little bit left, yet the ufo also moves left (should have moved right if the phone moved left)

3. at about 25 seconds he moves the phone left a little more but the ufo stays centered.

4. At 19 seconds the bushes can be seen in the f.o.v. of the cell phone camera, but where he's standing just doesn't look like the bushes would have been in the picture.

Those are my amateur observations. And while I felt it believable at first, cell phone camera man's movements not matching up with what's on screen make me doubt it, not to mention the illumination on his cell phone screen in the first vid doesn't look like he's filming a dark sky.

If you look at the original 1 and 2 videos without the cropping, the movements still don't match up.

edit on 3-2-2011 by kalamatas because: typos

I wouldn't say that your first point is accurate. The views of #1 and #2 are way to far away(especially with the low qualty camera) to be able to see the lighting change. Low camera quality and rolling shutter is also why you cant use motion tracking and what not to debunk these videos

After spending 4 hours of reading from page 1 I can no longer remember what it was I wanted to say but, I gotta post something to justify why I read every page and why I ate dinner at my computer desk while reading it all. (votes for a new ATS smiley that shows it exploding)

The most painful part of it all was the extremely unnecessary large quotes and the many questions that were being asked over and over again. I highly recommend that if anyone is serious about this topic then please respect the board rules and please at least do your part to, at the very minimum, skim over the previous posts for your answers before posting a question because most likely you will discover you aren't the only one with that question and it is a good chance it has already been covered.

I do hope this gets settled before it reaches over 400 pages as in the case of the CARET - DRONE HOAX because that thread gave me gray hairs.

Thanks to all who have contributed to some very interesting reading. My belief that the members of ATS will be the ones to figure it all out and will be the ones who discover the truth, no matter how long it takes us.

Keep up the good investigating.
Bzzzzzzz

Originally posted by Quartza

Originally posted by kalamatas
I found a number of things wrong just by watching the video of the split screen with vids 1,2 and 4. Maybe someone's already mentioned them.

1. the ufo in vid #4 illuminates the dome and a few other surrounding objects, yet videos #1 and #2 do not illuminate any buildings once it descends down.

2. at 22 seconds cell phone camera man shifts the phone a little bit left, yet the ufo also moves left (should have moved right if the phone moved left)

3. at about 25 seconds he moves the phone left a little more but the ufo stays centered.

4. At 19 seconds the bushes can be seen in the f.o.v. of the cell phone camera, but where he's standing just doesn't look like the bushes would have been in the picture.

Those are my amateur observations. And while I felt it believable at first, cell phone camera man's movements not matching up with what's on screen make me doubt it, not to mention the illumination on his cell phone screen in the first vid doesn't look like he's filming a dark sky.

If you look at the original 1 and 2 videos without the cropping, the movements still don't match up.

edit on 3-2-2011 by kalamatas because: typos

I wouldn't say that your first point is accurate. The views of #1 and #2 are way to far away(especially with the low qualty camera) to be able to see the lighting change. Low camera quality and rolling shutter is also why you cant use motion tracking and what not to debunk these videos

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

Took the words out of my mouth

If someone would please cue Secret Agent Man I'll take a stab at it. Thanks. The only thing that is real is the UFO video from #4. This could explain the strange cut from the kids at the wall to the video in the sky. The rest is an elaborate charade to hide the tracks of the person or persons who leaked it.
Truth is that it dawned on me that the red lights at the end of the videos seem awfully well defined and close up. That is some cell phone camera. I know that there is no way that my little Flip camera, for instance, would ever be able to see those lights and play it back for me like that.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by pharaohmoan

 

Video 4 NEVER stops shaking... It is a constant shake of around 4 shakes per second with a constant magnitude. The shake never leaves a certain radius of pixels. It is completely fake shake....

This video shows you:

www.youtube.com...

 

I will answer questions to others later. I'll be back.

edit on 3-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: fixed words

Again you never answered my first example. I'll put it up again.
My question to you on your analysis of all this parallax is that you claim that since the laws of physics don't match up it must be a hoax. Okay I'm gonna go out on a limb here because for one I know how good I am at these two sports. Shooting pool and bowling. Now an average pool player or bowler uses basic geometry to play the game, when one progresses beyond being just average they learn things such as "english", now you know what "english" is in sports right? Good. Now what I am implying here is that there has not been one video game yet and I have all the latest and greatest games that the best of the best have put together to try and simulate the skills I use on the table and on the alley, till this day not one single game is able to mimic the type of "english" I put on these balls, now I'll admit they are pretty close but not close enough for me to say that it plays the exact same way I do. So my question is that since these simulated games do not match up to my play exactly, does that mean the way I play or myself are not real too?

Now you bring up the fourth video in which you didn't ever believe to be real in the first place because in your opinion both 1 and 2 were fake. So now this would go back to old thread that you failed to answer as well and now you can since you are here online now. In the old thread you mentioned not everyone being a mechanic here and mentioned that the whole "fake" shake thing was not right with you. I had asked you what was a "real" shake is supposed to look like. So for your explanation on the shaking, can you give me specifics on 3 seconds or whatever, if the temperature is cold as opposed to warm, and how one's body shakes in such a consistent manner. Since of course everyone knows that we all shake the same and have the same consistency of shakes when you or I are cold and trying to hold a video camera right? By the way I am an aircraft mechanic, sheet-metal to be exact. I understand where you are coming from but it doesn't hold water with me.

Originally posted by Frater210
If someone would please cue Secret Agent Man I'll take a stab at it. Thanks. The only thing that is real is the UFO video from #4. This could explain the strange cut from the kids at the wall to the video in the sky. The rest is an elaborate charade to hide the tracks of the person or persons who leaked it.
Truth is that it dawned on me that the red lights at the end of the videos seem awfully well defined and close up. That is some cell phone camera. I know that there is no way that my little Flip camera, for instance, would ever be able to see those lights and play it back for me like that.

The red lights in vid 4 look larger then they do in vids 1 and 2, this is consistant with that lookout being closer to the dome on the rock, if its a fake they have paid some attention to detail.
As has been mentioned the pattern of red lights from vid 4 should be an inversion of those from 1 and 2

#4 is sooo good though. If you put piano music to it all your forgotten childhood religous guilt comes flooding to the surface. Maybe #4 could be considered as an adjunct to certain modalities of psychotherapy?

reply to post by BuzzingOn


Well said, but some questions get repeated because they dont get answered or the answer that is gave is not proving anything. Such as the guy about the sound audio, but as soon as I asked for pictures of the sound waves of both videos he didnt respond and said he wouldnt respond to me. That makes no sense. If your fact is not debunkable you are trying to use to debunk post the evidence when asked for it. In his video it clearly looks like the waves are different.

This is why stuff gets repeated.

reply to post by Ashtrei


Thank you Ashtrei. I would not have known that. It makes sense due to obvious elevation as well. I would love to see some intense analysis of just the red lights. I assume we have all seen the Mene Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin thing? Could or would anyone be willing to speculate on the authenticity of that video. Moriarty posted it first. With a clever suggestion regarding the neighbours. Or has it been debunked outright?

reply to post by believerofgod


Dont forget the alcohol aspect either, watching the car vid and going on body language alone i see one guy begging the driver to stop so he can have a pee, the driver gestures with his hands and you can see there is no place to stop, so eventually our chap with the watering eyes gets let out, later according to the translation someone asks did we drink too much ?
there is little or no shake in the car because the camera man is sitting down, but later hes out of the car.
If hes been drinking too and its cold he may well have reason to shake, if youve ever been really tanked on a cold night youd know it can cause intense shivering

I U2U'd jritzmann re this incident and I am sure he wont mind me posting his reply here. And I agree with his sentiments re no videographer/s of the 'object' are available to talk with. ( read interrogate actually..lol)

From Jeff Ritzmann:

" Do we have contact with any of the videographers of any of these pieces of footage?

I don't think we do. And that says a lot. No contact with a witness renders the ground very murky, and not worth walking on. If I had contact with only one, I'd ask for a direct dub and see where it took me. Those betting the farm on the notion that it's real, are in for disappointment without contact with (at the very least) one of the videographers. They are putting themselves out there on a wing and a prayer - never a good idea.

My take? They're computer generated fakes, probably viral based, OR copycat hoaxers. The "flash" just before departure of the alleged object, are not what I'd expect from a CCD based cam. No reflected light, no nothing - like the object isn't really there.

The gent who posited the horizon / foreground issues with camera matching is dead on. I saw that someone posted a rebuttal saying the horizon would remain less effected by by camera movement - in one respect he is correct. However, it's not just vertical movement we're seeing that doesn't match the wall (which could be expected - there is also tandem lateral and angular ones that don't match either.

So in the end, his rebuttal is incorrect.

Of course none of us have the direct dubs in hand so we all reserve, I'm sure, the right to be wrong. However for me there's too many incorrect issues I cannot ignore.

A direct dub would be nice- but without contact with the witnesses who shot it, it's worthless to me. "

Originally posted by Frater210
reply topost by Ashtrei[/url]

 

Thank you Ashtrei. I would not have known that. It makes sense due to obvious elevation as well. I would love to see some intense analysis of just the red lights. I assume we have all seen the Mene Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin thing? Could or would anyone be willing to speculate on the authenticity of that video. Moriarty posted it first. With a clever suggestion regarding the neighbours. Or has it been debunked outright?

You are Welcome Frater

heres the map, the dome on the rock is on the right side about half way up



as you can see vids 1 and 2 are about twice the distance from the dome on the rock as vid 4 is. and the red lights seem to be larger in proportion in vid 4

Here is das link to das video. This one freaks me out a little because I am just wired like that. Apologies in advance. Can you believe there are no responses at all for this on Youtube. Can someone please help with this?

www.youtube.com...

Yeah props to MM for bringing this back up. If its not some viral video for one of the slew of alien movies due out this year, I believe its the real deal.
Exciting times are upon us! I would like to thank everyone for all the information put out on these threads. Thank you for informing those who have been ill informed.
Namaste

Originally posted by Frater210
Here is das link to das video. This one freaks me out a little because I am just wired like that. Apologies in advance. Can you believe there are no responses at all for this on Youtube. Can someone please help with this?

www.youtube.com...

very interesting, im not sure how those symbols translate to the phrase he says they do,
but this is what i found in regards to that phrase

bibleencyclopedia.com...

reply to post by Frater210


Yea I dont get it either. I will look and see what I find. This one confuses me is it the end of the first video or second or 4th?

Originally posted by Jaylemite
- Eligael recently became friends on Facebook with 3 names that appear in the movie: Yuli, Dor, Michael.
- The 3 of them are 12th graders in Nes Tziona (outside Jerusalem), and go to Ben Gurion High School where they 'major' in Communications (usually includes filmmaking).
- Here is an end-of-semester movie from the 2010 school year, and the photographer is listed as the same Dor who drives the car and then films the incident.
- Michael wrote on Eligael's youtube page 4 days ago saying they need to get in touch.

So... amateur film makers making a UFO video that goes nuts internationally? Nah they wouldn't gain anything from that...

Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by Frater210

 

Yea I dont get it either. I will look and see what I find. This one confuses me is it the end of the first video or second or 4th?

looks to be the end of the second one, it even has the "crack" sound which he attributes to thunder, cant say as i hear thunder in that noise

reply to post by Ashtrei


I am right there with you, Ashtrei. I have no way of knowing how this SpiritualMystic person seemingly from Costa Rica has correlated these geometrical symbols (which look convincing to me. in other words it does look as though the lights do trace these symbols) with the Hebrew. But it would translate as, 'numbered, numbered, numbered, weighed and divided'.