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: 54
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:04 AM

Originally posted by Jobeycool
LOL everyone is still trying to prove and disprove this video.I have not seen anything that says it is a hoax for sure yet.

I have.

Wonder what is the thing that makes that so different between us.


posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:08 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:10 AM

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Alright, after reading about 20 pages of this thread, it was time I put my 2 cents in. I borrowed the animated GIF from earlier, cropped and zoomed in to make a point:

I drew a yellow arrow in the lower-left corner pointing to a dim light source. Notice that light source become brighter as the flash happens? Look at the other light sources as well. All of them become brighter when the flash happens. This indicates that the flash was added after the fact and brightening every pixel in the video.

In normal lighting conditions, such as the sun starting to come up, the area around a light source will become illuminated, but the light source itself will become dimmer as the sunlight starts to outshine nighttime light sources. In the animated GIF, the light source and its surroundings are all being brightened, thus proving the flash and the light from the flash were edited in by software.

The videos are all hoaxed. This thread should be moved to the HOAX forum with the other one. Props to Debo on the audio analysis, and everyone elses work on studying these videos.

Worth quoting and pointing to again.

Good job.


posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:13 AM
Sadly, given my former visibility in the field, and the abundance of lunatics in "the field", I have my own special little stalker in Eastern Europe. Lucky me. That video is nonsense. Welcome to the world of using your actual name and identity in conjunction with these topics, it's one of the many reasons I pulled away.


posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:14 AM

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Ashtrei
Thanks Dave,
finally a real expert weighs in

Sigh.... You know honestly I never heard of this guy before : so I looked him up...

First thing I find is this

Good grief...

Okay this is getting insane... I is outta here

U luv it realy Zorgon go on admit it

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:16 AM

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Ashtrei
Ok lets go at this from a new tangent, how often do you think, people who see a genuine lightning flash as they lay in bed at night, phone their local department of defense and say "i just saw a flash of light, it must be a UFO, scramble the jets" ?

They are in the middle of a war zone... they would not be thinking UFO but attack from a neighbor. THAT is the point. And as was stated A bright flash like that would have political value. Surely you don't think that people in the region would not notice a bright flash that lights up the streets on a CLEAR night and at least look UP at which point they would see this big bright ball hovering just before it took off?

When was the last time you saw a flash of lightning and phoned the cops ?

In Toronto a few years back there was a thunderstorm in the distance over the Nuke plant 50 miles away. Storm was intense and looked weird. HUNDREDS of people called in thinking the plant had just exploded

Here in Las Vegas when people look west at sunset and see the bright trail of a Vandenberg launch (over 400 miles away) the news rooms get many calls every time.

Look I know you really want this one to be real... but there are just too many things wrong with the whole scenario. Nothing I say is likely to change anyone's mind. When I first saw #1 I thought it was a good one to look at. But the fact that the actual people who took these videos refuse to come forward and testify screams hoax.

And if it is real, a glowing blob of plasma that is curious and playful, it would be a 'Critter' not an alien spacecraft anyway

And i could counter with the theory that the fact they are in a war zone, would mean they are used to things that go bump bang and flash in the night, that you are more likely to have a blasé attitude to these things.
It was a flash of light no bang, no explosion, either lightning or a bomb too far away to be heard.(or worried about)

If there was no sound we are left with a flash of light at a time when most people have their eyes closed
there could be a mighty flash of light in your town tonite, and no one would notice
It could have happened last night while your eyes were closed.....did you notice it ?

As a premise to prove the event was a hoax it just doesnt have much weight imo

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:19 AM
This should have stayed in the HOAX bin.
Just because it has multiple viewpoints does not mean its real. If you can hoax one video, then you can hoax 3 or 4. It is exactly what I would do if I was trying to trick someone into thinking it was real.
Its obvious CGI this one.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:21 AM
It would appear that this has become quite the heated thread quickly.

Let me remind everyone to argue the subject and not each other. Best advice is to review your replies before you post them.

Thank You.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:24 AM

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Ashtrei
Thanks Dave,
finally a real expert weighs in

Sigh.... You know honestly I never heard of this guy before : so I looked him up...

First thing I find is this

Good grief...

Okay this is getting insane... I is outta here

Youve got to be kidding , that guy is insane

Mr Biedny can be a hard assed guy to deal with, but thats because hes passionate about this field.
It does not detract for one moment from his well established and outstanding expertise in this genre.

What he might lack in people skills he more than makes up for in image analysis skills

Kal korff ? really ? the guy is a few sandwhiches short of a happy picnic, David is the real deal

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:27 AM
reply to post by Mr Mask

Mr Mask- much as I salute you for having this thread reopened, I feel you are wasting your time now. Those people who still 'believe' at this point, after it has been repeatedly shown to be an obvious hoax, are not going to accept any proof and are going to continue to 'believe'. I baled out of this thread around page 12, after one of the main believers said 'just because you can prove that you could reproduce this, doesnt mean it has been'(!?) When I came back to ATS home page I was amazed to find the thread still going at page 54, going over and over the same points.

One last time- its a fake. The most obvious proof is in the flashes, but also in the movement and motion tracking of the 'UFO' and the lighting of the foreground / background. I know the believers wont be swayed by this, and this doesnt mean I dont believe in UFO's, but Im afraid these are the facts.

Im out (again!)

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:34 AM
reply to post by Ahabstar

Blossom Goodchild revisited

Its a bit sad realy if or maybe the first video is legit then the whole scenario is screwed up and dumped in the hoax bin.

Makes you realy think how many true and legit sightings get trashed and buried by this frenzie of opinions and utube point seekers

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:40 AM

Here is slow mo footage of a lightening strike taken with a very high end camera and a very high frame rate. Use you mouse to move through the different intensities of the flash and you will see the city lights get brighter. Yes, not all of them flash at the same time but this is slow motion. It is quite logical to believe a cheap consumer camera would have a hard time capturing the dynamic range of exposure involved with the UFO flash and depict the event in the way we are seeing it on YT. The flash in the 4th video appears true to me.
edit on 4-2-2011 by QuantumDisciple because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2011 by QuantumDisciple because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2011 by QuantumDisciple because: I suck at embedding

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:41 AM

Originally posted by Hitoshura
And another thing : in the 1st video, the kid in front also recording what's happening is really close the being in the way when the UFO descends, but the recorder doesn't even move. Wouldn't it be kind of natural to get closer incase the UFO moved to the right and the other kid was in the way? This is something that if real, the recorder is probably never going to see again, so why risk that? And wouldn't it also be natural for the recorder to get closer and move up to the wall too?

This is what i object to, for starters the "kid" is according to his YT account 35 years old, he doesnt look like a "kid" in vid one either, but by labeling him a "kid" you attempt to shred his credibility.
heres his YT account

it says 35 now he might be lying, but what evidence do you have to back your claim hes a "kid" ?

eli is 42

here is his account

So we have a 42 year old and a 35 year old at one location and 4 younger people miles north of them, but somehow they are all "kids" doing a movie making course.

I dont care if this is proved a hoax, but not based on the sort of sloppy logic and outright falsehoods being posited as fact we are seeing here.

Youve labeled him a "kid" which naturally detracts from his credibility but his account says 35, can you prove hes a kid ?

Of course you cant because hes not, you may not have ment it, but by posting false data you are hoaxing facts that are not real....think about it

edit on 4-2-2011 by Ashtrei because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2011 by Ashtrei because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:41 AM
Its from youtube, so its automatically a hoax right?

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:46 AM

Originally posted by Ashtrei
well it seems MM despite numerous posts is still dodging his error regards the wall in vid 4 being the "exact same wall" as in vid one.

This will be my 5th and and last time explaining to you the process that lead me to saying the one sentence that you keep quoting me saying in various places in both these threads.

The part where I say its the same wall- was said after these events took place.

I started stating I think the foregrounds are added to fake backgrounds.

You then started asking me how is it possible that the backgrounds are different from the view of the filmers if I think the foreground is fake?

I then got confused at how you couldn't understand what I was saying so I dumbed it down over and over to tell you that the background's content is irrelevant to where the filmers are standing because for all I know they could be in my back yard. I then said its very possible that they are in the same place for filming clips one, two and four for the following reasons.

Wall in two clips. Voices similar. Perspective problems, lighting problems, audio problems. All plainly shown by members here doing research on clips.

YOU then continued to post clips of two walls from locations that a member who joined that very hour started saying are the locations and asked "how is it possible they can be filming different backgrounds".

Again I scratched my head and wondered how much simpler do I have to be to get it through your head that I think the foregrounds are digitally added to false backgrounds.

So I posted ONE post detailing a hypothesis on a series of events these kids could have taken.

Including saying- Filmed first vid by wall that was in the longer pee clip.

A poster named M0riarty asked if that was conclusive, and I openly told him "I wouldn't base my entire case on it but it loks like the same wall to me".

I am not actively ignoring you since this is now the 5th pst I have had to type explaining myself to you on this silly subject.

You do not have to nit-pick words out of context with a guy like me. I plainly state how I feel about crap.

Like the perspective problems. I openly placed my credibility on the line countless times telling you it is absolutely true.

Further more- good sir- I STILL think that wall is the same wall. I still see no handrail as you point out, seeing as that handrail you show (in your daytime clip) is a foot high (or higher) over the wall's top - and the shadow you claim in the UFO clip is clearly nowhere near as high.

There is no black rail in the UFO clip.

And I still think it is the same wall.

But I have said clearly, many many times, I have no proof it is the same wall, and such sentences that speak matter of factly on the subject as if they ARE the same wall were taken from a post where I had to detail the events as if I was talking to a very stubborn child who refused to understand how adding a false foreground is possible if the backgrounds are different.

In fact, that question alone baffles me.

"How can the foregrounds be the same if the backgrounds are different?"

Asking me that question lead me to having to paint a picture for you. In that simple picture I stated a hypothetical stage of events.

As said, I am now actively ignoring you until you stop playing games and start paying attention, instead of trying to find a single sentence you find "wrong" when you wrongly remove its context and then use it as some weapon.

I HOPE this makes sense to you, as I am tired of trying to make sense to you.


edit on 4-2-2011 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2011 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2011 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2011 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:53 AM
reply to post by m0r1arty

I hear you and salute you.

But alls I can say is the reason for the thread existing in both the hoax forum and here has more to do with things unmentioned then what can be speculated as just "Staff being biased or jerky".

It is not my place to say anything really. But the actions being taken here are not based on the content being hoaxed.

Again, I apologize if it seems like trickery is going on.

I assure it is...but not on behalf of ATS Staff.


posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:55 AM

Oh for petes sake, the person who posted the independant vids doesnt have any bearing on those vids, they were posted in 2010, they are just tourist vids of the two lookouts.
but forget them then.
look at the wall in the first vid, its a straight flat wall the flash gif confirms it
look at the wall in the 4th vid its a curved wall.
never mind this is backed up and confirmed by the independant tourist vids posted last year
the 1st ufo vid shows a flat straight wall, the 4th vid shows a curved wall.
but rather than admit you are wrong and you are, you insist its the same wall

keep deluding yourself, im confident those watching can see that there is a straight wall in the first vid and a curved wall in the 4th vid
They cannot be the same wall as you contend
you remind me of an african monkey trap
the hunter takes a petrol can and fills it with rocks about 3/4 of the way up, and then adds some peanuts, the monkey puts his hand in the hole and grabs a handful of nuts and rocks, and wont let go ..... not even when the hunter comes back with a club to claim his prize........

The rock wall in the first vid is straight and flat, the wall in the forth vid is curved you can see for yourselves
If you want to cling to the fiction they are the same wall......well thats up to you

first vid

straight flat wall the black line that shows during the flash is straight not curved

3:47 mark curved wall.....................

tourist vid taken in 2010 from same spot as first vid

straight walls

tourist vid vid taken from mt scopus 2010

curved walls.....

but if the independant tourist vids taken in 2010 in broad daylight are suspect because haketem posted the links, fine
look at the original UFO vids
vid one straight walls
vid four curved walls

but you cling to the falsehood they are the same wall .......... hilarious
clearly your agenda is more important than the facts, the truth................
They are not the same wall the wall in vid one is straight the wall in vid 4 is curved
edit on 4-2-2011 by Ashtrei because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2011 by Ashtrei because: (no reason given)


Mod Edit: Excessive Quote Please Review This Link.

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page):
Please make sure every post matters.
--Refrain from 1-line or very-minimal responses.
--Edit-down your quoted posts to the important part.
--Don't use "txting" shorthand in posts.
--Use snippets and links for external content.
-- Provide meaningful comments for links, pictures, and videos.

edit on 4-2-2011 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:56 AM

Originally posted by annella
reply to post by Mr Mask

Just letting y'all know that your post just went viral.....

You may want to go check your last post/s and delete 3 on 'em!!

edit on 4-2-2011 by annella because: (no reason given)

After hours of reading this thread, I have now come to my posts that are doubled. tripled, quadrupled.


What happened was every post I was making was resulting in an error saying it didn't post (white screen with error message from Safari) saying "could not find page".

So...being a dummy, I kept hitting the post button.

I actually gave up trying to pst and just went on reading and not replying...

Anyways...thats what happend.

I hope a Mod fixes it, or at least people think I'm not "that dumb" lol.


posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:00 AM
Hey, New member here and I am unable to post my own thread so hopefully this reaches someone!!

This is a video from the official nasa website that streams live:

I think this is of alot of importance and people should know as i fear there may be an invasion approaching....

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:05 AM
I have not seen enough evidence to prove its a hoax. All I see inconclusive tiny small bits and pieces and not enough.

If you want to call it a hoax please provide CONCRETE evidence to back up your claims.

Your claims need evidence to back them up.

So far you have not provided it.

top topics

<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in