UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

page: 55

216

<< 52 53 54 56 57 58 >>

join

Paradigm2012

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:09 AM

link

reply to post by Mr Mask

I think it's pretty clear that you have altered the images enough from the original source, using 3rd and 4th generation videos you downloaded from youtube.

Mr. Mask your above example is insufficient because your not using the original copy. A cellphone video taken from youtube is what your using.

And you have not talked to the witnesses.

Sloppy work you do.

Paradigm2012

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:14 AM

link

Due to Mr. Mask and others altering the original image and sometimes corrupting the data and then using that image for their attempt to debunk it.

I am still in the camp that the 3rd video (was a hoax) and the rumor is by someone on ATS.

video 1, 2, and 4 in my opinion are still unexplained and insufficiently analyzed by amatuers.

Zeta Reticulan

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:14 AM

link

Ashtrei

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:14 AM

link

Ive posted compelling evidence that the wall in vid 4 is curved and the wall in vid one is straight.
But you insist they are the same wall.
The onus is now on you to prove they are the same wall
My evidence says one is straight the other curved, where is your evidence they are the same wall................

youve 3 times now said they are the same wall...... wheres the proof ?

Paradigm2012

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:15 AM

link

reply to post by Zeta Reticulan

Are you the ATSer that hoaxed the 3rd video from Jerusalem? I thought ATSers were supposed to be the enlightened ones.

Mr Mask

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:17 AM

link

reply to post by Ashtrei

You don't get this do you.

I have said many times it may not be the same wall.

You keep acting like my case has something to do with this wall.

I don't care about the wall.

I care that the background of clip one defies the laws of perspective, something that is IMPOSSIBLE.

In fact, the wall was mentioned by me ONLY in a post that named factors I find "interesting but not conclusive".

Things like the wall, pictures dating back several years with same colored light in same location of UFO, voices sounding alike, and various other things I stated are possible but not conclusive.

Yknow what sir? I'm totally done explaining simple things to you that have nothing to do with the evidence at hand that completely proves this event hoaxed.

The audio anomalies.
The perspective anomalies.
The integrated effects anomalies.

Those three things prove this event hoaxed. Alls that is needed now is to somehow translate this "semi-complex" information to the crowd that is ignoring the factual side of that.

And yes...I still do personally think that wall is the same wall, or even possibly a wall in the same park as the wall in clip one.

But...I will STILL not bet the farm on it.

I would bet the farm on the three detailed anomalies mentioned above.

I've been clear...not "getting it" past this part would be a sign of you "intentionally ignoring what is being said to you" or evidence that you are unable to process my attempts to break it down to you.

Either way, I can no longer interact with you.

Good day.

MM

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

Paradigm2012

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:18 AM

link

reply to post by Ashtrei

They will not respond when caught in a corner. Instead they will increase contrast, brightness and adjust the levels until they find an error so then they can come to ATS and try to IMPRESS everyone with their self inflated digital ego.

believerofgod

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:18 AM

link

Originally posted by Mr Mask

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by DeboWilliams

Debo! I think you are right! I confirmed your findings.

The guy holding the camera for video 2 should be louder in his own video! Yet his voice in his own video is the same volume as is found in video 1 which was further away.... HA!

edit on 3-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)

Yes, his analysis is very interesting.

I'd say almost the smoking gun, possibly "THE smoking gun".

But so far, I see few people taking the time to watch Debo's clip or grasp what he is actually showing.

Again, I have worked with sound 25+ years, worked in analog and digital formats, had first hand interaction with thousands of microphones of all calibers.

Debo's case is pretty solid and I find it hard to find holes in it once you listen t his case and understand what he exactly pointing out to you clearly.

Nw, right now I'm climbing the mountain that is this thread, and I'm only on page 32, so I don't know if anyone is giving credit to Debo yet near the end of this thread. I'll see when I get there.

But yeah, glad you watched it and got it. I agree, pretty solid arguments.

MM

Wait a minute here MM. Now what is your profession exactly? All of the sudden you have 25+ yrs in working with sound?

Again, I have worked with sound 25+ years, worked in analog and digital formats, had first hand interaction with thousands of microphones of all calibers.

Where did this come from? From what I have seen you have been riding the band wagon of who ever has the best answer at the time. Only reason I say this because in the old thread you were behind Debo and giftofprophecy in their analysis and pretty much seemed to be calling it a hoax. I came along and questioned both of these guys without a response from either at the time. From what I gathered with Mr. Debo and his analysis was short of his explanation that he verbally walked me through on his new video in this new thread that you have reopened with your so called MOD buddies, which is cool but don't make it seem like you have all this knowledge. If you did you would not have questioned someone else on Mr. Debo and his analysis earlier on this thread with the same question I had brought up concerning the wind factor. If you had known what you were talking about then, understanding Mr. Debo and his first video without him speaking would have led you to completely back him up in the old first thread.

Now with giftofprophecy and his analysis, you had believed it again until I had brought up the issues I had with his "real" shake as opposed the "fake" shake that he was referring to. Once both of these guys didn't answer me, probably cause they knew they had nothing to refute with the parallax and the audio (I still don't see the deal with the "real" or "fake" shake), you seemed to jump the band wagon and decided, in cooperation with the MODS (as stated by yourself), to go ahead and start a new thread in light of the what seemed to be a new case here.

So like I said I am just a bit confused as to what it is you really do. I guess the one thing I "dislike" are people who love to ride the band wagon when things seem to go wrong on one team as opposed to the team they should have been backing from the get go. Kinda like the band wagon fans of football, basketball teams, you know what I am talking about. Now you will forgive me for what seems like me calling you out, but I do call it as I see it. I am glad you had an epiphany of how you have been treating others as I have heard and seen the complaints for some time now, but hey we all learn sometime right.

But anyway I do go with the analysis of these two guys so far. I am hoping that the witnesses all come forward if there really are any real witnesses and the ones who made the video come forward with all the video proof in hand. It did seem odd with the cell phone video looking the way it did, and as for the analysis of these two experienced people, I have heard that downloading from youtube tends to break down the quality and such; is there any truth to this? But yes in my opinion the anomalies are backed up by their experience and expertise thus far.

Now my challenge to Mr. Debo and maybe even exdog5 would be to gather all the voice data and compare it with the driver of the car and that new video that claims to have him producing that short film, also, the guys at the first supposed sight and the ones at the other side of town from them at the supposed second site. That might help a little. Could you guys please assist?

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

Ashtrei

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:18 AM

link

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
Due to Mr. Mask and others altering the original image and sometimes corrupting the data and then using that image for their attempt to debunk it.

I am still in the camp that the 3rd video (was a hoax) and the rumor is by someone on ATS.

video 1, 2, and 4 in my opinion are still unexplained and insufficiently analyzed by amatuers.

I agree, the 3rd vid is the odd man out, no flash and they dont pan up to follow it as it leaves, the background is static and the audio...... not compelling from my pov.

Vids one 2 and 4 are yet to be debunked, and having David Biedny's opinion they are not faked is significant.
He is an expert in this field, i'll take an experts opinion over the misinformed ones ive seen here thus far

Paradigm2012

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:22 AM

link

Originally posted by davidbiedny
Folks,

Looking at the 4th video, knowing the 3rd one is bogus, I'd go so far as to say you're seeing some of the best genuine UFO footage shot in recent memory. I'm kind of stunned that there was so much discussion on here about the stabilized footage, a basic understanding of parallax tells you the obvious, and this fourth video is nothing short of stunning. I'd love to be in Israel tracking down primary witnesses - I suspect that others saw this thing besides the sources of the videos. Outside of determining the precise provenance, and doing some actual analysis work on the original video data, not the compressed Youtube files, I'd say this is a hot one.

I think there's something here. I don't think the three compelling videos will be debunked. You can quote me on that... but I always reserve the right to be wrong.

I'm saddened by the fact that nutjobs like Webre are putting out nonsense on the event, it deserves some serious, sober journalism. The primary prerequisite is that the investigation needs to happen in Israel proper.

David Biedny

P.S. Mr. Mask, thanks for reopening the topic.
edit on 4-2-2011 by davidbiedny
edit on 4-2-2011 by davidbiedny because: (no reason given)

I think people on this forum should take notice at what David Biedny just said. He has the level of experience and career that you can take it the bank he can spot CGI. extra DIV

Unknown Soldier

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:24 AM

link

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
reply to post by Mr Mask

I think it's pretty clear that you have altered the images enough from the original source, using 3rd and 4th generation videos you downloaded from youtube.

You just debunked yourself by sheer ignorance in such a statement,

Let me read that out loud to myself... I think it's pretty clear that you have altered the images enough from the original source, using 3rd and 4th generation videos you downloaded from youtube

Nope not the affect i felt before. Perhaps i have grown callous,your query becomes vague in such a way. Deny ignorance seems to have given way to kryptonion crystals it seems.

No after much research this leads to a path old BS as previ0us

Mr. Mask your above example is insufficient because your not using the original copy. A cellphone video taken from youtube is what your using.

And you have not talked to the witnesses.

Sloppy work you do.

Please spare the minuscule attempts at anti-logic. If im not mistaken you have been trolling for some time now, this amuses me in some sick way.

tell me more

Tell us about your version of the Hoax again, where ate the witnesses? I mean where are the witnesses... ehem

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

Ashtrei

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:25 AM

link

Originally posted by Mr Mask
reply to post by Ashtrei

You don't get this do you.

I have said many times it may not be the same wall.

You keep acting like my case has something to do with this wall.

I don't care about the wall.

I care that the background of clip one defies the laws of perspective, something that is IMPOSSIBLE.

In fact, the wall was mentioned by me ONLY in a post that named factors I find "interesting but not conclusive".

Things like the wall, pictures dating back several years with same colored light in same location of UFO, voices sounding alike, and various other things I stated are possible but not conclusive.

Yknow what sir? I'm totally done explaining simple things to you that have nothing to d with the evidence at hand that completely proves this event hoaxed.

The audio anomalies.
The perspective anomalies.
The integrated effects anomalies.

Those three things prove this event hoaxed. Alls that is needed now is to somehow translate this "semi-complex" information to yu crowd that is ignoring the factual side of that.

And yes...I still do personally think that wall is the same wall, or even possibly a wall in the same park as the wall in clip one.

But...I will STILL not bet the farm on it.

I would bet the farm on the three detailed anomalies mentioned above.

I've been clear...not "getting it" past this part would be a sign of you "intentionally ignoring what is being said to you" or evidence that you are unable to process my attempts to break it down to you.

Either way, I can no longer interact with you.

Good day.

MM

BS..... BS BS BS.... youve said and i quote you "its the exact same wall"
Thats what you said
and in the last page you say

"Further more- good sir- I STILL think that wall is the same wall."

and

"And I still think it is the same wall."
and in this post

"And yes...I still do personally think that wall is the same wall"

But the evidence is there for all to see one wall is straight the other curved.....how can they be the same wall ?

That does not make any sense, YOU are not making sense.

It cant be the same wall, ive posted proof one is straight one is curved, wheres your PROOF they are the same ?

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

Paradigm2012

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:27 AM

link

reply to post by Mr Mask

You need to prove things to back up your claims. Your accusations need solid evidence to support them. So far you are lacking on the data to support your theories.

Do you see how this works?

In court you would never win.

show us the evidence

Dalbeck

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:28 AM

link

Originally posted by Paradigm2012

Originally posted by davidbiedny
Folks,

Looking at the 4th video, knowing the 3rd one is bogus, I'd go so far as to say you're seeing some of the best genuine UFO footage shot in recent memory. I'm kind of stunned that there was so much discussion on here about the stabilized footage, a basic understanding of parallax tells you the obvious, and this fourth video is nothing short of stunning. I'd love to be in Israel tracking down primary witnesses - I suspect that others saw this thing besides the sources of the videos. Outside of determining the precise provenance, and doing some actual analysis work on the original video data, not the compressed Youtube files, I'd say this is a hot one.

I think there's something here. I don't think the three compelling videos will be debunked. You can quote me on that... but I always reserve the right to be wrong.

I'm saddened by the fact that nutjobs like Webre are putting out nonsense on the event, it deserves some serious, sober journalism. The primary prerequisite is that the investigation needs to happen in Israel proper.

David Biedny

P.S. Mr. Mask, thanks for reopening the topic.
edit on 4-2-2011 by davidbiedny
edit on 4-2-2011 by davidbiedny because: (no reason given)

I think people on this forum should take notice at what David Biedny just said. He has the level of experience and career that you can take it the bank he can spot CGI.

I def. second that ! extra DIV

Paradigm2012

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:30 AM

link

I think David Biedny just owned you all into oblivion. David Biedny is a long time Adobe expert and has more experience in Adobe than all you put together.

David just posted that he finds that videos 1,2,4 will never be debunked, He said "they are the most incredible footage he has seen"

Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.

google David Biedny and look at his credentials.

pharaohmoan

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:31 AM

link

VIDEO 4, UNEDITED FULL VERSION , Includes the drive up to Temple Mount.

Listen to the voices, they are the same as the original audio first released (CIA AGENTS PERHAPS) I don't think so, just some kids out having fun.

Maybe they have an nefarious alternate agenda. I don't think so, they're just kids.

ORIGINAL FOOTAGE OF AN ACTUAL EVENT, well now that does seem plausable don't it!

I'm glad they held back from releasing the full, (pre event) footage with their original voices!

Feel free to do a voice analysis on their speach patterns v's original released footage, I think you will find it matchs!.

Eat my dust DEBUNKERS!

soulfox

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:31 AM

link

Originally posted by Ashtrei

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
Due to Mr. Mask and others altering the original image and sometimes corrupting the data and then using that image for their attempt to debunk it.

I am still in the camp that the 3rd video (was a hoax) and the rumor is by someone on ATS.

video 1, 2, and 4 in my opinion are still unexplained and insufficiently analyzed by amatuers.

I agree, the 3rd vid is the odd man out, no flash and they dont pan up to follow it as it leaves, the background is static and the audio...... not compelling from my pov.

Vids one 2 and 4 are yet to be debunked, and having David Biedny's opinion they are not faked is significant.
He is an expert in this field, i'll take an experts opinion over the misinformed ones ive seen here thus far

What about Vid1 Ash? Whats the reason behind it's dubunk.. was trawling threads yesterday, no one could. If it can be debunked, doesn't it inherently disable Vid2?

Ear-Responsible

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:34 AM

link

Originally posted by Zeta Reticulan

Lmaoooooo!!!!

Thank you so much for that haha.

Ashtrei

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:34 AM

link

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
reply to post by Mr Mask

You need to prove things to back up your claims. Your accusations need solid evidence to support them. So far you are lacking on the data to support your theories.

Do you see how this works?

In court you would never win.

show us the evidence

This is correct, in a court of law i could present four videos two from the promenade one in daylight and independant of this ufo case and one in the night both showing a straight wall, and i could present two from the mt scopus lookout, one in daylight and independant of the ufo case and one in the night both showing a curved wall.
What evidence would you present to prove your case that they are the same wall has any merit ?
All you have presented so far is your assertion as fact that you think they are the same.....against my 4 videos...... you'd loose. im confident the magistrate would find on the balance of probabilitys my case has merit yours does not.
You havent provided anything to substantiate your claim, other than your opinion and its not what the courts would call an "expert" opinion

m0r1arty

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:35 AM

link

Can we lay off the slams against Mr Mask please?

He's trying to collate evidence together where we each can form our own opinions about it.

Yes, he may have said that's the same wall, he might have said other things too which is later proven to be incorrect - he's not infallible and has never claimed to be but he is being worthwhile and adding to this discussion. You are not forced to accept what he says as factual - it's up to you to either believe what you read or not.

For the record I don't agree with his assessment of the videos and I am looking into trying to either prove this as a hoax or better yet proclaim it as real. I seem to be able to do that, as well as point out oddities about how ATS is handling this situation, without resorting to questioning his integrity.

Attacking him is not going to get anyone anywhere further with this investigation and only clouds the thread with tiny political issues which aren't relevant to the topic at hand.

So can we all play nice m'kay?

-m0r