UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

reply to post by pharaohmoan


what the ?.... when did i mention cohen

You implied the voices in vid four match the voices in the first vid, please prove they match
making the claim isnt enough

Am I the only one noticing the red dots flashing in the sky in multiple vids?

well im off to bed.......

This can be proven a hoax or proclaimed hoax by popular opinion

personally i need proof, not opinion

Originally posted by Ear-Responsible
Am I the only one noticing the red dots flashing in the sky in multiple vids?

No vids one 2 and 4 have the red dots.
still a significant part to be data mined imo

reply to post by Mr Mask


I wonder what the reaction to this phenomena would have been a few thousand years ago!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8196da9e6e72.jpeg[/atsimg]

Just musing

reply to post by Mr Mask


Very eloquently put sir. Great turn of the leaf my brother I myself do not care for much of my younger ignorant ways myself, so I know exactly where you are coming from.

Now answer this for me if you know. Do the videos lose some quality when dealing with: downloading from youtube a number of times, changing contrasts/lighting and such for visual purposes? Cause so far the whole voice thing has me going. The parallax I'm no physics expert and I don't know if giftofprophecy is either. But the phone video of the guy in front with it pointing upwards takes the cake for me personally.

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
It's a hoax people just let it go, it's not worth the time. These punk kids that pulled off this hoax achive more icing on the cake with every empty rebut the saucer fan boy's present., more rehashed garbage and playing in the hands of the hoaxters. They flame the boards how disgruntled they are with the sheeple yet they fall for the cheapest tricks in the book. Admittance of self guilt.. they are the sheep they speak of.

Billy Meier would be rolling in his grave if he was dead

Pathetic

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

With respect it's not a hoax, or legitimate - it is unknown and that is why is is still not in the hoax section. It was comments such as yours that forced the original post into the hoax section prematurely. Referring to fellow ATS member as sheeple and saucer fan boys is also ignorant and even rude; I am no saucer fan boy but in my opinion no evidence that has come to light which satisfactory enough to swing this thread.

Your comments are spouted as fact as if you are the deciding authority when in actuality the comments you make are simply your opinion based on your own interpretation of the evidence. Just because you interpret evidence one way other people interpret it another. I think your post should acknowledge this by stating 'I believe this to be a hoax.' rather than the more narcissistic "It's a hoax people just let it go, it's not worth the time."

Some of us still think it's worth the time - maybe if your mind is made up you would be better off leaving this thread, what do you have to gain by continuing to post?

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by oxbow

 

The time stamp on the screen capture.

Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere while I was away, but that really didn't answer my question at all. I can see the time stamp says 12.57, but how do you know it appeared exactly at that time. If the webcam was taking shots every 10 minutes, how do you know the light didn't appear at 12.48?

Originally posted by believerofgod
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

Do the videos lose some quality when dealing with: downloading from youtube a number of times, changing contrasts/lighting and such for visual purposes?

TL;DR version: Downloading from youtube does nothing its just a copy of a file. Making alterations will change the data/cause generational loss.

The number of times downloaded will not effect the quality of the file. It's the same file.

Unless the format is changed or the data moved by an amount it won't degrade. It also depends how the data is moved. I.e if you crushed the levels or a channel by a number of IRE (institute of radio technology) the data will be lost for most codecs since its going below the amount of IRE the codec stores.

Changing contrast etc ... will absolutely effect quality etc ... IE you can't add data to the black point or white point and expect results. It's a bit common for black points to be a little elevated into the grey also, but that doesn't mean there's actual real data there just because there's a number there. It just means it has an elevated black point.

Someone earlier also asked if putting into youtube could mix progressive and interlaced style by accident. The answer to that is no, that is not physically possible. The reason people have an issue with a progressive looking image inside an interlaced image is because this isn't possible without editing. They're two different types of image. It would also explain the lack of original non-transcoded to youtube footages since that footage would have to have full interlacing.

Probably enough info in this post for persons to wiki or googles. For those who say its too technical etc ... I suggest reading up on it from independant sources.

Originally posted by believerofgod
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

Very eloquently put sir. Great turn of the leaf my brother

I myself do not care for much of my younger ignorant ways myself, so I know exactly where you are coming from.

I knew you would understand. Thank you.

Now answer this for me if you know. Do the videos lose some quality when dealing with: downloading from youtube a number of times, changing contrasts/lighting and such for visual purposes? Cause so far the whole voice thing has me going. The parallax I'm no physics expert and I don't know if giftofprophecy is either. But the phone video of the guy in front with it pointing upwards takes the cake for me personally.

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

Yes, quality changes each time you compress or copy it into a new format.

No version of video anomalies due to CCD/CMOS sensor error or compression- that I know of through personal use of film (or recent research to check my facts)- shows any form of anomaly that can intelligently separate a foreground from a background perfectly and then change their perspective independently.

Yes blurring, ghosting, jello effect, sensor/pixal burn, halfing of screen lighting, discoluration, lagging images-

But no on intelligently tracing foreground and detaching it from background. Especially since the foreground is so dark compared to the bottom of the horizon.

Accidental image lag or splitting wouldn't be this precise. It would effect across the entire image without intelligently knowing to separate both plains .

You are looking at two layers on top of each other behaving badly.

Eventually this will be proven. That's what I think.

If I am wrong, I have already spoken on how strongly I support this. I rarely put such strong claims down. I do this here because I wholly believe what we see is impossible.

MM

Edited to add: The Tellitubbi above me knows the technical side t these things much more then I do. He has been a valuable voice in this debate. I suggest you ask him if what I am saying, though laymen-ly, is correct about anomalies

Originally posted by davidbiedny
That video is nonsense.
dB

Which video ?

Not sure I follow your comment considering your previous posts ?

Unfortunately the 10 stills don't mean anything to me in that I am no expert - is their evidence of authenticity within them ?

Interested in your thoughts considering JRitzman already cast aspersions on the footage. I am aware you are likely to discuss with peers and have not carried out any detailed analysis but please help to enlighten the masses - and no sarcasm intended.

It would just be great for once if this did play out in real time on ATS with some expert opinion.

Originally posted by Ashtrei

Originally posted by believerofgod
Mr. Debo points out the sound break, the chhh and the crack, in video 1 and 2 clip which if you hear it, it is obvious and he verbally goes through the analysis in simple terms. Which seems logical.

Yet he wont post the graphics that show a "match" of the envelope, while another poster says he has compared these noises and they dont match.........

I thought those were the graphics he was talking about in his 14 min or so video. He even makes up new sounds on it show his example of what he is talking about. Am I missing something here; what is this "match" of the envelope that you speak of?

reply to post by Unknown Soldier


I find it kinda of sad how hard you are trying to prove this event to be fake lol. Post your evidence and move on(even thou your sound evidence is most likely the WORST possible way to debunk this case.)
No need to sit here harassing other people, wait for the mods to come close this if they deem it needed.

Ever since video-copilot started doing some very nice after effects tuts, every dick and harry thinks they are a VFX pro now, like hoaxkiller, its pretty cute

Originally posted by Mr Mask
I also find it odd, ... to say "the media didn't know there was better clips?"

But I think they knew all the clips.

I've been reading this thread in sequence, and I have my own opinions to a lot of aspects that have been brought up. But I just couldn't wait to chime in here when I read your post, MM.

I find that a lot of news organizations don't try to get their own copy of video. They tend to grab the video off of their competitor's feed, and if necessary, blur out any channel identification watermarks. They might do this because it's just an easy / quick way of doing things.

I am not saying this is the case here, but am only bringing to light a possible scenario where one clip dominates the news. (devil's advocate style)

Personally, I agree that showing the obvious hoaxed video is intentionally manipulative.

reply to post by Mr Mask


Well until the real people who made this come up with the video proof on hand to show everyone, or other witnesses come forward then I have no other choice but to agree with the analysis that has been put forth. I know dicl0sure3 was trying to reach the people that had their youtube channels up, but it seems that others that have left comments on their pages and have gone unanswered as well, which would lead one to believe something is up... but what? It would be cool to know that this is real, would be confirmation more than anything for me personally, but so far I have nothing else to go on but the facts that have been proven thus far.
I know this davidbiedny fellow is trying to do something but I have yet to hear from him. I did do a little research on him but really know nothing about him. I did,however, see that he threatened someone and if what he says is true, then not cool.

Click here for more information.

This is purely subjective, but vid4 does not give me a CGI feeling. I feel pretty comfortable picking those out. I'm unsure here though.

So, I don't know if any of my fellow Brits have mentioned this but it made the Channel 4 news last night.
Now I'm not naive to suggest this in any way authenticates the videos, and I'm sure it made news in some of your fine countries but over here it's quite a big deal! Not including satellite and cable channels we've still only got 5 channels and only 4 of them have prime time nightly news. Just saying, even though I've been following this and the other thread from the beginning it still made me sit up and go "EH?!?"
Maybe others less read on the subject out there watching had the same reaction.
Fake or not, that's no bad thing.

Yes, I think any new research should be done on the webcam stuff. I don't think all the hashing and re-hashing of who said what and when in the audio of the first 4 videos is enough to make or not make this a hoax. The most compelling stuff, by far, is the webcam info from FlySolo. Also, the media will likely pick up on that if it is indeed accurate. Webcam stuff please...

reply to post by oxbow

Originally posted by Quartza
Mr.Mask, you can not ignore the effect that a rolling shutter would have on tracking points and calculating parallax errors. Those physical measurements cant not be taken accurately on video that has morphed the actual recorded points of any given object.

In this video, you could take a frame grab and say the buildings are skewed....are the skewed in real life?
And this is on a high end camera.

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

MrMask what is your opinion of this above. To say that the quality of video#1 has no effect with that type of analysis is quite ignorant. The fore and backgrounds moving around after "trying" to be stablized, cant not be true to the real world if the video its self is not.

And if it is a hoax....wow these guys are pros to put all this together and to forget a little detail like locking down the foreground plate with background plate. I dont see that happing.