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: 58
216
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Honestly, I think this proves it's a hoax...





posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   

edit on 4-2-2011 by EBE01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Hmm, certainly one of the most interesting videos I've seen so far. But the very rapid upward movement of the light or object has not been seen by me before on any videos I have seen. Certainly such rapid acceleration would not be possible, as we know it, for a physical object. The light flash just before the acceleration is interesting. If the object was just a light, that could explain the rapid movement, by rapidly moving the light source. I'm on the fence with this one.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by haggisbingo
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
 




The Dome of the Rock isn't in the webcam picture; it's been confirmed by the station manager.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   
I don't think that rules it out, though. More WebCam research please.
reply to post by BrownDwarfStar
 



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



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   

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



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by EBE01
Here is another new video:

www.youtube.com...


The audio is definitely questionable in this one. Not to mention the dialogue...



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
Honestly, I think this proves it's a hoax...



I think you guys are giving the audio way!!!! to much weight. It the same as EVP, electronic voice phenomenon, a bunch of BS



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Yes I have looked over it and it is clearly the fourth video redubbed - the zoom in and out is consistant with the 4th. I will remove the post.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   
the debunkers have to explain it away some kind of way. They can't explain it away from the visuals so they have to bring up some BS about the audio LOL. Nothing about the audio tells me its a hoax. Now I must admit one of the videos is a fake because there is no flash before the object takes off and it suspicious because some woman from the South is saying "we don't see em like this in Mississippi" LOL. I question the motives for making that fake. My guess is that it was to discredit the real ones.
edit on 4-2-2011 by Greensboro1978 because: edit text



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   
www.youtube.com...

A NEW VIDEO OF THE SAME OBJECT FILMED BY SOME OLDER AMERICAN WOMEN.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
They are frusterated with their failured to debunk the video, so now they are desperately looking for something wrong with the audio.

Vested interests in the debunker group, leads them to over reach and make mistakes.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
It's simply hilarious to see how hard people try to debunk this one.

You can't. Just understand that it is real sometime. How hard can it be?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   
It's a pity the second video image is so ropey. If it was the similar to the first you could, I assume, have put them side by side and seen them in 3D using the cross-eye technique. I wonder if that would reveal the distance to the object, which to my untrained eye just looks wrong when it's descending.

And no-one else seems to find the fact that the 4th video shows exactly the 23 seconds that the object was directly above the ground for at all suspicious? If they'd have been filming and you'd heard someone shout and the camera panned to the object that would have worked. But the camera was switched off and so presumably they'd have switched it on and then you'd have seen a scramble to focus and film it.

But no.

The camera suddenly cuts to the object in perfect focus and they just happen to record the object above the ground for the same length of time as the first video. Sorry, but I don't buy it.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by aceace
www.youtube.com...

A NEW VIDEO OF THE SAME OBJECT FILMED BY SOME OLDER AMERICAN WOMEN.


Please stop spreading misinformation. The video is not new and is not authentic



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Guys, the mods have suggested a debate in the debating forum?

We can't have any research threads, but debating is sanctioned and encouraged. Who's up for it? Probably need a few volunteers from each side of the fence who can then coordinate their materials and tactics via U2Us; once everyone's ready we can see what happens.

I think the point of the debate (from the 'believer' perspective) is to show that the evidence presented by skeptics thus far is not solid enough to warrant a 'case closed - hoax' verdict. I don't think it will be possible to determine that the video evidence is proof of a UFO visitation; but I do think there's enough information out there, and enough flaws in the skeptical arguments, to give this a 'day in court' on ATS. This discussion thread is a bit too haphazard. Let's have a formal debate, where the key points from each side can be consolidated and analysed objectively, without emotions or falsehoods getting in the way.


There are still unanswered questions, and an obvious lack of easy access to the key evidence - these issues in combination have led to a perpetual state of argumentative and falsely authoritative posting (from both camps)


A debate would enable everyone to see the arguments laid out bare, for all time. And if there is a conclusive proof of hoax (one that doesn't leave any room for 'reasonable doubt')...? I'll tip my hat and concede the matter as lost, before turning my focus onto who hoaxed us and why.

**** **** **** **** ****

PS - I don't think I'm suitably qualified to participate in the debate, but I think there are people here that are, on both sides of the argument. Remember - the 'believer' focus will not be about providing absolute proof of the actuality of a UFO visitation; it will be about providing a convincing argument as to why we cannot write this situation off as a 'hoax'.

PPS - By 'believer' (a term sadly loaded with negative connotations) - I mean anyone who is stumped by this one incident, and feels it is, or could well be, genuine. To be a 'believer' in this context, you don't have to be associated with any other 'belief' existing in UFOlogy. You need only be relatively convinced, or convinced, of the actual reality of this incident as a UFO visitation of some sort...



Thoughts?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
As long as it has plenty of WebCam info and not excessive audio research on the original videos. I believe FlySolo is on top of the webcam stuff.

1.) If the "object" in the webcam is even any where near the temple on the same day and within a reasonable time then this is still great evidence if it doesn't show up on most other days.
2.) There's a chance the webcam "object" is in the exact same place and exact time as the original videos. By all means, nail this possibility down as it would be extremely compelling evidence!
3.) There's no audio in the webcams



Thanks.
edit on 4-2-2011 by haggisbingo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Well after reading all the fors and againsts to whether these are a hoax or not. I still think its some viral marketing for some up and coming movie about Aliens or UFO's thats probably due out soon.
edit on 4-2-2011 by Paulos because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Audio discrepencies aside (I mean how can we judge the audio when we dont know what phone it is or anything)
there really is only one thing that I think suggests this is a hoax..

WATCH VID1 IN 720p on YT. It's the parallax issue.. it just looks like a bad composite.. There's a video out there that is 720, it's sooo ropey



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Quartza
 


This video with the redneck sounding woman
doesn't even contain the flash that the others have. I thought that was a little odd.
edit on 2/4/2011 by FoJAk because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
216
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join