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: 63
216
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I agree on that so here are my 2 cents too! Something is filmed and from all movies just one is an obvious hoax. It also bothers me that in the israeli media the hoax movie is analysed and all the others are not taken in account. It is also a fact that the number of sightings is increasing globally, why? are they all hoaxes? If it's al;iens, god, angels, giant firefly, dimensional entities or whatever we cannot determine by examining the movies. I've just read on niburu that 5 different pilots saw the same bright moving light in india. It did not appear on radar. Was this same thing? I think things are heating up and first contact must be imminent.




posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by believerofgod
 


I think it is the real deal. Too many idiots out there calling HOAX all the time when they haven't stopped to think..... Is there something out there?

I have seen 4 UFO's so far and they were the real deal!!



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 





Video 1 and 2 have been the first videos, debunking of these 2 should be top priority. The 2 video's collaberate each other, and has been proven to be directly linked together. If ONE of these videos are proven fake / real, the other MUST follow suit. How can one be real, but another fake, when both are shown to be recorded at the same time, and acknowledged by both parties to be VALID. If one of these 2 videos are debunked, 3-4-5 (and so on) that crop up about the same event cannot possibly exist.


I strongly disagree, Video 4 should be first, it has the best data. Videos 1 and 2 are so corrupted with rolling shutter, compression artifacts, and just the fact they are crappy far away recordings. This critical, indepth, mathematical analysis should not be used with such faith!



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by stevcolx
reply to post by believerofgod
 


I think it is the real deal. Too many idiots out there calling HOAX all the time when they haven't stopped to think..... Is there something out there?

I have seen 4 UFO's so far and they were the real deal!!



You mean they were real Unidentified Flying Objects? I wonder what they were.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
First and foremost. I don't believe the videos are a hoax but im going to through another theory out there. What if it was a test of project blue beam? can this holographic technology emit light like that?

BTW I still believe these were actual UFOs. Im just curious about the governments capabilities with holograms
edit on 4-2-2011 by Greensboro1978 because: edit text



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


There is no nail in the coffin, if anything its clearly shows the amount of Gama radiation being spread out like a nuclear discharge from an other worldly craft that could easily amplify that affect beyond your comprehension.

as a matter of fact, the entire event is beyond your comprehension and here in-lies the problem



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Folks,

The level of discourse here apparently hasn't changed much in the few years since I've spent time on here...

If no one is willing to look at these:

www.facebook.com...

... I have nothing more to add to the conversation. The idea that I would have to explain my stalker's video (Krazy Korff), tells me that I'm wasting my time here. I have no idea what Ritzmann has said about these videos, but then again, his credibility is completely shot for me, based on direct personal experience, so his thoughts about this - or anything else - mean precious little to me.

Have fun, while this fascinating situation continues on... no more from me on this thread.

dB



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quartza
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 





Video 1 and 2 have been the first videos, debunking of these 2 should be top priority. The 2 video's collaberate each other, and has been proven to be directly linked together. If ONE of these videos are proven fake / real, the other MUST follow suit. How can one be real, but another fake, when both are shown to be recorded at the same time, and acknowledged by both parties to be VALID. If one of these 2 videos are debunked, 3-4-5 (and so on) that crop up about the same event cannot possibly exist.


I strongly disagree, Video 4 should be first, it has the best data. Videos 1 and 2 are so corrupted with rolling shutter, compression artifacts, and just the fact they are crappy far away recordings. This critical, indepth, mathematical analysis should not be used with such faith!


Debunking video 4 would still leave video 1 and 2, however debunking video 1 or 2 would debunk ALL others. It makes no sense to focus efforts on the last video in the chain. To simply put, your logic is flawed



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


Generally, I decided to remain silent on here for awhile, but I have to point out that YOUR logic is completely flawed!

Do you not take in account the opportunity that video 1 and 2 are fake, and were created quickly to disprove any other coming in the future. Such as video 4, which is quite conclusive and hard to debunk? Should we not take aco# of the chronology of uploading of the videos, but to try and debunk the most convincing one? (the fourth?)

Or do you not take this in account on purpose?

Hmm I wonder...

I admit it si a stretch, but it remains completely in the field of possibilities! So to try hard and disregard that possibility talks quite well of your intents.
edit on 4-2-2011 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2011 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
I cracked up laughing with the one without the flash. That woman saying "we dont get em like that in Mississippi" LOL.

Three of them are real. I do believe the fourth one was hoaxed to discredit the other three. The flash was intentionally left out of the hoaxed one so people could take notice that it was a hoax. All you have to do is produce a hoaxed one and everyone will believe they are all hoaxes. Look for more hoaxed versions to surface over the next several days. Its an effort to muddy the waters and get the press off this story. What ever happened, happened beyond the control of the government so they are doing damage control.
edit on 4-2-2011 by Greensboro1978 because: edit text



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeboWilliams

Originally posted by Quartza
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 





Video 1 and 2 have been the first videos, debunking of these 2 should be top priority. The 2 video's collaberate each other, and has been proven to be directly linked together. If ONE of these videos are proven fake / real, the other MUST follow suit. How can one be real, but another fake, when both are shown to be recorded at the same time, and acknowledged by both parties to be VALID. If one of these 2 videos are debunked, 3-4-5 (and so on) that crop up about the same event cannot possibly exist.


I strongly disagree, Video 4 should be first, it has the best data. Videos 1 and 2 are so corrupted with rolling shutter, compression artifacts, and just the fact they are crappy far away recordings. This critical, indepth, mathematical analysis should not be used with such faith!


Debunking video 4 would still leave video 1 and 2, however debunking video 1 or 2 would debunk ALL others. It makes no sense to focus efforts on the last video in the chain. To simply put, your logic is flawed


wow dude. that logic is just as flawed.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ch1n1t0
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


Generally, I decided to remain silent on here for awhile, but I have to point out that YOUR logic is completely flawed!

Do you not take in account the opportunity that video 1 and 2 are fake, and were created quickly to disprove any other coming in the future. Such as video 4, which is quite conclusive?

Or do you not take this in account on purpose?

Hmm I wonder...


Considering that video 1 was uploaded 1 day before ANY other video and 2 was uploaded with acknowledgement and collaboration of video 1, before ANY information on this event was known to any individual outside of this time period, how could they have known WHAT to fake, inorder to preemptively FAKE the video in the first place. You sir are speaking from the wrong location on your body.
edit on 4-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


"The camera is in Gilo looking north and the Dome of the rock is not in the frame, not even after building obstructing it . It is later on the right of the frame. The spot you saw in the clip is something else, not connected."

Correct now if you are still using your audio that does not have the same "envelopes" as evidence. Isnt it safe to say that a strange light came into view only that night over the city? its pretty much the same concept you are using all you have is a "Shh" all we have is a strange light over the city that night that isnt there any other night, but not over the dome.

Sorry to say neither your audio findings or the webcam findings can be used as evidence of hoax or real.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeboWilliams
Considering that video 1 was uploaded 1 day before ANY other video and 2 was uploaded with acknowledgement and collaboration of video 1, before ANY information on this event was known to any individual outside of this time period, how could they have known WHAT to fake, inorder to preemptively FAKE the video in the first place.
edit on 4-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)


They know what to fake in the case it was a real event, and they purposely release fake videos before any other manages to reach the media/youtube. And also to not report a sighting or upload a video the very same day isn't something that's not familiar.

I'm not saying that happened, but it is in the realm of possibilities, isn't it? So now, give us your best shot at debunking THE HARDEST VIDEO WHICH IS LOGICALLY TO BE THE ONE RECEIVING MOST ATTENTION. FFS


edit on 4-2-2011 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeboWilliams

Originally posted by ch1n1t0
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


Generally, I decided to remain silent on here for awhile, but I have to point out that YOUR logic is completely flawed!

Do you not take in account the opportunity that video 1 and 2 are fake, and were created quickly to disprove any other coming in the future. Such as video 4, which is quite conclusive?

Or do you not take this in account on purpose?

Hmm I wonder...


Considering that video 1 was uploaded 1 day before ANY other video and 2 was uploaded with acknowledgement and collaboration of video 1, before ANY information on this event was known to any individual outside of this time period, how could they have known WHAT to fake, inorder to preemptively FAKE the video in the first place. You sir are speaking from the wrong location on your body.
edit on 4-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)


So.... you think vid4 was hoaxed after seeing the first one. then uploaded is such a short time given the complex process it would take to create it. I've never heard of such ignorance



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Okay so we have 4/5 different videos or perhaps some the same video but zoomed, so that means we have at least

10 or so eye witnesses to the event.

Now how is it that the eye witnesses seem so reluctant to appaer in front of their Youtube videos to give testimony to what they witnessed........sure if it were real people that saw it would be scambling to get their voices a heard and faces seen?

So why no Youtube video of these American students?

This may well be the "copy cat" phenomena.......were some will now take the originally posted videos and zoom in to make it look like new video and just add their own voices afterwards.
edit on 4-2-2011 by Logical one because: added some more text



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


"The camera is in Gilo looking north and the Dome of the rock is not in the frame, not even after building obstructing it . It is later on the right of the frame. The spot you saw in the clip is something else, not connected."

Correct now if you are still using your audio that does not have the same "envelopes" as evidence. Isnt it safe to say that a strange light came into view only that night over the city? its pretty much the same concept you are using all you have is a "Shh" all we have is a strange light over the city that night that isnt there any other night, but not over the dome.

Sorry to say neither your audio findings or the webcam findings can be used as evidence of hoax or real.


You sir are being ignorant. The individual clearly stated that the webcam could not have caught a light over the dome, since it was not even point in the direction of the dome. Your points are moot regarding the webcam footage.

What evidence do you have to support these encounters are true?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quartza

Originally posted by DeboWilliams

Originally posted by ch1n1t0
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


Generally, I decided to remain silent on here for awhile, but I have to point out that YOUR logic is completely flawed!

Do you not take in account the opportunity that video 1 and 2 are fake, and were created quickly to disprove any other coming in the future. Such as video 4, which is quite conclusive?

Or do you not take this in account on purpose?

Hmm I wonder...


Considering that video 1 was uploaded 1 day before ANY other video and 2 was uploaded with acknowledgement and collaboration of video 1, before ANY information on this event was known to any individual outside of this time period, how could they have known WHAT to fake, inorder to preemptively FAKE the video in the first place. You sir are speaking from the wrong location on your body.
edit on 4-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)


So.... you think vid4 was hoaxed after seeing the first one. then uploaded is such a short time given the complex process it would take to create it. I've never heard of such ignorance



To say the least, your reasoning is that because there is flaws in video 1 and 2, and if video 4 was indeed a real event captured, the perps in video 1 and 2 intentionally left flaws so to allow people to discredit 4 by eliminating 1 and 2, like I suggested? going on this logic, the individuals would have needed PRE knowledge of the encounter, inorder to fake it. They wouldve needed to know EXACTLY how long the object was decended above the dome, WHAT color light patturns would've been shown in the sky. The exact time intervals between the 2 flashes of light.

This logic would also dictate your acceptance that video 1 and 2 are indeed fake

It's rediculous for you to suggest this.

3 days passed between video 1 and video 4, ample time for fake another video.
edit on 4-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


I do not have to prove they are true. You have to prove they are not and so far your evidence is lacking. A "Shh" a "Crack or Brush" coming across on a sound clip that doesnt have matching envelopes is not evidence it is not.

I was using the webcam video as you are using your audio. I say neither are evidence and have no balance in this discussion anymore. Until you can shoe me that both videos have the same exact envelope only one is brought down to lower volume or higher etc(the envelope will still look the same once brought up) then your audio has no weight and people need to stop saying it does.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeboWilliams

Originally posted by Quartza

Originally posted by DeboWilliams

Originally posted by ch1n1t0
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


Generally, I decided to remain silent on here for awhile, but I have to point out that YOUR logic is completely flawed!

Do you not take in account the opportunity that video 1 and 2 are fake, and were created quickly to disprove any other coming in the future. Such as video 4, which is quite conclusive?

Or do you not take this in account on purpose?

Hmm I wonder...


Considering that video 1 was uploaded 1 day before ANY other video and 2 was uploaded with acknowledgement and collaboration of video 1, before ANY information on this event was known to any individual outside of this time period, how could they have known WHAT to fake, inorder to preemptively FAKE the video in the first place. You sir are speaking from the wrong location on your body.
edit on 4-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)


So.... you think vid4 was hoaxed after seeing the first one. then uploaded is such a short time given the complex process it would take to create it. I've never heard of such ignorance



To say the least, your reasoning is that because there is flaws in video 1 and 2, and if video 4 was indeed a real event captured, the perps in video 1 and 2 intentionally left flaws so to allow people to discredit 4 by eliminating 1 and 2, like I suggested? going on this logic, the individuals would have needed PRE knowledge of the encounter, inorder to fake it. They wouldve needed to know EXACTLY how long the object was decended above the dome, WHAT color light patturns would've been shown in the sky. The exact time intervals between the 2 flashes of light.

This logic would also dictate your acceptance that video 1 and 2 are indeed fake

It's rediculous for you to suggest this.

3 days passed between video 1 and video 4, ample time for fake another video.
edit on 4-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)

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


There are no flaws in 1 and 2. Its this simple, crappy footage gives you crap data. And to use such inconclusive data is flawed research.

3 days? thats a joke. You have no idea the details that had to have been paid attention too
edit on 4-2-2011 by Quartza because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
216
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join