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: 66
216
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by oleus
 





IMHO - if the 4th video is legit, doesn't the first pair of videos have to be real as a practical matter?


yeah, i would say thats logical......but wait until you hear Debos logic
edit on 4-2-2011 by Quartza because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
I personally would love to hear a reply, from what sounded like an older lady from the states. Who talks of seeing something like that before but never like this. I for one think that if our media were to pick this up, and seek out those involved we could put to rest alot banter coming from both sides. But tuning in late to the convo seems like a bunch of way too right people arguing for there own egos sake. A shame that sometimes that's what it seems this website has come too. A bunch of experts about nothing but there own opinion.......

Open minds, absorb the world, while the closed reject the endless possibilities within it.....



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Quartza
 


Im not even going to debate with Debo anymore his logic is flawed. I dont think if they took the time to edit every single bit of audio to make the envelops look different they would make a flaw such as that I am sorry its not its not going to happen! yet he argues for that one sound. I am done with him and his audio tell he presents more.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


What "work" do I have to do? I do not have to do the work. You have to do work to debunk this and so far your work lacks any sort of thing that in itself proves it is evidence. Please reread every post. Someone did the work I was going to do today last night. GO AND READ! He says that he would not defend that the audio was real if he didnt look at it and see it was 2 different sets of audio.
edit on 4-2-2011 by ExCloud because: (no reason given)


What do you mean, I dont HAVE to do any work to debunk it. The original creators of this video is supposed to

They have done NOTHING at all except upload some crap to a website and disappear.

I fail to understand why your being naive. These people have done nothing to prove to YOU that they didn't not attempt to deceive YOU. I have nothing to gain from this, no agenda, no plans, and definately I will not benefit from this.

I am going to continue to defend my audio analysis for as long as it is attacked. It would make no sense otherwise. You are talking about my report, so I am going to respond, why would I respond if you was talking about the parallax issue, I have no knowledge creditable enough to debate about that. And I refuse to debate about things I don't know anything about, unlike some people
edit on 4-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ashtrei
As a premise to prove the event was a hoax it just doesn't have much weight imo


Well it wasn't offered as proof, just observation by me and others, and I doubt you are seeking proof of a hoax


But this one works for me on Video #1



There is no way that would happen on a natural flash so far away from the guy viewing it. Why is his BACK getting that bright when the flash is in the valley below him?

But I bet the guys who made #3 are reveling in the MSM media focus on their cheap still picture hoax. One of the worst attempts I have ever seen, yet THAT one is making international headlines.


No Psyops Disinfo team of agents could have done better, and these guys work for kicks and lols
edit on 4-2-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


You really just need to stop. I need to prove nothing. You need to prove its not real if you think it is. The uploaders yes they should be proving its real as well if they dont want media attention well then thats left on you debunkers to debunk the footage. Its left on me a neutral party to find flaws in your debunking so you have to work harder to discredit this footage. So you do not jump the gun per say. I see a good video in video 1 and 2. Thats all I know.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeboWilliams

Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


What "work" do I have to do? I do not have to do the work. You have to do work to debunk this and so far your work lacks any sort of thing that in itself proves it is evidence. Please reread every post. Someone did the work I was going to do today last night. GO AND READ! He says that he would not defend that the audio was real if he didnt look at it and see it was 2 different sets of audio.
edit on 4-2-2011 by ExCloud because: (no reason given)


What do you mean, I dont HAVE to do any work to debunk it. The original creators of this video is supposed to

They have done NOTHING at all except upload some crap to a website and disappear.

I fail to understand why your being naive. These people have done nothing to prove to YOU that they didn't not attempt to deceive YOU. I have nothing to gain from this, no agenda, no plans, and definately I will not benefit from this.


Maybe hes not as closed minded as you. Hoax or Not? I think thats still a very open question. but you have already made up your mind and closed it all up.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
I have a couple of questions...
Where did that still image come from (5-10 pages back)?
We have an unusual light on the weathercam (even if it's not directly over the mount). Doesn't that show ATLEAST something unusual was in the area?

I have spent plenty of time in Israel and the thing with finding witnesses is the way the old city is laid out.. All around you whilst in the old city you have 20-30 feet walls surrounding every street.. You would have no line of sight to any object unless it was nice and high... The only open spaces within the old city are the Wailing wall and the mound the Church of the sepulture(sp?) are on..



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by hairycookiemunster
 


I don't find it odd at all actually. I believe that journalists have more important things to cover these days than some, what are IMO, crappy videos of a light. I believe they fulfilled their obligations of making a mention of it since there is a buzz on the internet surrounding the incident.

You said you think the media is deliberately trying to debunk this by posting the worst video. Why do you think that? I believe that idea is bogus, yes.

There's no evidence that the MSM is doing anything but reporting on something that has become a youtube sensation in the last week. They do it all the time. I believe that they could really care less about this incident and which video is the most real or fake. They just make a mention of it and move on....

There's also no evidence that this was meant to be some viral marketing campaign; unless I missed something?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by UKWO1Phot
 


I myself do not count the WebCam as evidence anymore. Not at all. its not over the Dome thus that is where the UFO came down. So I am not going to go with webcam info working in this debate.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by UKWO1Phot
I have a couple of questions...
Where did that still image come from (5-10 pages back)?
We have an unusual light on the weathercam (even if it's not directly over the mount). Doesn't that show ATLEAST something unusual was in the area?


It is a great find... but it could be anything. Would it not have to be in the exact position to match the film? But it is interesting



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quartza

Originally posted by DeboWilliams

Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


What "work" do I have to do? I do not have to do the work. You have to do work to debunk this and so far your work lacks any sort of thing that in itself proves it is evidence. Please reread every post. Someone did the work I was going to do today last night. GO AND READ! He says that he would not defend that the audio was real if he didnt look at it and see it was 2 different sets of audio.
edit on 4-2-2011 by ExCloud because: (no reason given)


What do you mean, I dont HAVE to do any work to debunk it. The original creators of this video is supposed to

They have done NOTHING at all except upload some crap to a website and disappear.

I fail to understand why your being naive. These people have done nothing to prove to YOU that they didn't not attempt to deceive YOU. I have nothing to gain from this, no agenda, no plans, and definately I will not benefit from this.


Maybe hes not as closed minded as you. Hoax or Not? I think thats still a very open question. but you have already made up your mind and closed it all up.


Because theres nothing else to prove otherwise. The audio is concrete proof. It's solid, theres no loopholes. This no room for maybes and possibles. You 2 just choose NOT to accept it, which is fine, but just stop conversing in MY direction since you have nothing creditable to say about my studies. You guys have YET to disprove me, you say "oh the don't look the same" I tell you " the videos dont look the same", then you guys say "well that's different", I say "how" yall say" well, just because". You 2 are not even attempting to be fair in your judgement. Your not questioning, your condemning.
edit on 4-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I agree on the weather cam as far as it being important - if something that looks like this object was in the sky in the general area at about this time, that is something. Maybe not as compelling as a direct hit on time and location, but something. If someone could analyze the weather cam object and dissect that I think it would be more helpful at this point.

Originally posted by UKWO1Phot

We have an unusual light on the weathercam (even if it's not directly over the mount). Doesn't that show ATLEAST something unusual was in the area?

I have spent plenty of time in Israel and the thing with finding witnesses is the way the old city is laid out.. All around you whilst in the old city you have 20-30 feet walls surrounding every street.. You would have no line of sight to any object unless it was nice and high... The only open spaces within the old city are the Wailing wall and the mound the Church of the sepulture(sp?) are on..



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by haggisbingo
I agree on the weather cam as far as it being important - if something that looks like this object was in the sky in the general area at about this time, that is something. Maybe not as compelling as a direct hit on time and location, but something. If someone could analyze the weather cam object and dissect that I think it would be more helpful at this point.

Originally posted by UKWO1Phot

We have an unusual light on the weathercam (even if it's not directly over the mount). Doesn't that show ATLEAST something unusual was in the area?

I have spent plenty of time in Israel and the thing with finding witnesses is the way the old city is laid out.. All around you whilst in the old city you have 20-30 feet walls surrounding every street.. You would have no line of sight to any object unless it was nice and high... The only open spaces within the old city are the Wailing wall and the mound the Church of the sepulture(sp?) are on..


weather camera was DEBUNKED.



02WS Manager: 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.



See this is what I am talking about, noone listens.
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 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


That's the point...
The vantage point of the vids 1-4 are virtually opposite each other?
Could the weathercam be another object that wasn't filmed?

Remember the red lights at the end of the vid.. Maybe more than 1 probe was out n about??

Just a thought.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


Ive already stated 2 different camera's slightly different angles tells you why the video wont be identical. Your audio if from the same source should be pretty much identical. This is not the case you have 1 point where there is a "shh" or "crack" or "brush" across the mic. 1 source not 2 different ones in to different locations so you claim. So again your defense is wrong you are only again proving my point. I am done directing anything to you unless I see it important.

you obviously do not read as I stated the webcam is not evidence any longer imo. Though you would prefer to stir up more talk with others by saying no one listens to you.
edit on 4-2-2011 by ExCloud because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by haggisbingo
Please, please disprove the webcam info and forget about the photoshop stuff...

Originally posted by Cassius666
How is this still open to debate, when it has been shown, that progressive footage is on a film recorded with a camer that records interlaced? Has there been an error with the findings that the footage of the ufo is interlaced?


Webcam info? Would have been nice if you would have linked it in your reply. Sorry but by the time I take another look at the thread it jumped 5 pages, I did not read through 50 pages of posts.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by UKWO1Phot
reply to post by zorgon
 


That's the point...
The vantage point of the vids 1-4 are virtually opposite each other?
Could the weathercam be another object that wasn't filmed?

Remember the red lights at the end of the vid.. Maybe more than 1 probe was out n about??

Just a thought.


See now you guys are just talking about speculation. Not only the dome was NOT in the frame of the camera, but the light isnt even ABOVE the horizon.........



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


It is open to debate, because some people don't agree with you, Cassie.

There are several logical inconsistencies and weaknesses in some of the skeptic's arguments.

PS - ATS encourages the debate, and a mod has suggested it.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


Seeing as I've been watching you whine since the start of this thread I would say..
I do listen, read, watch, analyse...



new topics

top topics



 
216
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join