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: 67
216
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
No, we listen and this is a new point. If this "dot" as you put it was in the general area at about the right time then IMO it is still significant.
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 




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





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". You 2 are not even attempting to be fair in your judgement. Your not questioning, your condemning.


wow...thats critical thinking.

We have what would be the best hoax ever...so many video details had to be done just right among many others. But yet the corner stone of why you think it is a hoax is the damn audio? There are way to many unknown uknowns to that audio. And may we say that you have yet to disprove any thing that we have stated.

I dare you to prove me wrong....double dare you...



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by UKWO1Phot
 


Possible, but evidence doesnt suggest 2 orbs dropped so we have to go with what we have. Thus the webcam doesnt support or have anything to do with these video's.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExCloud
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.


I have more than 1 point, what are you talking about

In the video I explain the most pronounced out of them.

The abrupt peak levels, the APPARENT non change in his volume, regardless of his physical location relative to BOTH microphones. The clicking artifacts throughout the entire file, obviously caused by the camera man handling the camera.

But you just keep talking about how it LOOKS. Dismissing these things, intentionally being ignorant

You have yet to bring me any new information, not a study, nothing. It's apparent that your knowledge on any subject even REMOTELY useful to the analysis of these videos are nonexistent, or atleast lacking to the point of not being beneficial to either case.
edit on 4-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


Go back a lot of pages and read man. The fact is this. The envelopes dont match up they are not the same. This means its not the same audio. That is FACT!


Well technically both audio layers in each video could be manipulations of a single original audio clip.

They are not exactly the same, however, that could be attributed to many different factors. Rendering quality, editing etc.

It's inconclusive.

Anyone who claims the audio proves this is or isn't a hoax is stretching, unless they've found actual editing within the audio.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


Lets agree to disagree I find that the sounds or background noise or whatever you claim is from tampering with the audio. I could see it as a bad mic or wind as hes out farther then the other guy thus more wind. So I will not respond to you anymore you use your audio in replies I will not use that. Thanks again. I am done with your audio.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


That's the key problem with having this as the only place we can discuss the matter within the hallowed halls of ATS.

Without a lot of linking and jumping around, the arguments are being repeated, false authority is being announced regarding apparent 'verdicts', and certain bits of information are being brushed over/ missed completely or not investigated properly. I'm thinking of stuff like:

- Checking the veracity of witness testimony,
- Issues regarding semantics in the analysis of responses from the webcam operator,
- Contacting Israeli members of ATS to get the word on the street from Jerusalem,
- The search for alternate camera footage (CCTV feeds should, by rights, be available if we continue to research and put our feelers out amongst those who live and work in Jerusalem's Old City).


This issue is far from laid to rest. A debate thread would enable a few capable people from each side to lay down considered, source-filled and researched evidence / theories. The nature of it being a competition would ensure that the quality of posts is high, and that all the name-calling noise is eliminated. The debate can provide the basis for some constructive discussion after the result is announced.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quartza
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 





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". You 2 are not even attempting to be fair in your judgement. Your not questioning, your condemning.


wow...thats critical thinking.

We have what would be the best hoax ever...so many video details had to be done just right among many others. But yet the corner stone of why you think it is a hoax is the damn audio? There are way to many unknown uknowns to that audio. And may we say that you have yet to disprove any thing that we have stated.

I dare you to prove me wrong....double dare you...


I have, your just not choosing to accept it. I have given countless explanations, countless examples, countless way to show you. No matter what you will say "nope, naw I still believe".

If the orb in the video was cgi, but audio was really taken from the location, does that make the orb real or FAKE? answer me that, simple question, be direct please.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Zorgon, I think the anomolies in the videos allied with the lack of eye witness interviews and no sign of the "students"appearing in their own You tube videos to add testomony to their sightings, all points to an elaborate hoax, which may well have set off a mini chain of "copy cat" hoaxers which I feel this latest 5th video might be a product of.

With reference to the light though on the back of the guy's jacket........could this not be a reflection of the flash from an object like a white vehicle perhaps?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


He found 1 sound. 1 sound in an audio clip to me isnt conclusive as well. I dunno thats just me. The rest of the audio is sound from location imo. That 1 sound could be anything his hand running over the mic or it could be that "Shh" I have only stated this can not be used as evidence. It just can not.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 



They are not exactly the same, however, that could be attributed to many different factors. Rendering quality, editing etc.

It's inconclusive.

Anyone who claims the audio proves this is or isn't a hoax is stretching, unless they've found actual editing within the audio.


Precisely. I said the same ten pages back. A debate would be helpful to lay it all down within the space of a couple of pages...



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


no there is no evidence this was a viral ad campaign, that is why i am trying to logically deconstruct that argument so it can be put aside with the trash


how is my question bogus?
does it not logically follow that the vid clip with the most *wow* factor would be prefered and promoted?
if so then why is vid #3 prevelant?

ergo not a viral ad campaign

yes it is simple logical assumption, but it adds weight to the possibilty that not all the vid clips are fake.
also if you consider the current political situation in the middle-east and the many connections and conotations around an 'angel' appearing over the temple mount ... then you got to question the motives of those who MAY have hoaxed this event.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment
 


I understand your post, but when a piece of evidence is found inconclusive by others then why let people continue to deem it as evidence it is a hoax?

With people not coming forward I have stated that I find it odd not one of our members from that location have said anything to confirm, deny, or even just to put in there 2 cents. Its just odd to me.

I would love for this to be fake. Thats why I toss the webcam evidence aside well you will still see some people using it. I dont dismiss evidence if its concrete. I would hope thats how stuff is handled in a court of law as well, but sometimes isnt.

Good posts man.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


Debo, There is no proof that the orb is cgi(no, you have not proven that to me!) If the orb was cgi then I would say the audio would be fake. Which is why the audio should not have this much weight in the argument of a hoax or not. The video should



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Is there any particular reason why no one seems to givng any attention to those cheesy looking red swirling orb lights that appear in the sky at the end??

To me that's the dead give away that there's something very fishy with these videos.

The picture quality, at least from the 2nd video, is not very good at all. EVen the bright lights of the city are very hazy and fuzzy- Indicative of a typical cell phone video camera.

So how is it even remotely possible that these crap cell phone video cameras were able to pick up those red orbs at a high altitude against a night sky?? With a bright street lamp right next to them!

Suspect-

To me they look as if they had been added and weren't really there. Either that or those red orbs must've been extremely bright, which I seriously doubt
edit on 4-2-2011 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
You know what, you guys are something else. Whatever, I'll let the ignorant stay ignorant. Forgive me for lieing, making up stories, falsifying information, or whatever you guys want to say I did.

OMFG aliens over a temple at night time on the other side of the world, being COVERT yet chooses to appear AT NIGHT sporting a BRIGHT LIGHT.

Yea guys its real, aliens, woah.

Yall 3 clearly have nothing to include thats useful. I won't converse with you guys anymore, but I will discuss with others. Ya'll can't prove any points beside putting your fingers in your ears and say "LALALALA"

So I'll exit my conversation with you 3 by saying that yall's superior knowledge on physics, location based audio recording, photography, audio editing, clearly surpasses everyones, and this has been proven by your guys countless posts of evidence supporting your efforts to prove these are real



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one
reply to post by zorgon
 

Zorgon, I think the anomolies in the videos allied with the lack of eye witness interviews (snip)

This thread has become silly! We need somebody to go do some field work and produce a video diary of how it goes. Interview some witnesses in person. If there are quite a few then there was something there...

At the moment people seem to be drawing conclusions too soon. Even if some video is copycat hoaxing some may be real, we don't seem to be sure.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by UKWO1Phot
 


I agree, the weather cam shows a similar anomaly in a different area but same general locale. Perhaps further scrutinizing those images could uncover further information that could be helpful in the video studies.

Some things that "prove" them to be debunked still do not sit well with me, also. For instance, the audio study. Let me point out one thing no one seems to have commented on. The second sound was an echo. I think for the two people filming at the wall, the echo *would* have returned an identical signal.

Going further, if the echo returned a clear audio signal in the study that was identical, why would echo not reinforce the volumes of what is alleged to be a *change* or manipulation in volumes? It would seem that doppler effect from the echos perhaps should come into play in that study, and could well explain the volume sameness or volume discrepancies.

A simple study would be to go someplace with two *different* cameras that has an echo, place them a few feet apart, and test it. I would almost guarantee some strikingly similar results. I think the wall, in this case, has everything to do with it. (echos). Is there a wall behind them, as well?

As for the brightness of the one light, until and unless we find out what type of imaging tools were used to film the footage, all of this study is, at best, speculation, and proves nothing difinitive. Without the culprit (camera(s) you cannot decisively define an outcome (debunk).

I have seen video I have taken myself where in night mode, the pixels to use the phrase, have been "excited" by a sudden introduction of light. I can postulate as anyone and suggest the one light brightened because of the excitement of the pixels because it is simply one of the darkest areas of footage, furthest away from the cameras central focus that had the slightest light emission, and therfore was most exciteable. That in fact, the camera itself attempted to adjust the light of the full frame, and that it is an artifact of the camera itself.

Again, without knowing the tools used and the specs involved, it is nothing but speculation that leans in certain directions of proof/not proof.

It seems obvious to me that the footage in film 1 was taken on a lesser quality camera, 2 is mid quality, and 4 is a better quality, perhaps not a camera phone, but an actual camera. I think people should show more scrutiny of the films of camera 2 and 4, especially because of the red lights being best visible on those two. It is unfair to say that debunking video 1 debunks them all, especially because it is obvious to me that some artifacts have been introduced by the camera itself in either poor quality of the camera or the camera software, or a combination of both. I think this is obvious from the blackening and artifacts in the darkest areas of the footage showing green, the bubbles and bumps in the black sky areas, etc.

Just my 2 cents. Ok, 4! Maybe 6?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 



If the orb in the video was cgi, but audio was really taken from the location, does that make the orb real or FAKE? answer me that, simple question, be direct please.


That's not a 'simple question'...

What proof of cgi are you referring to?

If the orb was cgi, then it was fake. But why was it cgi? Has that been conclusively proven? And why are you asking a question that answers itself, despite the lack of any proof that your interpretation of the posited causal factor is accurate? If you remove the bit where you say:


but audio was really taken from the location


You'll see why you've failed to make any sense, and why the inclusion of a reference to the audio (in your statement/ 'question') was irrelevant.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


This is just an example not saying either way is correct and dont reply with haha told you etc. I look at things from all different angles.

Pretend the audio is fake. Does this make the video fake? What if he didnt have his mic on at the time of recording or his mic is broken? So they say well crap now no one will believe we were both here so they go in add the sound. This still doesnt crap on the video. Yes video 2 could then be deemed fake, but the video still isnt a hoax or a fake what is on the camera. It basically comes down to whats on the film imo I do not care about the voices anymore. Once I thought about this angle.

With the red lights I was kind of thinking the same thing they show up not to well though so they must be pretty bright if they are real. They show up but its not like "wow" on some of the other debunked videos.

Maybe more work needs to be put into them red lights?




top topics



 
216
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join