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: 71
216
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


You do not give up at all do you. We are done with this we have moved on.




posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Why do you keep talking in my direction. Keep your speculations to your self and your followers. I'm speaking to other who ACTUALLY want to determine one way or the other, not someone who obvious looking to debate, just for the sake of debating.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeboWilliams
Has anyone bothered to try providing evidence as to why we have camera man 2, same volume in 2 different recordings? given that hes 1-2 feet from his camera yelling, and hes 10 feet away, with his back turned to the 1st camera? Anyone bothered to recreate this anomaly?


Which way is he yelling? Is he yelling towards camera 1 or camera 2? Is there wind? Wind does effect sound travel Where are the mics placed? on front of camera or back. Is it two different phone cams(I think so due to image quality)? Do the two different phone cams have different audio recording capabilities?

IMHO There are way to many unknown unknowns to really decide.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams


Thanks and Excloud too


Now about that photo that was posted source is here
www.treybarrow.com...

Unfortunately there is no date info on that site but I did notice this




posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 



Maaaaate, i asked you for a graphical representation that these are the same noise, because looking at your vid they dont "look" like the same noise, you declined.
Another poster here ran the noise you refer to through similar software and declared they do not match.
Listening to the two clips i dont hear a match, though i accept that you do.

none the less at the end of the day, what you hear doesnt provide irrefutable proof the vid is faked.
As someone else posted its even possible that the 2nd cam had a broken or accidentially muted mic, and that you are correct that the audio has been copied (personally i dont think so) but again thats still not absolute proof the vids are fake in regards to what was filmed.

You ran your idea up the flagpole, not everyone saluted, its not proof (for some people) that the video is faked

To keep pushing it as "proof" is pointless, if it were absolute proof everyone would agree and it would be case closed.
But its a free world, you can keep saying you hear it, and we can keep saying we dont

Personally i want this to be proven fake, because thats a resolution at least, i suspect we will never know, and id rather it was proved a fake than have it hanging there in limbo.
but what you propose as proof doesnt meet my (and others by the looks) standard of conclusive proof.
It seems to me that this has become more about proving you are right, than proving whether or not this case is real or hoax.
I get that you have put some work into it, and im grateful for the effort, but i dont come to the same conclusion you do, im sorry but i dont
edit on 4-2-2011 by Ashtrei because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Awesome I got the video's downloaded. Thanks guys I am going to do lunch and then I will see what I can do in seeing if all the sequences of these flashing lights match up. Of the ones we see on each cam. I am new at this making video stuff I do more of the webdesign graphics etc, but its always fun to try something new.

Expect it today or tomorrow depending on how easy/hard it is just starting. If someone doesnt beat me to it.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quartza

Originally posted by DeboWilliams
Has anyone bothered to try providing evidence as to why we have camera man 2, same volume in 2 different recordings? given that hes 1-2 feet from his camera yelling, and hes 10 feet away, with his back turned to the 1st camera? Anyone bothered to recreate this anomaly?


Which way is he yelling? Is he yelling towards camera 1 or camera 2? Is there wind? Wind does effect sound travel Where are the mics placed? on front of camera or back. Is it two different phone cams(I think so due to image quality)? Do the two different phone cams have different audio recording capabilities?

IMHO There are way to many unknown unknowns to really decide.


I think theres enough information to recreate this. He is shown facing forward, his camera is facing forward and is placed 1-2 feet from his face, which would mean he would be yelling into the direction of camera 2.

This should be adequate information to try and recreate the anomaly, just need 2 mics recording at the same time. Anyone willing to try it. If it is indeed possible, then in a similar situation, the audio levels will be comparable, even if the mics are not the same as the ones used in this video. Comparable, not exact. This would be enough to atleast account for the volume's being relative the same.


So, enough speculation, is anyone willing to put this to the test? I remember someone was saying yesterday that they would test it, however I have a feeling the test come back like I said it should and they decided to not post their findings, or they forgot to do it



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Here is the map and what I am saying about the panning of the videos. The only two that can match are 1 and 4, due to the apparent panning. Also, once the cameras are pointed towards the sky, there is no way to tell what direction they move from that point, so the red light sequence is still very important, especially now, for all 3 videos. If, in fact the lights did move up and behind camera 4, that would be the only perspective that keeps them in the exact same sequence.




posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by haketem
BTW - if someone missed it - here's a photo taken from the same place video #4 was taken - you can clearly see the city walls and domes



What day was this image taken?


Don't know, found it on Google images. (searching "jerusalem dome from mount scopus" or something similar).
It was taken from a viewpoint where tourists frequent (Notice the curved walls you can see in vid #4).

edit on 4-2-2011 by haketem because: video



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


I said I would test it but you decided to keep talking instead of waiting thus. I decided to move on today and work on something thats actually worth working on. You continue to push this audio yet everyone has stated it is not enough.

I am no longer going to do this test at this time I am going to look at the real evidence in the video first.

Sorry to burst your bubble but your name calling etc has made me pretty mad/annoyed with you. When I did not any of the sort.

Edit: Thats not to say I wont go back and test it I am just not going to at this time. Im annoyed with audio I am annoyed hearing the words. Every post of yours has been a repeat and continued to be. We asked for evidence you would not provide etc. you want us to recreate this though conditions will never be the same. I will attempt to the best I can though just for you at a later time.
edit on 4-2-2011 by ExCloud because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Correct how far left we can not determine. How far up we can not determine. I slightly move my phone camera to the left and my daughter is out of it. She can be like 3 feet to the right and about 10feet away and thats the case. its a good find, but its up in the sky thus you can not really determine range of movement as well with no point of origin such as a tree top to judge by.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ExCloud
 


Thats fine, I understand you don't want to be proven wrong. You turn a walk away after you said you would. But its ok I understand



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quartza
IMHO There are way to many unknown unknowns to really decide.


Well one less "unknown unknown" At least the Weathercam info is out of the running





posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


Why dont you, considering your the only one who believes your debunk lol.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


No, my suggestion is not 'debating for the sake of debating', but for the sake of clarity, and as a means by which to eliminate all the vicious rhetoric, name calling and hot air that otherwise fills the vast majority of posts within this thread. By organising a debate, both sides of the fence could have multiple opportunities to lay out the case for the 'Jerusalem UFO event 2011' being a hoax, or a genuine case of unidentified flying object.

Your response is playground/ schoolyard, and effectively amounts to: "I'm not going to, because there's no point/ because I'd win anyway...
"

Well, newsflash, there is a point. The debate proposition is not a pointless exercise, it is a valid response to the shocking way in which this thread has descended into near-anarchy.

The fact that we have further discrepancies emerging with regards to the audio evidence????

About time the mudslinging stops and we get this properly cleared up in a formal manner. As per the U2U sent to me earlier by the Moderator, Ahabstar (Darth Vader playing the keyboard):


"...a good old fashioned debate is a good idea. And we do indeed have a debate forum that follows the Socratic Method of debate. Perhaps a best 2 out of 3 or 4 out of 5 match could be arranged? Gather up a group willing to debate Pro and a group to argue Con, select those to be knowledgeable enough to argue either side (as I would imagine one of the matches would have everyone switch their positions for the debate) And then maybe have one as an open panel forum style in which spectators would ask a series of questions to the either side for answering.

That could prove to be a very educational and interesting series of debates. I look forward to see what you all can come up with.

Ahabstar
ATS Moderator "




So there we have it. A resounding endorsement from the ATS staff.

Not so pointless eh?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


I dont think thats correct about the panning. Yes #1 seems to go straight up. #2 does go to the left at first, but does he not correct it back to the right?

Its hard to tell. You loose all orientation once the cityscape is out of the picture.

Just went back to watch #4 again....I thinks its the same case as #2. Yes the initial pan was up and left, but after any reference points are lost, who is to say where it pans to.
edit on 4-2-2011 by Quartza because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I think ill throw some new information on the table







So why are we having a discrepancy with the lights again?
edit on 4-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


Discussed already.... Camera angle can you tell me the guys camera angle just from that photo the exact camera angle? Thats a cool photo and something to look into, but camera angle. Vantage point etc. I will look into it after I complete this stuff I am working on.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


I'm conivenced all the video's are a hoax but still intrigued enough to review the video. I believe the hoaxers left clues in video 4, not the least of which is the music and images left as shadows and images in the mirrors. Also a few bad splices. You're analysis have been thorough and I would like your opinion on video 4 specifically the images in the rear view mirror at :23-:26 and the "splice" at 2:52 and 2:53 (a street light shows prematurely over the shirt of the passenger).
In any event thank you for your posts and efforts.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Draken
 


I believe his debunk, because its 100% true.... the sounds are the same exact sounds!

The only difference between the two sounds is that which was created when they exported the final video #2. They reduced the quality of the video 2 and that reduced the quality of the sound slightly. However, if you take an average of the waveform you will see they both average out 100% perfectly. Same shape, same sound, and SAME VOLUME! No way they can be the same volume!



This thing has been debunked and its hilarious watching people fight to defend it.. Step back for a minute and understand how completely hollywood the videos look, and the lack of more witnesses... Really, in video 4 you see all kinds of cars driving right under the UFO and none of the witnesses in them have come forward... riiiiight.... this sighting is ridiculously fake...

You people who think this is real are going to feel really dumb in the future No doubt.
edit on 4-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
216
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join