UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

reply to post by DeboWilliams


You just proved my point that audio is in conclusive evidence. Thank you.

Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

im going to take his pic he posted of the audio and circle every difference in them.... When my pic has more circles do I win? Just wondering.

Are you ready to "put your money where your mouth is" so to speak

Do this, download your favorite song, in 2 seperate qualities, 320 and 224 or 224 and 128 or 64, ANY combination. Then open them up in a audio editor. I bet you theyll look different, But was they recorded at a seperate time? Exactly my point.

The problem is, you don't want to be proven wrong by someone, that's ok, just do that example and you'll prove yourself wrong

Originally posted by ExCloud

yes look at the peaks here. Then look at every little bit before that and after not the same. So this is not conclusive! it is not I am done with audio.

This is what I mean by people not getting it or dismissing it offhandedly without "understanding" what is presented.

The differences in the clips are ONLY in volume and quality. The finger printed patterns of sound are identical. Meaning, the voices remain the same level in comparison to each other when in reality there would be entirely different patterns due to location of mic.

The louder voices would not remain consistently as loud verses the lower voices in clip two.

The sounds show evidence of reuse IMHO.

I also think a sound engineer with a proper degree in the field would be able to conclude this.

MM

reply to post by Mr Mask


Also I would like to state we have not waved this off as evidence. I have stated many time this is good evidence but not concrete evidence. The Audio as of now means nothing because either way as the guy has shown audio can be different. Audio Means nothing to the video at hand.

I want video 1,2 to be shown to be hoaxes video 1,2 im not asking 3,4

Do the slight differences in the envelopes not have to do with Lossy Compression? Is that what you were trying to explain to me, Debo?

Originally posted by timewalker
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

Evidence of the light flash not reacting with everything in the clips as light should behave on buildings and people alike: Again people dismiss this and seem to think light doesn't need to highlight the citiy and the things around it. You can google hundreds of pictures lightning strikes that d particularly well to illustrate what happens when bright flashes happen over dark areas of populated cities. Things that do not happen in these clips.

I had to stop when I read this. See my post on page 80 about lighting.

hi there, please see my quantitative analysis of the lighting here;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

i am guessing you may have already seen it. If not, i will summarise; in order to determine if the light source affects the surrounding terrain, a quantitative rather than qualitative assessment of the image is considerably more rigorous in arriving at an answer. Basically, a qualitative analysis has a higher chance of resulting in a 'false positive', i.e. arriving at an answer which says the light does affect the terrain when the answer in the 'back of the book' says it is in fact false (no interaction). So whilst a qualitative analysis may produce a perception of a lit surface (by increased intensity in pixels in a spot on the frame) , how does the adjacent dark region compare in relation to the bright one? Does the bright and dark spots next to eachother increase by an equal amount but the apparent contrast between these pixels now greater? This is indeed possible. So the objective approach to further validate this would involve looking at the individual image elements and attach actual values to such things as 'contrast' and other features. This eliminates error due to qualitative perception. The comparison can now be done objectively. The possibility of a false positive is now considerably reduced (IMO to a degree that a solid conclusion can be made).

I hope this makes sense.

Why do we completely ignore the laws that govern our natural world when it comes to judging the validity of videos like these?

You know, stuff like physics.

We've become so caught up in the actual videos themselves and how they were produced, that we've completely ignored the fact that this stupid light defied all the natural laws that operate this tiny planet of ours.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that a light of unknown make and origin, just appears in the night sky hovering over one of the most holiest of temples in the land before descending directly on top of it. THEN, after floating there for several moments it creates a burst(or two?) of light before shooting at an ungodly speed straight up and into the heavens, only to leave a dozen red orbs swirling in its wake. SO CLICHE! Obviously meant to carry a religious tone during very precarious times.

Come on guys... see the light

People are getting real good with video production these days. It's getting harder and harder to tell what's real or not. Everything looks "real". Youtube has become a testing ground for these projects.

Hows about we just use our logic and common sense with this one. Cloverfield looked real too, but we knew it wasn't because of the bad acting and absurd premise. How are these Jerusalem videos any different?

Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

Also I would like to state we have not waved this off as evidence. I have stated many time this is good evidence but not concrete evidence. The Audio as of now means nothing because either way as the guy has shown audio can be different. Audio Means nothing to the video at hand.

I want video 1,2 to be shown to be hoaxes video 1,2 im not asking 3,4

In your mind, whatever you say boss. In the audio world, these points I've brought up (especially the chh / immediate jump in volume) are equivalent to someone jumping up and saying HEY I'VE ADDED CGI TO THE VIDEO!

Btw we've been talking about 1 and 2, not 3 and 4.

Did you ever go do that exercise? If not, why?

I believe that we are all here because we are passionate about truth. I believe there are mysteries that defy all of us, including the idea that we have been visited by extraterrestials. I search for the truth and look to sites like this to aid me in that search. I look at evidence with a substantial benefit of the doubt, but I do not leave the experience and education I have behind me.
These video's intrigued me to such a point I felt compelled to spend time reviewing and analyzing, as did many of you here. For some reason beyond my psyche I want to find an authentic evidence of the unexplainable, a visitation or evidence that yes we here on this far off lonely rock are visited by another intelligent life form we haven't a clue about. And yes I've had my own experiences that led me here. And somehow I get frustrated that individuals are compelled to draw attention to themselves by posting hoaxes or misconceptions either to profit or draw attention to themselves.
But here we are and I only hope this site can remain a place where we can discuss the evidence in an educated manner and look for the truth.
As for these, I am left with conclusive evidence that these are hoaxes, once again disappointed by the mountain of evidence. Ocram's razor be damned!

Here is a link to the Wikipedia entry for 'Lossy Data Compression'. This probably accounts for the very, very slight differences in the envelopes.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by DeboWilliams


Then perhaps the guy added the audio because he filmed it without a mic. Him taking the audio off the other video doesn't falsify the event. It only helps add valid information to a silent video. If the words coming out of their months during this event are what was really said then adding it to the other video doesn't make it a hoax IMHO.

What is in question, to me, is the UFO. The visual. And when we are privileged enough to have a world class expert in CGI, multimedia, and graphics come into this thread and examine the evidence I think we should take it VERY seriously.

David Biedny

He may have a bit of a temper but so does OJ Simpson it doesn't mean that he couldn't run the football. For him to validate these videos, to me, is the hardest hitting evidence in this discussion...unless any of you so called "experts" wish to put your real name and credentials out on the line here? I didn't think so...

Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

im going to take his pic he posted of the audio and circle every difference in them.... When my pic has more circles do I win? Just wondering.

Ok, I'll break it down even more simpler, since you obveiously don't get it.

Measure the length of the wav patterns in height and size of the first voice (in both clips) verses the height and size of the second voice (also in both clips).

Now notice that those sizes and heights are different due to volume, but the relative comparison remains the same.

Meaning...the loud voice remains as loud verses the lower voice, even though the entire clip has been altered in volume to have a lower volume in clip two.

If this was an actual two sets of clips- things like that little clicking would be louder in comparison to the voices in one clip or the other, as well as the voices would change relative voolume levels to each other- if indeed it was two clips recorded from two locations.

Meaning...again...voice one would be lower in volume in comparison to the lower voice in clip two, due to that voice being incredibly closer to the mic of clip two's microphone.

But no...what we have is voice two still remaining at a mirrored level of volume in comparison to clip one, except the entire clip has been lowered in overall volume.

Make sense? Or are you so attached to your point (that you are not making or explaining) that you can't discuss this and make me (someone who should be easily convinced on this due to my working with sound)? understand what YOU see I have missed?

MM

reply to post by DeboWilliams


boss? I just ask for facts and to show the evidence not the audio. Audio it garbage as you have pretty much told us.

This is what I see who knows.

reply to post by Mr Mask


I get what ya'll are saying about the sound clip. Unfortunately it seems that it is the same clip in each of these two videos. I understand that the odds of both clips being that identical are slim to none.

The major problem with every piece of evidence presented on this thread is that we can NEVER be sure of the reasons behind any of the discrepancies because we have no original video or audio to work with. Unless and until the OP's of these videos come forward and release the original video and audio of these clips, it would seem... TO ME.....that the argument has ground to a halt.

If the original posters of these could give a legitimate reason for the sound issue, assuming there is one, we could then argue that point. Bur, it seems that either these people are in hiding or just simply ignoring all their messages. I have personally sent numerous requests for info to both eligael and ydmu1, all to no avail.

It seems that we cannot reach any sort of consensus and continue to be stuck in a vicious cycle of debunk and deny debunking. I can only hope that there will be something definitive happen soon. I just wish everybody would settle down and remember that it's not personal....it's research.

Originally posted by QuantumDisciple
reply to post by DeboWilliams

 

Then perhaps the guy added the audio because he filmed it without a mic. Him taking the audio off the other video doesn't falsify the event. It only helps add valid information to a silent video. If the words coming out of their months during this event are what was really said then adding it to the other video doesn't make it a hoax IMHO.

What is in question, to me, is the UFO. The visual. And when we are privileged enough to have a world class expert in CGI, multimedia, and graphics come into this thread and examine the evidence I think we should take it VERY seriously.

David Biedny

He may have a bit of a temper but so does OJ Simpson it doesn't mean that he couldn't run the football. For him to validate these videos, to me, is the hardest hitting evidence in this discussion...unless any of you so called "experts" wish to put your real name and credentials out on the line here? I didn't think so...

The problem with looking at it like that is that they've intentional went out of their way to decieve. They TRIED to pass the audio off as original, and clearly took steps to make it believable. This is tampering with evidence. How can these guy's any longer be trusted to be showing us truth.

That's like saying, if the orb was real, but was small and unseeable, it's ok if they used CGI to overlap it and make it bigger. Then pass it off to you and tell you "HEY MAN, THIS IS THE REAL DEAL, IT WAS THIS BIG"

Or, Let's say the orb was real, but the flashes of lights are CGI, and they went out of their way to ADD in the flashes of lights, but still claim the whole video is "a factual moment in time"

reply to post by Mr Mask


Ive stated numerous times even judging by Video 1 guy 2 is a lot less loud. Again take into account mic location and outside and wind and noise. AUDIO MEANS NOTHING! prove the video a fake please. So I can be done.

Are their no witnesses on the ground to tell a detailed story? To me, I imagined like whatever it was, scoped out the temple for a bit, then swooped down and in the flash, stole something. Then bolted. That's how I imagined it.

This tied in with the Alex Jones caller/March 13 Pole shift date can make you a tad worried. Just a bit.

Originally posted by DeboWilliams

Originally posted by QuantumDisciple
reply to post by DeboWilliams

 

Then perhaps the guy added the audio because he filmed it without a mic. Him taking the audio off the other video doesn't falsify the event. It only helps add valid information to a silent video. If the words coming out of their months during this event are what was really said then adding it to the other video doesn't make it a hoax IMHO.

What is in question, to me, is the UFO. The visual. And when we are privileged enough to have a world class expert in CGI, multimedia, and graphics come into this thread and examine the evidence I think we should take it VERY seriously.

David Biedny

He may have a bit of a temper but so does OJ Simpson it doesn't mean that he couldn't run the football. For him to validate these videos, to me, is the hardest hitting evidence in this discussion...unless any of you so called "experts" wish to put your real name and credentials out on the line here? I didn't think so...

The problem with looking at it like that is that they've intentional went out of their way to decieve. They TRIED to pass the audio off as original, and clearly took steps to make it believable. This is tampering with evidence. How can these guy's any longer be trusted to be showing us truth.

That's like saying, if the orb was real, but was small and unseeable, it's ok if they used CGI to overlap it and make it bigger. Then pass it off to you and tell you "HEY MAN, THIS IS THE REAL DEAL, IT WAS THIS BIG"

Or, Let's say the orb was real, but the flashes of lights are CGI, and they went out of their way to ADD in the flashes of lights, but still claim the whole video is "a factual moment in time"

I 100% agree with this post. sorry 1line but I do. Debo is correct in most of it.

So, I say we continue forward together and on the same team. We are ATS. Us...nobody else but us users and staff.

If we fight between each other, we are at a disadvantage. And far WORSE, if this is a hoax then it was surly made to poke fun at communities like ours, and they are laughing at our in-fighting right now.

We must focus and remain true to our duty here...and remember the real enemy is the hoaxers of this world. Not each other and the mistakes we may make in researching this together.

MM

I joined this forum virtually to reply to this. I've read every page of this thread (as a lurker), which has been very informative. I couldn't find anywhere on the Internet that had analysis and commentary as informative as this, in spite of the many differences of opinion, which is actually a healthy sign of democratic debate.

I have formed my opinion, not only by what has been posted here, but on You Tube and other Internet arenas, and I firmly believe that the Jerusalem UFO is an elaborate hoax, and I'm being generous by calling it "elaborate", since it didn't take me relatively long to work it out. I'd just like MM to note that, in spite of disagreements, I have been very informed by coming here, and I'd like to thank all the intelligent posters who contributed to this important debate, which ever "side" they were on.

If you'd like to get to know about my own UFO experience, go to My UFO Encounter, and Other Crazy Speculations..

Thanks.

Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by DeboWilliams

 

boss? I just ask for facts and to show the evidence not the audio. Audio it garbage as you have pretty much told us.

This is what I see who knows.

I have not a clue what you just said tbh. And why exactly are you circling those areas? Because they dont LOOK exactly the same. Dude, face it, you can't grasp the basic concept I am trying to learn you. It's just outside your abilitys so it seems.

I've tried to hold your hand through it, but you CHOOSE not to even follow my simple directions. So I'll spell it out for you ONE LAST TIME

Step 1) Download a mp3 of your choice, in 2 separate qualities
Step 2) Open them up in any audio editor, theres plenty freeware, and ALL audio editors have trialware
Step 3) Look at the peaks

Go do this. You will not understand until you do. Your arguement of "They don't look the same, so they can't be the same" is NOT VALID. Period point blank . com