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: 91
216
<< 88  89  90    92  93  94 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


So basically you are saying 1,2 are real besides your "audio" findings good game.


HAHA You know, you've just injured yourself badly and your opinion no longer matters to me. I ask you to simply list what would be the nail in the coffin and you just talk smack, like I predicted in my post that you would. That's a shame.

Then you proceed to conjure up what I'm "basically saying" (god knows how you came up with that), oh, I thought we was going on facts here?

So it's ok for YOU go on speculation and spout out opinions as facts now? Because clearly if you go up a few posts, that's what I typed out right? That 1 and 2 are real beside my audio? So if I go to my post right now, itll say that?

Sounds pretty hypocritical to me




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   
interesting comment by YDMU1


"this is my video he stole it from me you can see the full one in my chanell"


www.youtube.com...

under recent activity

this was in relation to ANW's copy

as ive said all along ANW "stole" it

anyone telling you ANW is "involved" or "behind" it is feeding you disinfo in order to promote the "its a hoax" agenda


The owner of the vid makes it clear ANW "stole" the video and rebadged it with a link to the ANW site



edit on 5-2-2011 by Ashtrei because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2011 by Ashtrei because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2011 by Ashtrei because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


So you are saying to have copy cats it must go viral? Also you are saying that this is not a UFO video if it goes viral? Correct me if I am wrong?


I would think that copycats might come in after its gone viral, to try to steal some attention. That would make sense to me. Otherwise why would you have copycats? Why would 3 different copycats try to duplicate the original videos if they weren't getting any sort of attention?

Thing is- All of these vids were released within days of each other before the msm even picked up the story. So what was the motive for copying the original videos in the first place, if not trying to deliberately hoax people?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


I have stated what would be the nail in the coffin like 4 pages + ago when you asked did you not read it I am sorry if you did and I am sorry i didn't repeat myself I thought you had the answer to that.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


That is exactly what I mean... in Video 4 you can actually see cars moving... But in video 1 and 2, no moving cars, no lights turning off..

All you see is flicker, but that is because some lights are smaller than a single pixel, and when the camera moves and the light lands in the middle of two pixels, it appears to disappear, because you can't represent the light in the middle of two pixels...

But yes.. no night life... nobody turning off lights, no cars moving....
edit on 5-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ExCloud
 


I dunno if you have noticed, but the conspiracy "field" has become very mainstream. This is not the first time evidence has shown TV shows, news or even movies pay attention to what is discussed on all conspiracy sites, not just ATS.

Yes its pretty damn cool to see Hoaxkiller highlighted directly, but ATS is larger then you think if you have not witnessed or acknowledged the sure signs of them "reading here".

Heck, I assume many well known names are reading ATS as much as the rest of us.

A pulse is a pulse. Tapping it can help you listen to the heart of what is happening.

MM
edit on 5-2-2011 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


I have stated what would be the nail in the coffin like 4 pages + ago when you asked did you not read it I am sorry if you did and I am sorry i didn't repeat myself I thought you had the answer to that.


got a link? cause I didnt see it



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


That is exactly what I mean... in Video 4 you can actually see cars moving... But in video 1 and 2, no moving cars, no lights turning off..

All you see is flicker, but that is because some lights are smaller than a single pixel, and when the camera moves and the light lands in the middle of two pixels, it appears to disappear, because you can't represent the light in the middle of two pixels...

But yes.. no night life... nobody turning off lights, no cars moving....
edit on 5-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)


You know, i just thought of something. In video 4 we have cars clearly seen moving down by the dome, any way these can be collaberated by video 1 and 2?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


Many reasons same reason people copy/make fun of any type of youtube video. Go lookup anything that goes viral after people hoax/respoof it. it doesnt go viral till this happens such as.... arg hold on i have some examples.... Gingers do have souls... as soon as spoofed by the dude in the wig it was every where. Ummm another example the dude with the lightsaber actions you all remember that one. It didnt go viral till someone remade it in a worse fashion. Then everyone saw the real video and laughed. Its all the same know matter what kind of video it is.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


Good post yea it would be nice though 1,2 lighting sucks 2 is better then one for light movement though imo so try them both but look at 2 more?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


I apologize for being so tech-slang illiterate. I have heard a few references of videos going 'viral'. I had my own ideas about what it meant, I thought it just meant when a video gets popular and many people view it, but maybe it means something else.

Can you, or someone here, define for me what constitutes a video going 'Viral'?

Sorry for off topic, I am actually still amazed this thread is chugging along with so much force... good to see Debo, Mr Mask, and I think I noticed ashtrei and Gift0fProphecy, still at it!!

Has a 100% conclusive outcome been reached, one way or the other, barring opinions?


edit on 5-2-2011 by esteay812 because: Classified



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by RayA54
.... There's probably no where on earth that would have more significance for a "UFO" appearance than the Dome of the Rock.


Exactly.... So cliche. It's like come on. can they be more deliberate



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


Many reasons same reason people copy/make fun of any type of youtube video. Go lookup anything that goes viral after people hoax/respoof it. it doesnt go viral till this happens such as.... arg hold on i have some examples.... Gingers do have souls... as soon as spoofed by the dude in the wig it was every where. Ummm another example the dude with the lightsaber actions you all remember that one. It didnt go viral till someone remade it in a worse fashion. Then everyone saw the real video and laughed. Its all the same know matter what kind of video it is.


angry german kid is a classic example




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Ok, I cannot possibly read all 91 pages of this thread, but waaaaay back I asked if anyone was able to authenticate the actual person(s) who filmed this and get a copy of the original film file. Maybe, just maybe, that would help this "investigation" out a little bit



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExCloud
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.


Guy 2 also turns his head to guy 1, actually projecting his voice towards mic 1 directionally. I have also still seen zero discussion about the fact that the second sound in the clips is an echo, and I raised the question several times. An echo would have a sound return, IMO, that would be identical.

With the wall and the tree there too, you have to take into account low sounds would be somewhat deadened. The echos, short echos on overlapping sounds, would return near identical results, if not identical.

Volume discrepancies can be explained by equipment quality, and if ones hand is cupped over the mic area, etc. We have *zero* ways of knowing mitigating factors, not to mention the sheer avoidance of the topic of the echo.

I am no sound expert, but these seem to be common sense things.

I agree that sounds are really inconclusive, the video should definitely shoulder more of the burden of proof, and to touch on that...

I see one huge error that people are making, stating the flash is not coming from the object. I beg to differ, as other videos clearly show the first flsh coming from the onject itself, and when zoomed in, the second burst appears to come from a different area of the orb. In video 4, you can clearly see the object is bigger than the light itself, and it is not perfectly stationary, it does move somewhat, and has a darkened area above and around it.

I will go so far as to state the red flashing lights are indeed the same object, in fact the orb itself, as seen from the underside, in nearer perspective, but without the bright white light. I do not think the red flashing lights are different or multiple objects.

Also, I would like to interject at this point, in video 4, there is a loud POP sound not heard in videos 1 and 2. Lets throw this into the mix a moment, and perhaps consider that this POP sound is fainly echo'd to mics 1 and 2 and the sound in the clips is not a ring on the phone, but this POP.

edit on 5-2-2011 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


I said the nail in the coffin for me would be proving video 1,2 a hoax. Video 2 not as much as video 1, but if video 2 is proven a hoax I would pretty much kill off 1 as well in my mind I could think of reasons to not agree, but I wouldnt. Audio I dont care we have shown audio is pretty much out(not putting you down you did awesome work and thats why I am leaning toward hoax not real but I want the proof). I have stated many times 3 gone and 4 is well mostly a hoax to discredit video 1,2 to me or to get youtube hits. So please kill video 1,2 as I have stated over and over again. Parallex with phones have been shown we cant go by with some phones(not all some). So lets kill these videos.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer
Ok, I cannot possibly read all 91 pages of this thread, but waaaaay back I asked if anyone was able to authenticate the actual person(s) who filmed this and get a copy of the original film file. Maybe, just maybe, that would help this "investigation" out a little bit


The people who filmed these has not answered any questions regarding anything remotely connected with authenticating these videos.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by GeisterFahrer
 


I think this was talked about in a few posts, long ago in the thread. I think someone found someone claiming to be one of the individuals and they discounted him, because he was talking about Plaidians(?) and possibly ET Genetic manipulation. Gael something maybe
sorry I am not more accurate



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by DeboWilliams
 


Then my automatic gut assumption is ... its fake.

Until they come forward with the original file so that we may all dissect it .... I hafta say, elaborate attention seeking hoax.
edit on 5-2-2011 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer
Ok, I cannot possibly read all 91 pages of this thread, but waaaaay back I asked if anyone was able to authenticate the actual person(s) who filmed this and get a copy of the original film file. Maybe, just maybe, that would help this "investigation" out a little bit


Nope.

The kids are not being interviewed or forthcoming as yet.

Some rumors about them doing a news interview soon and admitting its a fake.

But that is facebook rumors at best.

Also, a known super-hoaxer who is banned from this site is claiming he knows witnesses.

MM




top topics



 
216
<< 88  89  90    92  93  94 >>

log in

join