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: 97
216
<< 94  95  96    98  99  100 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


I agree and that would be quite a simple answer, but... the video was not posted as a video that showed the UFO as the main object to witness... the prank of catching their friend peeing on camera was shown to be the reason for posting the video... In the title of the video it states as much I believe... prank on friend or some such wording, thought they could have meant the actual UFO sighting is the prank.

Edit: Wow! another top page post... this time the post was a bit better than the last



edit on 5-2-2011 by esteay812 because: EYES ONLY




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment
 


FYI I wasnt replying to you in my reply to I clicked your name when I didnt scroll up far enough. If this is what you are talking about. I noticed it as well after I replied.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by haketem
 


And your source is...?

If you have it, then fair dinkum. Still, it would leave us only with more questions - not with conclusive proof of anything but association by coincidence or otherwise.


I sent him a message, no answer yet - I won't publish personal info without consent.
I found a photo of some of the people in the car in vid #4 taken by that guy (Cimena teacher), who is friends with poster of vid #1 (found a connection between them dating back to 2006).

Sorry to disappoint many of you, but I spent way too much time looking into this and hope all of you enjoy the rest of the weekend without wasting any more time on this.

By the way - I was very impressed by this forum, you guys kept me indecisive for way too long, and I admire both the healthy skepticism demonstrated and healthy faith in arguments looking into the most minute details - was very enlightening. Thanks.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by esteay812
reply to post by Libertygal
 


I agree and that would be quite a simple answer, but... the video was not posted as a video that showed the UFO as the main object to witness... the prank of catching their friend peeing on camera was shown to be the reason for posting the video... In the title of the video it states as much I believe... prank on frined or some such wording, thought they could have meant the actual UFO sighting is the prank.

Edit: Wow! another top page post... this time the post was a bit better than the last

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


actually i watched this in real time, that channel posted the 4th vid first (just the ufo footage) then the full version (car then ufo) later
edit on 5-2-2011 by Ashtrei because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   
i dont know if this has been brought up. In video 4 the object streaks up towards the end. Its movement is perpendicular to x-plane in the image. The issue here is the camera horizon is not parallel with the x-plane of the image. There are two possibilitiees.

* the actual contour of the land is slanted and the camera is correctly aligned with the true horizon.

* the camera x-plane is not parallel with the horizon (about 10 deg off). This would mean the spaceship is not really going straight up. It actually shoots of at 80 deg to the horizon.


I just compared this with vid 1. The streak upwards is perpendicular to the horizon, this time the x-plane and horizon are pretty much parallel. So again this is possibly another inconsistency, vid 1 object shoots up at 90deg, vid 4 object shoots up at 80deg. Possible if the two vantage points are certain angles to the object (90 deg to be exact). Whats the chance the two vantage points are 90degs to each other? 2/360 to be exact

edit on 5-2-2011 by pezza because: add vid 1.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by haketem
 


Not going to stop here bud. You need to post facts we are not dropping this now.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ExCloud
 


This is what you said before you edited your post:



I cant film 30 seconds of video on any of my phones besides I phone and those I cant get data off yet, because it doesnt let me save tell my plans activated. My blackberry if I had a digi card I could. How about 3 consecutive seconds there will be a small pause then I will click record again?


You said 3 consecutive seconds. That is why I said don't bother... I didn't want multiple videos 3 seconds long. Plus I know when I get the video it will show at least one light turning off or on or moving, so I know you are wrong. It will be a waste of time.

But then you edited your post... so it doesn't say the above quote anymore.

.... if you want to TRY to prove to me your theory then go for it.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Ashtrei
 


Just going by conversation that was had early on in this thread. I believe there are several posts that talk about the 'prank' aspect of the videos way back in the thread.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by pezza
 


I think someone brought this up earlier as well as all the other facts thats why I myself dont care about video 3,4 but others still might so this my be good for them to see.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


Ahh I didnt edit before you read it I guess I understand your sarcasm now. Sorry about that yea I will go record and try to splice them together. Like I said I am no video guy. Thats why I got a Iphone it has apps to just directly upload haha. So I will try and do this for you.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ExCloud
 


I am not to sure on this does anyone know a blackberry app for youtube? Blackberry's kind of suck for the online content. Compared to droid and iphone.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by esteay812
reply to post by RayA54
 


But, manufactured by who? Hoaxsters seeking monetary or popularity gains or governments testing illusory technology?


Most pranksters do not work for monetary gain, but solely for vanity. Do arsonists work for monetary gain? They are addicted to the "hit" it brings them, in the form of power. That can be an enormous high in itself. Once having lit the fire, they sit back and watch it burn with delight. The computer "whiz-kids" who broke into top secret government computers didn't do it for monetary gain, but because of the "thrill". Some were, ironically, later hired by governments because of their expertise and skills. Whoever did this hoax is now sitting back and laughing his merry head off at his "genius". No money is necessary. It's about power, not money. And the responsibility to expose the fraud lies with ordinary people interested in the truth. We have seen so many evidences of how these videos were manufactured, and now we just need to come to terms with the facts.

Ray.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ExCloud
 


Sorry for the confusion then. I didn't intend to sound 'off' with you, but you had seemed to adjust your position a few times in the thread, and my heightened frustrations (generally caused by one particular member who shall remain nameless) caused me to overreact. My apologies.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:38 AM
link   
FYI also its 4:37am here i doubt any ones lights will turn off/on or cars be out. its a town of 35k and another maybe 15-20k on the base. haha So this test wont be to valid at this time of night.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
It still appears that video 1, video 2, and video 4 are real. Video 3 was a hoax and I heard that the person who hoaxed it was an ATS member.


Actually it looks like a known hoaxer is claiming to be involved with clip 4, and says its "his story".

Further more, there is no submitted evidence that an ATS member made clip 3...unless you bring this?

You have a very bad habit of saying things that are untrue.

Why is that?

MM



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ExCloud
 


9/11 wasn't hit by planes? Not sure I buy that, though I have read many of the conspiracy theories and several come up with ways that a person present might have been deceived... I was there however and have to say I did see an airplane hit the WTC, though I didn't see the first one... so the 1st one could have been a hologram/missile or had a bomb strapped to the bottom of it.

Sorry for off topic and sorry if I misunderstood your post.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   
UAV, not the Rapture
I accept UFO only as big as the Kremlin pyramid. All the rest is staged by black ops. Because they don't have a pyramid, haha



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment
 


My position hasnt changed. I am here to neither debunk or claim these are "real" I have stated that through the whole thread. I have stated I will just not let these videos 1,2 go down without conclusive and concrete evidence debunking them as I believe videos of this quality deserve.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by haketem
 


Prof that the person you claim took the photo is going to be hard to come by. Suspiciously weak connection.

Besides, any connections demonstrated will be circumstantial at best, and as I say, will only result in more questions. Your information is not strong enough to 'disappoint' any of us.

This debate will not be ended by such ambiguous connections. Sorry to disappoint...



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   
The so called witnesses still have not come forward and I am not surprised. I still think the first video is probably a hoax but im not 100% sure more like 99.9%. However it is the lack of cooperation from the party behind 1&2 that is is a dead giveaway. The second video has the audio edited or taken from the first video and that is more then strange. Make no mistake it is more then suspect. Possibly the phone camera was unable to record the audio because my cell phone doesn't either it just makes a lot of noise when you transfer the file to computer. Something to do with the format. Now if it was because there was no audio in video 2 or an audio problem that is possible. Lets say they later added the audio because of this. But if that was the case they should have explained that but they didnt. Deebowillams analysis stands correct imo.


So i guess the burden of proof is in the hands of the fellow that shot the original. www.youtube.com...

The guy keeps getting lucky ? More suspicious, this is how hoaxers operate by continuously uploading videos.

A common method used by youtube hoax/trolls.
www.youtube.com...


The 3rd with the tourists is obviously a hoax.
www.youtube.com...

The hoaxers behind that have yet to explain their motives. The 4rth video with the teens in the car seems like it was a production with acting and a poor job of it, its a h0ax!

hoaxkiller1 debunking as well
www.youtube.com...

It is great that Discovery is exposing some of the hoax videos afloat in the cesspool of yt
news.discovery.com...

AOL is calling hoax now
www.aolnews.com...

Shadowy figures remain in the dark still. Keep in mind the video provided could have easily been created with several programs in the market today. If the original party would come out and talk to the media and tell people in his own words that would help his case. Some people are going to believe it anyway no matter what and some will never believe it to be good enough. In the face of logic it seems to to absorb in the minds that refuse to be rational. I rely on the honesty of UFO witnesses over photos and video because it could be real yet appear to be a fake.


Either way I think if the witness goes to UFO researchers like oh say Stanton Friedman or professional film analyst or someone prominent then can go from there. Im sure they will just expose thyself in such an attempt. As for myself im still trying very hard patiently to reserve judgment but it does not look good for die hard believers. If it were up to be this would accompany the original thread in the hoax bin as far as im concerned. It chaps my arse. This has too many loose ends, still leads all back to certain slime ball people involved. But hey my opinion does not matter im just another guy that is interested in UFO's.

If indeed a Hoax and im pretty darn sure it is if justice serves correct, this will come right back and bite the perpetrators in the rear . Set an example as a warning and detour other hoaxers from thinking twice.

I dare you Die Hard believers to prove this is real, I triple Dog Dare Ya!

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

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

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

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



new topics

top topics



 
216
<< 94  95  96    98  99  100 >>

log in

join