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.

 

Dome Of The Rock UFO: Hoaxes Are Easy - Extended Discussion.

page: 13
159
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Until there is a truely MASS sighting with evidence and live video on the news .... few will believe, as evidence isn't always the most forthcoming and even when it is, it's often not original footage or lack of access to enough witness's and clear footage to establish that it has not been faked.

I'd believe in God if he came on down, shared a doobie with me and some friends, magic'd up some food without without preparation or leaving the room, and reverse age'd me back to about 18yrs old in front of everyone's eyes with camera rolling and live media presence. Anything else is useless as it's unverifiable and often just plain bunkum.




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by andrewh7
Just because something can be faked doesn't really offer any substantive proof that something was faked.

And you missed the main, and most-important, point of the opening post.

Because these can be easily faked with video editing software available to nearly anyone (not CGI), we need to be much more demanding of corroboration and providence for any video of any extraordinary UFO event found on YouTube.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I am a little confused as for the direction of this thread, i guess its a shut case. If we could prove it with out a doubt then thats fine. However we must have to judge for ourselves. This has been done and i would consider it a job well done.

Case closed...

Thanks SkepticOverlord for your effort. I certainly appreciate your work and continue to look forward to your threads and posts.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   





Hi Fox,
I have no clue as to a media cover-up. It was handled by MSM, but they basically pee'd on it. ITN first showed the obvious fake, with the obvious still city background, (complete with fixed scatter from street lights) then the less obvious 4th video which did have motion in it. Why it was presented that way? ask ITN.
edit on 15-2-2011 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)


Just to add, sorry if it is confusing, I had partially quoted the content of your post on the media, but it was deleted, it was not all that big in comparison to some others, that use reams.
edit on 15-2-2011 by smurfy because: Add text.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Because these can be easily faked with video editing software available to nearly anyone (not CGI), we need to be much more demanding of corroboration and providence for any video of any extraordinary UFO event found on YouTube.

I agree. But that only applies to public cases with multiple potential witnesses.

What about singular sightings - a man and his cell phone in a field, a couple filming a mountain, etc? Should we write them off altogether?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


This is exactly my feeling on the subject. Videos with multiple witness verification would be great - that's what we all want to see. But we'd also like to see UFOs land on the White House lawn. We can keep hoping for the holy grail of UFOlogy all we want - that doesn't mean we should disregard everything else in the meantime.

None of these videos should ever be considered 'proof' of anything, but they should still be considered. And in light of the fact that everything can be faked - if there's no corroborating witness reports then we really shouldn't bother analysing the video to death. We already know that it can be faked, but we also know that nothing short of the individual elements used to create the hoax can conclusively prove that it has been faked.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
I agree. But that only applies to public cases with multiple potential witnesses.

What about singular sightings - a man and his cell phone in a field, a couple filming a mountain, etc? Should we write them off altogether?


If the raw video and no other witness's are forth coming or the raw video provides nothing of conclusive evidence that can be demonstrably verified...then yes, until they can prove otherwise.

It's the duty of the claimant to provide solid proof after all...

If they don't know what their filming, then it's not unreasonable to ask the help of others, but it definitely doesn't help the cause when people just go "oh yea, that's a ufo like that other one we seeing in such n such video" without attempting to get all the information available.

It's either

A: Real & verifiable
B: Fake/Hoax
C: Unidentified and open to future evidence....in which case the claim of alien visitation is still not true and should not be claimed outright, only an outside possibility with much more evidence that weighs in on the possible fake side than real & verifiable.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Excellant work!!
I knew it was just bull**** before i played the vid, but sadly i watched it like most of us did.
Disapointed with the mainstream media for makeing it public without doing any homework first.
It should never have been given its 15 minutes of fame in the first place.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
There is no way to know unless you experience it yourself. Then, it is only a memory.

Anyone can be fooled by fakes, with simple planning.

Even ATS could be faked. Someone could hack into ATS, find many ways of switching the users screen to a fake site that was constructed with many hundreds of hours of selective snaking and copying, while defeating any server registers that would alert the systems management staff and servers.

It is all possible. It has been done. It would take thousands of hours and many talented people, so, it is still possible. Right?

But is it likely such an undertaking would actually be practical or probable?

No.

The result would have insufficient returns for such a massive effort. Like carving a giant Sequoia for a single toothpick. There would be questionable reasoning at least for such an act of fakery. But we know that happens too. So is all video fake? No. not probable at all. But it is an easy premise for a comment it seems.

I initially saw three scenarios.

the first was that this was like the Phoenix Lights 1997 event, and we had a phenomena linked to a massive religious landmark whose meaning/s would need great effort to understand.

The second was that it was many copying one good fake.

The other scenario I imagined is that the first video was real. All subsequent were fakes, casting obscuring doubt on the first and that, whether by effect or counter intelligence efforts would be immaterial. The result would be the same. Diffused.

If two of the videos where real however, but due to the cameras and software, subsequent copies of copies introducing millions of possible errors in the video, seeming effects of CGI manipulation, but actually being impossibly complex combinations of small problems, interpreted in thousands of additional ways by later used software and viewing applications, what would be the point in any attempt in deciding their reality?

THEN the addition of CGI and video manipulated fakes by sociopathic copy cats just looking for juice from reactions and whatever high they get from that, or, intelligence operatives trying to keep the top on this can of revelatory worms, we see that the whole problem is obscured and made indecipherable by the events massively complex relationships and media diffused evidence.

I am still waiting for original footage to make any determination at all.

I felt that the dubious nature of forensic on copies of copies, the lack of confirmed source, and seemingly suspicious lack of disclosure by original video posting individuals, that could additionally be explained as a fear of facing the rabid energy of believers, debunkers, nonbelievers and the like were sufficient to keep all effectively off line.

With this awareness, a knowledge of the nature of such events in discussion here and, in general communications, I felt that any determination of real or fake was not possible.

Anyone "officially" calling it fake or hoax, was harboring a dubious decision and in question as to whether any clear and critical thinking was actually done. Sure, some cursory forensic, logic and analysis were done. But that is all it seems.

As much as some would love this to be real, and also those who don't want it to be real, or that some are so jihad on hoaxes they overstep their thinking with pseudo scientific or otherwise flawed or contradictory logic and scientific methodology, including speculative theoretical, that is maybe even based on actual but wrongly referenced science or logic, I see there is still no possible reality to be determined.

For these and more reasons I could not say with any certainty whether this event was real or not.

I was disappointed for the thread's mob lynching right out of the gate. Unfortunately, this is how ATS users pan out in their behavior. Weak links and reactive response get equal time just as actual investigators and tenured scientists here.

As a closet cultural anthropologist I was fascinated. But at the same time as an investigator and UFO experiencer who knows the reality of the phenomena and wants to know truth, and, an ATS member, I was disappointed, and due to this I learned early on to rely on other sources for good analytical discourse on such phenomena.

I still come here for the variety of thoughts and the indication of stories of interest to watch. It's one of, if not the best place to find such stories dissected in social discourse. Albeit with a very dull or serrated scalpel sometimes.


ZG

edit on 2/15/2011 by ZeroGhost because: Grammar



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Abductee001
Time to put this one to bed - The final nail in the coffin!
The pictures they used to Fake these video's show the view from Mount Scopus not Armon Hantziv
These places are nearly opposite each other, look at the position of the two domes in the first pic, sorry but the second pic was the best i could find.

Mount Scopus


Armon Hantziv


From google earth, note, Mount Scopus top (so Dome on the right and al'aqsa Mosque on left)
Armon Hantziv bottom (so Dome on left and al'aqsa Mosque on right)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
So was this a hoax?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by madhadder545
So was this a hoax?


LOL


Do you want the good news or the bad news first?

The good news




The bad news : yes it's a hoax
edit on 15-2-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove





Ok, the problem with your first one was the pixelation , so that one would have been debunked in 2 seconds with no objections. The next one has the light all wrong and doesn't compensate for distance and looks cheap, so that was also doomed to the fakery bin. However, three of the videos on the Jerusalem UFO were definite fakes, and laughable. Only the one with the people in the car is real so far as can be determined. You start to see the UFO at 5 min 30 sec and a hoaxer is not going to think about such fine details. Also there is no pxelation and the light is spread out as it should be and compensating for distance and night time. A close up frame by frame also shows a shape shifting being and not a metallic UFO, and the flashes were not like flash bulbs as in the fakes and the ones you made. Check it out, give me your opinion and make one like it to disprove it, and it would have to be better than hollywood because that one sure is.


Greetings Earthlings, Assorted Visitors and Fromabove:

Good to see you back in here.

May I ask, did you read, and possibly comprehend, any of what has been presented in the previous (100's) of pages? If you did truly understand, you would not continue to beat the horse.

Oh well, let's get to it.

This is what you said a week ago:




posted on 7/2/2011 @ 07:18 AM
I did a frame by frame study of the video of the UFO from the people who were in the car that saw it. Then i did a color study. I discovered tow things. The first was that it was emitting flames, and the second was that it was a person and not a machine or device. Do this study yourself and you will see what I mean.


OK, two new aspects have been brought to light (pun intended) here by your beliefs:

(1) "It" was emitting flames.

(2) It was a person and not a machine or device.

A week later, you embellished your testimony on this part.


A close up frame by frame also shows a shape shifting being and not a metallic UFO


Interesting. We'll leave this low-hanging fruit alone for the moment. Let's go back to what you said this week.



a hoaxer is not going to think about such fine details.


And you know this how?

Do you personally know any of the hoaxers?

Are you working for and flogging this for ANW?

Are you a friends with the disdainful MC?




Also there is no pxelation and the light is spread out as it should be and compensating for distance and night time.


Now it gets better. So exactly what are your qualifications to make this statement? Here are a plethora of real professionals and their take on the subject. Perhaps you have a witty rejoinder for the following:




Originally posted by pezza
In summary, if a burst of light high up in the sky, having the most direct line of site to the most amount of terrain in the image, and is also about 10x brighter then any light in the video, and that light does not reveal any new features in the underexposed regions of the image, you really need to question what the role of light is in our universe.
...
But the fact that zero new information is revealed about the terrain (and emphasis on *zero*) tells me the light is 100% synthetic. I even went to the extent of characterising/parameterising this effect on not just one feature in the image but systematically to the entire image. That's a bit heavy and over the top for a site like ATS but Ii think was worthwhile for some here that may want to take their debunking skills past qualitative only based assessments and occums razors. up soon to knock it off.


And timetofly:




So I did my homework, and guess what. I'm inclined to agree and say video 4 was tampered with. I compared the two frames before and during the flash, and there is no indication of previously unlightened objects. Above that, only bright pixels seems to have been lightened. It's a simple brightness increase (HSL), not even Gamma. Btw, just for a little self marketing: I used my own software located on CodedColor.com for the comparison.


For further reading, I suggest the following (I'll keep this short; there are many, many more good examples).
Page 59, 64, 81, 99, 139 - pezza; Page 102, 127, 139 - gift0fpr0phecy; Page 1, 121 - MrMask; Page 122 - laymanskeptic; Page 125, 135 - DeboWilliams; Page 125, 140 - timetofly; Page 134 - M0r1arty; Page 135 - faustus; and finally, Page 191 - gift0fpr0phecy - with links to all 4 fake videos. I think I've made the point.

I'll let you off the hook on the flames and shape-shifting for now, as I am waiting with baited breath for you reply to the points enumerated here.

Any tampering with the evidence voids the evidence...ya think?

In closing, I quote ATS member pezza.



If you cant see this then you definitely can't see the white elephant in the room. IT HAS ALREADY EATEN YOU!!


In Peace & Light
tfw

PS - Just can't leave the flames alone. I have it on good authority (OK, it was zorgon), that these contraptions utilize an advanced plasma antimatter drive which allows antimatter/matter annihilation to occur inside a tungsten cylinder.

See, no flames!





posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
The area of the Dome of the Rock, is the most protected space, both with radar and visual observation in the world. This area is subject to attack, as is the whole state of Israel 24/7. To assume that an incident of this nature would go unnoticed by military authority, is, well, nuts. Nothing can or will happen in the airspace over that country, without immediate and deadly reaction, seconds are all that Israel has to prevent total destruction. To think an object can hover and bounce around unnoticed over the Rock, is beyond all reason.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by EnigmaTron
 


Oh wow. I don't think the entity was positive. That would mean, the elites are in on it, its a co-operative program because our elites ARE negatives dancing on the strings of the eye of horus puppet masters: Enki/Enlil/El/Isis/Ra/Osiris (which is also EL), Zeus/Questzcoatl, with ties to Orion and Sirius. Plus everything is coded to Saturn/Santa/Satan. The eye of horus/sauren, at the south pole and an interlocking hexagon on the north, the sign of duality, two interlocking pyramids, one power to the few, one power to the many.

If it had positive, their repsonse would not have been noticed by most I think. It would have been under the scenes. If they had responded, no one would have noticed anyway. So deep is their programming. They would never get it!



edit to add: That place has a huge base under it, there is no way it wouldn't, and its a stargate. They don't portal in the friendlies. These aren't the white hats! So its already a para military base with what is known as: Weird Science & Freakin Magic.
edit on 15-2-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroGhost
 


Once again well spoken Zero,
People should pay more attention to what you say in the rationale. There is other "stuff" too, why should anyone WANT to believe in something pictorially ambiguous as in the "Rock" video, when logic tells you that this event should not be so, the only thing I see it as is puzzling. I don't WANT or need to believe the like of that. The lack of eyewitness corroboration is in some ways a blessing in this case, in that it does not muddy waters and just leaves you to look at the pictorial content. In comparison there is a thread ongoing about C4's investigation into assaults on children by their teachers in Muslin schools in England. The whole video is of obscured persons and done with low quality hidden cameras on the inside, and the whole thing is narrated and subtitled for clarity..for our consumption, in other words manipulated. That is not to say misused, but manipulated nevertheless.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


Greetings Earthlings, Assorted Visitors and dplum517:

You are an interesting humanoid.


It seems to me that everyone jumped on the hoax bandwagon because of a few crappy video analysis explanations.... which frankly.... aren't convincing at all. I think some of us aren't aware of the many anomalies that can happen with digital technology.


And you are, kind sir? Please explain for the rest of us and be sure to include your credentials so that we fully understand your background to make such a statement.



I know that alot of people will not give any credit to "All News Web" as they have done some questionable things in the past. BUT .... I think there are too many valid points he brings as well as new information.




mc says it is a Hologram sent down by ET


Once a prevaricator, always a prevaricator. And you continue to attempt to drive traffic to that contemptuous creature's site. Are you working for them? Are you a part of this travesty?



Are member not allowed to link the website "All News Web"???

If not WHY? Is ATS attempting to sensor/filter things for us? ...or am i just being dumb and not using the link correctly.


Just being dumb. See more of your quotes.


Is ATS trying to take after Nazi Germany?



this site owner doesn't have much respect for his site members.




Sorry but ATS is wanting to act like a fascist Nazi website by not allowing you to link All News Web. My post was removed when I quoted his article.


I could go on and on, but I think I've made the point.

Gift0pr0phecy has you figured:



All I see from you is denial and zero explanations to back up your criticism.

Start making some detailed explanations that support your criticism, or just leave your criticism to your self.

Explain why people are wrong, don't just tell them they are wrong...


And I close with a remarkable quote from Mark Twain.



It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.


In Peace & Light
tfw



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Hello, everyone. I have started a thread here in the hopes that it might become a link for software and knowledge resources available to those who would like to begin to analyze video and audio for themselves. Please come by...

The Compleat Digital Debunker: www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=10579485#pid10579485



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by nitro67
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


Of course your not convinced its a hoax, your Fox Moulder for Whatzits sake! You need Scully to try and balance you out a bit.....and by that, yes, I mean have sex with you.




Was that an offer?

Skeptic Overlord, Nitro is breaking the rules here mate. No overtly affectionate posting (or something). Careful, you could get a points deduction.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
I appreciate your intent, but honestly your recreation looks nothing like the Jerusalem UFO videos. Your recreation wouldn't have fooled anyone.

Also, there are 4 videos of this event. Proving one as a hoax doesn't prove the others to be hoaxes. A standard smear campaign is to introduce one bad apple into a barrel - they all stink by association.

There were, apparently, lots of witnesses. I would like to hear from them.

I'm not utterly convinced of this "hoax" just yet.



Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


You keep saying there were witnesses, why do you think that? There's ZERO credible witnesses that have come forward out of the hundreds, if not THOUSANDS, that should have.

Only one of you is right.

FoxMulder,

I understand your suspicions about introducing a bad apple. But you need corroboration or the case is dead. Get your witness testimony and when/if you have it, publish it in a new thread. Otherwise you are just going to get hammered here (friendly advice).

Springer,

Sorry mate, but I'm not sure what credible means in this case though? Surely it would be the public in Jerusalem. Do you need credentials for that? Sounds like a way of moving the goal posts if/when the witnesses are produced to me.
edit on 15/2/11 by Pimander because: add a bit



new topics

top topics



 
159
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join