It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by andrewh7
Just because something can be faked doesn't really offer any substantive proof that something was faked.
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.
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?
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.
Originally posted by madhadder545
So was this a hoax?
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.
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.
A close up frame by frame also shows a shape shifting being and not a metallic UFO
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.
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.
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.
If you cant see this then you definitely can't see the white elephant in the room. IT HAS ALREADY EATEN YOU!!
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.
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
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.
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.
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...
It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
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.
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.