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

reply to post by hootlj


I would definitely not trust fox news as a resource lol, and as for government....they are not meant to be trusted, if you put too much faith in government then it will soon become a dictatorship. I prefer to take the government with a dash of salt, for the vast majority of what the government do can be found if you watch their online parliamentary live feeds, read hansard documents, as well as the fact there are very good media resources which get past the conspiracy and give you verifiable information.

I think sometimes people can be a little too sceptical and go way beyond their provable remit. It's often a small dose of paranoia, lack of understanding and unwillingness to read things properly and make your own opinions whilst considering the possibilities, the physical limits and constraints, mental, physical and financial.
And we are often our own enemies who can stoke the fires, sometimes knowingly, other times unknowingly and unintentionally.

reply to post by StarblazerUK


There's nothing unscientific about testing hypothesis to the best of your abilities...and just like anything in science, anything is possible. So, as long as people have good intentions and are clear-minded, open-minded, and smart-minded about the way they research, investigate, share, decipher, interpret, and question information they receive, there's no need to get so personal and angry. ha

Idea, maybe you could have thread format that you'd have to fill out every argument in a scientific method way, like "I hypothesize that..." based on X, Y, Z...etc...and then people could comment or refute stuff, but it could be more objective and cooler that way.

reply to post by hootlj


There should be some sort of format and not doubt there is, the problem you have is often there just isn't enough evidence or, people make up their minds and won't accept other possibilities, even if the proof is greater against their belief. People do work better together...just a pity it doesn't happen all that often and too many are happy to tow the line or not raise their observations for worry of being ridiculed. All comes down to inadequacy's of sorts.

People need to be thick skinned enough to take on-board criticism and yet not have to thick a skin as to be stubborn and refute the evidence, especially before reviewing it and being objective.

Well, I think once you lose interest in a theory or debate, you should simply stop contributing to it. The fewer people contribute to the thread, the quicker it will die out - no? I think the more people involved in the conversation, the more reason there is to believe there's "something" to it all - whether that's a collective delusion or real scientific inquiry...as long as people have good intentions, there's no need to get all up in arms.

This whole thing was an easy to spot hoax from day one. I do honestly feel for the ignorant that don't have the ability or experience to figure that out for themselves, but if they stick with this subject for some time they will be able to see through stuff like this. The thread asking for a video was hilarious. A bunch of people that know nothing about simple to use video editing and cgi software asking folks to make a video to show it was fake. And to those few that did (just to illustrate how easy it is to do) they came back crying that is was not 100% dead on and..."could you change this" ..or "can you add that"...crap. That is why anyone with computer skills doesn't need to waste their tie in threads like that. You, me.....anyone that can use basic programs can make a video that no one can reproduce 100%. Too many settings in the programs to expect two people to produce the exact same results.

But either way, the whole stupid video was dumb to consider anyway. I mean, come on guys....something like this happens over such a populated area and youtube is your "source". That is the problem with videos and this subject. It is like folks turn their brains off when they want to believe something.

In videos such as the one being discussed, the video content doesn't even need to be analyzed until many other things are taken into consideration. The inability for the average UFO believer to understand that very basic fact is yet another glaring example of why this stuff, if true, would so esay to hide from the public.

However, I do understand that hoaxes like this keeps the wheels turning, keeps the clicks clicking, and keeps the subject alive....unfortunately for those that really give a shout about this subject this type of stuff just adds too much noise to the whole discussion, and there are far too many folks that are just plain ignorant enough to be what I call "useful idiots", those are the most dangerous because they don't know what they don't know.

reply to post by MainLineThis


So no one answered my question.

Why didn't they use editing in the re-creation of the so-called hoax?

Their whole hoax theory is based off of editing.But all they used was a still,a light and a shaky camera.

All these "experts" and no one can make a video using the same techniques they said were used in the ufo over Jerusalem video...seems fishy to me.

reply to post by GodIsPissed


thank you

reply to post by GodIsPissed


Did you read and fully understand my post? I believe it more than addresses your concerns, if not the actual details of your concerns.

The details your worried about are not the issues here. Hope you understand that very basic fact.

Hi fellow ATSers. Hello Gov't Disinfoers.

Have not read through all the posts on this one, but just wanted to say how easy it is to manipulate photos. This one took me only 15 minutes. Imagine how something could look after 12-15 hours! ...Anyway, enjoy!

OMG Alien Dome

Eligael has posted a response:

Originally posted by nitro67
?

1) This Michael Cohen fellow seems to put a lot into this video. 2) If proven a liar, 3) who the hell would believe this man about anything again? 4) Would he wiilingly be putting his credibility on the line for something like this? I dont know anything about the man, 5) has he been involved with other proven hoaxes? 6) if so what were they

1) I know it's impossible to read everything on ATS, and I sure haven't, but these questions have already been addressed in this and the previous thread, so I at least now know:
2) He has already been proven a liar
3) Lots of people don't believe him, thus the suspicions about the video
4) He has no credibility to put on any line
5) Yes he has been involved with other proven hoaxes (hell, one look at his site proves that)
6) I know it's impossible to read everything on ATS, and I sure haven't, but these questions have already been addressed in this and the previous thread.

But more importantly: who the hell is this radio host?
All credibility was lost when he declared that Dark Side of the Moon was tedious and Pink Floyd was terrible.

It appears Utah sightings were somehow a hoax...local artist?? News report hasn't updated online story yet.

reply to post by kazanoom


Same vid, better audio;



As for SO and his video - normally I'm the first one down ATS' throats for just about any reason but I have to say that this is quality work and an excellent stance towards showing how easy it is to create hoax material. I just hope some people around here can accept it as fact over fantastical and be better researchers.

-m0r

Originally posted by kazanoom
Eligael has posted a response:

That was a great watch, he seems really genuine. I believe that there is a chance the first 2 vids were real. The 3rd video was intentionally created to hurt the credibility and every time someone mentions it, the rage.... It was even worse quality than skeptic's really bad vid.

That was a great watch, he seems really genuine. I believe that there is a chance the first 2 vids were real. The 3rd video was intentionally created to hurt the credibility and every time someone mentions it, the rage.... It was even worse quality than skeptic's really bad vid.

"Genuine" ? Hahaha what a laugh!!

Dude his voice wasn't even matching up to his lips moving!! It's probably some video of some guy talking about something completely different dubbed over the top.

reply to post by Marsoups


the audio in the amplified version is definitely the same as the original video, its just out of sync and louder

Now... someone with more time and motivation could certainly plan a much more complex and lengthy video, tweaking the overlays, extending the length of the video, adding background animations (lights, cars, aircraft, etc.), overlaying crowd/background audio/noises, and much more. But this example shows the ease with which a convincing effect could be composed from found images and widely available software.


So... what does this mean, should we no longer trust video evidence?

Firstly, that video was brilliant, better effects than the original hoax video, a lot more sci-fi ;-) Nicely done!

In terms of not trusting video evidence, I don't know about that.. I really think that if you lay down that condition that videos used as evidence does not contain any actual evidence then you're implying there's nothing there at all - not even evidence of folks working in a studio to recreate the piece. With a bit of thought, there is probably good evidence in that video you made that it was made in a studio.

To pull off a production of such grandeur, moving cars scenery lights activity, camera moving with 3D shake, same video from a different vantage point , no irregularities in the shots and no flaws to be seen at all would really be quite an accomplishment.. So there's a lot of time and effort put into that, one has to think about the intentions and the amount that folks are willing to invest in those intensions for whatever reasons.

There is a gut feel you get also when all the available 'evidence' is put together.. So I kinda disagree that a video should not be seen as lack of evidence of something at all. It is a creation and everything that has passed through the video gets captured in the result.

There are obviously different levels to what we could determine to be 'good evidence'. A light in the sky could easily be many things, it doesn't amount to much, though witness accounts have to be given favour if there is one. This temple mount video, had "corroborating" evidence, a good performance by all the folks involved in production and that's what made it such a hit, a lot of people want to believe and jump into the belief in it realy quick, heck, i know, i was one of them

I first thought something wtas fishy when I read about the 'third' and 'second' video - that seemed real suss. If you'd filmed it that night and uploaded it, how would you get your video to become known as the 'second' video ? It sounds way suss!

If you're looking for evidence of UFO's, I believe the best evidence for UFO's is in interaction with the military.. weapons sites etc.

Originally posted by fnukyguy
reply to post by Marsoups

 

the audio in the amplified version is definitely the same as the original video, its just out of sync and louder

Hmmm, I work with a lot of video and could not work out how it could be put in synch. By how much is the voice out have you got an idea ?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


The videos are real!

Ok joking hah, but just wanted to commend you SkepticOverlord on an excellent excellent job. If it weren't for the critical analysis you provided, this hoax would have been going on for longer than the carat drone ships.

P.S. Do you take bribes for ATS points?