It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 05:35 PM

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
How many times do we hear 'pseudoskeptics' bashing the hell out of witness credentials (or rather, usually they bash the lack of credentials)..??. Now, when the need for credentials is called for from the other side of the fence the patronising remarks are dished out by the truckload.

I completely understand how you feel mate. Double standards, but surely you expect it by now? That was the only thing that made me tempted to post something on this. Thank god I resisted or that would have probably been hours more of my life down the toilet.
edit on 14/2/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 05:38 PM
well that's just great! why didn't you pipe up with your expertise during the actual discussion when me and many other ATS'ers were trying to say just that?...

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 05:47 PM
very nice post.

in the short time i have been here, iv been suprised at how easely some people buy in to stuff without quetioning it more.

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 05:49 PM
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Nice work on the video

i certainly agree about the need to have additional evidence with any video so i'm glad you pointed that out and included it in this discussion. maybe some people will remember that before posting just a video alone.

on a side note:

i think including a link to download your video was a bad idea because someone is going to grab the file and crop the disclaimer line out and then upload it to all the media sites !

you should have put a water mark on it because now there will be another hoax video on youtube

edit on 14-2-2011 by easynow because: typo

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 05:54 PM
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

I didn't hear someone scream "WHOA!" at the end, so this is NOTHING like the original video. This doesn't prove anything! The original video has STILL NOT been debunked!

Joking aside, excellent work, SkepticOverlord. You're a credit to your nom de plume.

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 05:56 PM

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

you should have put a water mark on it because now there will be another hoax video on youtube

Agreed about the watermark. And not just on the downloadable video... Anyone can grab the videos off of ATS Media and upload them to youtube with a bit of clever editing.

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 06:06 PM

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Agreed about the watermark. And not just on the downloadable video... Anyone can grab the videos off of ATS Media and upload them to youtube with a bit of clever editing.

Why, do you want to see how long before it gets on here and you can point out that it's a hoax

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 06:07 PM
I think this video does basically sum up the same point, but in a lot less time & effort...

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 06:59 PM

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
I think this video does basically sum up the same point, but in a lot less time & effort...

Whoah! A real one

What the hell is that!

That deserves an award. Hilarious

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 07:19 PM

This version is a cleaner, larger aspect ratio.

I hate to nitpick, but do you mean 'larger resolution'? Unless you've changed the 'shape' of the video for the second one (ie taller, or wider) then the aspect ratio won't change. I'm at work so I can't watch the videos to confirm, but I highly suspect this is what you mean.

In terms of the post and the videos themselves, I certainly commend your efforts. You've obviously put a fair bit of time into this example. But I do wonder, in a more general sense, what you're actually achieving. If we're not already there, we're quickly approaching a time when any potential UFO video could theoretically be hoaxed using advanced (and in some cases, not-so-advanced) visual effects tools.

So if any video could potentially be hoaxed, doesn't that defeat the purpose of this kind of analysis & replication? Aren't we then faced with the choice to either accept all videos as genuine, or reject all videos as hoaxes?

I really don't mean to belittle the efforts of many members to replicate these videos and hence 'prove' they are hoaxed, but it doesn't seem like it's really achieving much. We really need to start investigating videos based on the supporting info - not on the video itself.

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
'It seems like some one got that phone call on the red phone telling them to defuse the situation'
Was this something you did in your own time for your self,or for us,or because you got the phone call from you no who ?

Red phones, red lights, you don't give up. I thought we lost you with your pals hootlj and Paradigm2012 on the other thread...and I was just going to get to you with some questions there...but, now, you're here!

Yes, you guessed it, Skeptic Overlord is part of the cover-up, along with the usual suspects - MrMask, DeboWilliams, pezza, freelance_zenarchist, gift0fpr0phecy, believerofgod, zorgon, UnknownSoldier, timetofly, M0r1arty, faustus, Frater210, Pinke, Springer, and the ref, ZeroGhost (if I missed a player, sorry, but he knows who you are).

Because ATS hasn't paid the phone bill, they all had to go to the White House to get the call. I wish I could have been a fly on the wall for that conversation - but, of course, you already know what happered as apparent by your post. I understand they went in Springer's new ride.

The damn thing was going so fast, it turned out almost not there when we developed the film at Langley. Anything for you, my friend.

I want to add what I said to Paradigm2012 (who did not answer my lengthly post and has not returned), as it particularly applies to your situation, so I will modify to fit.

Immortalgemini527, I am not intentionally mocking you, but you have left the door wide open for comment. I sincerely hope you find it helpful. I can understand your consternation with the vicissitudes of this thread, but that is life. I thought that being here on ATS makes us all in the same boat, so to speak - DENY IGNORANCE.

It is time to fish or cut bait.

Are you a fisherperson or the Master Baiter?

In Peace & Light

edit on 14/2/2011 by thorfourwinds because: wanker attack

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 08:10 PM
grrrr hoaxes make me angry.

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 08:11 PM
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Thanks a lot skepticO.... now #5 and another 100 pgs worth of yada, I won't have time to read this round. I thought I had some finality and now this.

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 08:23 PM
All I know if I ever catch something that is a definite proof of a UFO.
right afterwards in the same video I turn the camera to myself and you would see
I would be reacting just like this guy.

edit on 14-2-2011 by mysteryskeptic because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 08:39 PM
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Excellent work
This thread definitely belongs in the A&U forum. I want to add this video matte test by TheFakingHoaxer to the discussion. Maybe it will open up peoples eyes even more on what's possible, even for amateurs, with todays software.

edit on 14-2-2011 by cripmeister because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 08:41 PM
This has been my fear for sometime - and not for faking a UFO sighting. What I fear is because video images can be easily faked and even manipulated in real time, how long will it be before we cannot trust anything we see as being evidence to anything? Will history be falsified? If you trust the evening news, will you be able to do so moving forward, even as a story "breaks?" Couldn't that story - perhaps the next 9/11 - have its images and sound faked as we're supposedly witnessing them unfold?

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 08:57 PM
1. Does showing how an effect can be achieved easily equate the same thing as proving that an effect was achieved that way. I believe we can duplicate the mona lisa too.

2. Witnesses to ufo events will be very few unless they did a major thing.

3. If experts determine something is a hoax, because it could be duplicated, though this one had several videos and was picked up by a weather station video as well??? Anyway, lest I forget what I was trying to add to the other thread but it was closed: what about 9/11. Have not "experts" said what went down, already? Why do I believe the wolves? I don't! That piece of architecture is the Templars "solomon's temple", that would be like what I've heard about cuba, major stargate!
edit on 14-2-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-2-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:06 PM
Shockingly fake, really, it looks like a Disney World ride. It's like autotuning Frank Sinatra. It's like a McD's fish fillet as opposed to a catfish dinner. It's like boobs at a porn awards show. It's got more botox than Madonna. Nice try though.

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:18 PM

Originally posted by Terrormaster
Awesome job SkepticOverlord. Your quick couple hour presentation actually looks a lot better than the original hoax.

However, having sat through the entire original thread, my gut tells me that sadly the "believers" will not be satisfied. They never will be unless someone takes the time to reproduce the hoax shot for shot, effect for effect, with multiple videos showing different synchronized angles. Or the original hoaxers come out and confess.

edit on 2/14/2011 by Terrormaster because: Grammar and spelling corrections.

No they wont, they dont understand how more then one person could take part in the hoax. I cant think of a way that would make this hoax any more obvious. No witnesses, the original 2 hoax videos by eligael lead back to a notorious hoax site and the scum bag taking credit for the hoax. Then you have several instances of manipulation in all the videos. Im talking about more then i can count on both hands. Even if the hoaxers came out and confessed the believers would the claim the confession to be a hoax in itself

People really have lost it with all the Disclosure nonsense talk

Anyway great work Skeptic Overlord


the word is geting around
edit on 14-2-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:20 PM

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
and there were many that saw this event.

I've not seen, nor can I find, any reports of corroborating eyewitnesses who can back up the hoaxed Jerusalem UFO videos... other than what is/has been "reported" by sources with a "stake" in the game.

This is one of the important points of this thread -- corroboration, through more than one source, for an extraordinary event seen in a supposed UFO video.
edit on 14-2-2011 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)

Excellent point and well-taken.

It is an interesting point that I can't seem to find a lot of eye witness accounts, and it does seem a bit strange that an object would come that close to the Dome without Israeli jets all over the place within minutes.

Besides the videos and the stir on the internet, couldn't this be verified simply by the Israeli 911 switch boards? Surely, if there were witnesses, there would be at least a few calls on record such as there usually is here in the US?

To me, that would immediately lay waste to this being a hoax if there are 911 type reports... that would mean people actually saw it and it wasn't just a video, and would confirm what was seen on video.

Either way, Skeptic, good stuff.


I don't claim it to be real but i don't think i'm ready to accept that the *all* the dome of the rock videos are fakes.

now i really just wanted to say that the lack of evidence is not the evidence thats lacking. An example would be missing the 911 reports...if i wanted to cover something up id try and get rid of or hide all evidence to do so. in that sense something like missing 911 reports shouldn't sway anyones opinion simply because we can prove that we don't have them...but we cannot prove that they don't exist.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in