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.


The amplified version of the Jerusalem hoaxer response

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:29 PM
A proper thread by the proper means.

My video which is below:

An amplified version of the original:

These relate to a set of threads best encompassed by this, in my opinion all encompassing, thread here, allegedly stating at least one 'UFO' directly over the "Dome of the Rock" in Jerusalem on 28th of January 2011.

Whether it happened or not is not the case for me.

What has been proven as a hoax here, as elsewhere, is open for debate.

Those were the words of the man who at least, has access to the YouTube account, was very nice to me.

Below is what I received from a particular Yoube member who had stolen my videos and felt I needed to know this inforamtion:

I find it beyond belief that you could complain about me "stealing your IP" regarding your amplification of the video of Eligael speech-how low can and ammoral can one get. I had prior explicit permission before i uploaded Eligael's video. You know damn well you did not-what an effing. dirty hypocrite you are! I realise he niavely gave you retroactive permission (only because he doesnt know who you are and what you have been up to in relation to him and I frankly can't be bothered emailing him because other than speaking to him once or twice after the event I dont actually have any real connection to him. I have had to endure two years of long researched topics and stories I spent days on stolen by you scum at ATS and stripped of any mention or link to me and you have the effing hide to accuse me of stealing a #ing amplified voice. BTW the only reason i contacted Eligael in the first place was when I saw yet another story being stolen from me by ATS-so when there was talk of you guys asking for the original footage, my actual fear was infact that he would niavely give it you and you would then trump this as your find and declare it real. I took advantage of the fact the story wasnt that big yet and i contacted eli via his youtube and got his number and thankfully i made sure that would never happen. My legal rights have been violated by ATS a thousand times over by them stealing my stories and cutting me out of the picture. And this event has not even vaguely been debunked

Those who do believe I would ask that you question your beliefs based upon this statement by a well known 'community' site in the aliens and UFO forums.

To me you are almost the same (and by almost I mean very much so).


posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:36 PM
I'm lost... could you explain that clearer? Without the you stole my story drama.

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:42 PM
reply to post by letthefactsspeak


People say " Jesusalem UFO" - oh that wasn't proven a hox!!

Yeah it was.

But this new stuff came out.

Yeah it did.

Here is the source and stop bending it to your own ends.

Ala this thread!!!

I hope that makes sense!


posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:44 PM
And this one is no doubt going to go the way of the others

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:44 PM
He's got a new vid uploaded, making panoramic views from the spot where he filmed the original.

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:47 PM
Some people just won't let things lie, will they?

The quality of submission here has been terrible of late, to the extent that some peopl
seem to think that something has too be proved fake and until then it is deemed to be tru by default.

I like this, when that riddiculous and time/energy wasting assumption has been worked through,
the zombie mind of the undead surfaces again.

We need to get rid of the recent culture of 'true until you all prove it false'.

That's not the way the sane, real world works.

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:50 PM
Jesus Christ will return, we are not so bewitched, we have only
to seal the truth.

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:58 PM
reply to post by EnigmaAgent

That's cool that he's done that - surely now we can compare the UFO video with this one and look for similarities/differences in the details.

If it was a hoax, he will only be incriminating himself all the more by posting this video.

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:59 PM

Originally posted by realitydiscovered
Jesus Christ will return, we are not so bewitched, we have only
to seal the truth.

Man I am so sick of seeing this pop up in every fricken thread I read today. Can I not go a day without the Jesus freaks shoving their belief in my face?

Now onto the OP. I think that people will generally view something as a hoax when more people jump on that bandwagon. I saw that the Jerusalem UFO video posted under a "viral video" section on MSN the other day. This still doesn't prove to me that this WAS a hoax, but just that more people are leaning towards the fact that it was. What ever happened to the whole open to speculation until proven with 100% proof (Like the original maker of the video coming out and showing everyone what they did to create this hoax, that would put it to rest.) Whether it is a hoax or not, I do not really care. If its real, awesome, lets add another UFO to the list. If it was faked, awesome, he really tried to pull the wool over our eyes.
edit on 22/2/2011 by TheSparrowSings because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:01 PM
reply to post by m0r1arty
Flag and stars from me m0r. You're an underrated master of mischief and I'm proud to call you a friend.

Somehow, I suspect you are a regular recipient of messages like that.

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:15 PM
reply to post by TheSparrowSings

What ever happened to the whole open to speculation until proven with 100% proof

Have you not seen the last 3 weeks of open speculation , the multiple threads and the full and frank exchanges of views

This topic has been done too death and has become more of a bad dream than a UFO sighting video .

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:34 PM
Instead of filming new footage from the location why not share the RAW footage of the original incident

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:43 PM
reply to post by m0r1arty

With all due respect m0r1arty your amplified audio version of the original video
by eligael (The statement) is 100% out-of-synch meaning the audio portion is
not in synchronization with the video portion as in the original, this is a result of
a wrong process you made trying to amplify the audio of the original footage.
Check the definition.
–adjective, adverb
Movies . (in the editing or projection of film) referring to any situation in which the
sound does not correspond to the lip movements of an actor or to any other sound
source on the screen.
not synchronized.

In the prrofessional field this video you are posting is considered not valid precisely
because of the inaccuracy of the audio in reference to the video but also may be
interpreted as a hoaxed verion of the original since the audio goes out-of-sync
regarding the lips of the character in the video therefore you would need to
correct your video and start again with the right process, that is if you have the
tools and knowledge how to do it. In my version I used a professional audio editor
and the Final Cut Pro wich assures the perfect synchronization of both audio and
video portions. However the clue here is the audio editor and how would you be
able to amplify the audio portion separately from the video and then to mix
again both elements in perfect synchronization as they were in the original.

First capture the audio portion with the exact timing, then amplify this audio
portion with the audio editor, once you get the desired level then you go to the
Final Cut Pro and import both the original video with original audio and the audio
file already amplified. Put the video in the time frame and then delete it's audio.
Place the amplified audio in the time frame matching the video wich must be
exactly the same timing and that's it, you have the same video but with a
better audio perfectly synchronized. This process may be complicated if you
don't have knowledge in professional audio and video editing but it's the only
way you can get the required result in terms of professional accuracy.

edit on 22-2-2011 by free_spirit because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:54 PM
reply to post by gortex

Yes, you are right. It has been discussed to death and speculated to death in mass detail. This still doesn't prove that the video is 100% true or fake. I just see alot of people writing things like "you are dumb for believing this, its a hoax" because they have read that it was "debunked" and that is what I meant.

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:04 PM
This case, hoax or not, does raise a few interesting questions:

1) Is it now acceptable to determine a conclusion without access to the raw information?

2) There were four videos in this case. Is "proving" one of the videos enough to satisfy an overall conclusion?

3) If you can recreate something with CGI, does this mean we should assume it is a hoax? (as someone pointed out last week, Spielberg recreated the Omaha landings to a high degree of realism - does this mean they didn't really happen?)

4) Who, on these boards, has or assumes the authority to make a final determination using hypothesis in lieu of solid evidence?

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:56 PM
reply to post by FOXMULDER147

its not down to anyone to prove its a hoax. Its down to the individual making the claim he video'd this that its genuine. Its a very very simple thing for him to do but he doesnt do it. Nor do those other people who claimed to video this.

More importantly just becuase you cant prove somethings fake doesnt make it real.

edit on 22-2-2011 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:43 AM
reply to post by free_spirit

You might need to speak up I can't hear you

AS for this being moved to hoax now - I am fine with that as the material being talked about is hoax material - now let's see how this peters out.


new topics

top topics


log in