UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

reply to post by newkid


its not a glitch. Its graphic editing. You dont have photoshop or even any form of graphic software on your computer. Yet you are trying to discredit this evidence?

Originally posted by newkid
reply to post by laymanskeptic

 

what your seeing in the bottom screen its a glitch maybe was done when they transfer the phone files to the computer. this is not clonning or what ever you call it. I wish i could have programm that would let me see the frame per seconds, i know for a fact that all youtube videos run 30fps, if this video was made at 30 fps or less like 15 fps then when they converted the video, for some reason a glitch was created.

I know that I would never make a diffrence until I show you with proof. So i guess I going to get ignore.

Again (what you will read below will help you survive later in life, use it to the best you can):

Provide an alternative answer THAT WILL NOT MAKE ANY NEW ASSUMPTIONS THAN WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW and can sufficiently explain said observed phenomena.

reply to post by ExCloud


I aint heard no fat lady sing and seen no pigs fly. and most of all i haven't seen one supposed "EXPERT" duplicate this event with their mastery in the art they so brag about..

if it cant be duplicated then its real

The 3rd secret of Fatima is revealed :When Solomon’s Shamir(magic stone cutter) is found/made the The new Temple will be built.

now pay close attention to hear of the magic stone being found. because that's what the UFO was doing when its showed up at the mount

Wonder how the lights in the circled areas look from over a mile and a half away...

Well friends...I think I am out of here. Again, thank you for debunking this wasteful crappy hoax and proving without doubt that they are edited and false.

I hope to see you all do this again real soon, and I hope to ride along.

Fun times, but this duck is dead.

PS- HOAX[x]

MM

Sorry guys, I had to leave, I'm not feeling to well right now. I read that people think they found the building... well, they are wrong...

The issues you see in the video are without a doubt caused by Motion Tiling, and there is indeed fake camera wobble/movement. However, there is also a small amount of REAL camera movement. That is why the bottom lights appear to suck into each other... the camera was moving UP slowly for real, and that caused the moving mirror look. That combined with the fake camera movement allowed us to see the bottom of the actual real video.

There was also a very small amount of real camera movement to the right. That caused this:

Unless the supposed building was passing through the hsawaknow I am pretty sure that building sucking into itself is caused by the Motion Tiling.

Good day.

HOAX

reply to post by Mr Mask


Many pages ago I asked, has the reflections of light cast by the ufo onto the dome in video 4 been explained. I have played that clip over and as the ufo moves flikers and finaly shoots off the reflection on the dome is spot on. Even the flikering of the ufo makes the reflection on the dome alter. I am no cgi expert and am sure it could be done however am impressed at that level of detail.. Why is the 4 th video which is by far the best being ignored. sorry for any typos on nokia 5800.

Originally posted by laymanskeptic
Look below, can these building lights (or even vehicle lights) found at the bottom of the frame change their positions relative to each other IN A SPAN OF 4 FRAMES? AND IN A PERCEPTUALLY SYMMETRIC WAY?

Notice the axis of symmetry (animated)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/986af9ccd02d.gif[/atsimg]

Without the axis. See for yourself. Remember, use your visual perception, not words.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8bbef2f5fc41.gif[/atsimg]

edit on 6-2-2011 by laymanskeptic because: (no reason given)

Hello everyone,

I just registered after lurking for a while to point out that the person in the foreground also seems to be affected by this mirroring edge. That doesn't make sense if you claim that the city was composited in and the mirroring is a technique to hide the edges of the image.

Also, why is the behaviour of this mirroring different for the left and bottom side? And why does the bottom mirroring edge follow the camera movement upwards and truncates the image if its only there to extend it for the shaking effect to work.

And regarding the two superimposed pictures of Mr. Mask: You said this proves that there is no hotel, yet i can't even see it in the original frame of the video?

My position on this whole thing: A lot of the so called evidence that this is a hoax made sense at first, but then concerns were raised and different explanations given. Most of the time those concerns dont get the same attention, even though I personally think they have substance. I'm no expert in any of the fields involved, just a critical thinker like most of you. But unlike some of you I have no problem admitting that and accepting what that means: If its a hoax (and if I had to bet money on it I would say so) then its so well made that this is probably not the place to debunk it. I totally agree with what ZeroGhost said: The examination here is not scientific, but it needs to be at this point.

Sorry for my bad english ;(

One more question: How often do you get a video like this which spawns multiple threads with thousands of replies?

reply to post by supermari0


Good catch. I'm new here too, which is apparently a crime lol. I've seen many youtube videos uploaded from cell phones and a lot of these "it's a hoax look at this" glitches/whatever you wanna call them occur all the time! Not just in UFO/Paranormal vids but any vids at all. But I don't have a Phd in arrogance so what do I know?

reply to post by Mr Mask


Gawd. Not another one.

I can't believe you don't know what is going on. Who are you? Please some transparency Mr. Mask.

Masks are for what? Why?

Well you did a good animation I was encouraged to watch so I know you know some of our tools. But a holistic knowledge is a bigger picture view and if used, you will see you are missing the point. Logic and critical thinking on the basic event are the best tools now. I don't see the sense in arguing about Flea's ass hairs when we are talking about the dog it is a very small part of. BTW, the dog just threw up what you called proof.

I know UFOs exist. For a fact. I also know most or all of the skill sets, software and hardware you expound on. I use them every day.

If I took a picture of your mask and drilled down into a 2 dimensional 200 pixel area, I could find errors too. it would prove nothing. Reality is riddled by infinite variation and instances of anomalous phenomena. It is wonderfully natural. Wider views are indicated. Please remove the reality obscuring mask. You need see clearly the basic mistakes of logic you are making.

But the bigger picture seems escape almost everyone. Balancing the implications of this event and the significance of all that is happening takes wide field comprehension. You have to take your eye off the microscope eyepiece to see where you are and what is actually going on. These videos are not significant other than markers for a much larger implication. Do you know the significance of this sacred location? If this UFO event is as I sense real, this is tantamount to a sign or communication for all people. You think it is faked. Consider it is not. Just try.

This thread is myopic minded right now. Why do you persist in keeping this going into a clearly entropy focused direction? You will be dismissed for such ignorant understanding science. All these arguments for Hoax are mute. You don't know anything more than anyone else. Not proof. None.

But just seeing the videos, and now counter intelligence methods in play by possibly adding a fake version in a fourth video to do exactly what was done to kill the Caret story and the California Drones in classic backfire-setting methods takes the cake. So you think that disproving the validity of only one of the videos is sufficient to actually prove anything? That is freshmen logic my friend.

You do not have the evidence to disprove this event All these so-called forensic videos have no chance of being taken seriously by anyone but the uninformed. Many are innocent, but are looking to someone to say yay or nay. We do not have the mechanisms in social networks with only semi experienced people or unprofessional video tools and no originals. Try harder and amp up your methods and science reference.

Please tell us the best UFO investigative network/org you know, if not MUFON. Now expound on the reasons you dismiss all of MUFON and anyone associated. I hear prejudiced opinions and not facts in your comments. I actually think all research is needed. Why not incorporate MUFON with all the smaller group efforts?

Yes, this is a social network environment and you can say and be anyone you want to anyone you want. Funny, tough, witty, negative, positive, quirky, talented, or with a mask. There is an assumption of anonymity here. But in science you need to show some qualities of experience and have some actual understanding. Here anonymous is the norm. Fertile ground for many getting seriously ahead of themselves. Playing expert. This is not somewhere to find proof or hoax. It is somewhere to discuss impressions and play with ideas. The video and discussion is fun. Until you think it means serious proof of anything.

I am beginning to want to know who you are. I will share my identity. But with you only and you cannot share the information. Deal? I will tell you about myself on a private channel to satisfy your curiosity. But you would need to do the same for me. I am not interested in a pissing contest. But if you want to know where I get my informed opinions, I would be glad to share. Springer and others know me. Maybe wishing they did not know me sometimes for the mud spattered on their shoes. I don't do well with disinfo dysfunctionals, trolls and their ilk. They get under my skin when they confuse others.

You seem show sociopath tenancies in your expressive. you seem young or not formally educated, but have enough talent and personal issues and anxiety related angst to make a creative out of you. People like to watch and are entertained by such characters. Not so interesting as to impress me however. I want to know the real person.

I also observed that you pepper your comments with pedantic insults to imbalance and get your opponent emotionally off center. You are coaxing an advantage you do not think you have. You phrase your comments about "proof" like it is actually evidence. It is not, and other sharp people who took the time to explain these points to you where ignored. You are pretending. Or, you are flat out fueling a disinfo campaign to change opinions and scare off news agencies from airing the event. They watch all this. ATS is the most active source for stories they need to fill the cracks in the furnace for broadcast content.

I predict we will find out that this actually happened. Covered up by intimidation and a people under the control of opinions and veiled prejudice. Also, a darker element. The kind who wear a mask between truth and the people.

You seriously want to play with these creeps?

So, cards on the table?

ZG

PS: Really disappointed this video and thread was canned by Springer on your word. Bad decision. A good industrial chemist would not allow a drug to go on the market without proper scientific study. Really Springer? No time?

reply to post by Mr Mask


Sorry to hear about your duck. Guess you killed it.

Typical.

Running won't help. Your cred is dead too.

ZG

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


What type of camera took the original? Did you check it's lens that it was intact and not damaged? What software did you use? Did you check for the same error in the other so-called hoaxed videos? How many corroborated instances did you find in the 4 videos? What was the original resolution, and why is it reduced in your render?

You have to find the errors in the other videos before you can say anything. Are you attempting to fake evidence of fakery? Very basic error in logic. Inadmissible. You need to resend your statements due to failed methods.

Babies with grenades. Watch them play.

ZG

This is not a hoax, how many times do I have to point out. You folks want it to be a hoax soo bad that you are getting dellusional.

Do you realize how silly you look to all of us with some of your flimsy explanations this case.

I have yet to see any concrete evidence that its a hoax.

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

 

What type of camera took the original? Did you check it's lens that it was intact and not damaged? What software did you use? Did you check for the same error in the other so-called hoaxed videos? How many corroborated instances did you find in the 4 videos? What was the original resolution, and why is it reduced in your render?

You have to find the errors in the other videos before you can say anything. Are you attempting to fake evidence of fakery? Very basic error in logic. Inadmissible. You need to resend your statements due to failed methods.

Babies with grenades. Watch them play.

ZG

I agree. It is very disturbing, to me, to watch MM and Debos logic in this thread. Even more so to get the Mods to follow them. Hopefully someone else with money and resources will investigate this event the way it should be investigated...SCIENTIFICALLY.

Hey GiftofP,

This video of yours show the line of reference for reflection, vertical and horizontal(even thought you cant rotate the axis of the effect) Is that not correct? Then tell me this... Why can I see the bottom of the wall and the lower legs of guy filming video2? Everything bellow that horizontal bottom line should be mirrored based on whats above it. Why, I don't see that happing....



And all this BS about adding fake camera shake is BS.

Any pro compositing artist(which is what were are dealing with if the whole event is to be a hoax) knows that you motion track any CGI to real camera shake.

reply to post by Quartza

His theory is that the video is digitally composed of two images: the foreground and the city landscape in the background. Only the latter is mirrored on the edges according to him. You can read my post above if you want to know why i think this is false.

This is the weakest sloppiest debunking I have ever seen. Your so desperate that your logic has gone bye bye. I looked at your attempt to claim its a Mirror effect, and I did not see anything that proved a hoax and its not very impressive. Your debunking work has yet to prove anything.

your over reaching again and its backfiring

reply to post by Paradigm2012



Recreate the following video from 3 different angles showing similiar flash and similar lighting. Use your favorite CGI program, or whatever you can do get the job done. In one of them create a flash that lights up the town buildings, roads, and surrounding trees.

I am simply asking to apply the scientific method. Try to re-create in your studio. Use 3 angles and dont forget sound voice overs.





Start from scratch

and try to recreate the Jerusalem UFO

get to work geniuses

1. must have voice overs
2. must have flash on surrounding landscape and bulidings
3. must be 3 angles

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
What type of camera took the original?

That is irrelevant.

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
Did you check it's lens that it was intact and not damaged?

A lens issue can not cause what we see. The mirrored edges make a perfect 90 degree angle and moves independently from the video camera. It can only be caused by computer generated camera movements, and motion tiling. If it were a lens issue, it would be fixed to the view port, not independent.

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
What software did you use?

Adobe After Effects.

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
Did you check for the same error in the other so-called hoaxed videos?

Yes.

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
How many corroborated instances did you find in the 4 videos?

The error might even be found in the bottom right corner and right edge of video 4, but I didn't study it enough to see if it is the same issue. However, the only video with drastic camera movement was video 1, that is why the tiled edges became visible.

You have to understand the problem is unique to the camera movement. Video 1 has the most "movement".

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
What was the original resolution, and why is it reduced in your render?

That is irrelevant too, the issue can be found on the original video. It doesn't matter what resolution it was.

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
You have to find the errors in the other videos before you can say anything.

The errors are unique to the camera movement. So it could show up in one video and not the other. So your logic is flawed.

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
Are you attempting to fake evidence of fakery?

No. Every issue I have spotted and pointed out could be found in the original videos. I do not fake anything.

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
Very basic error in logic. Inadmissible. You need to resend your statements due to failed methods.

You sir are using failed logic. Not only did I find evidence of parallax issues, but those parallax issues were all confirmed when evidence of fake camera shake was found. The parallax issues were caused by fake camera movements.

So it is double proof that the video is fake.

The only ones with error in logic are the people who don't understand the evidence and ask irrelevant questions like you.

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
Babies with grenades. Watch them play.

ZG

Is that supposed to some type of insult?