"UFO Over Temple Mount in Jerusalem" [discussion and analysis of multiple videos HERE]

Originally posted by Mr Mask
Ok, maybe I wasn't clear...I apologize if that's the case.

Let me be perfectly blunt.

Evidence shows that the back ground of clip one was superimposed onto a foreground that is not really "in front of the temple".

Perspective laws prove that the clip was doctored and the background was added...meaning...its a fake view from some "place with a wall".

The forth clip shows two dudes (who sound exactly the same as the two dudes in clip one) going to pee by a wall that looks to be the same wall.

You ask "why go to another location to film".

My answer is this- these hoaxers didn't. They filmed themselves by that wall for clip one and clip four.

The reason they superimposed a false background over clip one, is so they could reuse clip one's special effect shot , remove the foreground, and then act as if its an entirely new clip.

This would insure that clip two matched clip one's action perfectly without having to do the work of rematching the shot.

Yes...it is my total belief that clip one contains a false background, for reasoning being the background moves independently (and against the laws of perspective) from the foreground).

The virtual clip made to dispute this "fact" actually proves it.

Im sorry but that doesnt make sense to me, in vids one/two and four we have moving footage of the city from two different angles.
assuming this is some sort of green screen tomfoolery, the city still had to be videotaped from two different locations, i dont understand why anyone would superimpose background footage from one location behind foreground footage of another.
You say its to use the same special effect of the object in both clips, but the object in clip 4 is not the same effect as in clip one.
If i were attempting this hoax by filming the city from two locations, i would just use the raw footage from each location, to superimpose the background footage from one location behind the wall from another seems overly complicated and would increase the chances it would be spotted as such.

Originally posted by zorgon
Anyone posted Video #4 yet? Sorry hadn't been keeping up

Also it seems Dr Roger Leir... the implant guy... is saying they are real

www.alienscalpel.com...

I have a really hard time believing that the person who made the "english tourist" clip is responsible for this one.

The English tourist clip is terrible and easily identified as a fake because it's a still image on a monitor.

This clip however, is ridiculously well made if it's a hoax.

Watch it in slow motion and zoom in on the dome.

Watch the light reflecting off the dome as it changes angles.

Watch what happens when the object flashes.

Look at the surrounding buildings as they are illuminated.

This video has not been proven a hoax as far as i'm concerned.

heres the clip slowed down

reply to post by Mr Mask


Hey,
Not offended at all. I'm also not too much of a fan of UFOs, but thought I could give some insight as a local. You probably won't see me here in any other threads in the future. That is, if they deal with these stuff outside Jerusalem.
Just so you know, there has been a law since the beginning of the 20th century that all houses and wall in Jerusalem must be covered stone. You'll have a hard time finding a wall that is not covered stone in Jerusalem.
Here's a video shot in the area where I think the 4th (Mt Scopus) video is from:
www.youtube.com...
And this was shot from the Armon HaNatziv Promenade. In the first few seconds you can see more or less what the area looks like:
www.youtube.com...
Hope this helps

Originally posted by believerofgod

Originally posted by DeboWilliams

Originally posted by burntoast
i hate how everyone on this freaking website tries to prove that the real videos are fake!

i wonder if a fake video was uploaded would the people (FOOLS!) try and debunk it even tho it says fake all over it lol

you guys waste to much time trying to debunk stuff when clearly there real you idiots

ATS PISSES ME OFF NOW SO MUCH BS! if its real its real dont try and prove its fake when its not

Don't you think it's odd that there's more evidence that it's fake then real? Lets look at the facts

Video 3 is clearly faked

Video 2 has obvious tampering in it, not original audio track (copied from video 1 and altered). This doesn't scream legit to me. Not only that, but just look by the blue light in video 2, the one thats towards the middle bottom, compare those lights that near that blue light (the yellow ones) with the lights from the other video in the same area, the light configuration are different. How is that possible when both are supposedly being recorded at the same time?. Anyone else notice the flash of light trajectorys are different? in video 1 the first flash seems to be coming from or towards our camera man, and the second smaller flash is towards our camera man aswell, but in video 2, theres 3 flashes, and 1 is going slightly off to the left, second is middle right ish, and third is middle left. Whats up with that? With as far away as our camera men are, theyre PoV of the flashing lights would be the same, lets not forget 1 has 2 flashes and 2 has 3 flashes.

There's also pretty much every reason to believe that the person who uploaded video 2 is either A) The guy that's seen filming in video 1, or B) The person who made video one, pretending to be the guy that's seen filming in video 1. You can gather this information by looking at their youtube profiles. Both live in isreal, first video poster is 42 second video poster is 35, videos was posted a day apart, and since video 2 is fake, how did he have enough time to make a video that looks PERFECTLY like the first one, unlike the other 2 videos which came out a few days later, and are not consistent. So if the second video is fake, and it is, then how did he have enough time to make a perfect matching CGI in not even a day?

Video 4 is fake because 1-2-3 are.

I wish these was real, or that there was nothing sketchy about 'em. But I'm not about to believe in some lies or bs, if that was the case I'd just go to church!

People come on. If you STILL believe this was a actual event, then........

I have a business proposition for you, I just need you to invest 20 grand! your guaranteed triple returned!

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

Mr. Debo. If you would please answer my question that I am now going to ask you for the 3rd time concerning the wind. I asked you once in reply to your first analysis and then through a personal message. Here is the personal message I sent you again.
Hello Mr. Williams. I had a simple question that I thought would be nice if you brought to light for everyone here. I quoted you and your excellent analysis of the audio, and was wanting to know the effects of wind speed and trajectory in this case. Would it or would it not play a big role as to your outcome on the analysis posted?

I am asking because if anyone else here plays golf then you should know that if the wind is blowing just a few miles per hour then you can usually here the guys/gals playing a few yards away on the next hole, they can't here you if the wind is blowing towards them if you are speaking at a normal tone, but you can hear them if you are downstream of the wind direction from them. Also, I noticed that it seems there is a little breeze maybe, hence the coats everyone is wearing too. I noticed the tree moving a bit, and the 4th clip (the full version) when the girl gets out of the car (4 min mark) her hair moves just a bit towards her right shoulder. Then when she reaches "the pisser" it seems to be towards her right shoulder as well. Now there is someone who lives in Jerusalem that posted that they are two different spots, so it seems that the locations can be validated. So if these teens filmed it from the side, then the two phone camera guys filmed towards let's say the rear of the object as opposed to the side, then it looks like the wind would be blowing in the right direction and the perspective factor are right . I'm not sure, anyone else see where I am going with this?

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

For the record and for everyone here can you please answer this question for me Mr. Debo?

Can someone please point out to me where it is established that these videos are hoaxed? That is, page, date, time of post, etc. I read the first few and last few pages but did not see any evidence. Sorry but I am not going to read 72 pages.

Please translate the following broadcast given in Hebrew: www.youtube.com...

I tried getting a thread going (abovetopsecret.com...) on this but first it was deleted, then it was closed. The moderators are adamant about shutting this thing down without allowing any real investigative research to take place in an orderly manner. Now we have to sift through 70+ pages of material concerning what they have labeled as a hoax.

Originally posted by TheFlash
Can someone please point out to me where it is established that these videos are hoaxed? That is, page, date, time of post, etc. I read the first few and last few pages but did not see any evidence. Sorry but I am not going to read 72 pages.

It seems Mr. Debowilliams has everyone convinced with his audio analysis and since he claims to have debunked the number 2 clip that is in question with his analysis, he now can claim the 1st clip is a hoax as well. Now since clip 1 and 2 are hoaxes then the 4th clip must be one too. However, Mr. Debo has now been asked 4 times by me to answer a question I had towards his analysis concerning wind. So in short, for me at least, nothing has been proved or disproved yet
.

reply to post by haketem


Thank you so much for this information. It helps to put some theories to bed, videos 1&2 are definitively unrelated to video 4.

If you can call some of your debunking efforts absolute proof of HOAX, which is extreme in my honest opinion..

Then...
HERE IS ABSOLUTE PROOF OF FACT! ...Just to be as extreme.

You state the background and foreground are two separate images? How is it that not once in the entire video was the foreground really illuminated until the flash. Where would this data come from if this flash didn't really happen? There is no other place in the video to extract the pixels to create the top part of the wall as that data not present due to lighting problems..

Animated Gif:




1:





2:





EDIT TO ADD:

These lighting conditions also prove how unreliable HOAXKiller1's tracking on the wall is!!!
You can clearly see the true outline of the wall when the flash happens. The CCD in the camera was not good enough to record the contrast of light levels, which is exactly why we see the all white balance being constantly adjusted in the foreground..

reply to post by JPhish


JPhis, watch this video:



1: Camera shake is fake.
2: Camera zoom is similar to digital editing zoom.
3: Lighting can all easily be created.

They filmed a video with a tripod no zoom, no shake, and that made it easier to add the UFO in with the lights. They later added in fake zoom and fake shake to make it seem more realistic, and not planned. (since everyone knows fake ufo's are easy to make with a stable video).

Originally posted by Ashtrei
heres the clip slowed down

Yes. The light reflection is something else off the dome isn't it?

Originally posted by nakiannunaki
So what's the deal?

Hoax/No Hoax....

Please let me know asap so i can decide to keep reading or go to bed...

Thanks!

The jury is out.

The team is still working on proving or disproving these clips.

Sorry...make coffee...this aint gunna be over for a while.

Cyber hug!

MM

WOW ! This has to be one of the greatest graphic designs ever,i wonder who did this video,groovy.

Originally posted by DakmindAK
Please translate the following broadcast given in Hebrew: www.youtube.com...

I tried getting a thread going (abovetopsecret.com...) on this but first it was deleted, then it was closed. The moderators are adamant about shutting this thing down without allowing any real investigative research to take place in an orderly manner. Now we have to sift through 70+ pages of material concerning what they have labeled as a hoax.

I know it's a lengthy thread so easy to miss the discussion on this video (the members are now referring to as Video 3)
Basically that's probably the most obvious fake of the 4 videos that have surfaced being an exact match to a wikimedia image.



No point having another thread discussing that one - everyone here pretty much agrees that Vid 3 is a Hoax.

This is defiantly pretty interesting. The speed of the orb and the sudden dart up wards is very unlikely for any man made object. If it didn't dart so fast i would think its just a paper lantern on a rope but the speed is very odd.

reply to post by gmax111


gmax... the flash effect was layered on top of everything.... That is why light is on top of the guy, wall, etc.... some reason the missed the tree.

Originally posted by gmax111
If you can call some of your debunking efforts absolute proof of HOAX, which is extreme in my honest opinion..

Then...
HERE IS ABSOLUTE PROOF OF FACT! ...Just to be as extreme.

You state the background and foreground are two separate images? How is it that not once in the entire video was the foreground really illuminated until the flash. Where would this data come from if this flash didn't really happen? There is no other place in the video to extract the pixels to create the top part of the wall as that data not present due to lighting problems..

Animated Gif:

1:

2:

Great stuff, it looks to me as if what we are seeing in the top of the wall is the rail seen in the first seconds of this clip



Where as the wall in the 4th clip does not have this rail.
This rules out MM's assertion this is the same wall in both clips
If you pause this clip at the 43 second mark you can see the unoccupied land that creates the black triangle in vids 1 and 2. clearly taken from the same location, and the walls are different one has a black rail the other location doesnt

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by gmax111

 

gmax... the flash effect was layered on top of everything.... That is why light is on top of the guy, wall, etc.... some reason the missed the tree.

I also find it odd that the back of the guys shirt lights up - bottom right blue shirt - given the light source is in front and his back would have been in shadow.

Originally posted by DakmindAK
Please translate the following broadcast given in Hebrew: www.youtube.com...

It's too long to translate but here's the original report:
news.nana10.co.il...

If you get a form click to view the video click the right button (with longer text)

Mainly talking about the buzz on the internet, showing only the 3rd video and other supposed UFO sightings in Israel from the 70's and 90's. Then interviewing two experts - Prof. Yoav Yair from the Open University and Yigal Fattal, head of the Israel Association for Astronomy - both saying that these are usually hoaxes with simple explanations of optics or some other image distortion.