UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

reply to post by callacas


It all happened within minutes they couldn't have got their boots on...

reply to post by callacas


from watching the video it seems like the glowing white light was only present for a few minutes, and who knows about whatever was causing the glowing red lights. If your implying their jets should have been there by then i would LOVE to hear your theories on what happened on 9/11 ...also anything that can move that fast probably wouldn't show up on radar if it didn't want to.

reply to post by Unknown Soldier


Hoaxer scum will lie until their last weak breath.

Anyways- thank you for the updates!

I find this video you just posted to be telling if not "worth a good look".

More perspective problems. It begins by saying the tree is not in the right place in clip 2 compared to clip 1. I personally don't know exactly how accurate that is, perhaps the tree as a wild branch poking out in the dark that I can't see in clip one...who knows...(actually, I do know, but I can't hang my hat on it as conclusive).

But the second part that shows in clip one the man in the foreground move's his arm in a direction to the upper left but this movement doesn't seem to align with clip two's screen movement.

I'm sure you can argue that his arm may have gone one way, but his hand could pivot on a second access point resulting in any directional movement of the screen's view.

But I think this is good evidence to keep in the files.

MM

Apologies if this has been posted, i had not seen it yet and im off too bed

reply to post by OptimisticPessimist


I do agree that I have seen strange video compression in camphone's video before. I have never thought about the cause or to check into it, until now. Maybe I am just remembering crappy video from crappy phone's. It does seem that subpar tech would give subpar results. Just don't know enough about the parallax(?) deal to know if a phone is even capable of manipulating it to appear flawed. Hopefully someone can clear up the camera/phone/parallax(?) issue.

reply to post by esteay812


My only concern with this is those who are well-versed in the issues of parallax probably did not become so while studying night time cell phone camera videos

reply to post by byteshertz


You see people dont freak out when they see it( so this can not be used to debunk any more)
I've seen them in Mississippi , but never like this.
Then the ufo leaves. They where all like. Oeehh ooehh aaahh(like watching fireworks)

I recall that in UFO threads the comments being used are often in this trend to debunk a video.
example. This is not real, he is way to calm. If I where standing there i would go crazy. So this must be fake.

reply to post by TribeOfManyColours


I believe the commentary you are referring to is actually of one of the videos that has been conclusively found to be a HOAX

reply to post by TribeOfManyColours


don't judge other peoples reactions based on how you think you would behave.

reply to post by Mr Mask


I am so sad Mr. Mask, I had so much respect for you, I assume that people longing for something to be there makes people unopened. (if that is an actual word)

I am an Atheist so no religion for me but i am open, i figure people who become a better person through religion is good. i see it in a different way but changing for the better is good.

Now as far as the topic, we aren't looking at Aliens or extraterrestrials but UFOs so I think bringing this subject after having not enough proof is profusely incorrect, first, we have enough proof it might be a fake, second it is just a light that does not prove much as much we would want too.

I tell you, I am not a believer of aliens but i would like to be proven wrong. I know aliens are out there but not in the usual sense of what most people believe, Humanoids.

Doing this is not the theme of this website which is deny ignorance is kinda becoming encourage ignorance.

Love your comic but have lost some respect for you. You might say who that F are you... I'll tell you, a fellow follower not really a poster, I usually post when I think people have come out of their place.

You are welcome to correct me if I am wrong, I have not read the whole thing but the OP and I highly disagree with this type of measure, makes me think of ATS becoming more of what is popular instead of more logic.

reply to post by Unknown Soldier

I went in to this thing as neutral as i could but the (certain hoax website) involvement is hard to ignore.

As far as I know the website you are referring to merely reported on this story. Correct me if I'm wrong, surely it was more than that? This whole thread is quite hilarious may I add.

reply to post by TribeOfManyColours


You do realize there is a flip side to that right? If i WERE standing there I would be calm and say "neato gang!". Maybe you just need to relax a little bit? Herbal supplements work wonders

I have looked at these two videos in detail and listened to all the comments. I have now been focusing mainly on the audio from the original uploaded footage from the actual "witnesses" to their youtube channels.

I stripped the audio out of both and synced them together side by side until I had a perfect match, what I have noticed is that the audio runs together, but... throughout the audio there are very small clicks, this fits with touching the camera, but what is odd is that it is audible on both clips at the same level, which it just should not be. There is no sound from the audio in the clip of the foreground guy of his fingers against the phone. My conclusion after Eqing both audio pieces is that it is one audio piece, taken from the guy who filmed at the back, then compressed and levels adjusted ( missing the clicks out) and added back onto the other video.

Originally posted by DancingBear
reply to post by esteay812

 

My only concern with this is those who are well-versed in the issues of parallax probably did not become so while studying night time cell phone camera videos

The best thing about that is- parallax works on all optical view points within the observable universe. Be it anolog, biological or even digita.

Its unforgiving and a solid physical law present everywhere that there is a viewable perspective to behold.

Image Lag, ghosting, blurring, wobble, and various other common digital sensor problems with the CCD/CMOS will not result in "intelligently detaching an entire foreground and sliding it around agaist a background agaisnt perspective law.

It may make a mess. It may blurr entire waves across the screen or cause images to remain too long on the scream, or wobble overly into what's called a "jello" effect if shaken too hard or attached to a moving vehicle.

But what a noraml digital eye can not do on its own- is create two different perspective plains unrelated to each other. The foreground follows a correct perspective. The correct perspective of the camera's position.

The background does not.

That is the important part to grasp even if it may seem technical, its not.

The background does not show depth and movement that coincides with the angles being rapided presented by the shifting camera eye's point of perspective.

Hope that helps. You are free to think its bunk or not. I only ffer the infoo as I know it to be true, you are free t decide how legitimate the physical laws of perspective really are in the mathematically perfect realm of the three dimensional universe.

I assure you. The law works well enough for astronomers to use the same law to correctly measure the distance to a star in the 18 hundreds.

It surly can accurately display itself in this clip.

Yet, the foreground move apart from the background and floats freely on a seperate plain.

Try watching the clip and picture the foreground actually just being superimposed onto a fake background like an old B movie, or even old King Kong.

Look for that.

See if you can see how the foreground (even in the unstabilized original) has a foreground that moves independently from the background, giving the illusion that the foreground is actually a boat floating on waves infront of land that is stationery.

Give it a try.

MM

Originally posted by mirare
I have looked at these two videos in detail and listened to all the comments. I have now been focusing mainly on the audio from the original uploaded footage from the actual "witnesses" to their youtube channels.

I stripped the audio out of both and synced them together side by side until I had a perfect match, what I have noticed is that the audio runs together, but... throughout the audio there are very small clicks, this fits with touching the camera, but what is odd is that it is audible on both clips at the same level, which it just should not be. There is no sound from the audio in the clip of the foreground guy of his fingers against the phone. My conclusion after Eqing both audio pieces is that it is one audio piece, taken from the guy who filmed at the back, then compressed and levels adjusted ( missing the clicks out) and added back onto the other video.

edit on 3-2-2011 by mirare because: (no reason given)

More goodness. Maybe one of our resident audio/video guys can make a clip showing that.

Sounds like good investigative work.

MM

I KNEW IT! I had seen the flash before acceleration somewhere!

Remember this??


Nasa said it was the thrusters blowing away the ice.. but this is what came to my mind upon wathcing

Originally posted by Arsenis
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

I am so sad Mr. Mask, I had so much respect for you, I assume that people longing for something to be there makes people unopened. (if that is an actual word)

I am an Atheist so no religion for me but i am open, i figure people who become a better person through religion is good. i see it in a different way but changing for the better is good.

Now as far as the topic, we aren't looking at Aliens or extraterrestrials but UFOs so I think bringing this subject after having not enough proof is profusely incorrect, first, we have enough proof it might be a fake, second it is just a light that does not prove much as much we would want too.

I tell you, I am not a believer of aliens but i would like to be proven wrong. I know aliens are out there but not in the usual sense of what most people believe, Humanoids.

Doing this is not the theme of this website which is deny ignorance is kinda becoming encourage ignorance.

Love your comic but have lost some respect for you. You might say who that F are you... I'll tell you, a fellow follower not really a poster, I usually post when I think people have come out of their place.

You are welcome to correct me if I am wrong, I have not read the whole thing but the OP and I highly disagree with this type of measure, makes me think of ATS becoming more of what is popular instead of more logic.

Can you explain where I am out of my place trying to find truth? Are you aware of my mission statement and soul reason for being here?

To crush hoaxers and destroy lies with the help of my fellow truth seeking cohorts and comrades.

Where have I so dreadfully strayed from that path sir?

PS- Having respect for me was your first mistake. You allowed yourself a risk of losing something. Now that you have lost it- you are in safer position.




MM

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
As far as I know the website you are referring to merely reported on this story. Correct me if I'm wrong, surely it was more than that? This whole thread is quite hilarious may I add.

There is no proof of the hoaxer in question owning or creating these videos as of yet.

And may I ask what is so Hilarious sir?

Care to elaborate?

MM

Said it before on the original thread, this 'orb' light descending down into the center of buildings, and one very reflective dome, do not show any signs of being effected by this light, as if the orb light is merged together on its own layer, with who knows how many other video layers.

The 3 frames of the 2 flashes, one frame for the first, and the two frames for the second are simple lighting effects and the buildings in the scene don't show any change of a new bright light source behind or in front depending on their location, the light is a simple universal composite.

Why is the back of the guy's shirt illuminated universally with a light flash a couple of miles beyond him is beyond me, no it isn't, it's a simple universal composite control. One would think more care would be taken to not effect the back side of this person's shirt while adding in the flashes.

Also pointed out is that tree doesn't reveal the light between it's openings like a light behind a tree would silhouette the branches and leaves and brighten just the gaps between the leaves and openings. The tree/bush object receives the same universal composite control showing no effects of being backlit.

reply to post by Mr Mask


I'm not generally iffy on UFO "home made" videos, but something about some of these lately just dont seem right! i could be heavily mistaken when i say this, but i think the protest in Egypt is one big distraction, remember the saying "out of sight, out of mind" The government knows this about us oh too well. To them we are merely a moth to the flame.

Very happy to see this thread re-opened! i've been researching upon this, i cant find any local reports on it no eye witness cases, nothing? only worldwide news. does anyone know otherwise?

Also, what really got me was the double flash that came from the lights of the "UFO", this may sound silly, but could they be taking pictures of us while we go about our everyday lives? or could that have been a wave of propulsion? and those red dots in the sky!! did we just witness a passing through a hyperspace gate!? if so it was amazing :O

And mr_frost, i haveto say. that video had fake written all over it and i loved it. especially the part where it just shot in the water

Keeping my ears and eyes open on these sensitive subjects, the truth will be revealed eventually!