UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

reply to post by Paradigm2012


Can you also explain the mirroring n the bottom of the clip?

No...you can't.

And no...that is not the hotel you speak of. I'll prove it if you wish.

MM

reply to post by Mr Mask


I already proved its the hotel and not motion tiling. Sorry bud you can't win everytime, kind of like the Steelers you can win em all kid.

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

I already proved its the hotel and not motion tiling. Sorry bud you can't win everytime, kind of like the Steelers you can win em all kid.

Please tell me how you proved the hotel that is "not in that location" appears in that location?

MM

reply to post by Paradigm2012

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
I proved that is a building. You cannot make up your own facts.

No, all you proved is that there happens to be a symmetrical building in the area. You didn't prove it actually is the building, and you actually ignored the mirroring effect happening to it, and the mirror effect on the bottom of the video...

The only thing you proved is your lack of understanding.

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
Now that I proved its a building you need to explain how the building can move?

That is not the building. You are wrong.. It is a mirror effect of a few lights and it just happened to make a similar shape as that building.. The building is not moving... motion tiling is making the lights converge to a single point.

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
Its obviously pixelation, 4th gen data loss compression,

You just made that up! 4th generation data loss compression?

Sorry, compression does not create a mirror effect. It doesn't move lights to new positions. The video is not 4th generation, and you can see the lights in the original UFO video.....

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
your GIF is only 1/1000 of a second long.

That is because it is only 3 frames taken from different parts of the original UFO video, and it was played in a loop with 10 millisecond each frame. If you play the original UFO video frame by frame you will see the lights move the exact same way...

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
any cellphone video, youtube video will have the blurring you just posted

Blurring? No... this is a mirror effect. No amount of compression can do what we see no matter how much you lie to your self.

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
its called pixelated artifacts from 3rd generation FLV video

It's not pixelated... It's not 3rd generation when it can be seen in the original video....

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
I proved its the building

and you cannot deny that

You didn't prove anything... Yes I can deny it.

reply to post by Mr Mask


The Hotel is in that exact location. Sorry dude are going to have to really be tricky and deceptive this time and come up with something even more nonsensical than you did before.

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

The Hotel is in that exact location. Sorry dude are going to have to really be tricky and deceptive this time and come up with something even more nonsensical than you did before.

Please post a clear photo of the hotel, and another showing its location in relation to Temple Mount. Thank you.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


We now know that is a building that is symetrical not a mirror.
We now know that at least the left side of the video is not mirror tiled

I will work on the botttom tommorow but I have to go to work now.

BTW your 1/1000 of a second GIF clip proves nothing because data loss, and pixelation can cause what you see in your GIF

Fact ---That is the Hotel---

now that we are past that lets move on to something else.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


If you continue to deny facts and data your only hurting yourself and making yourself loose the debate.

You cannot deny facts

you are not entitled to your own facts

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

The Hotel is in that exact location. Sorry dude are going to have to really be tricky and deceptive this time and come up with something even more nonsensical than you did before.

It is clear to me that you are playing a game.

I refuse to play it with you. You have been defending clips proven to be a hoax.

You have also been ignoring evidence presented to you proving these clips hoaxed.

MM

reply to post by Mr Mask


I have been talking about the data and the facts.

Is there something about facts that you don't like?

Originally posted by pezza
in summary, if a burst of light high up in the sky, having the most direct line of site to the most amount of terrain in the image, and is also about 10x brighter then any light in the video, and that light does not reveal any new features in the underexposed regions of the image, you really need to question what the role of light is in our universe.
...
But the fact that zero new information is revealed about the terrain (and emphasis on *zero*) tells me the light is 100% synthetic. I even went to the extent of characterising/parameterising this effect on not just one feature in the image but systematically to the entire image. Thats a bit heavy and over the top for a site like ATS but i think was worthwhile for some here that may want to take their debunking skills past qualitative only based assessments and occums razors. up soon to knock it off

edit on 7-2-2011 by pezza because: add paragraph

So I did my homework, and guess what. I'm inclined to agree and say video 4 was tampered with. I compared the two frames before and during the flash, and there is no indication of previously unlightened objects. Above that, only bright pixels seems to have been lightened. It's a simple brightness increase (HSL), not even Gamma. Btw, just for a little self marketing: I used my own software located on CodedColor.com for the comparison. extra DIV