UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

Originally posted by 4hero
It seems to me that even if the truth was staring us all in the face, someone would still try to debunk it.

Of course. How else would we know that it's the truth? Maybe you have some kind of inside track into knowing what is true and what isn't. Maybe you're never fooled by magicians and hoaxers. Good for you. I don't have that advantage. The only way I can discern the truth from a lie (if I care) is to take them both apart and see what they're made of.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by 4hero

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but they don't close threads when the are 100% proven to be a hoax. They throw them in the HOAX forum where this topic currently resides. In fact, the words HOAX even got added to the title.

Anyone still arguing about Debo's observation obviously doesn't understand Debo's observation. Nor has the ears to hear it.

I'm new here so I would have thought it would be closed if it was not proven 100%. But that is trivial. I totally understand what debo was trying to do, but there are also many explanations to debunk his theory, and because he failed to even try the phase cancellation test this proves that he does not have as much knowledge about sound physics. He was stating the obvious, as you are, but if you are trying to prove something like that you have to go the whole hog, not just do half a speculative job.

The decision to file this a hoax doesn't mean it's a hoax, that's just based on opinion, and if it's based on debo's unfinished job then this is the most laughable site I've come across!

reply to post by 4hero


Welcome 4hero-

Clearly you believe these films are real...

May I ask then, what is the driving force behind your belief that these are legitimate?

Considering that not one of the actual "eyewitnesses" have come forward to corroborate what they recorded, is it just that these movie films "look" real to you?

To add-

I ask because the believers of these have seemingly become so angry and I don't understand why. What about these videos screams authentic? Please help me understand. Thanks

Hi PhotonEffect, thanks for the welcome. There are a lot of pages to read so I will honestly say that I have not read every single page, but if this is classed as a hoax boased on the sound theory then that is not enough to call it a hoax because that theory has not been explored enough. There are more tests that could have and should have been done with the sound before calling it a hoax for that reason alone.

I just believe that the sound test needs more exploration.

Originally posted by 4hero
Hi PhotonEffect, thanks for the welcome. There are a lot of pages to read so I will honestly say that I have not read every single page, but if this is classed as a hoax boased on the sound theory then that is not enough to call it a hoax because that theory has not been explored enough. There are more tests that could have and should have been done with the sound before calling it a hoax for that reason alone.

I just believe that the sound test needs more exploration.

I think the most conclusive evidence is the mirrored edge in VID1, a residual effect of adding fake shake, the process fills in areas that shake outside target area and auto mirrors the target video. it's fairly resounding!

My 2 cents

Ta

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by 4hero

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but they don't close threads when the are 100% proven to be a hoax. They throw them in the HOAX forum where this topic currently resides. In fact, the words HOAX even got added to the title.

Anyone still arguing about Debo's observation obviously doesn't understand Debo's observation. Nor has the ears to hear it.

I'm new here so I would have thought it would be closed if it was not proven 100%. But that is trivial. I totally understand what debo was trying to do, but there are also many explanations to debunk his theory, and because he failed to even try the phase cancellation test this proves that he does not have as much knowledge about sound physics. He was stating the obvious, as you are, but if you are trying to prove something like that you have to go the whole hog, not just do half a speculative job.

The decision to file this a hoax doesn't mean it's a hoax, that's just based on opinion, and if it's based on debo's unfinished job then this is the most laughable site I've come across!

phase cancellation doesnt work if 2 sources are of different quality. Oh, but you knew this already before suggesting this didnt you

reply to post by soulfox


I think the most conclusive evidence is the mirrored edge in VID1, a residual effect of adding fake shake, the process fills in areas that shake outside target area and auto mirrors the target video. it's fairly resounding!


I'm not a video expert so it means nothing to me, but I'm sure even that theory could have an explanation. Again, personally I don't think that is enough because I'm sure someone who is video savvy could counter that argument. That is the problem, all arguments can be countered by someone and so unless it's an obvious fake, like video 3, then these arguments will always go round in circles.

FOX NEWS has been reporting this every few hours for the last 2 days...

Debo, you say 'phase cancellation doesnt work if 2 sources are of different quality. Oh, but you knew this already before suggestion this didnt you'.

I know how it works, hence why I said if there are differences some will disappear not all, but you stated it was a copy so phase cancellation will work for most of it, I've personally made acapellas using this technique, and by using different file sources, if you know what you are doing, and it is tricky, you can achieve results, it's just easier to do if it's an exact copy, but not impossible to do if it isn't. It will just mean you will have some sound left over, but most can be removed.

Originally posted by 4hero
reply to post by soulfox

 

I think the most conclusive evidence is the mirrored edge in VID1, a residual effect of adding fake shake, the process fills in areas that shake outside target area and auto mirrors the target video. it's fairly resounding!


I'm not a video expert so it means nothing to me, but I'm sure even that theory could have an explanation. Again, personally I don't think that is enough because I'm sure someone who is video savvy could counter that argument. That is the problem, all arguments can be countered by someone and so unless it's an obvious fake, like video 3, then these arguments will always go round in circles.

It can't be explained away mate! checkout back about 30 - 40 pages when it broke. I'd love to think it was real. Unfortunately it's rather impossible for a recording device to record aspects of a cityscape that aren't actually there.

You may not be a video expert, me either but come on. Scan the threads it's utterly HOAX

reply to post by 4hero


Ok see,

This is what I need help understanding. You haven't been through the entire thread, yet you're bashing the first concrete evidence that something isn't right with these videos.

When presented with the other very solid evidence of tampering- i.e the mirror effect, you don't buy it.

So if the evidence is being shown to you why are you so sure that it's bogus? Or on the flip side what makes these videos in your view so believable?

Photon effect, I read the majority of it, and have seen most of the debunking attempts, I'm sure most of what I haven't read is probably just repetition, but my reason for posting was to pass comment on the sound theory, I am still on the fence but felt the sound theory had not been explored thoroughly.

One thing that is still puzzling me was the weather cameras showing a light on the day it happened at the same time, but I wont comment on that because it's not my area of expertise.

Has VID4 been debunked yet??

soulfox, just because someone tells me it is a hoax doesn't mean I have to believe them, I have to weight it up in my own mind and come to my own conclusions based on what is presented to me and how I interpret that information.

Surely if it was a done and dusted hoax you guys who think it was a hoax would not be still posting in this thread? Surely your work is done, unless you are not really convinced, or trying to cover something up?!

None of the video experts are even willing to consider distortion around the edge of the video, even knowing now that there is a building that fits those lights perfectly? Even though other lights do this sucking in thing and re-normalizing along the edges before the two most guilty looking? It's a cellphone...no one else has ever noticed how with most cellphone video theres a 1-2 pixel border around the whole thing that can be very distorted? Just consider it? Try watching the original video at 0.125x with the brightness turned up in fullscreen, and watch the edges...especially the left and bottom.

reply to post by CanadianDream420


Extremely curious that VID3 keeps being replayed. 2 seconds of internet investigation would uncover that is a very very obvious fake.

I keep thinking in my cynical way that this is significant.. it fuels my curiosity no end.

Originally posted by Kali74
None of the video experts are even willing to consider distortion around the edge of the video, even knowing now that there is a building that fits those lights perfectly? Even though other lights do this sucking in thing and re-normalizing along the edges before the two most guilty looking? It's a cellphone...no one else has ever noticed how with most cellphone video theres a 1-2 pixel border around the whole thing that can be very distorted? Just consider it? Try watching the original video at 0.125x with the brightness turned up in fullscreen, and watch the edges...especially the left and bottom.

I had read about this in some previous posts, you have a fair point that should be given equal consideration to their arguments. Even though I'm no video expert I feel both sides have equal arguments that need to be proven 100% either way, and it has not been proven 100% either way.

Hello,got to page number 40 or so and had to join to fettle my own curiosity, I see the weathercam and can clearly see the crowne plaza hotel (tallest builduing in jerusalem) to the left of the image, a quick check of google maps confirms that the light on the weathercam geograpicaly is in the right place to tie in, this may have been proved otherwise in the 80 or so pages that have followed but I would like to know if this has been concluded, also the photos that someone posted have they been discredited yet?

sorry if I am running over old questions, if this whole thing has been proven as a massive hoax could someone please give me the lowdown (in a nutshell if poss), and links to the clear cut evidence of fakery

Originally posted by 4hero

One thing that is still puzzling me was the weather cameras showing a light on the day it happened at the same time, but I wont comment on that because it's not my area of expertise.

The weather cam was said to be in Gilo, which is far west and south of the temple and out of the cameras view.

The frames if i'm not mistaken are 1 every 10min unfortunately, so I'm afraid anything to do with that is inconclusive at best.

You look at the video and see a fuzzy star looking light that descends, hovers for several seconds, flashes, then shoots straight up at an alarming speed. Once the video cameras follow it's path all thats left are red swirling orbs.

Now right off the bat, I'm having a hard time buying it.

You though find it believable, which is perfectly fine. And many here share that stance. I'm just trying to understand why when something like that defies all logic and physical laws, we still believe it to be real. Even when very good evidence of tampering with the videos has been made to light. And even when the actual witnesses to this event haven't come forward.

Please help me understand the logic behind staying on the fence with this.

Originally posted by 4hero
soulfox, just because someone tells me it is a hoax doesn't mean I have to believe them, I have to weight it up in my own mind and come to my own conclusions based on what is presented to me and how I interpret that information.

Surely if it was a done and dusted hoax you guys who think it was a hoax would not be still posting in this thread? Surely your work is done, unless you are not really convinced, or trying to cover something up?!

Vid1 is done and dusted hoax for me. Of course VID3 is a hoax also. VID2 and VID4 still interest me.

4Hero check out the adobe after effects tutorial on fake shake, as I say, back about 40 pages. You say you need to see the proof yourself and me just telling you won't suffice.. wise. It would also be wise for you to rule out VID1 as this has unfortunately been proven to have been tampered with. Evidence for hoax would stand up in court mate! but don't take my word for it.