UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

reply to post by Paradigm2012


what are you talking about? I clearly debunked the audio in my video. Did you even bother to watch it?

reply to post by tarifa37


It's actually not that difficult to do AT ALL. I'm both a filmmaker and an animator. The answers to most of the questions are:
www.google.co.uk... l=&oq=

And don't even tell me they were filmed in the same spots, because the light rays are identical, not to mention they don't distort or flicker when the camera moves. Cameras use lenses and the lens glass picks up light in different ways. The reason they don't distort is because they used still images. In all of the videos. I have yet to see one video that I can't match up in Google images.

Damn... Why is it every time there is a good video out there people just call it a Hoax? I also read here that the people filming the UFO didn't even go crazy. The fourth video which IMO is genuine they went crazy when the UFO lifted up. I understood a few words they were saying and i would have said the same thing if i was there. Take my words that this video especially the 4th is not over yet. We will certainly hear more about it in the coming months...

It also saddens that i still read in forums, Utube comments that UFO's [extraterrestrials] don't exist and we are all alone in the whole universe and in the last few days we were just told that the universe is much bigger then we once taught.

In September of last year i also saw something that i couldn't explain and it defiantly wasn't a balloon. My wife was in the balcony smoking a cig and my son was next to her. I was on my laptop doing something when i heard my son saying to his mother, Mum what is that? Then my wife told me to get there fast to see this. What we saw was a a silver orb [can also be saucer but it was very far away] moving downwards across the sky. Then at times it moves straight then it goes down again. I ran quickly for the camera but the damn zoom on the camera is # so nothing came on the picture. Then i went upstairs to get my binoculars and i just couldn't see it with it as couldn't find it. But we saw it one last time when i gave up with the binoculars... It went straight up, fast, very fast... Now this was at around 9am with only a few clouds infact at time this is why we couldn't see it as it went trough the clouds. We also noticed that the sun was reflecting a lot on this object and it was very bright because of that. It is like when something bright hits a silvery, white object and it makes this very bright...

Anyways my point being is Millions and Millions of people see this things and some never get reported or told. Some of course will be explainable but some is definitely not ours. How could everyone i mean all millions of people reporting these are all lying?

Excuse my english as it isn't my language..

Thanks

reply to post by Paradigm2012

Thats pretty weak evidence. Please come up with something concrete.
Actually your photos actually make me feel even more that this is "NOT CGI"

HI Paradign2012.

Honestly I don't expect everyone to immediately grasp the fundamental relevance of the distinction between interlaced and progressive frames, and how it can be used as definite telltale signs of tampering and therefore intention.

After presenting some background, evidence, and some reasoning, the best I can do is ask you (and whoever is interested at all) take your time to absorb even just a bit of it, take it slow, no rush.

Originally posted by Paradigm2012

Originally posted by laymanskeptic
Hi there, since the previous thread was closed (I was second to the last to post there LOLz, it was a debunking post), I shall migrate my debunking post here (debunking video#4)
-------
Gotcha! Hoax!

Debunking video#4:

But before that, please bear with me as I introduce a quick background on digital cameras and the video they come up with:

(Some quick credentials first: I'm not just an armchair philosopher lolz. I used to be a cameraman, a video editor, and other stuff related to postprod, and I'm currently a producer, with some CGI background as I have worked on several CGI projects in both producing and hands-on capacities, solving and troubleshooting problems on a variety of levels):

Here goes:

Technical background (important):

There are 2 ways a camera can capture moving images (a sequence of still frames):

"Interlaced" capture - each captured frame is a actually made up of 2 separate alternating fields each captured at a slightly different slice of time. In postprod, this creates "combing" effect (where the 2 interlaced fields reveal themselves especially for objects or scenes captured while in motion).

"Progressive" capture - each captured frame is a whole frame. But there are 2 types of shutter variants:

"Rolling Shutter" - each frame is captured one line at a time.

Observable artifact #1: creates wobbly deformation of objects or scenes with respect to the orientation of the image sensor (either horizontal or vertical). Common weakness of cameraphones and DSLRs.

Observable artifact #2: external light flashes captured by the camera appear cut off within a single frame (when the duration of the flash is shorter than the time it takes to expose each frame)

"Universal Shutter" - all pixels (and therefore all lines) of each frame are captured all at the same time.

Observable artifact: no wobble, but creates simple motion blur for moving objects or scenes, regardless of image sensor orientation.

VIDEO#4 Debunk Explanation

1. A digital camera can only take a shot either in progressive or interlaced mode, but not both at the same time.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cc8ab5aa5588.png[/atsimg]

2. This sequence of frames from Video#4 show both interlacing artifacts and motion blur artifacts (supposedly due to quick motion), IN THE SAME FOOTAGE! This can't happen in reality, because the camera is either shooting in interlaced, or shooting in progressive, but NOT BOTH. Either everything that's revealing in the clip reveals interlacing, or progressive - not both.

3. So Video#4 is tampered with in the following sense:

a. The background footage was shot in interlaced mode as most consumer camcorders do
b. The CGI orb was composited into the interlaced background as a progressive image (in fact, the project settings is done in progressive mode - it can't be done any other way unless you know the "nuts and bolts" of your comp system (many thanks to Pinke's U2U for explaining to me how to do that)
c. The resulting final video is exported in progressive frames
d. Video comes out with a mixture of progressive and interlacing artifacts, which no camera can do, and it wouldn't make sense for a camera to do so.
e. Ergo, HOAX

I shall also debunk Video#2 :-) on a later post.

Thats pretty weak evidence. Please come up with something concrete.
Actually your photos actually make me feel even more that this is "NOT CGI"

edit on 3-2-2011 by Paradigm2012 because: (no reason given)

Sorry to respectfully disagree with you, but that is pretty good evidence.
And as I mentioned on another thread, the footage in the car before they get out is also interlaced before a dodgily concealed cut (video 4@4:23) to the interlaced mixed with progressive material is seen. What laymanskeptic is saying makes good sense. Ask anybody in the post production industry.

What happened with those pictures from the weather cam back on page 3 ? Everyone here seemed to ignore them. Are they a hoax too ?

A mysterious Russian Space Forces (VKS) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that on 28 January our world was “officially” contacted by an extraterrestrial/ inter-dimensional intelligence source whose communication “beacons” descended upon the world’s holiest city of Jerusalem and the American State of Utah, home to The Church of Latter Days Saints (Mormons) delivering a rapid energy pulse of information that, roughly, translates to “Be of no fear as [we-it-I] return”.

This report states that the subjective personal pronouns contained in these messages (we-it-I) are all inclusive and related to specific geographical points on our Earth.

Not sure what to make of this??

reply to post by Simmy


Just because some videos are unexplainable does immediately make ALL ufo videos unexplainable. I've seen some videos which cant be dismissed no matter how close of a microscope is used. But this isn't one of them. Doesn't mean videos of UFOs aren't real, just this one isn't.

Originally posted by EBE01
A mysterious Russian Space Forces (VKS) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that on 28 January our world was “officially” contacted by an extraterrestrial/ inter-dimensional intelligence source whose communication “beacons” descended upon the world’s holiest city of Jerusalem and the American State of Utah, home to The Church of Latter Days Saints (Mormons) delivering a rapid energy pulse of information that, roughly, translates to “Be of no fear as [we-it-I] return”.

This report states that the subjective personal pronouns contained in these messages (we-it-I) are all inclusive and related to specific geographical points on our Earth.

Not sure what to make of this??

This was already reported in the other thread. I thought it was interesting also until I seen they're refering to the FAKE videos we've already debunked.

Don't you think all these witnesses would have been personally asked for interviews? Why have we seen nothing from them given they have witnessed and filmed possible the best UFO footage if real?

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
Your audio analysis was unable to debunk Video 2
So does that mean that you are totally unable to debunk video 2?

edit on 3-2-2011 by Paradigm2012 because: (no reason given)

Umm actually he showed us that the same track was used in both videos. So in that instance video no#2 is not authentic. Just like video #3 where the video was clearly a hoax the audio was artificial. So again with video #2 we have altered audio. That shows the uploader is untruthful and deceiving us. So Mr. Menachem Ben David www.youtube.com... is not being honest in this instance. But why? Why take audio from the first video and implement it in the cell phone footage?

With that said the video from the first video as provided by Hoaxkiller1 www.youtube.com...

Mr. Menachem Ben David - is not cooperating with the investigation, media , UFO research ect

Mr. Menachem Ben David - is acting like a perpetrator rather a witness , will not answer emails and questioning

Mr. Menachem Ben David - provides videos with altered audio , even manipulated said audio

Mr. Menachem Ben David - first video has anomalies such as violating laws of perception

Mr. Menachem Ben David - is exclusive to notorious hoax web site and perpetrator of hoaxes

What now? Mr. Menachem Ben David has several key aspects of a text book HOAXER!

Don't you think it's interesting that the same thing happened at the same time in two separate religious locations on opposite sides of the planet? One even shutting down a military base. Seems very odd to me and very elaborate.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6ae682a42d6e.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/de4981425103.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Jaylemite
Some fun facts:
- Eligael posted some paranormal videos on Facebook way before this incident, especially a January 2010 video about aliens.
- Eligael recently became friends on Facebook with 3 names that appear in the movie: Yuli, Dor, Michael.
- The 3 of them are 12th graders in Nes Tziona (outside Jerusalem), and go to Ben Gurion High School where they 'major' in Communications (usually includes filmmaking).
- Here is an end-of-semester movie from the 2010 school year, and the photographer is listed as the same Dor who drives the car and then films the incident.
- Michael wrote on Eligael's youtube page 4 days ago saying they need to get in touch.

I'm not posting any FB links in order to respect their privacy, but you can easily do the same research.

Quoting myself in order to bring attention to this possible collaboration of a UFO buff with 3 highscool film students.

Originally posted by laymanskeptic
reply to post by Paradigm2012

 

Thats pretty weak evidence. Please come up with something concrete.
Actually your photos actually make me feel even more that this is "NOT CGI"

HI Paradign2012.

Honestly I don't expect everyone to immediately grasp the fundamental relevance of the distinction between interlaced and progressive frames, and how it can be used as definite telltale signs of tampering and therefore intention.

After presenting some background, evidence, and some reasoning, the best I can do is ask you (and whoever is interested at all) take your time to absorb even just a bit of it, take it slow, no rush.

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

I appreciate your attempt and frantic search for errors in the video.

It appears however, your evidence is "inconclusive" and was unable to prove that the video was a fake.

Originally posted by DeboWilliams
reply to post by Simmy

 

Just because some videos are unexplainable does immediately make ALL ufo videos unexplainable. I've seen some videos which cant be dismissed no matter how close of a microscope is used. But this isn't one of them. Doesn't mean videos of UFOs aren't real, just this one isn't.

Yes i agree and respect your opinion. It could well turn up to be a true hoax however some people just call it hoax without even investigate the case. It could well turn up to be genuine and i am not talking about this particular case but on all cases. There is a lot out there that in the past they were called hoaxes while now scientists and with the new technology we have they have turned out to be the opposite. I also believe we have the evidence but the problem is debunking it very quickly because in peoples eyes or ears is impossible or because we were taught differently in our history books...

I guess we will find out, sooner or later the truth will come out...

Take care

reply to post by laymanskeptic


Now we are getting somewhere, if you are correct and this can be done for all these videos then we are looking at a very elaberate hoax. But in order for the Scientific Method to work we will need corroboration from another source as well. Good job.

reply to post by Mr Mask


Mr. Mask, first i would like to say thank you for your efforts reviewing the case and making such a detailed description..

And after reading it i also want to say that I have much respect for the way you posted it.. At this point I would like to withdraw my statement of calling you arrogant. I do apologize for my judgment...

Thanks ATS Staff for bringing this thread back..

reply to post by Jaylemite


Interesting, cirumstantial but telling none the less. Thank you for finding another piece to this puzzle. The more we find the more sense can be made from this. Excellent.

Originally posted by gmax111
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

Mr. Mask, first i would like to say thank you for your efforts reviewing the case and making such a detailed description..

And after reading it i also want to say that I have much respect for the way you posted it.. At this point I would like to withdraw my statement of calling you arrogant. I do apologize for my judgment...

Thanks ATS Staff for bringing this thread back..

They did label the Jerusalem UFO a hoax a little too quickly.
For a minute there i thought the NSA gave the ATS owner a phone call.
I'm glad the thread is back.
Now the analysis can begin.