UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

Originally posted by RexTheNavigator

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by RexTheNavigator
reply to post by Logical one

 

what other evidence do we have that the weather cam is not reliable? it occuring several times in a night does not dicount it surely??

It does if you consider that we have supposedly 4 people video the lights at 0:57.......but nobody videod or reported seeing it at 11:30PM,12:30 AM or at 1:30AM (note times approx, I can' t recall exact times ,but I posted them a few days back) Also people would have waited and trained their cameras of the vicinity of the 0:57 sighting hoping for a return sighting of some sort, I'm sure they would have also spotted the 1:30AM appearance too, and the perhaps the 4:30 AM. as well.
So yes we can safely conclude that the weather cam light was not the light over the Dome UFO.

edit on 7-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

I see it happen at 12, 1, 1:30, & 4:30 ish, but why on that night only?, what i really would like to know is wether the light appears over the dome in the cam shot.

Apparently the same light was spotted a few days earlier than the Dome sighting date, I didn't check myself......but we also don't know if that light has appeared since then, as I assume nobody has checked since the weather cam footage has widely been accepted as NOT showing the Dome UFO light quite a gew days back.

You can check if you like, but for most of us here, it's probably not worth the bother.

Originally posted by RexTheNavigator

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by RexTheNavigator

 

The manager changed is story after the "light" was mentioned. IMO.

sorry I am not with you, could you elaborate please?

I'm not quoting word for word mind you but when initially asked if the dome is in view the manager says it's not visiable but off to east in the frame. After mention of the light he says the camera is in (? forget where). The website states that the camera is in Nayot looking north which puts not the dome but where the dome is, in view...also the light at 00:57 is a bit different at least IMO. The camera catches it hovering over logically where the dome would be and at the right time. Could be something, could be nothing.

Originally posted by DeboWilliams

Originally posted by RexTheNavigator
reply to post by DeboWilliams

 

i can see the weathercam view, the tall white building to the left is the crowne plaza hotel, it is not to far left of the dome, if the cam is in gilo and the hotel is in the left of shot then the dome has to be in view (albeit out of sight), i will check the distance between the hotel and dome and check back.

gilo(cam) is about 4 miles south of the hotel, dome is about a maile and a half east of hotel

edit on 7-2-2011 by RexTheNavigator because: (no reason given)

why is this so hard to understand

The camera is pointed to the left of the dome.
This means the dome is to the RIGHT of the cameras view
It is not in frame
It is not somewhere in the middle

Gilo is 7 miles from the dome

Are you trying to say that the manager, that lives there, does not know what he is talking about? and you, someone who mostlikely never even been there, let alone live / work there, knows the landscape better then him

The camera cannot see the light above the dome, because the dome is not in the cameras field of view.

Please stop beating this dead horse

edit on 7-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)

so 7 miles south, crowne plaza in the left of the picture yes? and the dome which is only 1 and a half miles to the right is not in shot, how narrow is the camaras shooting angle??

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


What puzzles me is why going such a length to fake a UFO sighting but then mess it up by adding an artificial shake. Why not just film a proper sequence as if there really was an UFO and just add in the UFO sequence. I mean, if one can film the sequence without a shake in the first place than why adding it, and if one really wants a shake, why not film it already with one. It seems to me that whoever did the video wanted to be found out and therefore put in those stupid clues? It just doesn't make any sense.

reply to post by Logical one


some said the 26th but i dont see it then.

reply to post by Kali74


thanks for the reply, yes i did see the original text, i took from that that the dome was in shot but not in view, i thought someone would have calculated from the view on the cam (not rely on the web managers word) where the dome is in the shot or prove once and for all that it is not.

First off, My apologizes to all the debunker's who did great investigation work on video1, mainly GiftofProphecy. Lets blame excessive drinking and cabin fever(from this crazy weather) : ) I showed great ignorance in the use of motion tile effects.

To make up for that I wanted to bring up another anomaly that I don't believe that has been brought up. To anyone who still does not want to follow the mirroring effects claim, have a gander at this one. On the long cut of video1 during the 18-19sec mark, you can see and hear something very strange. Watch the the back of the guy, mainly the dark crease on the back of shirt.

Originally posted by BenCambell
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

 

What puzzles me is why going such a length to fake a UFO sighting but then mess it up by adding an artificial shake. Why not just film a proper sequence as if there really was an UFO and just add in the UFO sequence. I mean, if one can film the sequence without a shake in the first place than why adding it, and if one really wants a shake, why not film it already with one. It seems to me that whoever did the video wanted to be found out and therefore put in those stupid clues? It just doesn't make any sense.

Fake shake is all the rage in top notch Hollywood CGI films.
How do you think they do it?

To composite a CGI object onto a steady video (ie one on a tripod) is far easier than tracking it on a moving shaking wobbling video.
So lots of Hollywood films use a steady shot of the action, then use the fake shake effect to make it look like you're watching a camcorder (Cloverfield is the biggest example, but you see it all the time now) when you're really watching a camera on a tripod.
It just makes adding the CGI much easier.

Originally posted by RexTheNavigator


so 7 miles south, crowne plaza in the left of the picture yes? and the dome which is only 1 and a half miles to the right is not in shot, how narrow is the camaras shooting angle??

Rex, not to put too finer a point on it, but as Deb said, I too think you are flogging a horse that is long dead!

The weather cam may or may not be in the right location to view the Dome, although what the weather cam manager said should indicate whether or not it does.

And even if it can see the Dome, the light that we have been talking about on the weather cam is NOT the UFO light over the Dome.

Are we happy about this yet....because this carcass is starting to smell!

reply to post by RexTheNavigator


I did a crappy little video.

here

Originally posted by BenCambell
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

 

What puzzles me is why going such a length to fake a UFO sighting but then mess it up by adding an artificial shake. Why not just film a proper sequence as if there really was an UFO and just add in the UFO sequence. I mean, if one can film the sequence without a shake in the first place than why adding it, and if one really wants a shake, why not film it already with one. It seems to me that whoever did the video wanted to be found out and therefore put in those stupid clues? It just doesn't make any sense.

The main reason for that is, if the footage has large amounts of camera shake it makes it extremly difficult to motion track any cgi. It will be close, but not enough to fool the eye.

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by RexTheNavigator


so 7 miles south, crowne plaza in the left of the picture yes? and the dome which is only 1 and a half miles to the right is not in shot, how narrow is the camaras shooting angle??

Rex, not to put too finer a point on it, but as Deb said, I too think you are flogging a horse that is long dead!

The weather cam may or may not be in the right location to view the Dome, although what the weather cam manager said should indicate whether or not it does.

And even if it can see the Dome, the light that we have been talking about on the weather cam is NOT the UFO light over the Dome.

Are we happy about this yet....because this carcass is starting to smell!

edit on 7-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

no i am not yet convinced :p
so how do you know that the lght on the weathercam is not over the dome?

Hoax again? Shocker.

reply to post by Kali74


haha not sure what that means ,obv the viewpoint is off but is it in line with the dome?

reply to post by RexTheNavigator


A lot of people aren't convinced...valid points on both sides have been raised. I think it was premature to label it as a hoax though.

reply to post by RexTheNavigator


Seems to be.

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.

The most conclusive evidence for me is that none of the guys filming it came forward. Concerning the technical evidence, it's pretty damning but then like you I don't know enough about it to make a proper judgement. For example I have no idea if for example some cameras could have added such mirror tiles without the intention of whoever filmed it. Could it be a way a cheap digital camera compensates for loss of data when a user quickly swerves? Unfortunately we don't know what camera was used to film it, what mode was being used and whatever else could have caused those strange effects. However, Occam's Razor, what is the most likely explanation given what we have I would say, it's a hoax.

Originally posted by soulfox
Has VID4 been debunked yet??

Yes, it has been debunked by multiple posters using scientific analysis. Being the most persuasive one of the 4, I finally believe myself that the case is closed.

The proof of it being a fake was based on the camera movement, the zooming and the double flash of the orb. I compared two before/during flash frames using pixel comparison myself, and noticed that absolutely no new elements (buildings, trees) in the picture are lit up by the flash, but only the brightness is increased in the center of the image, causing bright pixels (i.e. from lanterns) to become even brighter.

reply to post by Kali74


tbh I got tired of the audio & the shake debates, the cam made it interesting but got poo pooed or ignored, i just want to know what qualifies this as a hoax now..

Originally posted by RexTheNavigator

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by RexTheNavigator


so 7 miles south, crowne plaza in the left of the picture yes? and the dome which is only 1 and a half miles to the right is not in shot, how narrow is the camaras shooting angle??

Rex, not to put too finer a point on it, but as Deb said, I too think you are flogging a horse that is long dead!

The weather cam may or may not be in the right location to view the Dome, although what the weather cam manager said should indicate whether or not it does.

And even if it can see the Dome, the light that we have been talking about on the weather cam is NOT the UFO light over the Dome.

Are we happy about this yet....because this carcass is starting to smell!

edit on 7-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

I refer to my post earlier.

If you belive them quite a few saw the UFO light at 0:57.....but noone spotted it at 11:30, or 12, Or 1:30..etc.... weather cam light most likely appeared more times than the 5 stated, but the video being compressed into 1 minute makes it difficult to pick up on the video.
So lets say as a conservative estimate that the light actually appeared 8 times.....and stayed on for at least 1 minute each time.
It's pretty unlikely that the light would only be spotted on the one occassion by the Dome UFO spotters.

Sorry but I'm not flogging this horse any further....it deserves to rest in peace!

edit on 7-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)