UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

reply to post by Mr Mask


Mr Mask, you have the makes of issue 3 in this thread...

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
You even quoted the "internet buffoons" comment

I recall it now (lots goes on both on and off ATS for me). Since it wasn't specifically directed at an ATS member, it barely survived removal.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

It can be an end-all summary post within this thread, that is lined-to directly. I don't think we need another thread.

Even better!

I agree, an end all post to top this sucker off and put her to bed.

Cus really, its a vacuum sucking the life from all things logical and reasonable. Someone makes a post explaining something, an hour later its buried. I'm sure you know.

And this could go on forever... especially with hoaxers coming in here and fueling the debate.

Just need someone to make the post.

MM

So, the debunkers and skeptics think they're being foiled by the hoaxers. And the believers think they're being foiled by the debunkers. ha

Originally posted by -Sho-
From what I heard it seemed that the original video was indeed genuine and the follow-ups were intentionally created to discredit the original.

You heard wrong.

The first clip shows mirrored tiling added by a effects program commonly used to fill gaps produced when you artifically add shake to footage.

Fake shake results in absence of image where the edges leave the sides of the frame. Mirrored tiles are then used to fill those gaps.

It is impossible for this to happen by itself without tampering. since the screen's image can never leave the frame.

Nor can the phone magically see that the image "magically" left the frame and then intelligently recreate background to fill the gaps where the image left the frame.

Hope that helps...its pretty much all you need to know to prove the first clip is a hoax.

There is plenty more...but that is enough.

MM

Originally posted by Mr Mask

Originally posted by Kali74
Go for it, when it comes about that mirrored tiling was nothing more than a result of sh!tty quality video phones (the reason? it only happened with rapid motion, have none of you seen similar examples of video from cell phones? LOL) and that there is indeed a pyramid like building in the very spot that one of these glitches happens and that some cameras pick up more light sources than others, this site will look foolish. Witnesses will and are starting to come forward and the uploaders themselves will be interviewed.

1) A camera phone doesn't add tiling to the sides of pics.

2) A camera phone (or any camera) has no need to add tiles to a pic, because tiles are added only after a picture is altered and moved around a screen using digital effects. If the image is not altered digitally then all the sides are full with the original picture- and have no reason to add tiling.

3) It is impossible for a camera phone to add mirrored tiles to a screen image that is impossibly moving "off its own screen".

4) Your post is filled with lies and they are so obvious in their attempts.

MM

I didn't say it was tiling, I'm saying it is some kind of distortion with the pixels in conjuction with rapid movement...in the original 2:12 minute version of this video the camera pans well past that building (you cannot make a building not be there by stomping your feet and having a hissy fit) as well as below the light along the bottom that suffers the same glitch...why would there be any mirroring when there doesn't need to be any? An easter egg to debunkers? I don't think so.

And seriously your condescending attitude toward new-comers is getting beyond ridiculous, and your insults (calling me a liar) intolerable. Don't take it out on me that your debunk didn't pass the muster that the others did.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord



SO, I am the user "HOAXKiller1"... He is linking to articles that quote my "debunking" and then saying the debunker(s) are internet buffoons, and clowns... He is indirectly insulting me, an ATS member.

If his posts are not removed, I am going to be very upset and regret directing 100,000+ people to ATS by placing links here on my YouTube videos which are being cited by main stream sources such as Space.com, Discovery.com, JPost, AOLNews, HowStuffWorks, etc...

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord.The more intriguing point of this possibility with video-1 relates the possibility of image compositing of the foreground wall & person over an apparent still image of Jerusalem... there's no green-screen ghosting, which would be apparent in such a low-lit composite

It's actually quite easy to get rid of ghosting in low light conditions. You just need a large separation between the chromascreen and your subject. But it does however make the size of the screen you need to put up larger. Which in turn means more lights needed to get even exposure on the screen. This would be quite pricey.

Yeah, I mean so far I've seen great evidence that the one static image video is a hoax. But of course this static image video is so not like the others, that I feel it's almost a separate issue entirely.

I have not seen clear, consistent evidence that every other video is a hoax, I see some video experts speculating...and also disagreeing...this by no means tells me the case is over. There's only clear 100% debunkery on the static image, and again even the believer in this stuff - Michael Cohen - has said at least one or two of the videos was the original video re-edited to seem like a hoax. So, take that for what you will, haha.

And yet no one seems to care about any new evidence/info, or is curious about reading what the locals are saying in their Hebrew language - which really is the best source of info we have right now. And yet, someone HAS done that and found some testimonies saying they saw the UFO. Could all be fake testimonies. But why is this not even being talked about?

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by m0r1arty

 

I assure you that you did not film such a thing, and if you showed me the video, I would show you the parallax.

As m0r mentioned, we discussed this for about 6 hours over Skype...well we also discussed other things...like long beach walks and how we like to wear our hair...but whatever.

Anyways- I agree that m0r is confusing common low-light image lag with what is actually being seen in this video. I know what image lag can do, especially in really old digital cams with very low grade CCD.

But such a concept is easily confused by laymen such as me and m0r and hard to explain in detail without sounding "unprofessional".

But yes, I agree, what m0r thinks he has recreated in his home movies is not what we see here. What we see here are actual elements breaking from true perspective...heck...not even breaking from...never attaching to.

The clip's foreground never aligns ever with the clip's background...once pointed out- the artist in my knew instantly they used a still pic or the background was filmed on a tri-pod separate from the foreground.

Yes things can lag on a screen...but nothing can have two entirely different perspectives against perspective law without tampering.

I had a professional artist guy over here yesterday who looked at all clips. Here are things he concluded from watching the clips-

1) Parallax is off on clip one and is a still picture.

2) He agrees that clip 4 was created with the still picture I showed and said its easy to see where the warping was added and what corners they pulled to do it.

3) All three clips were created by the same technique.

I tend to agree.

MM

Originally posted by hootlj
And yet no one seems to care about any new evidence/info, or is curious about reading what the locals are saying in their Hebrew language - which really is the best source of info we have right now.

PRESENT IT!

And not from a hoax site I might add.

-m0r

Originally posted by old_god
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

Mr Mask, you have the makes of issue 3 in this thread...

1) LOVE your avatar and have loved it since I first saw you using it.

2) You make me laugh and that is always a great quality I enjoy in people here.

3) Issue three is actually about UFOs...sigh, this hoax dosn't really help my case for trying to prove UFOs are real in issue three.

4) Did I mention how I feel about your awesome avatar?

MM

Originally posted by hootlj
So, the debunkers and skeptics think they're being foiled by the hoaxers. And the believers think they're being foiled by the debunkers. ha

And the new members keep saying this is real.

Weird world.

Thanks for joining.

MM

Well, for one, I specifically asked what we think of that ATS member who did the digging for those forum posts. There's too much to translate on the Hebrew sites, so I have trouble finding the witness accounts myself. But no one's commented on this or anything.

reply to post by m0r1arty


I posted a link to a video that I think shows what I'm talking about like you requested.

I think it's just really arrogant of you guys to say that because you've for sure proved hoax elements in at least 2 videos, it's all a complete hoax and to think anything more of it is stupid.

Okay, let's make this simpler for you:
What is the most authentic video of the batch? Never mind when it was posted or anything like that. Which one is it?

If you had no other videos to compare it to, and you could only judge THAT video...would you be 100% sure it was a hoax?

That is all us "open minded" folks want to hear from you, and yet no one has supplied this very simple bit of info.

* And I am HONESTLY asking this question!!!! haha. I just haven't seen the answer so far.

reply to post by Mr Mask


Dear Mister Mac,

Did I meantun how like Strongbad you are?

And they've got to get like thems WYSIWYG formatters for germolal postors too!

Your Cincinnati

JC, Jerusalem.

Originally posted by hootlj

If you had no other videos to compare it to, and you could only judge THAT video...would you be 100% sure it was a hoax?

That is all us "open minded" folks want to hear from you, and yet no one has supplied this very simple bit of info.

That seems more like what one of the hoaxers would want to know.

What "fake" was "faked the best".

Please, if you want to go an hear applauds for some criminal scum bag's work, then go back and read all the posts that believed this before it was debunked.

Frankly, your history here thus far is very telling.

MM

pa

Originally posted by hootlj
By the way hillynilly...

Just believing what the majority believes is the opposite of questioning everything before you believe in it...

You have to make your mind up at some point. I have read through 50+ pages of this thread.

I have watched the video 20-25 times.

All the answers you could want are compiled here.

If you can trust anybody about UFO's it is these *freaks* on ATS.

I don't always agree with the majority, If I did, I sure as hell wouldn't be on this forum...

Originally posted by m0r1arty
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

Dear Mister Mac,

Did I meantun how like Strongbad you are?

And they've got to get like thems WYSIWYG formatters for germolal postors too!

Your Cincinnati

JC, Jerusalem.

WOW.

I thank you for introducing this "Strongbad" to me.

Living under a rock has its downsides.

Watching them all now.

MM