UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

Originally posted by anumohi
it would be interesting to see if overlord had analyzed this part of the video...

All I did was show how #4 was a well-conceived fake, and took into account much of the critique of previous videos that were posted on ATS.

Adding orange dots is even easier than adding a glow via video editing suites.

Additionally, I showed how the in-car footage and temple mount footage were not created by the same video camera -- confirming the probability that the "UFO" footage was fabricated and added in post-production.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord



lol ur funny

you know exactly what i meant. maybe you're the one who created that one? we were wondering where you disappeared during those days before and after that video showed up

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I was just wondering if the sky behind the dots could be lighted up enough to see if there was actually a ship silhouette? that might be an interesting concept

Originally posted by anumohi
I was just wondering if the sky behind the dots could be lighted up enough to see if there was actually a ship silhouette? that might be an interesting concept

There's no point as the video is a clear fabrication, and has been proven to be so via several different methods.

Um, proving beyond a doubt any ONE video is a fake is still not answering the question. We all agree the static image is fake, I can see that with my own eyes. It's totally unlike the other videos, though.

I've yet to see full, 100% convincing analysis of each of the other videos that proves that EACH of the other videos is a for sure hoax. As long as at least one of the videos could be real, you can not throw out the whole case. It would be stupid to - especially if there is the chance of cover up.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


ok i'll take ur word for it:/

On a side note, can anyone find the oriignal tweet retweeted here:
search.twitter.com...

?

Originally posted by hootlj
I've yet to see full, 100% convincing analysis...

Can you explain why this evidence of post-production, and that the "flash" illuminates no new ground features in the fourth video, are not convincing to you?

BTW someone on this thread said they had the web cam work - please provide screenshot. I'm suspicious of you since it won't work for anyone else. It did used to work for me. Site not computer issue.

Really?
You need a "professionally accredited" lab to tell you this video:


Was fabricated using this image found via an image-search on Google?
Full-size
Source Image
Smaller

Notice the shape, color, and directionality of the "light flares" are identical... among many other things.



That was the really obvious fake. I posted that picture last night too, I didn't realise it had already been posted. Funny thing, that really fake video carries a 28th February date. Never mind, I see the youtube post was on the 30th. I note also the original video was actually taken on 29th, according to the youtube text.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by anumohi
Additionally, I showed how the in-car footage and temple mount footage were not created by the same video camera -- confirming the probability that the "UFO" footage was fabricated and added in post-production.

edit on 11-2-2011 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)

Your reasoning for the use of two different cameras due to a cloudy city glow when looking through the rear window of the car seems weak. Dust, moisture, and lack of a pola filter would easily explain this.

Wow ATS closes the original ufo over Jerusalem thread then allows another thread to take over for it because it has the word hoax in it?

Where is the proof?A mod said something about the video being linked to a known hoaxer...I would like to see the proof of that.Because he also said that they were discussing it.What's to discuss if it was linked to a known hoaxer?

Sorry but just because someone says it was a hoax because of the way the object took off doesn't make it so.Who's to say what type of technology the craft or object had?You can't assume to know what how a ufo would alter the video...that's absurd!

Ats better label ALL ufo videos hoaxes since there is no real way to prove most of them.

ALL supernatural videos should also be in the hoax category seeing there is no real way to prove any of them either.

reply to post by GodIsPissed


Go back and start reading. You will see why these are in the Hoax bin.

Now I traced the first five blinks of the dots in 3D to get a 3D shape out of it.
I could do that because there are two different video angles.

Just adding orange or red dots in the video would lead to a chaos and the blinking dots position would not render a consistent fourth dot in one single 2D plane.
Then the fifth dot proofs that the UFO traced a 3D shape.
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by anumohi
i see nothing that represents a proven hoax

..and who are you? Are you a part of a professionally accredited laboratory and have the credentials and experience to determine what represents a proven hoax?

There have been quite a few professionals that analyzed the videos and found evidence of a hoax...

People need to stop posting individual analysis of invidious videos. It adds nothing to table, especially the obvious static image. If you can provide thorough video analysis that absolutely proves, not just suggests or implies, each and every single video we've seen so far is hoax...and without having to use context of other videos...and in layman's terms...you're not contributing anything at this point. If there is a genuine video in this mix, we know there have been hoax videos released to cloud our judgment. That's why until you 100% disprove every single video to be a fake (beyond reasonable doubt, not just your educated guess), you have not disproved much. And I'm sorry, but analyzing a YouTube upload has its limitations.

Innocent until proven guilty. So, until each video is proven guilty by labs/professionals or a more comprehensive unified effort here to get on the same page about all the analysis (and , this is not yet a proven hoax.

"Analytics will detect 'suspicious movement' from people walking along a street. Analytics will detect terrorists walking round a hillside a mile away. Analytics will pick an offender out from a sea of faces. These are just some of the misconceptions about analytics today. Was there ever a technology that was so “over-promised and under-delivered”?

No, the reality is that analytics are still very much in their infancy. Expectation management is at the heart of the issue – being realistic with end users about what can be achieved. The fundamental problem is that as humans we do these tasks without even thinking about it. We read license plates and recognize faces totally subconsciously. It may have taken us years of learning during childhood to acquire these skills, but the fact is that we take them for granted.

Computers, on the other hand, lack even the basics of visual intelligence. They can perform some video analytic functions reliably, but often only by severely constraining the application. Qualification is everything, and setting the end user's expectations is absolutely vital. "
www.indigovision.com...

Originally posted by QuantumDisciple
Your reasoning for the use of two different cameras due to a cloudy city glow when looking through the rear window of the car seems weak.

Why?

The same camera (if the same camera were used) would show the same (if not more) light pollution in the night sky when standing outside pointing toward the same horizon. Instead, the sky is the same relative level of black as seen in the still image proposed as the source backdrop for the post-production of the "UFO" and flashes.

Additionally, the lack of the same level/type of interlaced video artifacts seen in the in-car footage as compared to the "UFO" footage is additional -- very good -- evidence that the "UFO" scene is the result of post production using a method that does not include the video camera used for the in-car footage.

Again, if they had only released that original video, or even just the first two, and nothing else...we'd all be believing this story more, no? Even if some of you did some analysis that suggested fakery. So, tell me why this hoax got so out of control and so elaborate? If they are sloppy or stupid, why do such great CGI and production? Why show your faces after the fact, after everyone's calling it a hoax??

I see it being one hoaxer who was mad that another hoaxer copycatted him with the still image, and so maybe released more - but this time better CGI I guess? - to give more attention to it. And then released another longer version? I'm sorry this just doesn't add up guys. Very possibly a weird marketing stunt, who knows...maybe planned out not thinking we'd figure out it was a hoax ?? The still image was just a copycat?

This is what I keep getting hung up on. One clear hoax video is a clear hoax video. Multitple different videos with different issues with some videos way more obviously fake than others....smells funky.

This could all end tonight!
Can anyone tell me or give me a link to the Full Video, the one that shows the scene in the car?
I have the one from Nuro71777 posted 3rd Feb. tks!

Originally posted by hootlj
Again, if they had only released that original video, or even just the first two, and nothing else...we'd all be believing this story more, no?

No.

If the event portrayed in the fake videos actually happened, there would be a massive public response the likes of which we cannot fathom due to the area being holy to three major religions.

So, tell me why this hoax got so out of control and so elaborate?

It's "out of control" because there are both "true believers" who refuse to accept the clear evidence of a hoax, and people with "skin in the game" who continue to promote the event as real.