UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

reply to post by Immortalgemini527


Ok, Im trying to find some freeware that will let me watch video 4 frame by frame. As for the light color, it's something I'm struggling with. The Dome of the Rock has a gold or bronze colored surface on the actual dome.

3.bp.blogspot.com...


As you said the light is white from the craft. When white light hits a gold or yellow surface it reflects a yellow or goldish colored light. Yes, most of the light we see on the dome is a over exposed highlight and out of the camera's dynamic range, but when the light on the dome dims out we should see a yellow/goldish color but we don't. Is this just my monitor?

We use gold reflectors all the time in cinematic lighting to help light darker skinned people, the gold colored light that comes off the reflector gives the subject a nice warm feel.
imgs.inkfrog.com...

Everyone seems to be chasing their tail. Now arguing about the integrity of each other, discounting each others work and calling all into question. Stand back from the work. Wider views are needed. Pull your eye away from the microscope and look at the crime scene for larger relationships and indications of things like motive, timing and even broader insights.

We will assume for the sake of argument one or two of the videos are fake. That's to be expected in an event of this significance. So, concentrate on the remaining. Otherwise your arguments turn in on themselves. What about the ones you cannot prove (in your subjective study) are faked?

Anyone lay out a time line yet? Is the first one hard to prove fake? If so, that adds a higher probability it is real and subsequent videos are slightly less probable as real. Just logical registers to consider.

Maybe two are real, which is why it is more critical for a backfire counter intelligence operation to defuse or modulate the viral growth. Two, offer corroboration, much harder to disprove.

Work on those now. Process of elimination. If you want to use science, do science.

If only one is real, well, isn't that enough? Why focus on the falsified?

Are we a collection of separate lynch mobs, or an investigative cooperative?

There are books on investigative methods for criminal investigation. For UFOs too. MUFON has a good one, but it costs even a field investigator to buy one. Not free, but worth it if you can pass the test to use it.

You can find small primers in places like this.Methodology in Ufology

Or buy the MUFON Field Investigators Manual from MUFON and read some books by good scientist investigators like Bruce Maccabee or, Here are some free authorized books from NICAP.

It will help you prove your point and keep your science good. Educate or Abdicate.

Ignore the fakes or you do the work for the people who faked by giving their bogus ill conceived work attention. Look for real evidence,better and more impeccable imagery and video.

Proving a fake is a downer, and boring. Focus on the possibly real evidence. That can be much more challenging.

ZG

hi guys

I am impressed at the response by the mods, and their input in more recent times (somewhere from roughly page 100 forward). If you continue to maintain this level of integrity then you will fill me with all the confidence i need that ATS will not be part of the problem, it will hold the status quo at worst, and might get lucky in moving forward on a number of issues covered on the site.

The next time the board meets I suggest you consider putting the following items above "the right for people to *free* speech"

* the protection of the integrity of "science"
* protecting the wellbeing of the public as a whole

I suggest rather than letting the two points above evolve through discussion, the mods should take proactive measures to ensure these points are obeyed. Because quite frankly, anyone can adhere to conditions for posting on ATS and at the same time creating significant adverse impacts on the public as a whole. These so called UFO videos dont do the public any favours, and to make matters worse, there is no instrument of accountability. Something as trivial as a fake ufo video provides the catalyst for people to do self harm. If you deny this, you are part of the problem. If the mods deny this, more people are going to end up getting shot.

I am going to leave the site for several weeks to allow the mods to think about the implications of the thread content here. If we ever end up in a situation where the information contained in an ATS thread results in widespread adverse impact on the public, I will be back. Next time I am going to knock your lights out.

This is one of the greatest videos of all time dealing with how the brain has been tricked by one mans story over 60 years ago,mr kenneth arnold,the first man to see a triangle space ship,but the goverment took his words as decribing the event,'like a saucer skipping'
every since that,every one has always looked for saucers,and if looking at multiple lights ,they will say,multiple saucers,a fleet.


The video im about to share with you is one of the top 3 on the list as something i dont like to bring up,because to me its a classic,a classic so well hidden,that not even the goverment knows its still in the main stream.
i did a topic a while back called
The Triangle of proof,the 3star / 3engine method of detecting them.,

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread615221/pglastpost

This is a guy that is still in the brain concept of flying saucers,what he doesnt notice,is that he captured,a triangle space ship.but because him and 98% of the world,he doesnt really understande what he is seeing, so he refers to them as saucers.

This guy is one of not many to actually catch a fleet of triangle space ships,these are the aliens that was over the dome that day,like i said,if ,3 ,6,9,12,15,18 are not in the primary 3 star equation of detecting them then any thing left over is the probe.
count the 3sss
3
3 is the key when you look at any video in the world ,on utube or any where else ,3 and only 3.

If you see anything after three,then add A probe to the mix.

like i tell every one that look at these videos, before looking at them,DONT LISTEN TO WHAT HE SAYS'
only think in threessssss/3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3

if it doesnt add up in the 3 6 9 etc etc etc
then add a probe

4 lights=1 triangle 1 probe
7 lights= 2 triangles 1 probe
3 lights=1 triangle
5 lights =1 triangle 2 probes

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
Everyone seems to be chasing their tail. Now arguing about the integrity of each other, discounting each others work and calling all into question. Stand back from the work. Wider views are needed. Pull your eye away from the microscope and look at the crime scene for larger relationships and indications of things like motive, timing and even broader insights.

We will assume for the sake of argument one or two of the videos are fake. That's to be expected in an event of this significance. So, concentrate on the remaining. Otherwise your arguments turn in on themselves. What about the ones you cannot prove (in your subjective study) are faked?

Each video (all four) has been proven to be fake.

If anyone fails to see this even with intense evidence shoved under their nose and in front of their eyes...I have to worry a bit for that someone's "logic-compass".

The proof is extremely evident and almost impossible to ignore...unless you "reaaaalllllly" try to remain oblivious to them.

MM

Ok guys. Again, every video has not been proven anything. At face value they are believable - well the original 2 in my opinion - so what we have is proof from amateur video analysis, which media took as fact, and I'm not sure if it's as easy to over-analyze a video as it is to make a UFO out of nothing.

REGARDLESS. I am currently investigating the videos myself, as everyone keeps telling me to do that, this will help me judge the amateur video analysis better. And then maybe I can come to that 100% conclusion with you guys. And report back, and help kill the argument a little harder.

I do want to emphasize though that concentrating on individual fake videos is futile...it does totally miss the whole boat and it really doesn't prove anything. You'd only want to focus your attention on the most believable videos - I do believe you guys have done that, but when people post random analysis on the still image or the actors - unless they're trying to learn more about the hoaxers' intentions/motives/etc...it doesn't make sense, I'm sorry, it doesn't.

And as a side note...I'm pretty sure anyone could create a fake version of a real video or UFO sighting. Isn't that what a hoax is in a way? So how does recreating the sighting prove anything? Sorry, seems like a waste of time...

And to elaborate...
For a hoax as elaborate as this...it warrants a thorough investigation that looks at everything, not just the videos. Why are you "skeptics" so interested in this thread if you're not also interested in discovering/revealing the hoaxers? More info helps everyone's case..."the more info, the merrier."

In the very, very, very early stages of this, these were the 2 best UFO sightings in recent history - possible proof of ET. Then the story changed to hoax and marketing stunt in the blink of an eye, and that message got perpetuated like crazy. As a published writer/journalism major myself, and someone who was following the story closely...it all was fishy to me. I follow all UFO stories and how they're covered. Sounds like media might have gotten it close to right for once. But that hoax message went off well before this board was sure it was all a hoax - 4 videos to sift through, amateur video analysis, I'm hoping it would take a few days to figure it out.

I'm not much for video analysis - gonna give it a try - so I was trying to contribute what I WAS good at...researching online, making connections (my job is 60% analytics), catching those revealing details...if it came off as paranoia, well that might have something to do with the oddball coincidences that have been going on...the sites going down (including this one...I still hold this was at the time of the best threads about the topic), the crazy UFO sightings happening right now, etc...it was all a big red flag. Promise I'm not deluded.

reply to post by hootlj

Plus, I thought you guys had high enough credentials and expert knowledge that we could rely on you?

And exactly how high would that have to be to measure up to your expectations and possible qualifications to ask such a question in the first place? And who exactly, is "we?"

If you don't, then your claims that this has been proven a hoax is just a lie. Since you're the ones doing all the proving.

So if your perception of the validity of the credentials of one of the many experts may not meet your quack expectations, it invalidates all other data? Do you make this stuff up as you go along?

You can personally believe its' a hoax based on your own analysis, but as far as some court of law goes, you've proved nothing.

Thank you for allowing me to think for myself. Others might try it. How about I base my conclusions on the overwhelming evidence that proves this is a hoax? And now you are a lawyer? May I so humbly enquire as to your credentials at this time? It seems that you have been cut quite a bit of slack here...no one even bit when you called those so-called geniuses A-holes...of course, everyone has been lulled into the cover up.

In Peace & Light
tfw

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


I have to be somewhere soon, but when I try to research motion tiling and mirrored edges...so I can understand this argument - which is the only argument worth talking about in my opinion - an dall that come sup his Hoaxkiller1's video analysis and people linking to his. And -- of course.

What resources are out there to understand this stuff?

Still, to the naked eye, original video looks totally real to me. And I'm not seeing how it's fake in the analysis. Researching more...resources would be helpful

reply to post by thorfourwinds


Unless you have overwhelming evidence that hte original video is fake, you don't have overwhelming evidence it's all a fake.

So far all I can see is motion tiling effect, which until I understand video analysis better, I'm still not getting my head around. And Hoaxkiller1 seems to be the one who got this idea going and it's all I can find on YouTube and what not, and then everybody keeps echoing him.

I care about my sources. I'm not going ot trust some anonymous amateur video analyzer. Just like you guys do'nt trust Michael Cohen.Come on.

I think it's really odd the hoax believers are so invested in this thread. I get why the rest of us - who don't get the video analysis yet (I emphasize YET) - are here...but I don' get the rest
.
There are plenty of incredible UFO sightings that have happened lately that you could go and try to debunk or prove...put your genius skills to good use!

Great idea !!

I'm going to continue trying to understand the video analysis stuff. But I'm also going to email a bunch of professionals in the area and ask them to take a look and tell me if a) there's enough info even in the video content to make it possible to accurately analyze, and b) if so, what their take is on it.

I'm going to do what the media didn't...actually ask the right people, instead of anonymous Internet posters.

Originally posted by Mr Mask

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
Everyone seems to be chasing their tail. Now arguing about the integrity of each other, discounting each others work and calling all into question. Stand back from the work. Wider views are needed. Pull your eye away from the microscope and look at the crime scene for larger relationships and indications of things like motive, timing and even broader insights.

We will assume for the sake of argument one or two of the videos are fake. That's to be expected in an event of this significance. So, concentrate on the remaining. Otherwise your arguments turn in on themselves. What about the ones you cannot prove (in your subjective study) are faked?

Each video (all four) has been proven to be fake.

If anyone fails to see this even with intense evidence shoved under their nose and in front of their eyes...I have to worry a bit for that someone's "logic-compass".

The proof is extremely evident and almost impossible to ignore...unless you "reaaaalllllly" try to remain oblivious to them.

MM

edit on 12-2-2011 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)

That is the basic analogy of it.

Now that the Hoaxters have been exposed as just that, they have now retorted to callimg me a "disinfo agent" imagine that

According to the head hoaxer in charge at ANW , my UFO sightings are hoaxes now simply because im calling this hoax what it is. Yet i have no footage or photos to present? It is this backwards thinking from the lunatic fringe that defeats itself. Oh he has a new account/accounts and is posting here can you tell?

Relentless Spammer M.C. this Hoax is dead, no $ for you you lose

TL;DR

I've been accused of being part of this hoax by at least one person on this board.

Goes both ways.

Originally posted by hootlj
I think it's really odd the hoax believers are so invested in this thread. I get why the rest of us - who don't get the video analysis yet (I emphasize YET) - are here...but I don' get the rest

I find it odd that several accounts were registered this week , same day actually and only post in this thread refuting the evidence? This never happens at ATS. Pretty obvious what is going on here.


Hi M.C. of ANW

There are plenty of incredible UFO sightings that have happened lately that you could go and try to debunk or prove...put your genius skills to good use!

Im sure you would love to see us leave this hoax alone, after all there are plenty of UFO videos out there lately that you can call "real" with no proof or analysis. Your tactics here are obsolete and immature. The hoax has been destroyed and debunked there is no changing that now. Lick your wounds and go find some more CGI to support.

Just because this is the first UFO case I thought was worth investigating in my year or so of watching UFO stuff, doesn't mean I'm here "randomly" and people should be suspicious of me. ATS came up in my research about the topic.

And come on, this is the thread that was deleted by THIS site with site owner participating in this thread. And I'm not supposed to be suspicious?

Originally posted by hootlj
Just because this is the first UFO case I thought was worth investigating in my year or so of watching UFO stuff, doesn't mean I'm here "randomly" and people should be suspicious of me. ATS came up in my research about the topic.

Sure you did, your agenda here is clear

And come on, this is the thread that was deleted by THIS site with site owner participating in this thread. And I'm not supposed to be suspicious?

You are just silly

If it was deleted then how are you posting here?

If you get a 404 that could mean the thread is under maintenance. If it was deleted then it would not exist.

This explains your lack of logic and understanding.

The site owner has every right to participate, had they endorsed the hoax you would be all for it. They have been at this stuff longer then your year or so of watching yt videos.

Didn't this thread used to have 're-opened' or something in its title to signify the matter was worthy of looking into in
more depth? Presumably many of the flags given to this thread were from people who agreed that the subject was certainly worthy of serious interest and investigation. Now the title has changed again to just say 'UFO over Jerusalem: HOAX' . By changing the title, the previously accumulated flags now give the impression of supporting this statement. This seems to be at best misleading and at worst a deceptive maneuver.

And although flags no longer show on the actual thread, they can still be seen next to the thread title when looking under here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

um this thread WAS deleted. for several hours a few nights ago, a new thread opened up asking about where it went...no one replied

It reappeared next day with no explanation. i asked what happened.

A mod said someone accidentally deleted it.