UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527

As you know the city is COVERED with big guns and millatary,all over ,and how can you hear a sound from that distance?

Your big gun theory makes little to no sense!

Firstly If this really was an "alien" probe then those visiting inter Stella aliens would be thousands of years more advanced than we humans are.
Do you really think that our primitive weapons would scare off an "alien" probe?

That's like saying an F16 fighter jet would be scared off by a man shooting a bow and arrow at it!

As for the sounds, well, if it's a "Big gun" then it would be fairly loud, and certainly loud enough for people in the vicinity to hear, but no eye witnessesis reporting any loud "big gun" shots.....but then again there don't seem to be any eyewitnesses to the event in any case!

edit on 12-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

lol,so you woudnt run or leave if someone was shotting at you...are you serious?

reply to post by Pinke


Look, here is my position on the subject.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THE VIDEOS ARE 100% HOAX!

So please dont attack me with insults and ignorance because I do not agree with you.

Once there is evidence to suggest the videos are 100% hoax, then I will say it is a hoax.

Until then, be nice to everyone and goodbye.

Originally posted by Pinke
reply to post by planetzog

 

Edit: I probably won't be replying from here on. I suspect your issue is simply you don't want to trust any of the members on this board. Really you should refute their evidence with your own research, otherwise you're just wasting time. Good luck with your studying of the UFO.

edit on 12-2-2011 by Pinke because: Edit statement.

Please be sensible here. Do you trust everyone you meet on an internet forum? C'mon.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Look, here is my position on the subject.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THE VIDEOS ARE 100% HOAX!

So please dont attack me with insults and ignorance because I do not agree with you.

Once there is evidence to suggest the videos are 100% hoax, then I will say it is a hoax.

Until then, be nice to everyone and goodbye.

reply to post by planetzog


I don't have an issue with your belief.

I have an issue with you dismissing the efforts of persons who have been trying patiently to explain things to you.

Your entire evidence that gift, mask et al are not who they say they are is entirely based on you saying they can't jump through a hoop for you. If you won't verify/refute their information then you have no right to attack people's 'credentials'. (Nor do you have any right to request persons to jump in hoops for you)

That is all.

Originally posted by Pinke
reply to post by planetzog

 

I don't have an issue with your belief.

I have an issue with you dismissing the efforts of persons who have been trying patiently to explain things to you.

Your entire evidence that gift, mask et al are not who they say they are is entirely based on you saying they can't jump through a hoop for you. If you won't verify/refute their information then you have no right to attack people's 'credentials'. (Nor do you have any right to request persons to jump in hoops for you)

That is all.

I've read this thread and I've seen what gift and mask and the other 'experts' have said. What bothers me is when anyone disagrees with them or questions their evidence (read their posts to see what I mean) they ridicule them and call them names. Is this what experts do??? Of course not. An expert would try to explain things better and appreciate not everyone will agree with them. But here, if you disagree with them, our 'experts' call you ignorant, liars and anything else to turn their followers against you.

And their 'evidence' does NOT prove the videos are 100% hoax as claimed by them.

Experts lead by example.

reply to post by thorfourwinds

Im not go argue with you over something that i know 100%,i realy hate believing in a lie,i really do,so just please debunk the triangle,so i can get on to more important stuff.


Lets start at 26 seconds,you will clearly see beyond the shadow of a doubt,3 red lights that are forming the triangle alien space ship and in the middle of the triangle,you will see,the probe flying to dock inside.4 lights in all.
Oh hell no ! 'i sound so old and out of date' ,So...50ish,lets start over in a real manner .'lights' for the love of Mercury !

OK,Lets start at 26 seconds, after the probe flew away from danger after being shot at twice, FROM '6:38 /SW' FROM THE STREETS, FROM A VERY BIG GUN.
At the 26 second mark, the cloaked triangle turned its 3 ENGINES on to get the hell up out of there ,at this point the single engine probe, that displayed the 4th red light, is clearly scared, and so is the triangle which you can clearly see the 4 engines that are displayed in the video,as red.


>>>>As the clouds are passing ' as the mist, air pollution,the video camera, and height, let alone speed

This topic has brought the worst out of a lot of people and shown me clearly who others actually are.
Funny how people can't seem to agree to disagree, isn't it.
Why not? You'd think people would die, if anyone dared follow a red herring or not!
Damned be the individual that makes their own mind up, regardless!!

Sheesh, so we make a point - do we have to labour on it?
Debating, abusing...seems the same in here.

Maybe it's just me, but having followed this thread, the majority of the hostility (again - why?) has come from those trying to prove to others that it's all a hoax.
So what.
Why's it so important you make others aware of what is ultimately, something that can never be difinitively proven here?

I'm almost inclined to believe it's real based purely on the incessant demands of it being a hoax, for goodness' sake!

In fact, it is real. Very, very real. But you already know that.
There you go.

Originally posted by planetzog
Then we had the mirror tile effect theory which was explained when the building actually is like that!

No wonder you are so stuck on believing these are real... you are uninformed...

The building is NOT "actually like that". It was already proven it is not a building...

www.youtube.com...

...you also totally ignored the mirroring on the bottom which has no other explanation other than digital manipulation.

Why are you ignoring the arguments and data?

Some very funny people posted this video as a video response to me:

reply to post by Paradigm2012


Greetings:

Hey there Paradigm2012. Haven't heard back from you. In fact, you have not returned since I posted this to you. Hootlj would love to hear from you...me too.

Paradigm2012, you seem a bit churlish in your posts. Indulge me for a moment, if you please.

reply posted on 5-2-2011 @ 03:32 AM by Paradigm2012
“It still appears that video 1, video 2, and video 4 are real. Video 3 was a hoax and I heard that the person who hoaxed it was an ATS member.”

That is the difference between fact and fiction. Where did you hear this?

reply posted on 5-2-2011 @ 05:23 AM by Paradigm2012
“This proves nothing at all. This is not strong evidence of a hoax at all. You pretty much seem desperate to find something which is why you have not been able to back up your claims with evidence.”

reply posted on 7-2-2011 @ 03:07 AM by Paradigm2012
“You must actually think that because you can Google that image then put in on ATS and say "OH they must have stolen this image" that you have done something.

All you proved is that you can GOOGLE an image.

it says nothing about this case.”

reply posted on 7-2-2011 @ 03:11 AM by Paradigm2012
“Nice little illustration there Mr. Mask, but any city or video can be googled and an image will be found. L.A., Chicago, New York etc.

Sorry to oinform you but that googled image you posted proves nothing other than you have a large imagination and you can google an image.

Your not as smart as you pretend to be.”

And you are? How about your qualifications to make any of the above statements?

reply posted on 7-2-2011 @ 12:58 PM by Paradigm2012
“So your admitting that the hotel is there and is located exactly were you are using that pixelated cellphone video to prove it. Look at how the lights angle up perfectly with the hotel."

He's not admitting anything. The hotel is not in the picture. How did you miss that?

"And your GIF clip is too short and could be pixelated compression artifact”

Could you please supply an example of this "pixelated compression artifact?

reply posted on 7-2-2011 @ 01:00 PM by Paradigm2012
“Your micro second GIF clip SHOWS NOTHING other than pixelated youtube video.”

reply posted on 7-2-2011 @ 01:14 PM by Paradigm2012
“Please provide evidence of a hoax, you have yet to answer my question. Every thing you talk about as evidence for a hoax has been proven incorrect.”

I guess I missed that. Exactly where is “everything”? Where is any evidence for a hoax been proven incorrect?

reply posted on 8-2-2011 @ 02:22 AM by Paradigm2012
Originally posted by Mr Mask
“I just showed you all the background images are stolen offline and very popular searchable images.
Anyone arguing with the technical side of things can understand easily "stolen background images".
I even made a movie with a vocal explanation. Don't be shy...watch it. Its above.”
MM

reply posted on 8-2-2011 @ 02:22 AM by Paradigm2012
“Why can't you prove that background images were stolen offline. You should prove it."

Are you really that thick or just being redundant?

"Your speculation is not evidence.”

reply posted on 9-2-2011 @ 02:26 PM by Paradigm2012
“Your going to be proven wrong on this case that its not a hoax very soon. I am working on a few details that could break this case open again. this case is not dead."

I cannot wait.

"Just like the Turkey UFO footage you will be proven WRONG in the end!”

reply posted on 9-2-2011 @ 02:28 PM by Paradigm2012
“Everyone was sure the Turkey UFO footage was a hoax just like they do with this."

And who is “everyone.”

"Now we know the Turkey UFO footage was not a hoax."

And who is “we?”

"Do you guys see how your quick judgement comes back to bite ya.”

Mark those words Paradigm...you could be a little more careful here. I agree with zorgon: “You said that before... that you have it all worked out... yet you never produced anything to show us the proof you claim to have.”

reply posted on 9-2-2011 @ 02:31 PM by Paradigm2012
reply to post by zorgon

“Because we proved it and just about everyone knows now that it was not a hoax."

And who is “we? And who is “everyone?”

"I assume you have not spent time on it."

OOPS! You assume...(Too easy...)

"I have.”

reply posted on 9-2-2011 @ 05:04 PM by Paradigm2012
reply to post by Immortalgemini527

“Ok I have finished my investigation and I now agree that the first video has "motion tiled edges". There is no way possible that this could be the inbal hotel."

That is not what you said on Page 123, and subsequent pages.

"I don't like to rush to judgement and slap things together like some of you frantic debunkers."

Frantic? Do you read your own posts?

“Just because the first video has mirrored edges does not mean the entire case is a hoax.
He could have put it into some kind of software after he was done to stablize the video"

Like AfterEffects?

"or
It might have been unintentional!"

And how does the mirrored edges effect "unintentionally" find its way onto the video?

"I now think that video #1 has mirrored edges, for a brief very brief amount of time.”

What does “a brief very brief amount of time” have to with it? The video was clearly tampered with, therefore invalidating it.

“I have seen zero evidence of tampering with video #2
and I have seen zero evidence of tampering with video #4”

That’s because either you have not read all the pages or do not have the intestinal fortitude to attack others with “proof” the way you attempt to attack MrMask.

Put up or shut up. Go to Pages 59, 64, 81, 102, read and learn and see if you can refute pezza, then come back here with something other than inane gobbledegook.

“Its amazing that some of you rush to judgement before you do any investigation.”

See your quotes above...I agree with m0riarty: “All that those who are claiming this is not a hoax have to do is try to substantiate that claim with evidence. It would seem they think nothing of asking 'sceptics' or 'debunkers' to supply proof - why are they exempt?”

Paradigm2012, I am not intentionally mocking you, but you have left the door wide open for comment. I sincerely hope you find it helpful. I can understand your consternation with the vicissitudes of this thread, but that is life. I thought that being here on ATS makes us all in the same boat, so to speak - DENY IGNORANCE.

It is time to fish or cut bait.

Are you a fisherperson or the Master Baiter?

In Peace & Light
tfw

when i see one bigmouth expert CGI master recreate this event satisfactorily, then I'll put the entire thing to rest and apologize for calling you a bigmouth, but until this occurs you're all bigmouths. i mean come on, what is it gonna take to just simply recreate this simple hoax you all claim it to be? Seriously

no more excuses, put up or walk away

almost 200 pages of all talk with no show

reply to post by anumohi


Listen,

I could recreate this stupid hoax in my sleep, and even do a better job.

The problem is the human mind. When you KNOW the video is fake, it doesn't look real. It only looks real when you don't know it is fake. So no matter how good of a CGI recreation someone makes, you will always know it is fake and it won't look real simply because you know.

Second... I would recreate it if I had source video of the temple. I don't... If you can provide source videos of the temple that are similar to this UFO sighting, and taken from a tripod like I believe the originals to be, then I will remake it for you just to silence you.

Third... a few people recreated portions of the main videos already.

I for one recreated the flashes of light in video 4 which SHOULD HAVE BEEN the hardest part to recreate if it was real, but since it was FAKE it was really easy.





Then, on this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I recreate the reflection on the dome, and even show why the reflection on the dome is flawed.

Then, someone made this:



Just use your imagination and you will see how easy it is for someone to re-make this CRAP HOAX.

Of course, if I did fully recreate the hoax, I am sure I will get my fair share of people claiming I made the originals. That already happened when I recreated the flashes on video 4....

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


quit bragging blabbing incessantly and put up. its that simple.

many have said this already and yet its still all lip service

recreate video #4 then we'll believe u

reply to post by anumohi


You have issues man...

I recreate the main parts of video 4, and that is all you have to say?

YOU FAILED.

Just admit it already... some school kids with special effects knowledge fooled your senses...

reply to post by anumohi


If you want me to waste my time and recreate the entire video 4, then how about YOU waste your time and provide me with stock video of the temple so that I can insert a UFO into it.

The video has to be taken from a tripod, with a similar angle, similar lighting, etc. Once you provide that to me, I will recreate the UFO for you. Until then... shut up!

Don't you see how stupid your request is? EVERYTHING can be recreated with CGI, it's only a matter of wanting to do it.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


I don't want to hear it, you cant do it.

reply to post by anumohi


[INSULT REMOVED]

I already recreated the flashes:



Care to comment on that? Or are you going to be ignorant and ignore it?

I already recreated the reflection on the dome:

Care to comment on that? Or are you going to be ignorant and ignore it too?

All that is left is to add a stupid fake UFO, I can do that in my sleep...