UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

reply to post by laymanskeptic


I disagree with the claim that you see interlacing artifacts where you say you do. That strikes me as simple motion blur as the camera is moved to follow the object?

Plus, the speed at which the object is moving relative to the environment, and the potential that raises for variables in the construction of the craft (ie - exotic materials affecting the way light moves on and around it etc) suggests to me that we are seeing an apparent difference in the technicalities only because of the uniqueness of the subject.

I certainly don't consider this 'case closed' as one would be skeptic would have us believe, a few posts up from here.

I applaud your technical observations and obvious application of specialist knowledge, but I just don't see enough evidence (from what you've written and presented in its own right) to completely and resoundingly debunk the footage.

I suspect you'll have an easier time with vid 2 due to the poor standard of the footage in comparison to vid 4.

Not debunked - too many unknown / unknowable variables. How many of us have filmed a UFO (or anything) at such speeds, and can say therefore conclusively what impressions would result on the medium of image capture..??? If this is an 'exotic materials - new physics' craft, then the simple fact is that we may not be able to get a definitive answer one way or the other. Sometimes, things can be left on the fence for good reasons, and I think we have such here.

No video footage will everconclusively show a captured set of images that PROVE a UFO in action. That's my honest opinion.

Well, it had a blurb on MSNBC

remove the original thread from the hoax bin, ktksbie

Originally posted by esteay812
Can someone please post a link to the UTAH UFO sighting that has been referred to in this thread a few times. I know the link is in the thread somewhere, but am leaving to work and really wanted to show a worker the UTAH video

Here ya go:

Originally posted by Quartza
reply to post by AllIsOne

 

please correct me if I wrong, the smoking gun was that the motion blur did not have any pronounced interlace artifacts?

It does not have them due what I stated before

edit on 3-2-2011 by Quartza because: (no reason given)

Interlaced video is designed to be captured, transmitted or stored, and displayed in the same interlaced format. Because each frame of interlaced video is composed of two fields that are captured at different moments in time, interlaced video frames will exhibit motion artifacts known as "interlacing effects", or "combing", if the recorded objects are moving fast enough to be in different positions when each individual field is captured. These artifacts may be more visible when interlaced video is displayed at a slower speed than it was captured or when still frames are presented.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Not sure what you meant by your original post? Can you show an interlaced video with fast vertical movement and no blur?

Originally posted by liveandletlive

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
Not sure if anyone's mentioned this but I thought I'd throw it out there.

Time will tell, but I'm relatively convinced that this was a genuine occurrence. I look forward to seeing any CCTV footage that may come to light. As others have said, the Old City is likely to have at least as many cameras as the Pentagon, so surely we'll see some footage at some point, right?

There is footage but no one wants to talk about it.

What do you mean no one wants to talk about it liveandletlive?

Well everyone seems to be ignoring my question. They just keep insulting each other.

Oh, well maybe they dont want to talk about it because they cant explain it.

Deny Ignorance my *ss!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by discl0sur3
reply to post by Spirit Warrior 11:11

 

FOX NEWS - Another set of observers also uploaded their mobile phone footage to YouTube on Saturday. They wrote: "Have fun debunking this one."

This is a PERFECT example of how the MSM contorts and distorts the facts in an attempt to cast doubt in the minds of the viewers. The above quote that they state in their article was posted by the witnesses was actually posted by ME!! When I downloaded the original video from eligael, the description was weak so I entered my own, including the statement "Have fun debunking this one". Feel free to confirm this for yourself... www.youtube.com...

edit on 3-2-2011 by discl0sur3 because: (no reason given)

Haha...This was my point in the post just below. It's fun leaving the thread open even if they say hoax just to watch the media struggle with the official stories etc... Another poster above said they quoted his skeptic argument as well so that makes 2 ATS posters being mentioned. I find this hilarious!

The media has no original though processes. They are even just copying our sources and posts/videos.
Yeah, the ATS members are working 10x harder to prove/disprove and tell the actual story.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment

Not debunked - too many unknown / unknowable variables. How many of us have filmed a UFO (or anything) at such speeds, and can say therefore conclusively what impressions would result on the medium of image capture..??? If this is an 'exotic materials - new physics' craft, then the simple fact is that we may not be able to get a definitive answer one way or the other. Sometimes, things can be left on the fence for good reasons, and I think we have such here.

No video footage will everconclusively show a captured set of images that PROVE a UFO in action. That's my honest opinion.

A camera lens captures photons. How or by what they were emitted doesn't matter. Once they enter the optical chip in the cam regular physics apply. UFOs can be made out of cheese or unoptainium, it don't matter ...

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment


or they could just pay him cold hard cash for his efforts!!

Really though, it might seem petty to some, having an incentive to write new threads and post within existing threads does put a bit more drive into many members. Giving the member a way to validate their efforts and mesh with other members is a great way to promote ATS activity. Hopefully the original news breaker of this event will get what he deserves for bringing this topic in.

I know this has been one of the better threads I have seen in a while, for debate, regardless of the authenticity or the lack there of.

Originally posted by jennybee35
I think it's because they are having a good laugh about the obvious hoax apparent in the audio portion of this one. It's a crying shame that the MSM needs to delve into something like this and use the opportunity to further the cause of charlatans and dis-info agents. They deliberately choose the video that has been tagged a hoax, so that truly curious people will google it and find that it's a subject of ridicule. Done! Most people will look no further.

Typical isn't it? They're either doing it deliberately or they're all crap at researching. Bunch of clowns. Most of them seem to be using the same video. Searched for a bit and found fox, itn, the telegraph, cnn and others all using the same one.

It's good really, because so many people use the internet now that if they look further into this they'll see that they used the worst clip, which just wakes more people up to the fact that if you want to find out more about something, the MSN isn't really going to help. They're just making more people research and not be content with the crap they deliver and pass off as news.

reply to post by AllIsOne


Cant find a photo at the moment.

The comb effect is created when a object has changed horizontal position between the time field A and field B are captured. When a object is moving vertical, there is no horizontal difference between the two fields.


The blur is not evidence of being progressive. Only the lack of comb effect on its movement

It is amazing how many people perpetuate ignorance.

reply to post by laymanskeptic


Good job.

I think they filmed a steady shot of video, with zero movement, zero zoom, so they wouldn't have to worry about motion tracking, then after a few minutes actually panned the camera up quickly which created the interlace motion artifacts, then filmed the sky perfectly steady.

Then, they added the fake UFO and lights onto the steady video so they wouldn't have to worry about motion tracking, and then added the fake zoom and fake camera shake for effect, so it didn't look easy to make.

Originally posted by liveandletlive

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
Not sure if anyone's mentioned this but I thought I'd throw it out there.

Time will tell, but I'm relatively convinced that this was a genuine occurrence. I look forward to seeing any CCTV footage that may come to light. As others have said, the Old City is likely to have at least as many cameras as the Pentagon, so surely we'll see some footage at some point, right?

There is footage but no one wants to talk about it.

Indeed, if footage from a 7-11, gas station or other security camaras popped up, it would change the conversation. If some footage exists, I´m sure people would want to talk about it.

This is a hoax, get over it. Wipe the tears and do something with your life.

I admire your patience crushycrux, however, one thing slips off for me - why did you even bother wasting your time recreating the 3rd video which is more than proven to be a hoax?

If you're recreating the fourth, I don't think it's a very good attempt, mainly because of the lighting that the orb shines on the dome. Not trying to put you down at all, thank you for your time and effort, hope you don't misunderstand me. But your video looks exactly like the 3rd and nothing like the 4th video.

Also, I think it has gotten out of hand with these videos, I saw only a few members who are questioning the fact there are no reports of this. Even if the people from the believer side of the fence manage to disprove all of the debunking of these videos, it still gives zero credibility to the case, since there are no eyewitnesses who are coming out to tell their story. And by now, there should have been tens of these...

Not saying this event didn't take place, just saying all of the facts we have till now, have drawn down the chances of this to be real to not more than 1%... You can continue this debunking the debunking all you like, cos I see you enjoy scratching your tongues, but it provides zero to the reality of this sighting. Until we have people coming out and saying they have seen this with their own eyes, it didn't happen.

And now that I think of it, even after people start coming forward, we can't be sure whether these are people telling the truth (now that this has made it to the MSM).

Well ATS, I think you finally swayed my insignificant opinion on this towards the dark side (hoax). The evidence just seems to stack up. For me, the 4 teenagers collaborating on Facebook as mentioned earlier is what put the nail in the coffin for me, and led me to want to bring up this following point.

Can we finally say for certain, in the interest of giving credit where credit is due, that these videos were an excellent attempt at CGI artistry by some high school students with no professional training and NOT by the known hoaxers that were originally miscredited? I think, in fairness, it is kind of a slap in the face to these kids to continue to blame Faal or Cohen or that banned website for this elaborate and, in my opinion, well done hoax. They may have had some kind of contact with that site *after the fact* but that hardly matters when providing credit where it is due.

Again, just my opinion based on evidence provided that this is a hoax, but I believe a very well done hoax and deserving of a big round of applause by the internet community as a whole. To the 4 kids in Jerusalem: well done, bravo.

edit: this is directed more towards those whom believe this is a hoax. To the believers of it being real: keep digging, you may end up proving us wrong.

Why the f would you want to encourage more hoaxing by give them pointers on what they did wrong and what they should have done?

two of the videos are real and one of them is a hoax. The hoax is the video without the flash. The light looks like it was inserted in the video. It wouldn't surprise me if hoaxsters were "hired" to try and discredit the real videos. There are little details that tell me that the ones with the flash are real. In one video the flash shines on the buildings and the street below which tells me the light wasn't inserted in the video. Secondly I noticed the response of one of the camera persons after the object shot straight up. In one of them you can tell the person did not anticipate the object going up because of his delayed response with the camera trying to follow it. They sounded authentically surprised when the object flashed and shot up as well.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/425ebf835258.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/614a55ed7ba2.jpg[/atsimg]

The source of light on the mans shirt comes from a porch light or street light.
This places the 2 men (on location) physically standing on a hill below a light and not in some studio or looking at a computer monitor.

Lens flaring is more evidence that this is not a video of a computer screen.

Get a grip on reality