UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by Crimelab

 

*blush*

Thanks. I know nothing about parallax, camera rolling shutters etc etc, so I stay out of those conversations. I would also like to thank the first guy who made that cam sight available to view but I don't know who he is.

I know nothing about that stuff either, which makes it especially entertaining when the people that supposedly do are hoisted by their own petard.

What I am wondering now is since I am sure this thread is being followed by moderators.... When will the original report be moved out of the HOAX forum?

reply to post by DeboWilliams


flysolo's info comes with a map showing you which way the cam is pointing. Did you really even look at what he posted?

And just because your expertise is audio makes no difference. Don't you own eyes as well as ears?

I think the red lights at the end are still a source of data to be mined.
We have the alleged event filmed from a north and south location, its logical to assume then that red lights that appear in the top of the frame from one location, would show in the bottom of the frame from the other.

Anyone with the skills and inclination to run a side by side comparison of the configuration of red lights at the end of the footage's ?

Originally posted by liveandletlive
reply to post by FlySolo

 

Its funny because I feel I am being talked over. Like as Im talking I can see them with fingers in their ears going blah, blah, blah......Just so they cant hear. I said something hear and there throughout this thread about your find and no one would react. No one!

You know why they're quiet? Because they are going through every day like I did and other months too to see if this light appears. They're just regrouping is all.

reply to post by Crimelab


There is no need to move the original thread. This one was started with ALL info placed in one nice packaged presentation. Stop focusing on that and focus on the TOPIC: UFO over Jerusalem: Reopened

reply to post by Ashtrei


I agree with you. I dont know about the videos but the cctv really makes you think. I always wondered if there where professional debunkers on here. This doesnt help convince me Im wrong.

reply to post by BruceWayne


Thanks for the answer, Bruce

And I think this just raised a good point - what are the stories behind the videos? Is anyone in contact with the uploaders, are the witnesses willing to give a full report of what happened that night? I know how uncommon things may easily go "unseen" in large populated areas, but this isn't any large populated area - it's a place of great religious importance for two of the bigger religious parties in the world. That's why I think it will not go as unnoticed, as it currently seems. So, we need to get answers from the people who count so far as witnesses. Also, it will be good if we had more such outside these six...

Originally posted by DeboWilliams

Originally posted by jennybee35
reply to post by ChantelDay

 

I think you are right. It's no fun when there is nothing to dissect.

How about it, ya'll. What do ya'll have to say to these images? It has been re-posted about ten times now with no response from any de-bunker. I wanna hear your thoughts on these anomalies that coincide perfectly with the video event. What could these be? I have only seen one response to this, and he thought it could be a light on a timer or some such. Can't see how that would be possible, seeing it only happened twice in all those endless frames of images.

My area of expertise is audio, and since theres no audio, nothing to examine for me. Anyways, do we know which way that camera is pointing? after looking at the stills / videos, I don't see a dome anywhere in sight.

How can you? It's night time. Plus, the external quote I put in my post explains exactly where the cam is pointed

reply to post by Quartza


First, this isn't the most complex multi-view hoax ever.

Second, the background is not supposed to be completely locked, it supposed to show the parallax effect. Maybe they tried to fake the parallax effect and failed (because it is wrong and or non-existent). The only thing that should be locked is the two angles... the lines should still move, but the angles shouldn't change.

The angles should only change when the camera changes perspective but in the video, the camera doesn't change perspective, or there would be signs of parallax.

Originally posted by jennybee35
reply to post by DeboWilliams

 

flysolo's info comes with a map showing you which way the cam is pointing. Did you really even look at what he posted?

And just because your expertise is audio makes no difference. Don't you own eyes as well as ears?

Same could go for you since the anomalies I pointed out you don't need a degree in Audio production & Sound Reinforcement, yet obviously you overlook these without thinking twice. Even if you have a hearing deficiency, theres volume adjustment built into your OS / speakers for a reason

Originally posted by FlySolo
Thank you for those of you who have checked out what I investigated last night. For the others who have not

*SNIPPED EXCESSIVE QUOTING*

EDIT TO ADD - the excessive quoting was for the benefit of people who are coming late into the debate and may have otherwise missed the AMAZING bit of research posted by Fly Solo. Why do I get the feeling that all the quotes made with the same intention have been conveniently removed from view?

Come on, seriously. Mods - why are such hardcore tactics being employed? Surely you can understand the motivation in making FLYSOLO'S research more visible? It forms the crux of the non-skeptical argument! And yet all the debunker's massive quotes remain intact on the earlier pages.

EVERYONE SHOULD CHECK OUT FLY SOLOS ORIGINAL POST, showing screenshots of weathercam footage, around page 22 or thereabouts from memory.



A complaint will be issued to the forum staff as a result of GreenEyedLeo's actions in editing this post to unfairly inhibit visibility of the crucial 'believer' evidence.

Original response (before my post was decimated)

Sir - my hat is tipped in your direction.

An excellent piece of work, and extreme proof that the videos are not 'CLEARLY A HOAX'.

I can't believe we still have debunkers claiming the whole thing is some kind of cut & paste job. This footage cannot possibly have been manipulated, except by the PTB.

Now watch what happens over the next few days. If the website you got this info from goes offline 'for maintenance', and the original videos/ still frames disappear or change, then we can reasonably assume that this was likely a UFO from a non-terrestrial source. Or from an 'off-the-grid' nation, like the Nazis in Antarctica.

If the info stays up, we can assume that the PTB want people to know about this, and want people to know that it was a GENUINE UFO. Hopefully you'll follow my logic.

Stay tuned for false flag/ alien disclosure in 5, 4, 3, 2.....




Mmm-kay...? The floor is open to the resident pseudo skeptics. I'd like to know how a group of Israeli students who haven't gained anything from this set of videos would have accessed and manipulated the weather cam data. And be forewarned, without proof of any explanations offered, judged by your own standards you'll sound a bit silly!

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

Here is my response to the parallax issue.
I myself am a skeptic of internet videos, I find the interlaced vs. progressive and the audio problems to be more compelling evidence of a hoax than the parallax issue, which I believe can happen in a black/no light environment.

"Yes, the horizon and foreground act outside of what would be expected, this is a consequence of the image stabilization on the camera doing its thing. The software in the camera latches on to any light in the image and stabilizes it, there is no light in the in the foreground/on the tree/ and on the man below the waist. Thusly and expectedly the lights in the frame are stabilized including the man's upper half while the dark (foreground) is not, and could not be by the camera. How can a camera stabilize part of an image that it cannot see?
Why would the top half of the man (visible) be stabilized, while the bottom (dark half) shifts with the rest of the black area?

It looks weird when brightened during editing afterwards, but I beleive it is accurate with what could be expected with a simple stabilization technology in low, to no light situation."

Originally posted by FlySolo

Originally posted by liveandletlive
reply to post by FlySolo

 

Its funny because I feel I am being talked over. Like as Im talking I can see them with fingers in their ears going blah, blah, blah......Just so they cant hear. I said something hear and there throughout this thread about your find and no one would react. No one!

You know why they're quiet? Because they are going through every day like I did and other months too to see if this light appears. They're just regrouping is all.

Correct and I went over some as well when you posted it and found nothing. I dont think what you have shown is debunkable and could be another reason they are avoiding it.

Originally posted by Quartza
reply to post by Pinke

 

wow your quick to judge....goes for alot of people on here. I've been out of pratice for a while but im not some VFX noob. Just is just something I craped out too.

No offense to your work and effort ... Check out some of the show reel work suggested. If you still believe that a light in the sky is really hard work beyond a handful of people after that then we'll just agree to disagree.

Think I'm done with this for now - reading too much instead of working.

Regarding the other cams though ... Static images just aren't as compelling or convincing. What makes the light in the image so compelling? Maybe I missed something.

Originally posted by FlySolo

Originally posted by DeboWilliams

Originally posted by jennybee35
reply to post by ChantelDay

 

I think you are right. It's no fun when there is nothing to dissect.

How about it, ya'll. What do ya'll have to say to these images? It has been re-posted about ten times now with no response from any de-bunker. I wanna hear your thoughts on these anomalies that coincide perfectly with the video event. What could these be? I have only seen one response to this, and he thought it could be a light on a timer or some such. Can't see how that would be possible, seeing it only happened twice in all those endless frames of images.

My area of expertise is audio, and since theres no audio, nothing to examine for me. Anyways, do we know which way that camera is pointing? after looking at the stills / videos, I don't see a dome anywhere in sight.

How can you? It's night time. Plus, the external quote I put in my post explains exactly where the cam is pointed

How can we see the dome? isnt the dome Illuminated by all the lights it has? Why can we see the orb, but right below the orb (where the dome should be) theres nothing.

You people are seeing images of Jesus in a toilet filled with crap. get a grip

I can hardly read this thread anymore..people are getting too locked in to their closed mindsets.

Believer, Skeptic, or otherwise..once someone hears exactly what they want to hear, they throw out some sweeping statement such as "OMG, THIS PROVES IT CASE CLOSED EVERYONE ELSE CAN SHUT UP NOW. OWNED."

If you get too personal about it, you'll simply cloud your own judgment, forever sealing off the truth. RELAX.

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by Quartza
reply to post by Pinke

 

wow your quick to judge....goes for alot of people on here. I've been out of pratice for a while but im not some VFX noob. Just is just something I craped out too.

No offense to your work and effort ... Check out some of the show reel work suggested. If you still believe that a light in the sky is really hard work beyond a handful of people after that then we'll just agree to disagree.

Think I'm done with this for now - reading too much instead of working.

Regarding the other cams though ... Static images just aren't as compelling or convincing. What makes the light in the image so compelling? Maybe I missed something.

It confirms some type of light in that location at that time, lending credence to the other videos.

reply to post by ExCloud


Exactly! And I strongly encourage others to do the same. Don't take my word for it, this light is not part of the normal city light infrastructure.

reply to post by FlySolo


Sounds like you have the measure of the situation.

Note how the skeptical replies (since your post has been repeatedly highlighted by members wishing to support the reality of the event) have toned down/ gone off-topic/ are plain weak and non-committal excuses for failing to provide an explanation. We shall see what the 'hardcore skeptics' have to say when they've had chance to assess the damage your research has done to the main bulk of their 'reasons for denial/ rebuttal'.

I have a feeling some of the less 'hardcore' will be genuinely reflecting on whether they might have been 'carried along', in the wake of those wanting to keep this thing smothered.

reply to post by DeboWilliams


Dude, I don't know you and I don't believe that every person that claims it on this thread is an expert in this very field. That includes you. I can't judge what is a true de-bunking explanation because there are only about 20 different ones, and they mostly disagree with one another. Just because you yell "I know the truth" doesn't make it true, get it?

For those of us with zero technical knowledge, all of these re-worked videos mean jack-crap-all. Too much techy information that argues with itself. But, the cctv images are impossible to argue with, as far as I can tell.

I think that is why it's been avoided til now.