UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

Originally posted by jayln2010
ive been following the developments and i feel this is tricky... and its going to change a lot of things no matter how it plays out...

1. if the original video with the accompanying cell footage is just a hoax that is an incredible hoax... it should raise the bar for what a hoax is... if hoaxes have gotten that good the no video clip should ever be held valid of anything ever lol (i mean the sync of the video cam and cell cam was impressive to sau the least) if thats a hoax what a waist of time and talent... now thats not to say it isnt but the resource and effort applied then make u wonder what is the end game of such a spectacular hoax and who wants u that well tricked (im hinting at the fake disclosure theory)

2. the third video (called 2nd) though raises a lot of flags for me though that this isnt a piece of the fake disclosure puzzle because it would seem with the third video someone was cheaply trying to discredit the first 2 clips (why would u need to discredit something thats fake in the first place?) especially since a lot of the limited early coverage of the event wqs focused on the 3rd obviously fake clip

so either way u slice it rather all hoax or real situation hit by disinformation we have a real "event" here... even if this all turns out to be hoax we need to dig deep and investigate who the hoax is funded by what ties if any do the characters in the clips have (i.e. who are the two people really who are in the first clip)

Excellent State of Play Status mate..

Originally posted by soulfox
reply to post by smurfy

 

I would say that there may have been more reports of a large light event, if what your saying is true. Tis interesting though.
Do you not think?

If i saw a large flash of light at one in the morning, i would just assume it was lightning, unless i saw the actual "craft" i would not think much of a flash of light

I'm leaning towards hoax on this one, however, for many FX experts here who say it's an obvious hoax, and not a very good one at that...can you provide links to "really good" CGI hoaxes?

Originally posted by jayln2010
ive been following the developments and i feel this is tricky... and its going to change a lot of things no matter how it plays out...

1. if the original video with the accompanying cell footage is just a hoax that is an incredible hoax... it should raise the bar for what a hoax is... if hoaxes have gotten that good the no video clip should ever be held valid of anything ever lol (i mean the sync of the video cam and cell cam was impressive to sau the least) if thats a hoax what a waist of time and talent... now thats not to say it isnt but the resource and effort applied then make u wonder what is the end game of such a spectacular hoax and who wants u that well tricked (im hinting at the fake disclosure theory)

2. the third video (called 2nd) though raises a lot of flags for me though that this isnt a piece of the fake disclosure puzzle because it would seem with the third video someone was cheaply trying to discredit the first 2 clips (why would u need to discredit something thats fake in the first place?) especially since a lot of the limited early coverage of the event wqs focused on the 3rd obviously fake clip

so either way u slice it rather all hoax or real situation hit by disinformation we have a real "event" here... even if this all turns out to be hoax we need to dig deep and investigate who the hoax is funded by what ties if any do the characters in the clips have (i.e. who are the two people really who are in the first clip)

All very valid points and definitly things we should consider and explore.

The disparity between the "english speaking" clip and the others in terms of quality, overall presentation and consistency is way too great for me to believe they are connected. I still highly doubt they were released by the same people.

i'm very inclined to believe the "english speaking" clip was made by

A. Someone who put together a slapdash hoax video trying to get hits on youtube based on the popularity of the first video
or
B. Someone who is purposely trying to discredit the first video and subsequent ones.

If it's B, you have to ask yourself . . . why try to discredit a hoax video?

I too find it interesting that in most news articles they reference the "english speaking" clip the most.

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Ashtrei
Former Ministry of Defence UFO investigator Nick Pope told The Sun: 'If these are real, they are some of the most incredible videos ever shot.
'If they are not, then this is a very well-planned and co-ordinated hoax designed to eliminate elements of doubt.'


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

Not to discredit NP, but he says more or less the same thing all the time.

Not to go off topic but

LOL that has to be the funniest post I've ever heard. I like Nick Pope because he seems to be the only ex high level government official that actually has a open mind about these things.

reply to post by greeneyedleo


I'd like a second opinion from a few of the other mods on this one, because FlySolo's research is most definitely NOT visible, anywhere of any consequence. It is buried in the middle of a flurry of weak, half-hearted responses, punctuated with a few good insights (largely ignored) meaning that the core point of contention - that this is a genuine UFO incident AND NOT A HOAX - ends up conveniently (for the skeptics) airbrushed over.

SOLUTION:

I'd like to suggest that TWO RESEARCH THREADS be opened, where FLYSOLO can lead the 'Believer camp', and any of the hardcore skeptics can lead a 'Skeptic camp' response - allowing diligent and sensible research to be conducted without the bickering, name calling and irritating moderator interference (no offence, but it is annoying).

Research threads will enable both camps to lay out both points of view carefully - without any of this weak and irritating 'noise' getting in the way of the information. This could be the BIGGEST piece of evidence yet, and it's getting swept away in the flood.

Let the ATS community make itself proud - with a new method of handling the most intensely debated topics.

It's no good for pages of argument to cover up the real information and evidence/ debunking. Let two research threads be created, allow conclusions to be drawn and posted, then close the threads to further activity. Then, let people discuss those research threads in something like this - a DISCUSSION THREAD.



Don't bury the evidence.

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment


a star for you

why not

Originally posted by soulfox
reply to post by smurfy

 

I would say that there may have been more reports of a large light event, if what your saying is true. Tis interesting though.
Do you not think?

The whole thing is more than interesting. Recording the flash though, could only have been done by anybody watching the ongoing event, since it was unexpected and short lived, and if seen, like lightning I suppose, and the effect is the same. Reports of the flash might trickle out, once people who might have seen the flash and nothing else realise that it was tied to another event.

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment


New thread opened here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by greeneyedleo

 

I'd like a second opinion from a few of the other mods on this one, because FlySolo's research is most definitely NOT visible, anywhere of any consequence. It is buried in the middle of a flurry of weak, half-hearted responses, punctuated with a few good insights (largely ignored) meaning that the core point of contention - that this is a genuine UFO incident AND NOT A HOAX - ends up conveniently (for the skeptics) airbrushed over.

SOLUTION:

I'd like to suggest that TWO RESEARCH THREADS be opened, where FLYSOLO can lead the 'Believer camp', and any of the hardcore skeptics can lead a 'Skeptic camp' response - allowing diligent and sensible research to be conducted without the bickering, name calling and irritating moderator interference (no offence, but it is annoying).

Research threads will enable both camps to lay out both points of view carefully - without any of this weak and irritating 'noise' getting in the way of the information. This could be the BIGGEST piece of evidence yet, and it's getting swept away in the flood.

Let the ATS community make itself proud - with a new method of handling the most intensely debated topics.

It's no good for pages of argument to cover up the real information and evidence/ debunking. Let two research threads be created, allow conclusions to be drawn and posted, then close the threads to further activity. Then, let people discuss those research threads in something like this - a DISCUSSION THREAD.



Don't bury the evidence.

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

I don't think that would be wise because the "believers" camp would only have 1-2 people posting in it.

www.02ws.com...#

Read and weep. If you scroll down to the message board, I posted under the name James and directly asked the station manager regarding the orientation of the camera, location of the dome in the cameras point of view, and if the light could be above it, to sum his reply

Nope, not possible because the camera doesn't show the dome, it is offscreen

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

reply to post by DeboWilliams


Well, that would make sense, except the camera can be turned. So smoke that. And you lied, he didn't say off screen, he said to the east.

reply to post by FlySolo


Oh gimmi a break, that camera hasn't been moved in the past month or so, which you can tell by watching the videos from November. It's in the same orientation today as it was on the 28th. Don't get upset at me because your "orb" turned out to be someone bathroom light and the evidence you submitted has been debunked and bears no relevance to this topic no longer. Whatever the case maybe, you have the PROOF right infront of you that the "orb" is NOT in the video / pictures you posted.

"As I sad, the dome of the rock is not seen in the picture. So, it can not be directly above it." Thats exactly what he said. I said "let me sum up his reply" Where do you get me lying from?

reply to post by soulfox


Yeah, you know what, I never had time to look at the second video frame by frame until now. There is THREE flashes on the second video.

That is fishy.

reply to post by DeboWilliams


I went back as far as 08 and the camera moves, give me a break.

Originally posted by DeboWilliams

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Ashtrei
Former Ministry of Defence UFO investigator Nick Pope told The Sun: 'If these are real, they are some of the most incredible videos ever shot.
'If they are not, then this is a very well-planned and co-ordinated hoax designed to eliminate elements of doubt.'


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

Not to discredit NP, but he says more or less the same thing all the time.

Not to go off topic but

LOL that has to be the funniest post I've ever heard. I like Nick Pope because he seems to be the only ex high level government official that actually has a open mind about these things.

That is true, he is of the whistleblower category for his time. The trouble is that MSM often put him in the same "Is it real,or is it not" position all the time, and that would not be a nice place to be if it's dealing with something unique. Not so bad if there was he could compare to from his former work.

reply to post by Unknown Soldier


I know we're not supposed to spout one-liners, but I'm a maverick:

"What he said"

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by DeboWilliams

 

I went back as far as 08 and the camera moves, give me a break.

Yea, the camera moves, but between the 1-28 and today it hasn't, which means his CURRENT statement saying that you cannot see the dome in frame is valid for it's CURRENT position. Your argument would only work if it's orientation would've changed between these 2 date, THEN maybe you could say his statement wouldn't matter.

So thank you for throwing everyone off track with this bit of information, theres clearly a few people who was following your information to the T as proof, but unfortunately your debunking skills have led them astray.

reply to post by Mr Mask


I believe that planting hoax video evidence is the easiest way to discredit an authentic event. It's easier than planning and carrying out a hoax in the first place. Video evidence will never prove anything for just this reason. When I saw three glowing orbs floating over my town, I know what I saw. I also knew that it would have been embarassingly foolish of me to record it on video and post it, for reasons that are clearly obvious. It's not that unusual for unexplainable aerial phenomenon to occur, and it seems to me a reasonable thing to be interested in. But suddenly a bunch of kooks appear telling stories of flying saucers and alien abductions, and surprise, suprise, nothing happened, it's all bunk, and why are you wasting your time on this stuff. It all follows a carefully devised plan to keep people from becoming too curious about unexplained aerial phenomenon, but why?

Originally posted by DeboWilliams

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by DeboWilliams

 

I went back as far as 08 and the camera moves, give me a break.

Yea, the camera moves, but between the 1-28 and today it hasn't, which means his CURRENT statement saying that you cannot see the dome in frame is valid for it's CURRENT position. Your argument would only work if it's orientation would've changed between these 2 date, THEN maybe you could say his statement wouldn't matter.

So thank you for throwing everyone off track with this bit of information, theres clearly a few people who was following your information to the T as proof, but unfortunately your debunking skills have led them astray.

"but it is located at the right (east) part of the picture" meaning it is in picture, but it can not be seen due to distance and stuff in front of it. Thats what I get from it.

Originally posted by DeboWilliams

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by DeboWilliams

 

I went back as far as 08 and the camera moves, give me a break.

Yea, the camera moves, but between the 1-28 and today it hasn't, which means his CURRENT statement saying that you cannot see the dome in frame is valid for it's CURRENT position. Your argument would only work if it's orientation would've changed between these 2 date, THEN maybe you could say his statement wouldn't matter.

So thank you for throwing everyone off track with this bit of information, theres clearly a few people who was following your information to the T as proof, but unfortunately your debunking skills have led them astray.

Ahh sounds like you're a bit miffed about that. And who are you? the Sheepherder and I stole you're thunder? Listen, I just posted something I found is all. Why so serious?