UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

reply to post by Quartza


So we are led to believe that the camera footage is actually capturing bending buildings? Why not? thats what we are actually seeing right?

No, we extrapolate that information by using logic, buildings (atleast in that instance, those type) don't bend. We know this, so we apply this logic. The exact same is apparent in the audio.

You still aren't making a valid point

a question on the possible validty of the 'viral ad' theory...

if you were a major company producing a viral add to promote your product/film why would you allow the worse clip (vid #3) to be spread across the lamestream media? Surley the most visibly outstanding clip (vid #4) would be promoted/pushed?

i still feel the media is diliberatly trying to debunk this event .... and so far we still need contact/communication from videographer and/or other witness, or more new evidence before this investigation can get any further

Originally posted by hairycookiemunster
a question on the possible validty of the 'viral ad' theory...

if you were a major company producing a viral add to promote your product/film why would you allow the worse clip (vid #3) to be spread across the lamestream media? Surley the most visibly outstanding clip (vid #4) would be promoted/pushed?

i still feel the media is diliberatly trying to debunk this event .... and so far we still need contact/communication from videographer and/or other witness, or more new evidence before this investigation can get any further

The point is, you haven't, you won't. You'll keep waiting for the second coming of jesus, but he will never show up. That's what's going on here, It's obvious.

What reason could they possibly have to not communicate with anyone asking questions?

reply to post by Logical one


I find it odd that not one of our members from there has touched this. Doesnt that seam rather odd or no? They could easily say it didnt happen. They didnt see anything. It did happen. Yet we have not one speaking up at all.

Originally posted by DeboWilliams
reply to post by Quartza

 

So we are led to believe that the camera footage is actually capturing bending buildings? Why not? thats what we are actually seeing right?

No, we extrapolate that information by using logic, buildings (atleast in that instance, those type) don't bend. We know this, so we apply this logic. The exact same is apparent in the audio.

You still aren't making a valid point

edit on 4-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)

I have...you just being ignorant about it. Go back and read what I posted to MrMask(note to everyone: you can see it on pg 64)

reply to post by Quartza


Just start asking for the real audio proof ask him for the envelopes ask him why they are not the same. He will stop replying to you because his facts are washed up.

He can not argue about video because well he admits he doesnt know much in previous posts.

reply to post by hairycookiemunster


I don't think the media really cares all that much about which one they're releasing. The fact remains that the only reason why this hit the ms-media is because of the recent buzz it's been getting online (youtube, blogs, etc...) I'm almost 100% sure that they could care less about whether they're posting the most fake looking one out of the 4 videos.

Most likely one news site caught wind of this, posted the 3rd video (is that the one w the Americans?) , and other msm sites followed suit.

Let's not get into the whole 'MSM is trying to suppress the supposed real videos'... that's just bogus

reply to post by PhotonEffect


That is 100% true I watch other news sites play clips from another news networks camera's a lot. So they probably did just that. Thanks man. I never looked at it like that why all are playing the debunked and fakest clip out.

reply to post by Quartza


No,

your saying buildings don't bend
I'm saying buildings don't bend

Yet we see buildings bending in the video. How do we know that they really don't bend, even though it is shown, because we KNOW (atleast those) buildings don't bend, and that it is a flaw in the camera. But this goes against atleast what is shown, we came to this conclusion based on our general knowledge of buildings. Yet it still goes agianst what we see.

That's exactly what's happening with the audio. It's not possible. No matter how many times you try to dismiss it, its not. You cannot even prove to me that it is, and I've given you exercises to help you understand why it's not possible. You just choose not to put forth efforts of your own. Instead your going by what others are saying, while intentionally remaining ignorant.

I dare you to prove me wrong.

Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by Quartza

 

Just start asking for the real audio proof ask him for the envelopes ask him why they are not the same. He will stop replying to you because his facts are washed up.

He can not argue about video because well he admits he doesnt know much in previous posts.

Why do I need to keep telling you the same thing over and over. What are you trying to discuss here? What fact's, information, of any sort, have you brought that helps shed light on either side of the arguement? Nothing? go figure.

reply to post by DeboWilliams


Go back a lot of pages and read man. The fact is this. The envelopes dont match up they are not the same. This means its not the same audio. That is FACT!

Originally posted by DeboWilliams
reply to post by Quartza

 

No,

your saying buildings don't bend
I'm saying buildings don't bend

Yet we see buildings bending in the video. How do we know that they really don't bend, even though it is shown, because we KNOW (atleast those) buildings don't bend, and that it is a flaw in the camera. But this goes against atleast what is shown, we came to this conclusion based on our general knowledge of buildings. Yet it still goes agianst what we see.

That's exactly what's happening with the audio. It's not possible. No matter how many times you try to dismiss it, its not. You cannot even prove to me that it is, and I've given you exercises to help you understand why it's not possible. You just choose not to put forth efforts of your own. Instead your going by what others are saying, while intentionally remaining ignorant.

I dare you to prove me wrong.

Yes, us humans know that but at computer tracking those points dose not!!!

You cant not calculate parallax errors with data that is skewed.

Whats with all the "I dare you to prove me wrong"!!!!! That kind of attitude is not usefull here.

Check your ego at the door....and lets get some real work done.

I sincerely hope that every defender of these videos realizes that there are four high school students getting a real laugh out of the attention and efforts their videos have created. They even left humorous clues in the rambling part of the video prior to the sighting. It's a great hoax/prank nothing more. Perhaps they'll come out of the shadow to take credit, but I think they'll just go for another round of pranks each one trying to outdo the other. Should be fun.

reply to post by Quartza


@Quartza Thats hilarious because I have yet to see either you or excloud DO any work.

@Excloud, ok since you want to compare how they (the audio envelopes) visually look. Then does that mean that because VISUALLY video 1 and video 2 are not the same quality, they arent of the same event, even thought visually they both have different artifacts, different quality, different compression? Only answer this question, don't ramble on about other things, just answer this directly

reply to post by DeboWilliams


You can not argue that point its 2 different phone camera's most likely. Again they should be the same envelopes if its the same audio unless they recorded them on 2 different mics. its that simple so now you are just making my point not helping yours.

reply to post by DeboWilliams


What "work" do I have to do? I do not have to do the work. You have to do work to debunk this and so far your work lacks any sort of thing that in itself proves it is evidence. Please reread every post. Someone did the work I was going to do today last night. GO AND READ! He says that he would not defend that the audio was real if he didnt look at it and see it was 2 different sets of audio.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


i know the media trade/grab clips from each other, but as its spread globaly i think it odd that not one journalist has looked for other info at all?

and how is that observation bogus when applied to my original question? if this was a 'viral ad' hoax don't you think that company that invested time and effort into making vid #4 wouldn't be pissed that the crapy vid #3 was stealing their ad time?

@debo why the venom dude? chill, i seen and listened to your argument and evidence and took it onboard without coming at you with negativity ... everyone needs to chill out and work on it together rather than just snipping

IMHO - if the 4th video is legit, doesn't the first pair of videos have to be real as a practical matter?

how could the first two videos be copycatting a video that hadn't even gotten around yet?

what's bothering me is that most of the mainstream media coverage of this uses the worst video, the terrible third video.

since it's getting coverage - can't someone over there interview the makers of the 4th video?

this will probably all end of in oblivion like the moscow pyramid videos.

reply to post by hairycookiemunster


I agree we should be working together, but once his evidence is debunked instead of accepting it or trying to find a new set of evidence or trying to show us the envelopes are the same(they are not) it has one odd enomaly in it. He is defending that 1 enomaly with his life and that is not helping. Then he tells others they need to do work and people have they debunked his work. Thats why he is upset.

Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by DeboWilliams

 

You can not argue that point its 2 different phone camera's most likely. Again they should be the same envelopes if its the same audio unless they recorded them on 2 different mics. its that simple so now you are just making my point not helping yours.

Yes I can argue that point. Your admiting that even thought 2 different LOOK different, they are the same. So your admitting that because the 2 audio evelopes LOOK different, they originate from the exact same audio file.

Lets try something, record something, anything, a phrase or word, send it to me, I'll modify it, and upload it back online. They will be the same, yet still look different. They will still be a recording OF you, just 1 will be altered, yet it's still from 1 audio source. Thats my point

Are you forgetting that the velacity of actor B voice doesnt match his location? the camera handling noise apparant in both videos, same time? the artifacts left over from actors A speech?