UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

So far nobody has proven that video #1 video #2 and video #4 are hoaxes


i am still waiting................

come on folks....................

whats the problem???




Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

reply to post by loves a conspiricy


good luck! and no matter the results please post them.
either you succeed or not.
Thanks

ONE MORE THING THAT EXPLAINS AWAY ONE OF YOUR CONCERNS:

The video was tagged prank because they pranked the backseat passenger. If you watch the video they would not leg him out when he needed to pee.

After they let him out they drove off without him.


THIS IS THE PRANK

Originally posted by Paradigm2012

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
I think im going to spend 20 minutes making a hoax video for you all using the same methods as these videos

I can do it using After Effects,....no problem

Where do you want this UFO???? Over the white house?? Mount rushmore?? City of london??

I have an appointment to go to shortly but i will upload a video showing how easy it is to do this from a picture using software available to everyone.

I still think this is rubbish to be honest, if i can do it....im sure plenty of other people can. Ive just never seen the need to make hoax videos....until now lol

Hire some actors, do a driving down highways scene.
hire some cars to drive around
Do 3 Seperate Angles----all with VOICE OVERS.

GET TO WORK DOING VOICE OVERS
YOU NEED 5 SEPERATE ACTORS TO MATCH THE JERUSALEM FOOTAGE
you need 3 different Camera styles
you need video 1 and video 2 to film the same event

NOW YOU GO AND HIRE SOME ACTORS

DONT FORGET THOSE VOICE OVERS

NO VOICE-OVERS=YOU COULD NOT DUPLICATE IT

I dont see the need to hire actors....i can use video with people already in the shot and add the audio to make it appear its them talking.

Go and look up Sony Vegas and After Effects....you know all these films you see like Toy Story, and Independence day...they use software almost identical to Adobe after effects.
Its not hard to fake...honestly lol

EDIT: As this will only be an example of how easy its replicated i wont be spending days doing it...i intend on spending as little time possible replicating it...im not a hoaxer, i have nothing to gain so why spend hours or days making it???

reply to post by loves a conspiricy


It will be great to see you attempt and compare what can be done at home with what is shown in these clips. I am without doubt that if someone wanted to produce something like what we see in the clips it could be done.

Since I can't paint well or play musical instruments - and if I didn't know better - I might conclude that life-like paintings or symphonies are impossible or other worldly.

Okay regarding the sound issues from videos 1 + 2.

I used a free program called Audacity to take the audio tracks from each video and synchronise them together. Here is a screenshot of the two soundtracks when synced.



As you can see there are various anomalies between the two tracks. The concept of the 2nd track being a less amplified version of the first does hold true for some of it.but at moments where video author one makes loud noises his microphone pics his voice up whilst video author 2's microphone either pics it up a little or apparently not at all (1:10 in particular).

This would indicate to me that video author one has superior microphone technology on his apparatus whilst video author 2 has inferior technology on his. The volume of video author 1 may be louder than his counterpart but the fact that his microphone picks up things which the other doesn't - and this cannot be said to be true in reverse, suggests to me that this is a live recording using two independent microphones.

I've played with sound technology ever since the ZX Spectrum (Sinclair TS 1000 to you Yanks) but have only dabbled in it as a hobby and so am open to being incorrect here.

You can download a copy of the file with these 2 tracks for use with Audacity here if you would like to verify my findings or correct them.

-m0r

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
SO FAR NOBODY HAS PROVEN THAT VIDEO #1 VIDEO #2 AND VIDEO #4 ARE HOAXES


I AM STILL WAITING................

COME ON FOLKS....................

WHATS THE PROBLEM???

Have you seen the other thread on this?

Original thread now in the hoax forum

This thread was "reopened" by another member.

reply to post by Paradigm2012


What is the concern that it explains away? In my opinion the scene still looks to be recorded better than what I could imagine it would, given the circumstances. Doesn't mean I am right about that, just think the quality is too good to be a spontaneous scene/prank.

Are you referring to the concern that people might believe the UFO is a prank, because of the prank labeling?

Originally posted by Paradigm2012


Sorry to ruin your computer EGO, but video #2 was standing right next to video #1.

In video #1 you see a guy feet away holding a cellphone. This is the guy in video #2 filming.

Of course you hear the same audio

It is the same audio w/ 2 different cameras.

YOUR COMPUTER EGO is now DEFLATED

edit on 3-2-2011 by Paradigm2012 because: (no reason given)

1) Stop being hostile. It will not be tolerated here.

2) Pay attention. What the poster is posting is not proof that the audio is the same. Its proof that the audio is different. Meaning he knows they are standing next to each other. SO WHY are they different. Try hearing him out and listening to his research that he made a video for.

3) You seem to be either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding things and then getting rude about them. Please stop.

MM

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
ONE MORE THING THAT EXPLAINS AWAY ONE OF YOUR CONCERNS:

The video was tagged prank because they pranked the backseat passenger. If you watch the video they would not leg him out when he needed to pee.

After they let him out they drove off without him.


THIS IS THE PRANK

So...along said prank, they saw a real life UFO, got home and decided-

"yknow, that UFO was pretty cool, but that prank was what really blew my mind. Put prank in the title"

Its possible...just sits bad in my gut.

But possible.

MM

reply to post by Mr Mask


I am also confused as to why the video cuts to the ufo? Did they possibly record the prank, stop recording and then start again when the UFO is seen? Would it pick up right after the last video or make a new recording for the second video? I know you probably don't have the answers for this, I am just very gadget illiterate.

reply to post by m0r1arty


I agree with your thoughts on it being possible that mic quality may be an issue.

But it could also be evidence of edited sound, gaps.


Hardly conclusive, but most phones sold with a microphone are not bootleg pieces of crap that can hardly pick up sound a few feet away. At least at Radioshack during my time of service there- all models had very good ability to record much farther away and at least as good as a 20 dollar unidirectional desk mic.

Of course his phone could be crap...broken...old or worn. Dunno.

Just interesting to know there is audio differences.

MM

reply to post by Mr Mask





upload.wikimedia.org...

reply to post by esteay812


I'm also confused why the screen takes on a milky haze after the screen switches to the UFO.

But Thats just more observations...nothing "conclusive".



MM

reply to post by Mr Mask

Of course his phone could be crap...broken...old or worn. Dunno

For that matter, it is possible that the microphone was partially obstructed or even somehow unintentionally amplified. Would be nice if thes guys would pop into ATS with a translator, ready to go!

The haze may have something to do with the changing weather conditions from being inside the car to going outside, possibly causing a fog over the camera lens, reaching I know, but it could definitely be possible.

Originally posted by Zeta Reticulan
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

upload.wikimedia.org...

Lol...yes, a sad sad hoax.

I also think clip one is a hoax...but people seem to think that has yet to be proven.

So here we are.

MM

Originally posted by roughycannon

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
SO FAR NOBODY HAS PROVEN THAT VIDEO #1 VIDEO #2 AND VIDEO #4 ARE HOAXES


I AM STILL WAITING................

COME ON FOLKS....................

WHATS THE PROBLEM???

Have you seen the other thread on this?

Original thread now in the hoax forum

This thread was "reopened" by another member.

Just because its in the hoax forum doesnt mean that its a hoax. First you must prove its a hoax and so far nobody can do it

besides the 3rd video (which is proven to be a hoax)

reply to post by esteay812


I assume all those things "can" be responsible for differences in the audio clips of one or two, along with many other reasons.

Its possible.

But I really wish we knew what kind of phone he was using. Not that I could figure out anything by that information, but others here may be able to.

MM

Originally posted by Mr Mask

Originally posted by Paradigm2012


Sorry to ruin your computer EGO, but video #2 was standing right next to video #1.

In video #1 you see a guy feet away holding a cellphone. This is the guy in video #2 filming.

Of course you hear the same audio

It is the same audio w/ 2 different cameras.

YOUR COMPUTER EGO is now DEFLATED

edit on 3-2-2011 by Paradigm2012 because: (no reason given)

1) Stop being hostile. It will not be tolerated here.

2) Pay attention. What the poster is posting is not proof that the audio is the same. Its proof that the audio is different. Meaning he knows they are standing next to each other. SO WHY are they different. Try hearing him out and listening to his research that he made a video for.

3) You seem to be either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding things and then getting rude about them. Please stop.

MM

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

I pointed out that his audio sampling was flawed and incomprehensive. I appreciete him trying to click the mouse and show us how his software can track audio signatures, but it did not show any problems with the video in question. I think if people are reaching for anything to debunk a video that is real they will go to extremes they will begin using flawed techniques like the audio comparison.

reply to post by Mr Mask


I have no way to prove this currently, but I think the fault will be found in the way the 'light' shoots off so rapidly.

Also, I noticed in watching the video in 720p and replaying it several times, the light flash before the objects speeds skywards is sometimes present and sometimes not. Sometimes it occurs at slightly different times. This could have to do with my laptop and replaying the video over and over I imagine...