UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

Apologies to you Ash...I thought I was watching the same video posted on different websites....and some videos taken of videos, etc. etc.

And I don't have the credibility certificate for the debunkers, but they were very convincing!

reply to post by Kali74


The thing is the legal aspect wasnt exposed until the UFO enquiry stumbled on it.
Computers keep data, they are good at that, they dont keep secrets, they are very bad at that.
The golden rule is once you tell a computer something, its gone its in the wild as they say.
I was taught many years ago that if you dont want the world to have access to the data, dont give it to a computer.
social conventions aside the universe operates on a very basic principle

The ability to do a thing, is all the right you need to do it (as the grey said to the abductee lol)

Its an unpleasant reality i agree, but thats how it is, and we should plan around it

Originally posted by newkid
This is not hoax no matter what people say, how can two people on video 1 and 2 and 4 people on video 4, that is a total of 6 people that are visable on video, and we got at least 5 people on video 3 (english speaking) and another 3 on video 5 (english speaking) we have 3 that speak hebrew on blogs we are talking about 16 people that are talking the same stuff, also video 1 and 2 I think they are speaking Arab? Come on this could not be a hoax to many people involve, Do you know what this is its a nightmare , we just cross over the twilight zone, we don't want to believe it so we make up think that is a hoax, and we try to reason with the fact, but nobody we go to these extend just to fool us. no one no matter how much I want to be a movie director there are other ways to fool people with out getting myself hurt. And to do this in Utah at middle of the night and to mention eyewitness of sane people. Why don't we just admitted that those ORBS are ET orgin, how do they work I don't know and your guess is not better than my guess. I suggest that we need to try to find a way to communicate with them.

My advice is to not get swayed into a subjective analysis of the matter. The information regarding the social aspects of the matter should be decoupled from the scientific aspects. The scientific aspect of the problem should (must IMO) contain the most critical assessment criteria of the authenticity of the video. The social aspects are secondary. Lets look at the following truth table;

footage with invalid science + apparently genuine social elements = hoax
footage with valid science + apparently fake social elements = more likely real than hoax
footage with invalid science + apparently fake social elements = hoax
footage with valid science + apparently genuine social elements = real

i think we have 3, other argue 1. The set of people considering "apparently genuine social elements" contain a majority that only consider this aspect and have little or no consideration of the scientific aspect of the matter. Thus I will add the following entries to the table

apparently genuine social elements with no science = inconclusive
footage with valid science, no social analysis = real pending some contextual information

This is very interesting but I'm having a hard time with this one as Sorcha Faal is in the loop on this one. I admit if it is a hoax it is very well done.

Rofl, the one kid Michael is a amateur music producer. That would explain the audio editing, and why it's not that great.

his youtube channel here

Yall been bamboozled

reply to post by ShAuNmAn-X


This has already been deconstructed, such a fail/michel cohen found the videos on youtube, and made copys of them, in an effort to take credit for them, and use them to direct traffic to the site.
To say they are involved, would be like them copying and posting a space shuttle launch and saying they are involved in the space program.
They have reported on the event, nothing more.
As far as we can tell thats the extent of their involvement

reply to post by DeboWilliams

DJmnMichael commented on UFO - Dome of the rock - Te... (6 days ago) "@ReneeNme me and my frieds are fighting who will upload this video its really rare shots and its valuble so i hope we will setle this and upload this video

Didja see what he wrote here on that page you linked? I wonder what is going on that it has been so long and nobody has heard from them yet?

reply to post by DeboWilliams


Again a looooong bow to draw, his interest in music is a common one,

Having said that you missed this

"hey i saw that ufo too me and my friends catched it on a cellphone video camera!!!!"

He posted this on Eli's original vid, but the 4th vid looks to be of higher quality than a cellphone cam, i could be wrong, some cellphone cams have high res these days.
I find this a little sus

again not conclusive evidence of a hoax, but sus none the less

Originally posted by jennybee35
reply to post by DeboWilliams

 

DJmnMichael commented on UFO - Dome of the rock - Te... (6 days ago) "@ReneeNme me and my frieds are fighting who will upload this video its really rare shots and its valuble so i hope we will setle this and upload this video

Didja see what he wrote here on that page you linked? I wonder what is going on that it has been so long and nobody has heard from them yet?

haha yea, their pissing their pants because of all the attention. See I'm sure at first it was all hehe and haha "omg we are on the news", But considering now people want answers, everyone knows their real names and these perps arent going to be able to provide raw evidence, their #ting bricks right now. They can't even dissappear. I feel sorry for them honestly

Originally posted by davidbiedny
Folks,

The level of discourse here apparently hasn't changed much in the few years since I've spent time on here...

If no one is willing to look at these:

www.facebook.com...

... I have nothing more to add to the conversation. The idea that I would have to explain my stalker's video (Krazy Korff), tells me that I'm wasting my time here. I have no idea what Ritzmann has said about these videos, but then again, his credibility is completely shot for me, based on direct personal experience, so his thoughts about this - or anything else - mean precious little to me.

Have fun, while this fascinating situation continues on... no more from me on this thread.

dB

The level of discourse is commensurate with a public conspiracy form, you need to sort the wheat from the chaff, although there is an inordinate amount of unnecessary quoting and petty to-ing and fro-ing.

Apologies I'm not familiar with your complete life story, I don't have a clue what you are talking about regarding a stalker and your posts are a bit cryptic to say the least, if I didn't have a vague idea of who you were I'm afraid your posts wouldn't make the loaf.

Personally I have no expertise in AV analysis so need to listen to the experts, shame we now have one who will not take part.

Also, as you would have seen if you had stuck around instead of acting like a petulant child, some are making detailed analysis of the screen shots you took, with varying results.

Originally posted by Ashtrei
reply to post by DeboWilliams

 

Again a looooong bow to draw, his interest in music is a common one,

Having said that you missed this

"hey i saw that ufo too me and my friends catched it on a cellphone video camera!!!!"

He posted this on Eli's original vid, but the 4th vid looks to be of higher quality than a cellphone cam, i could be wrong, some cellphone cams have high res these days.
I find this a little sus

again not conclusive evidence of a hoax, but sus none the less

dude why you keep talking to me, I'm not even going to debate anymore because its over. Youll be the last one believing this crap. Did you fail to even acknowledge that Eli didnt even record the first video? Or did you let that go into one ear and out the other too

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist

However the UFO doesn't move with the rest of the image, instead it looks like it was composited on top of the city footage and wasn't motion tracked properly. There is no horizontal movement from the UFO, it only moves straight up in a vertical line. Why doesn't it move with the rest of the footage?

Excellent work, could it be the case that by some fluke it isn't moving straight up but happens to be moving in the same direction the camera moves ?

Or does the actual "blurred trail" mean that can't occur ?

Originally posted by Ashtrei
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

There are a few of us here who dont hear what debo is hearing, and thus to some of us his theory is inconclusive.
Some one else many pages back posted they ran the sounds through similar software and they dont match

We are each entitled to our opinion, but its mine and that of others that the audio issue is inconclusive

I fully understand that various people will say proof provided is inconclusive.

Thus far we have seen the following-

Proof of impossible perspective...people say its CCD/CMOS image lag and wobble, though both things show no evidence of being the problem here. In fact, both things do not present themselves as two detached plains of perspective intelligently divided by a complex boarder that spans the entire length and width of the clip.

Proof that the city itself ignores laws of parallax- People seem unable to grasp this subject or again blame CCD/CMOS sensor failure even though a quick researching of these errors in digital video WILL show you that wobble and image lag do not present themselves in the manner you see here.

Integrated and progressive video elements exist side by side: Another smoking gun and evidence of direct image digital tampering- But people have ignored this proof and have gone so far as to say "adding something to youtube does this", or "changing file format can do this". To the best of my knowledge and research, I find no supporting evidence that adding a clip to youtube can produce a finger print that connects the video to tampering in this fashion.

Audio anomalies and discrepancies that shouldn't be present unless it is an altered version of the same clip and not two actual mics separated by real space: But people say "psshaw. that's inconclusive" Without watching his ten minute explanation on why it is NOT POSSIBLE. Hell folks who have used film and video for long a time have stated Debo's research is very interesting and overly telling of manipulation of the audio- yet people continue to wave it away and say its not important.

Evidence of the light flash not reacting with everything in the clips as light should behave on buildings and people alike: Again people dismiss this and seem to think light doesn't need to highlight the citiy and the things around it. You can google hundreds of pictures lightning strikes that d particularly well to illustrate what happens when bright flashes happen over dark areas of populated cities. Things that do not happen in these clips.

Evidence that a VERY WELL KNOWN hoaxer is involved with this, one who is famous for creating and distributing viral CGI UFO clips: I know this isn't conclusive, but I see it ignored a lot.

What I am saying is simple...I've seen enough evidence to bet my credibility on certain facts presented through research others here are dismissing without even "understanding" what is being offered as evidence.

It seems that alls most people need are for two kids (not even the two in the vids) to come frward and say "we hoaxed this", or for a video expert to tell you (truthfully or not) that these are real or fake

Because real research that is resulting in a landslide of powerful evidence seems to be doing nothing but getting pooped on and passed on due to people not "getting it" or "assuming these facts do not apply to a youtube clip".

Further more- The part that bothers me most is the crowd saying this hoax seems expensive or well done.

How so? Apparently it doesn't even NEED to be well done. Audio flaws, perspective flaws, lighting flaws, digital flaws, bad acting, inconsistent movements and effects- all these things are present, yet nobody seems to think pointing them out relates to "evidence" because apparently when you upload film on to youtube- all that crap no longer matters.

Never mind the lack of witnesses and the fact that its been days without these kids coming forward to present raw footage n what would effectively be the most amazing video ever taken by human hands-

But I digress...

Point being, well done would mean these flaws and errors were not present.

Saying these flaws and errors can happen due to wind and image lag is just not reasonable IMNSHO.

And well crap...if we are going to throw all logic and evidence out the window and say "naw, that don't matter, its a cell phone"...then I wonder what we do need to "understand" these things being pointed out are "coffin nails" in the hoax at hand.


PS- My "O" button is broken" if you can't tell.

MM

reply to post by DeboWilliams


What a childish reply, this is a discussion forum, if you want to withdraw do so ,its up to you, but dont try and dictate who can and cant reply to your posts in an open public forum.

You are making absolute statements of fact , with nothing more to back them than your opinion.

This can be proven a hoax with irrefutable evidence, or pronounced hoax by proclamation

so far there have been plenty of people pronouncing hoax, but no one has proven it yet, least of all you

Just a quick point but in all of the analysis about the flash it is assumed that it is simply an optical light flash, a "natural light" I think as Zorgon put it.

It may not be as simple as that, there may be some x-ray component, some gravitational or further electro-magnetic element that results in effects not adhering to "natural light" behaviour.

Obviously a moot point if hoaxed anyway but calling a hoax because an extraordinary incident may cause extraordinary effects is a breakdown of logic.

Originally posted by Ashtrei
reply to post by DeboWilliams

 

What a childish reply, this is a discussion forum, if you want to withdraw do so ,its up to you, but dont try and dictate who can and cant reply to your posts in an open public forum.

You are making absolute statements of fact , with nothing more to back them than your opinion.

This can be proven a hoax with irrefutable evidence, or pronounced hoax by proclamation

so far there have been plenty of people pronouncing hoax, but no one has proven it yet, least of all you

In one ear and out the other with this guy. Thank you for your assistance in helping us debunk or prove these with the evidence you provided. Oh wait, that's right you didn't

Originally posted by DeboWilliams
Rofl, the one kid Michael is a amateur music producer. That would explain the audio editing, and why it's not that great.

his youtube channel here

Yall been bamboozled

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

Not conclusive, but evidence that he has understanding of the tools to produce the altered audio you have isolated and shown in your clip.

Debo, I ask you to reserve your cool. I am pretty sure your evidence is a smoking gun. Don't let people piss you off by ignoring or misunderstanding your information.

I understand you. I hear and see what you point to. I have recorded thousands of individuals for decades using all sorts of mics, including setting up entire halls for recording crowds and performance acts of various levels of profession.

What I am saying is- remain cool, stand on your word as long as you feel it is true. Truth will come in the end, and when it does, everything you have done to prove it will be documented for all to see...including all the cheap shots at your work's credibility.

Take the moral high road my friend. You do/did great work here. I feel assured you will be validated soon enough.

MM

reply to post by Ashtrei


Seriously, fellow...what have you contributed to this discussion, other than your close-minded opinion throughout? You're not helping.

reply to post by Mr Mask


Very good and valid points, based on probability it's all a hoax.

However it is natural for those who take a position on one or other side of an argument to demand conclusive proof and after all, isn't that why this thread was resurrected ?

Is it time then for your thread to be moved to the hoax area ?

reply to post by Mr Mask


Here we go again, your opinion is suspect because you cant even see that the walls in one location are different from the walls in another
You might think your clever, i dont.
you say again as if its a fact there are no witness's but there are their testimonys were posted a while back.

You also said zorgon didnt say the video was "made" by sorcha faal, and were then forced to admit "you got it wrong"

here is what you said

I guess he did say it.


Oh well...I'm wrong. These things happen in chaos.

At least I'm honest enough to admit it, and clever enough to see it of myself

By your own admission your not infalliable, and thus neither are your current conclusions

David Biedny is an expert, he says your "theorys" about the vids are wrong and that the images are good
Im entitled to decide whose opinion i find more credible, and it aint yours

this ones a classic

Evidence that a VERY WELL KNOWN hoaxer is involved with this, one who is famous for creating and distributing viral CGI UFO clips:

So ANW made a copy, and thats EVIDENCE hes involved ?

If thats an example of your critical thinking, is it any wonder i dont consider your opinions valid, where is this evidence ?
The same place you keep your "evidence" the walls are the same in all the clips ?