UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

HOAX!! The video that is labeled THE BEST I believe it was the fourth or fifth one confirms this as a hoax for me. If the object of the clip is to show the UFO, then we do not need to see the 5 minutes or so of utter BS that preceded the showing of the UFO. It is almost like whoever filmed it wanted the crap scene of the people in the car to be more important than the UFO.

reply to post by HenryJamsAlot


Tell me have you read all 80 pages of this thread and all 81 of the other thread ?
People have said many incorrect things which i have shown to be wrong, ive set the record straight on a number of falsehoods, such as sorcha fall made the 4th vid, no he didnt he copied it
Such things as there have been no mainstream media reports, wrong, ive provided links to them

My contribution has been in setting the record straight when ignorant falsehoods are posted as absolute fact

reply to post by Mr Mask

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.

I had to stop when I read this. See my post on page 80 about lighting.

Originally posted by chunder
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 ?

I've stated on page 30-something of the old thread that the perspective problems with clip one prove a fake. But people say "nope- perspective can detach itself because of CCD/CMOS errors".

Is it time? I think so...think it was so days ago.

Sadly, it seems many need a credited expert or a TV personality to come and tell us all what is being said already for anyone to believe the evidence.

As far as I am concerned, this was debunked the first day it was out by showing that the background intelligently behaves correctly as a separate perspective plain while the foreground also behaves intelligently on an entirely different plain of perspective.

But that is my opinion, and anyone has the right to reserve judgment on that.

I personally need nothing more then that to see the foreground is superimposed over a preexisting background.

MM

reply to post by timewalker


He will ignore it, evidence is not as important as his opinion and preconcieved notions

Originally posted by timewalker
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

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.

I had to stop when I read this. See my post on page 80 about lighting.

Sir...In all due respect, I have read your contributions here, along with every post in both threads now (in efforts to make sure the Hoaxer's name remains off this site, and out of curiosity).

The light acts strangely. You have glass everywhere in said city...along with metals and other highly reflective surfaces. None reflect bright spots outside the light effect we see. Nothing outside the radius of the light's circle brightens to the presence of a giant flash. No windows, no cars, no roof tops, no hills, not even the wall and tree.

Sorry...if saying there seems to be flaws with the way the light is working is enough for you to stop reading what I have to say.

Also- notice there are many many videos of Jerusalem at night online. Over the past few days I've watched close to 50 or so looking for screen shots that may have been used for the background. All, and I mean ALL show heavy and constant traffic.

Meaning, this giant light explodes over a well populated area with plenty of traffic, makes the news, and hundreds of people don't come out saying "I saw a giant explosive light over our most sacred place of worship".

Yes...I know...inconclusive...

MM

reply to post by Ashtrei


Sir...please stop that sort of posting.

I will not be polite and open to the ideas of such rudeness.

Lets get this right- you have done nothing here to refute or prove anything through research or reasoning. You have more then once been rude to people in this thread while failing to remain relevant or productive.

I really do not enjoy seeing you tell a community that I care about and work with, that I do not need evidence nor do I pay attention to it, when it is clear I have done my best to educate myself and others (even if you deem it wrong information) on details of this entire case.

Links, pictures, vids, hypothesizing, researching and presenting my findings- I find myself being far more productive then just using one-liner BS to be a jerk.

Disigree with what I say...fine...please work on being civil. It can only benefit all sides.

Thank you.

MM

reply to post by Mr Mask

A little hot around the collar are we? I meant no disrespect. Just thought it might be something and didn't want it to go by the wayside. Really wanted some opinions of people who know about these things.

Sorry if my actions or posting contribution is not up to your par. Sir.

Originally posted by timewalker
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

A little hot around the collar are we? I meant no disrespect. Just thought it might be something and didn't want it to go by the wayside. Really wanted some opinions of people who know about these things.

Sorry if my actions or posting contribution is not up to your par. Sir.

Hot? No sir...just noting who is working towards truth and who is amused more by being rude and disruptive.

Do you disagree that your last post deserved attention based on its lack of information?

MM

Ya know what. Lay off. Fact is I'm a smart guy and i learn fast. In fact the hard and fast lessons that I have learned over the last few days have greatly helped me to understand this debunking process. I learned for instance that all you really have to work with in this case and most cases with UFO stuff is video and if you are lucky; sound. So I've learned about parallax: Mr. mask, in #1 I can't see it. sorry. I think this is a hoax. I know I'm thick headed, but I don't see it. I want to. But I don't. And sound stuff: Debo, jesus sometimes I wonder; I've met lots of sound pros but sometimes you come off as really arrogant. How about just showing us some dead on wiggles. If that is what you call them. Envelopes. I think the proof has come from tracking these jackasses down and revealing clues left on their stupid social networking sites. Lay off Ashtrei he has contributed to at least keeping you around. Likewise for Excloud. Mellow.

Had anyone tried contacting any of the guys who filmed the video's? The last guy who came out mentioned being upset with a journalist that stole his video. I wonder if he is referring to "All News Web." It may be worth asking him if his video has been altered. Perhaps it was shot without sounds and ANW altered it to make a better story. Just a thought...

Originally posted by timewalker
.
Sorry if my actions or posting contribution is not up to your par. Sir.

On the contrary...I think your participation on this thread was wonderful, even in direct conflict with my own views you remained intelligent and productive. Everything we need.

But it seems VERY CLEAR a certain group of posters have used the last ten or so pages to dissolve into a bitter pissing match.

I want it to end.

I would enjoy seeing this thread remain civil and on the case.

I am not calling people idiots for not understanding evidence they plainly ignored or misunderstood. Nor am I making jokes about people's posts.

People are TRYING to help and figure stuff out. If you berate or ridicule them for it, research will lose momentum.

I simply want what I see going on here since I last left to sleep and do life stuff, to end.

Please...everyone...remain focused and stop this spiraling out of civil control.

We are all on the same team damnit.

MM

reply to post by Mr Mask

Rude? Disruptive? Honestly?

When I posted the inverts, I was hoping you would pop in the thread.

When I saw you come back to the thread, not to try to prove you wrong, but because I think your a guy who might have some insight to the lighting. I made that comment so you would be sure to see it. I have not put the hours and diligence into this thread as you have, sue me.

Just wanted to contribute.

I have not even made up my mind yet about the whole thing.

Seriously????????????

Originally posted by Frater210
Ya know what. Lay off. Fact is I'm a smart guy and i learn fast. In fact the hard and fast lessons that I have learned over the last few days have greatly helped me to understand this debunking process. I learned for instance that all you really have to work with in this case and most cases with UFO stuff is video and if you are lucky; sound. So I've learned about parallax: Mr. mask, in #1 I can't see it. sorry. I think this is a hoax. I know I'm thick headed, but I don't see it. I want to. But I don't. And sound stuff: Debo, jesus sometimes I wonder; I've met lots of sound pros but sometimes you come off as really arrogant. How about just showing us some dead on wiggles. If that is what you call them. Envelopes. I think the proof has come from tracking these jackasses down and revealing clues left on their stupid social networking sites. Lay off Ashtrei he has contributed to at least keeping you around. Likewise for Excloud. Mellow.

Doesn't matter how I come off, the fact is, I'm bringing knowledge to the table, and I'm outlining flaws and discrepencies. Regardless if you "like me" or not, your opinion on my personality doesnt cause my information to become void.

I have no doubtly by now stated 5+ times that the visual, valley - peak envelope will not look the same. Why won't it? (for the 10th time) Because of compression, downsampling, and changing formats.

Want proof why this happens? record yourself and save the file to your desktop, upload it to youtube as a video, then use Keep-vid.com to download just the mp3, then open up both the downloaded mp3 and the one you saved on your desktop. It's going to look similair, but not bit for bit. Yet you know they are the same audio source right? you know that YOU only recorded it once right? This is why you CANNOT go by visual comparison alone in the audio realm.

If you say to your self "ooh, thats too much work, I'd rather be lazy and just reply without doing all that work", then I can make it even easier.

Go download 2 mp3s, 1 320kbps quality, and one 224kbps quality. They will sound the same to you, but if you open them up, the envelopes will once again look basically the same, but when you zoom in they'll be altered.

Don't take my word for it, go try it yourself.

I come off as arrogant because I've been dealing with audio for so long, then comes someone whose never even opened up sound recorder trying to discredit my craft with their ignorance, even after I've given them exercises that they can do to help them understand what they obviously don't

Isn't it possible to pick the ball of light thing in #4 apart like I see them do on T.V.? Seriously, has there been some kind of analysis like that? I have been keeping up as diligently as humanly possible. Did I miss it?
Is there possibly some open source video analysis software that I can get my hands on?

Originally posted by timewalker
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

Rude? Disruptive? Honestly?

When I posted the inverts, I was hoping you would pop in the thread.

When I saw you come back to the thread, not to try to prove you wrong, but because I think your a guy who might have some insight to the lighting. I made that comment so you would be sure to see it. I have not put the hours and diligence into this thread as you have, sue me.

Just wanted to contribute.

I have not even made up my mind yet about the whole thing.

Seriously????????????

My comments above are not just to you. The last ten or so pages of this thread have devolved into a matching of egos and banter not welcomed. Something I will refuse to be part of if it continues.

I did not respond to your research on the light of the video because I admit to not being an expert on light, though I have studied lighting all my artistic life.

I know what I "think" should be happening with light, but I know very well that light can often do strange things when put through glass and by itself alone.

I don't know if the light issues have been debunked or proven legitimate. I do not claim to be an expert on light and its various effects. I can only seek out pictures and videos of light flashing over dark environments and conclude that this light in the first clip seems to not follow suit with all I've been looking at in the past few days, nor does it sit well with my artistic instincts.

I have even stated in other pages that I am not convinced the light is fake based on the evidence provided. But it looks fake to me and I may be wrong.

Until I can see evidence either way showing me it is wrong, or locate the information to prove this to myself (I'm looking)- I can't place my credibility on the line saying either way.

I hope that is honest enough and explained correctly.

Thank you for your work here. Your efforts are appreciated by me, and I'm sure many others.

I also love your avatar.

My god...its full of stars (I know, sequels suck).

MM

reply to post by DeboWilliams


OK. I see. I actually do have enough experience from dabbling and a love of music to understand what you are saying. I just wasn't able to put the pieces together. You're easy explanation does it. So I will assume in advance that the differences would not be microscopic and, excuse me I am not being contentious but, I would be able to see these discrepancies while looking at your demo on my screen? Thank you, Debo.

Must have been typing when you posted. I was beginning to wonder. .

It will die off soon enough unless something amazing happens.

Sorry my typing is slow and I'm getting tired. Sorry for making it go on some more.

My point entirely with the building in the pic is,and again I am no expert, it just seems to me that either the light really was there, or what I am getting at is how difficult would it be to pixel by pixel, digitally add the light wrap around the curved surface of the building back and forth between flashes.?? Experts.........

Thanks. I like your comics....

Originally posted by timewalker
Must have been typing when you posted. I was beginning to wonder.

.

It will die off soon enough unless something amazing happens.

I hope when it dies, it dies of being debunked or proven legit.

Though I can't see it dying if proven legit.

Either way, I think there is enough evidence present in clips one and two to prove it one way or another. We just need to locate the weakness or strength, isolate it, and then present it correctly for all to see.

Not easy...not at all...but we are a think tank that constantly gains the attention of the media's reporters. Know why? Cus they are lazy and we do their work.

So, I say we continue forward together and on the same team. We are ATS. Us...nobody else but us users and staff.

If we fight between each other, we are at a disadvantage. And far WORSE, if this is a hoax then it was surly made to poke fun at communities like ours, and they are laughing at our in-fighting right now.

We must focus and remain true to our duty here...and remember the real enemy is the hoaxers of this world. Not each other and the mistakes we may make in researching this together.

MM