UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

reply to post by Pinke

Thanks. Though most of went over my head. My knowledge is limited to say, lens flare in photoshop.


As much as I would like to believe this.......

First I was getting real suspicious that no one in Jerusalem was tweeting, FB, or whatever communication, other than these people???

2nd. I have to take you guy's technical dissection scientifically (as much as I can comprehend).

Besides I have already seen my own and don't need this anyway...........


I will check back for outcome.

Thanks to everyone for making ATS the schnizel!

Originally posted by Mr Mask
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

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

when have i called YOU a jerk ?

Do as i say but not as i do ?
The entire post above is whats called "transferance" in psychiatric circles
You insist i be civil while calling me a jerk ?
You insist i be civil while saying im irrelevant and unproductive ?

classic transference

Originally posted by Ashtrei
reply to post by DeboWilliams

 

Thanks for posting, but i still dont see it, what about this makes one a copy instead of a recording of the same sound

Notice the highlighted, inverted (bright green) area? notice how the audio in the top just JUMPS into existance? Can you see how they are now at the same volume as the audio from below? Do you see how BEFORE that jump, the audio level in the top is extremely low? Did you take notice to the "peaks" in the circles, the talls spikes, notice they are in the same locations in BOTH audio recordings, and all they are is just a clicking sound (mostlikely from the hands on the camera).

What you are seeing is, they copied the audio, decreased the volume until it got to the JUMP, then left the audio alone for about 20 seconds, because it was silent (no speech) anyways at this point, then dropped the audio down afterwards where there was some speech agian from the guy that is filming video 1

Right where that audio jumps at in the top file, there is a CHHHH sound, like white noise. which is left over from the bottom audio file, right before that video 1 guy says chhhh, chhhh, like this

video 1 guy............chhhhh chhhhh
video 2 guy............................daee daee daee!

the sounds are overlapped like shown above, if you cut out the sound before it it will look like this

video 1 guy.............................hhh
video 2 guy.............................daee daee daee!

You cannot easily remove 2 voices from 1 recording.

and THAT is the loud "white noise" sound you here for that moment.

reply to post by Blue Shift


Excellent work - is their an "emission" aside from light photons that would cause a flash effect in a camera but not be noticeable to the naked eye ?

I am obviously no physicist but could some form of radiation have that effect ?

Does anyone know, not specifically directed to Blue Shift.

Originally posted by DeboWilliams
reply to post by Frater210

 

edit on 5-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)

Note the circles ( pay attention to the peak inside the circles) and the highlighted inverted green area

edit on 5-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)

To explain this further.

There is no difference, other then level of sound between the clips. He is saying that is the mic's positions were reversed (as shown to be real by UFO clips one and two) there would be minor differences in the details f the audio that do not show here.

Now for those who think stuff like this is irrelevant or ho-hum, I can tell you that personally I have spent years of my life looking at audio files in this format and recording them- to a point where I can recognize certain words in this format- "example, the F-word is a lima bean shape with the crest upward and the curve downwards).

Anyways...what I am saying is, Debo is showing us that both clips do not show differences in sound other then level of loudness, where things should not work that way.

There should be small noises present in clip one that did not amplify themselves n the same recording level, ultimately disappearing or presenting themselves differently from each other by becoming different shapes.

Also, the second clip should have added details that the first mic did not pick up due to its new and changed location from the first.

Point being- two mics, two separate places near two different sources of sound, yet both mirror each other in all aspects but sound output level.

Meaning, clip one is simply a louder version of clip two.

I've stated I personally see now reason for this. I have workedollowing programs and equipment (some still daily) for over 25 years.-

Full Taskcam "analog" studio (ex professional radio station full set), cooledit, cakewalk, calkwalk pro, garageband, audacity, fruitloops (ew), and pro-logic.

I am nt guessing with no reason to support my thoughts on this.

When I listened to Debo's analysis "before he showed visuals of his research" I was not convinced. fter his first video I instantly "got it" and said "wow...hes right".

He was not clear in his first presentation and got increasingly clearer as time went on.

Really...I really wish people would stp and ponder the logic of this and either tell me how this is possible, or agree with the analysis. I know the subject is a bit complex for those who have not worked with sound in the past, but for those who have, please listen to Debo's research and the findings produced through it.

And then tell me what you think.

PS- It will be painfully obvious if you failed to listen to his entire case or if you have misunderstood his findings. In fact, there is no shortage on folks commenting on his findings while showing they infact "did not" listen to it, or "get it".

Not saying you must agree...I simply am asking for legitimate answers to his solid questions that I find "to be a possible most-likely smoking gun" due to my intense history with working with sound daily for a quarter of a century.

Thank you

MM

MM

Originally posted by Ashtrei
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

So youve been made a mod now ?

who are you to tell me to stop posting ?

I have never told you to stop posting. I have told you to remain civil.

Who am I? guy who is watching you start fights where there should be none.

Am I a mod? No...but I have contacted them due to what I see here.

Thank you.

reply to post by Ashtrei


Like many times before, you have misquoted me yet again to bend logic to your agenda.

I never called you a jerk.

I have pointed out that there are BS jerky one-liners in the past ten pages of this thread.

Like I told you before, I'm now actively ignoring you until you begin acting in a way I personally find worthy of intelligent interaction.

Thank you.

MM

Originally posted by chunder
Then why do you bother posting here at all, because by the known laws of physics an object such as the one depicted could not possibly move like that so cannot possibly be there to even emit the light to start with.

By the very nature of what is being discussed we are at least admitting to an incomplete knowledge of physics in terms of propulsion, why can't that be extrapolated to light.

Stop saying 'we' just because you need to grasp at straws to keep on believing, doesn't mean everyone does.

While it can be argued that knowledge of UFO's may be limited (to some) light however is light. Someone suggested x-rays those are invisible to human eyes

Carry on though... this is amusing ...

reply to post by DeboWilliams


I forgot to also applaud your discovery of the "chhh chh chh, dea dea dea" anomaly.

Also hard hitting stuff IMHO. When explained and shown, very heavy stuff.

I really want an explanation how this happened.

MM

Hi, Gang. Here is another fantastic example of CMOS jello. I will add the link. I have gone back to take a look at #1 and #2. I think that these beautiful examples of jello will now help to maybe show that 1 and 2 are probably hoaxes. Although I do not see a whole lot of jello in 2 it is resplendent in 1. It is awfully strange though because the only jello is from the wall down and including the the guy in front holding up the phone. I am saying that the jello is seemingly totally absent from the cityscape. I would post 1 and 2 again but don't know how to embed quite yet. Please look if interested. I'm sold.

CMOS Jello Demo: www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Mr Mask


Did the audio come from the clips posted by the guy(s) who shot the clips? Or are these from ANW? I have a sneaking suspicion the "less than honest" people behind ANW may have taken the audio from one and added it to the other.

reply to post by Mr Mask


I might ask are you here for flags or are you looking at the evidence. This is coming from page 83. If you say this is a hoax now you are far from correct. The audio is not conclusive because the "ENVELOPES" do not match up pay attention! We see everything else they still look to be coming from different audio.

Originally posted by QuantumDisciple
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

Did the audio come from the clips posted by the guy(s) who shot the clips? Or are these from ANW? I have a sneaking suspicion the "less than honest" people behind ANW may have taken the audio from one and added it to the other.

I believe Debo states its from the clips.

MM

reply to post by Mr Mask


This is coming from page 84 - It doesnt matter then envelopes should still be close to the same and judging by your video they are not just look at them from my visual perspective and your video they are not close.

Originally posted by QuantumDisciple
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

Did the audio come from the clips posted by the guy(s) who shot the clips? Or are these from ANW? I have a sneaking suspicion the "less than honest" people behind ANW may have taken the audio from one and added it to the other.

The first audio came from the video posted on eligaels youtube page, and the audio for the second audio came from shshsh331's youtube page, who is the person who recorded video 2

Regarding the parallax issue in Video #1, it would really help us non-experts connect the dots as to why the inconsistency exists. What mistake did the hoaxer make? What's the purpose of separating the foreground and the background? As another export member had pointed out, how can the hoaxer overlook such obvious flaw when he was so meticulous in all the other details?

I apologize if this has been asked and responded already.

Originally posted by DeboWilliams
reply to post by Frater210

 

edit on 5-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)

Note the circles ( pay attention to the peak inside the circles) and the highlighted inverted green area

edit on 5-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2011 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)

yes look at the peaks here. Then look at every little bit before that and after not the same. So this is not conclusive! it is not I am done with audio.

Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

I might ask are you here for flags or are you looking at the evidence. This is coming from page 83. If you say this is a hoax now you are far from correct. The audio is not conclusive because the "ENVELOPES" do not match up pay attention! We see everything else they still look to be coming from different audio.

I do not want flags, stars or money.

People seem to force them on me throughout my life.

I must say I do not see how anyone thinks these are different audio clips after looking at their WAV patterns.

I have admitted to the fact I may be wrong and await someone, with some legitimate answer to explain it to me. Cus thus far- no one has.

Like I said- it should be very easy seeing as I understand this technology very well.

Fact remains, these WAV formats show "to me" it is a reused clip of sound altered in volume not content. Small sounds barely heard in clip one should be gone or amplified (depending on distance and location; if barely audible due to being farther away or closer to) in clip two.

Yet what we have is a mirrored version, save for missing parts that are clipped out, but what remains is an exact mirrored clip but lowered (in clip two).

Again...I do not want to brag about my histories in sound, but I have personally worked with professional names in the music industry and used sound in projects intimately in this format for decades. I have also worked closesly with hundreds of musicians and sound engineers who I know would make sense of this one way or another in a way that translates into showing some knowledge of this technology.

Thus far, mst have failed to even get what Debo is saying, many more ignore it all together demanding their own ignorance of the subject proves it inconclusive.

No...sound can be used to convict.

I would like an educated explanation on how what Debo shows can and will happen between two different mics in two locations when two speakers are standing away from each other but next to these mics.

Waving it off with no explanation seems very "wasteful" to me.

MM





MM

Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

I might ask are you here for flags or are you looking at the evidence. This is coming from page 83. If you say this is a hoax now you are far from correct. The audio is not conclusive because the "ENVELOPES" do not match up pay attention! We see everything else they still look to be coming from different audio.

Do you have knowledge that if audio looks different, it must be different? are YOU able to prove this? Because I can prove that 1 audio file, copied and pasted, can look different

reply to post by Mr Mask


im going to take his pic he posted of the audio and circle every difference in them.... When my pic has more circles do I win? Just wondering.