UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

Originally posted by DeboWilliams
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

He says it's the wind, the wind is that precise. Or the combination of 2 microphones which we do not know the models of.

You make yourself look sad when you try to bash me. You just said yourself 'or the combination of 2 microphones which we do not know the models of". The mask is having good input now you start out okay till someone doesnt agree with you. Thats why I have supported you this whole thread yet you shoot me down.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

it's a bunch of little kids trying to figure out how the magician pulled a bunny out of his hat.

ewww, he's good

good night guys...

And I'm sitting here yelling "The rabbit was already in the hat before he pulled it out! You can HEAR HIM!"

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Little kids? Seams thats all you have contributed to this is poking fun. Yet you do not try to discredit or credit anything. Good night.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
seriously though- use logic here

all these videos generally look the same. they all share the same background and lighting effects.

so if you've determined that any one of these videos are fake, then how can they not all be fakes?

They are not the same, and contain serious discrepancies. The "flash" before take off in one video doesn't exist. The still frame analysis clearly shows that the "UFO" was implanted onto a background photo. An earlier analysis showed that the "UFO" did not have horizontal movements in accordance with the video, which means it was implanted, with spliced sound effects.

The task here is no longer to determine whether they are fake, but "who done it?"

reply to post by Al E. Inn


I like your post a lot. Good choice of info to post.

I think its amazing, that unintentionally, our collective has done almost all of that thus far. I was reading and saying to myself-

"Check, check, check, ok not yet, check , kinda, check" the entire time.

Anyways, I like the legal perspective.

I'd say I'm not ready to stand jury yet, but not because of lack of evidence, but for evidence unverified by science as of yet.

We may not have enough to have a man legally hanged, but surly enough to have one arrested and brought in for trial. Sadly, hoaxers are immune to all law that protect people from trickery and scams...so it seems.

I personally don't get how fooling the world is "not" something that is worthy of being called "criminal". Hoaxers need to be arrested. Its just how bad I dislike them and the fact that they damage important areas of research.

Anyways...thanks for that post. It was interesting to see how ATS wrks alongside that model to some applaudable degree.

MM

This may not bring anything new to the table, but I just had to show it...

Discovery.com - Jerusalem UFO Almost Certainly a Hoax

...they linked to my videos I created.

Originally posted by ExCloud

Originally posted by DeboWilliams
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

He says it's the wind, the wind is that precise. Or the combination of 2 microphones which we do not know the models of.

You make yourself look sad when you try to bash me. You just said yourself 'or the combination of 2 microphones which we do not know the models of". The mask is having good input now you start out okay till someone doesnt agree with you. Thats why I have supported you this whole thread yet you shoot me down.

Hey, thats what you guys said, obviously you extrapolate that I was being sarcastic by repeating what I've heard you and your fellow nay-sayers said, don't believe that I didnt say it was because of the 2 separate microphones? feel free to shift through the past 40 pages, cause you won't find it. You keep trying to twist my words around to justify your point of view, it's completely childish.

Is that or is those not what you have stated "it's inconclusive because of to many unknown unknowns" "we don't know what mics are being used" "the wind trajectory could account for the change in audio"

The funniest thing is, you don't know jack about audio recording and you've shown this, yet your clearly a authority on what CAN and what CANNOT happen.

Hilarious

reply to post by ExCloud


It's become funny now. Two massive threads on this and we're still debating.

I don't know why people are giving these videos so much attention. They're not that good.

5 videos. Released within 5 days of each other. All of the same supposed event. 2 or 3 of which have been debunked. What makes you think the remaining videos are real if they're all of the same damn thing?

Where are the photographers who shot these? Why haven't they come forward to defend their case?

These are all from the same group of hoaxers.

reply to post by DeboWilliams


it is what I said and you are trying to use it against me this the reason you look sad because you keep discrediting yourself. I am going to go back to not replying to you for a while. Seams I reply I get a few good responses then you get upset.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


I explained this earlier please read better.

reply to post by RayA54



My point is they're all of the same event and have the same general feel to them.

Who makes fakes of random ufo videos that haven't yet been determined to be real or not? And we're not talking one fake, but multiple fakes by different people.(supposedly)

It makes no sense

Originally posted by jennybee35
reply to post by QuantumDisciple

 

Has David Biedny been on this thread and I missed it? I have him as a friend on fb and was considering asking him to look more closely at #4. Should I?

I would really like to hear hear his assessment, wouldn't ya'll?

He has already stated things about the videos. It has been posted a few times.

I personally don't care what he has to say as I am not a fan of his work.

Maybe one day I'll explain further...but not today.

MM

Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by DeboWilliams

 

it is what I said and you are trying to use it against me this the reason you look sad because you keep discrediting yourself. I am going to go back to not replying to you for a while. Seams I reply I get a few good responses then you get upset.

That's because you go and say some nonsense, then get bent outta shape when I pull you card

Let me I ask, did you ever go and do the exercise?

reply to post by ExCloud


What side are you on anyway. I'm so confused

Originally posted by Mr Mask
reply to post by Al E. Inn

 

I like your post a lot. Good choice of info to post.

I think its amazing, that unintentionally, our collective has done almost all of that thus far. I was reading and saying to myself-

"Check, check, check, ok not yet, check , kinda, check" the entire time.

Anyways, I like the legal perspective.

I'd say I'm not ready to stand jury yet, but not because of lack of evidence, but for evidence unverified by science as of yet.

We may not have enough to have a man legally hanged, but surly enough to have one arrested and brought in for trial. Sadly, hoaxers are immune to all law that protect people from trickery and scams...so it seems.

I personally don't get how fooling the world is "not" something that is worthy of being called "criminal". Hoaxers need to be arrested. Its just how bad I dislike them and the fact that they damage important areas of research.

Anyways...thanks for that post. It was interesting to see how ATS wrks alongside that model to some applaudable degree.

MM

Another awesome post with a like minded individual. Only difference is I defend the videos and he is defending the debunkers and we are both asking legit questions on both sides. How do you star? I am at a point where I can not hang these as fake. I would like to thank you for this as it sums up my perspective some what. Everyone thinks I want these videos to be legit I dont.

Originally posted by Mr Mask
reply to post by pezza

 

I starred that post. I must admit though, the stuff you are speaking about often slipped into areas that baffle me. But the physics side sat well with me, and I have also pointed out how nothing is actually illuminated by this light.

But, there are members here and elsewhere who have stated they think finding the real "fakeness" behind this is probably in the light.

I agree...but have no way of testing or proving this theory.

MM

hi mr mask, feel free to u2u me with specific queries in relation to the content i have put forward.

Regarding the relationship between light and the authenticity of the video, i guess there are a number of things that could be examined. For example, are thermodynamic laws obeyed, is physics obeyed? Is the data itself consistent with what would be obtained with said equipment (camera/model). In an extreme case of this, if a thermometer produced pressure readings you would dismiss the data as fake. I could name more.

I chose light first to examine because the basic units of the data itself (as recieved by the sensor) relate to photons sent by the terrain. Thus, looking at light as the basic element in the data is a direct analysis in itself.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


I have to be on a side?

reply to post by Mr Mask


Thank you. I am a true ATS member that values this site as not a chat site but a place to have intelligent contribution to the research and discovery of the unknown.
The very nature of the unknown is circumstantial. Let's present our best evidence or a scientist would say "observations" and draw our conclusions.
It's too bad we have to debate hoax v. authentic but that's the cards we're dealt.
I remain hopeful that some compelling evidence proves these videos authentic but I remain unpersuaded.

reply to post by Mr Mask


his posts were based off the ones on the media from my understanding off of video 3.

Originally posted by Mr Mask
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

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

Yeah you did, you called me a jerk, put what ever spin you like on it theis is what you said

"just using one-liner BS to be a jerk"

to be a jerk

a jerk

you called me A jerk.

Not jerky not jerkish or jerk like A jerk

While at the same time admonishing me to be civil

You said i was irrelevant and unproductive, but today ive been thanked for providing a link to a translated version of vid one, and MSM news articles, the evidence does not support your ignorant opinion
which is more or less a constant in this matter

the only person you are fooling when you say you didnt call me a jerk.....is you

You did, i can quote you
lets compare
"I never called you a jerk"
to
"just using one-liner BS to be a jerk"

as usual your deluded and incorrect opinion is trashed by the facts