UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

takings votes now.

TRUE[ ] HOAX[ ]?

true..

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


Since we are talking about possible unknown technology, maybe the UFO over the city altered the time dilation of the nearby area, causing things there to slow down while things further away remained at the same procession of time.... maybe...

reply to post by ExCloud


It doesn't matter how garbage a video is... a light that turns off will show up. A light that turns on will show up. A light that moves down roads will show up... None of that happens... and all you can say is that the lighting is garbage...

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


Obviously it's the flash forget technology from Men in Black,do you think hollywood just makes that up? Geez, don't u understand?

reply to post by esteay812


Uh.. no...

Then why do cars move in Video 4?

reply to post by Ashtrei




They have not communicated with interviewers and claim it is because they had work stolen.

Point being, they have not come out of the woodwork and offered their footage, story or evidence as of yet.

Posting youtube and facebook comments from possibly suspect hoaxers (highly suspect), as gospel or "coming out" is a far cry from actually coming out to share facts.

They are playing a painfully weird game of being silent. And why? Becuase a hack hoaxer posted he had access to the story?

Wait...think about this...I have possibly the world's most amazing footage ever filmed in the history of mankind, but I refuse to come out because- "some hoaxers stole my youtube clip?"

Think about that...stop...think...real hard...stop ignoring everything I say and disputing it for dispute sake.

I said they didn't reveal themselves or give interview...you say "not true".

Please...I really don't like ignoring folks, but I am starting to think you are doing this for amusement, and I am really going to have to ignore your posts. I don't want to have to ignore legitimate people's opinions in a research circle.

So please...try and see what I am saying before you jump in and just dispute it by saying something irrelevant and unrelated to what was said in the first place...if you can.

Thank you.

MM

reply to post by DeboWilliams


is an answer a response, is a response an answer, please respond/answer .........

Originally posted by burntoast
takings votes now.

TRUE[ ] HOAX[X ]?

reply to post by Mr Mask


I thought you were ignoring me
let me show you how its done............................

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


Go back and review due to distance some of the lights do not show up. If you zoom in you can see where they somewhat are, but cant make them out 100% due to distance. Like I said I tested this on my phone I suggest you do the same with your zoom etc and you will see what I mean adjust some settings here and there.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


HaHa... obviously video four is put out to try and blow the first videos up. Or Video #4 was being filmed by aliens who had a camera with built in technology which would account for the time dilation caused by the UFO. Just saying, anything is possible... maybe

TRUE[O ] HOAX[X ]?

reply to post by burntoast


to be fair there are 3 options true/false/dont know yet

i vote the 3rd option at this point in time

Originally posted by Mr Mask

Originally posted by burntoast
takings votes now.

TRUE[ ] HOAX[X ]?

inconclusive neither here nor their

TRUE [ ] HOAX [X]

when a UFO appeared over Chicago O'Hare Airport, local news had no problem authenticating witnesses.

reply to post by GeisterFahrer


yet this is still a hoax to most people remember that

TRUE [ ] HOAX [x]

sadly .....hoax

Originally posted by Ashtrei
reply to post by DeboWilliams

 

is an answer a response, is a response an answer, please respond/answer .........

That's subjective. I guess both are the same or atleast interchangeable by definition.

response and answer

But your just not getting the point. The people have shown (so far, for reasons known / unknown) reluctance to answer MORE important questions other than if they WOULD answer questions. This is my point, and that was what I was conveying when I responded to his question. Understand, is there any loopholes in what I've just explained to you?

or is it non conclusive.

TRUE [ ] HOAX [x]

Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

 

Go back and review due to distance some of the lights do not show up. If you zoom in you can see where they somewhat are, but cant make them out 100% due to distance. Like I said I tested this on my phone I suggest you do the same with your zoom etc and you will see what I mean adjust some settings here and there.

Your answers are hilarious!

First off, I am only talking about video 1 right now..

Due to distance, you can't see any lights turn off? No lights turn on? You can't see any moving lights?

Sorry buddy, I used to live in a house on a hill with a room that looked over the city. I have viewed the lights through a cell phone camera, a real camera, and other devices, almost every night I would look at the city lights one way or another..... There will always be lights turning on, and always lights turning off, and always cars moving... and always stop signals changing, etc...

Why doesn't that stuff show up in the video?

Not even ONE light.... even towards the bottom of the city where it is closer, not even 1 light turns on. Not 1 light turns off... Not 1 light, big or small, moves...



So, how about I measure the distance between that camera and the Temple.. we know the place the video was supposedly taken from right?... So, when I find out the distance.... and I prove your argument wrong.. what will you say next?

reply to post by DeboWilliams


Ok...proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
Criminal Jury Instructions Home


2.2-3 Reasonable Doubt

Revised to December 1, 2007

The meaning of reasonable doubt can be arrived at by emphasizing the word reasonable. It is not a surmise, a guess or mere conjecture.1 It is not a doubt raised by anyone simply for the sake of raising a doubt. It is such a doubt as, in serious affairs that concern you, you would heed; that is, such a doubt as would cause reasonable men and women to hesitate to act upon it in matters of importance.2 It is not hesitation springing from any feelings of pity or sympathy for the accused or any other person who might be affected by your decision. It is, in other words, a real doubt, an honest doubt, a doubt that has its foundation in the evidence or lack of evidence.3 It is doubt that is honestly entertained and is reasonable in light of the evidence after a fair comparison and careful examination of the entire evidence.4