UFO filmed over Jerusalem.

[Luther Blissett]

The soundtrack to that video is actually fairly sophisticated... Background conversations, conversations in a language other than english, wind blowing past the microphone, the southern rube, and then the actors voices(which also have a southern accent)... "Is that a ufo?", "holy shit", etc...

I'm with you. Since it's established that at the very least that video was an obvious hoax, we can know that the dialogue was written. It wasn't lifted from somewhere else because the timing matches the actions of the other videos. And I believe that the other language being spoken is Arabic, though I could be wrong. I'm saying that it is all by design.

I'm really up in the air about the other 4 videos. Those first two are very sophisticated in their coordination.

The hoax video set up to discredit the first one is itself using falsified information. If you watch the first video, it's clear that the two horizons stay parallel to one another.

I can't help but feel, however, that the UFO in the first, fourth (and fifth) video scream CGI to me. And I'm no skeptic. This really would be quite extraordinary footage if it wasn't fake (excluding the third video).

The amateurishness of the third video is very puzzling compared to the other four. Is it really a copycat hoax? Are they all hoaxes and coordinated together, or separately?

[psynapz]

Is it really a copycat hoax? Are they all hoaxes and coordinated together, or separately?

and this confusion is exactly what some factions in power strive towards, for whatever reason. They jam up the truth-telling process itself with simple and divisive credibility vacuums.

We'll never know for sure if the first two were real. I fucking hate that.

[barracuda]

We'll never know for sure if the first two were real. I fucking hate that.

The fat lady hasn't sung yet on this thing.

Anyway, I found an embeddable version of the full version of vid #4:

[brainpanhandler]

Since it's established that at the very least that video was an obvious hoax, we can know that the dialogue was written. It wasn't lifted from somewhere else because the timing matches the actions of the other videos.

Actually, I am contending that the following: "We've seen 'em in mississippi like this, but never, never, like this.", was in fact lifted from somewhere else and inserted. Mainly because the acting would have to be too good otherwise. When she pauses before she ends her sentence with "like this" it's because some part of her brain realizes she is about to contradict herself. Try getting an amateur actor to produce that level of realistic detail. I can possibly imagine tbhe hoaxsters getting their senile grandma or crazy aunt Jane that saw a ufo once to watch the video and then recording her reactions.

If you watch the first video, it's clear that the two horizons stay parallel to one another.

I found that argument pretty compelling. I don't think it's clear at all. Rather, I think there is some shifting about, possibly as a result of the jello effect mentioned. It also appears to me that the person in the foreground shifts around slightly relative to the wall, almost as if the video is composed of four layers; the ufo, the background, the foreground, and then the other person with a camera. It's a composition that lends itself to a blue screen technique. I went looking for a video or image that would correspond to the background, but have yet to find anything.

[Luther Blissett]

I found that argument pretty compelling. I don't think it's clear at all. Rather, I think there is some shifting about, possibly as a result of the jello effect mentioned. It also appears to me that the person in the foreground shifts around slightly relative to the wall, almost as if the video is composed of four layers; the ufo, the background, the foreground, and then the other person with a camera. It's a composition that lends itself to a blue screen technique. I went looking for a video or image that would correspond to the background, but have yet to find anything.

I don't know, when I watch the first video, defocus my eyes and stare blankly at the center of the video, it certainly seems like the wall and skyline move in conjunction with the movements of the camera (which is relatively stable as far as ufo-witnessing handheld cams go). I could be wrong, or it could be the "jello" effect. I'd like to see a second shot at stabilization.

[Simulist]

First of all, I know next to nothing about what I'm trying to understand — and this will become very clear in just a moment.

I'm assuming that the above video was taken from YouTube (or another similar service), and then analyzed.

If this is the case, mightn't the software used to convert and crunch digital video down to the sizes and specifications needed for "tube" sites be the cause of the shifts that are being seen?

[brainpanhandler]

Hoaxkiller1 has made another video that addresses the parallax explanation Barracuda mentioned. It's hard to tell from the short bit of looped video they use if the perceived movement between foreground and background conforms to the parallax effect or not.

[StarmanSkye]

From the same youtube poster Hoaxkiller1 whose video Brainpanhandler posted, this vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5s78wr0 ... r_embedded

(For some reason I can't get the embed feature to work for me, so I editted this to add the url above. What am I doing wrong?).


___________________
(bad old embed code originally meant for old windows media player embeds of some sort. now removed from main posting screen.)
here's what was enclosed in old wonky embed tags:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5s78wr0UF0&feature=player_embedded
___________________


provides an even better debunking that the vid(s) are hoaxes by showing the LCD grids and locating the wiki source image for the picture, and even showing the crude soundtrack splices of multiple audio inserts; I'm convinced this vid is most likely a hoax;

--quote--
This third view of the UFO from Temple Mount is completely FAKE.

They used a photograph to create a video. The original image is here at Wikipedia:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... t_7088.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Jerusalem_night_7088.JPG


After they animated a fake UFO into view, they displayed that animation on an LCD screen, and then filmed it with a video camera. Yes, they filmed an LCD screen with a video camera...

Then they added sound effects and did a horrible job blending them together...

They also forgot to add those fake lights common in the rest of the FAKE UFO VIDEOS.

This one is proven to be a HOAX 100%.

--unquote--

[Luther Blissett]

First of all, I know next to nothing about what I'm trying to understand — and this will become very clear in just a moment.

I'm assuming that the above video was taken from YouTube (or another similar service), and then analyzed.

If this is the case, mightn't the software used to convert and crunch digital video down to the sizes and specifications needed for "tube" sites be the cause of the shifts that are being seen?

No that wouldn't be it. It's a good guess though. The rate of compression wouldn't add that warbly "jello" effect. What it would look like to a layperson is simply that large blocking of pixel data on the screen, but that doesn't really affect it in the way they're trying to prove in the "hoax proof" video.

[Luther Blissett]

Hoaxkiller1 has made another video that addresses the parallax explanation Barracuda mentioned. It's hard to tell from the short bit of looped video they use if the perceived movement between foreground and background conforms to the parallax effect or not.

Ah this is a little better. Would the depth of field affect the degree of parallax effect that we are seeing? All objects on frame have a similar level of focus.

[barracuda]

About 4:00 in to the "FULL MOVIE" video above, does that look like the same wall that is shown in the first video?

[brainpanhandler]

About 4:00 in to the "FULL MOVIE" video above, does that look like the same wall that is shown in the first video?

It certainly looks similar. That would explain the light in the upper right hand corner of the first video that looks a lot like a streetlamp.

[barracuda]

Google translate from the FULL MOVIE youtube post:

Market! real thing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Photo Mount Scopus back from a birthday party in the French Hill.

So if this is from Mount Scopus, and the original videos are from Armon Hanatziv, then according to Google Earth, these are the two vantage points:

[brainpanhandler]

Ok so, if Michael Cohen of allnewsweb and/or his source is to be trusted when he writes, "Two witnesses who happened to be at the Armon Hanatziv panoramic lookout over Mount Zion and the Dome of the Rock/Temple Mount in Jerusalem, Israel at 1am managed to film what might be one of the most interesting UFO clips ever captured (see video below)." (which btw is Cohen the origin of this story?) and we trust the caption from thr full movie video you translated to be truthful then the first and second videos could not have been shot at the same location as the fourth.

Based on your map do the two videos, assuming somewhat similar consumer optics and zoom ranges, appear to have been taken at the relative distances one would expect?

[Cosmic Cowbell]

4th Full video 1st and 2nd flash...with "in between" image.







The flash seems to come from the object as it brightens significantly in it's intensity as a whole. It seems to eject something (??) at 2:00 simultaneously with each flash, which is seen more clearly in the second, lower intensity burst.

FWIW