rigorousintuition.ca

justdrew wrote:one thing about this, I'm not so sure this 'craft' demonstrates flight characteristics not achievable by 'earth science' - it could be a lit up UAV with a sudden evasive-maneuver rocket feature (huge impulse, short-burn) for say, dodging missiles.

That's plausible in terms of the observed flight path and acceleration, but that would be awfully loud, don't you think?

Sepka wrote:

justdrew wrote:one thing about this, I'm not so sure this 'craft' demonstrates flight characteristics not achievable by 'earth science' - it could be a lit up UAV with a sudden evasive-maneuver rocket feature (huge impulse, short-burn) for say, dodging missiles.

That's plausible in terms of the observed flight path and acceleration, but that would be awfully loud, don't you think?

ehhh, I'll wiggle out of that by suggesting dual, tuned exhaust ports for each rocket so the sound is 180deg out of phase with each other... and it would be just one pulse, and after all the camera were distant too. there might even be seen some 'fogging' seen - caused by a low pressure phase after the initial shock pulse.

Ben D wrote:Hi WakeUpAndLive, the last two sentences of my post were meant to address the 'dancing lights' at the end of the video,.. but I'll try again.

After reading this, then reading the first post, and then watching a couple videos I see what you are talking about. Thank you for breaking it down.

justdrew wrote:and it would be just one pulse, and after all the camera were distant too. there might even be seen some 'fogging' seen - caused by a low pressure phase after the initial shock pulse.

So wait, does your hypothesis account for the two distinct light pulses seen on the videos? Because this reads like you're saying there was only one, and there was definitely two.

Also, and I'm no expert, but I don't think it followed a realistic acceleration curve for any kind of thrust propulsion, even the really, really fast-exploding kind.

Were it ball lightning, I would expect some transitional state between shooting up into the darkness and manifesting little red arcs as it breaks down, like a dimming-out or supernova-shockwave type of thing. Maybe that's just my Hollywood movie model of high energy physics talking, who knows.

The trouble I have with a natural phenomenon hypothesis (the LIHOP, if you will) is in the subjective meaning of the precise location of the lowest-altitude portion of the occurrence. It's the Dome of the motherfucking Rock, you know? Why not some residential neighborhood, some olive grove, some transmission tower? I get how maybe domes of a certain construction might cause a certain kind of field warping under certain circumstances, but of all the domes, why that one? Are we seriously to think that this marvelous natural occurrence occurred precisely over the dome of a major, famous, well-known and contentious global religious heritage site completely by sheer blind dumb chance luck? Chaos systems swirled just so, creating this randomly perfect pattern that so happened to create a brilliant ball of light that descends to the Dome of the Rock before shooting up into the heavens? By any imaginable ancient accounting of the sighting, a bona fide biblical event if ever there were one.

Maybe geomancy can explain all the luminous aerial phenomena in the bible through a perfect-storm ball lightning hot zone theory in that region, who knows, but it strains credulity in a most peculiar way to imagine a rare and glorious natural phenomena occurring on the exact spot where it would carry a vague but definite symbolic subjective meaning to promote maximum religious intrigue in any observer predisposed to "believe in miracles". Which also works if it were faked. Does the Vatican have a special effects division? Given that they've come out at every opportunity with increasing frequency over the last decade or so to say that the church is cool with ET's existing, it does seem kind of suspect.

I guess I want this to be real, but it does seem easier to imagine this was an intelligently-directed action (MIHOP, if you still will) by something to go down and hover right there, either as a mythology play to would-be primate observers who are left to only shout confused expletives at the night sky, and/or it was acting on agency with either observational or tactical objectives which may or may not have been met before a much hastier departure than arrival. Why would anything that advanced want to go observe that particular little patch of Sol 3 up close?

And just what the hell were those apparent ejectae? The bodies of abductees being beamed back to their beds? Directed-energy weapons or countermeasures to thwart the facility's security at the last second? Would we ever know if any of the sacred contents of the site were inexplicably tampered with? The video plays out like maybe there's another much larger ship from an unfriendly planet, bearing down from just out of view, and this spritely little ball shoots off a few defensive blasts before getting the hell out, leaving a weirdly-shimmering effect in its wake.

That said, I appreciate the simplicity of the ball lightning theory, but the known-unknowns plague me worse under these circumstances than the unknown-unknowns of an ET/UT/WhateverT hypothesis.

Plus it's more fun to think about.

psynapz wrote:

justdrew wrote:and it would be just one pulse, and after all the camera were distant too. there might even be seen some 'fogging' seen - caused by a low pressure phase after the initial shock pulse.

So wait, does your hypothesis account for the two distinct light pulses seen on the videos? Because this reads like you're saying there was only one, and there was definitely two.

Also, and I'm no expert, but I don't think it followed a realistic acceleration curve for any kind of thrust propulsion, even the really, really fast-exploding kind.

oh I don't know, that looks like it could be a short 50-100g impulse (immediately and thereafter assisted by the crafts own rotors to continue the climb), maybe not even that fast, it's in frame for at least a quarter second after it starts moving.

I mean each 'dodge rocket' has two exhaust ports. this craft appeared to fire a pair of such "high-impulse sudden impellers". I'd guess they fire in pairs, each on an opposite side of the craft, the second firing off 100-500 milliseconds after the first, so as to create a random vector to dodge on. maybe they have three or four such sets.

if this were ball lightening, I'd think we'd have more such examples

I haven't posted for a long time, but find this ufo event and thread very interesting.

The addition of the fourth video makes a pretty compelling argument to me, but I wonder if these multiple witnesses have been interviewed by anyone? You'd think this story would be huge in Israel, but except for a very few media reports that seem to focus mainly on the 3rd "hoax" video, I haven't seen much coverage.

On another site, someone commented on the flash that occurs right before the incredible ascent of the light and speculated that some sort of anti-aircraft gun or missile might have been fired at it. Just a few weeks ago, the IDF claimed to have shot down a ufo over the Dimona nuclear facility.
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-16/worl ... s=PM:WORLD

If it's a hoax, it's a well constructed and coordinated one.

I just have to interject here, but I really love the username "wolf ticket". Seriously.

And even more seriously, I have sent several people to this thread to read when they have brought up this UFO to me in the past few days. Keep up the good work everybody!

thanks, 82_28, and I agree, thought-provoking stuff.

it was presented on TV as a hoax, so nobody made a big deal. comments though protested the "gagging" and "spin", and concluded therefore its a military stuff/secret.

wolf ticket wrote:I haven't posted for a long time, but find this ufo event and thread very interesting.

The addition of the fourth video makes a pretty compelling argument to me, but I wonder if these multiple witnesses have been interviewed by anyone? You'd think this story would be huge in Israel, but except for a very few media reports that seem to focus mainly on the 3rd "hoax" video, I haven't seen much coverage.

On another site, someone commented on the flash that occurs right before the incredible ascent of the light and speculated that some sort of anti-aircraft gun or missile might have been fired at it. Just a few weeks ago, the IDF claimed to have shot down a ufo over the Dimona nuclear facility.
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-16/worl ... s=PM:WORLD

If it's a hoax, it's a well constructed and coordinated one.

Here's better footage of the Utah objects:

VIRAL MARKETING ALERT: Allegedly for BATTLE FOR LOS ANGELES...

Hoax in the Holy Land: Jerusalem UFO a Proven Fake
http://www.space.com/10789-jerusalem-ufo-hoax.html

Jerusalem UFO footage could be marketing stunt for upcoming Battle: Los Angeles film
http://www.perthnow.com.au/jerusalem-uf ... 6001218068

Haven't looked too closely so...

I also suspected a movie promo effort and the most likely candidate I could come up with was Countdown: Jerusalem, some Left Behind-Hal Lindsey knockoff about the Rapture and such. There's a trailer on YouTube but I decline to link to it. This Battle: Los Angeles (colon is the new space between words) looks pretty good! I predict the humans will win it.

As for the UFO - I'm still in agnostic but curious mode, as usual on these matters.

elfismiles wrote:VIRAL MARKETING ALERT: Allegedly for BATTLE FOR LOS ANGELES...

Hoax in the Holy Land: Jerusalem UFO a Proven Fake
http://www.space.com/10789-jerusalem-ufo-hoax.html

Jerusalem UFO footage could be marketing stunt for upcoming Battle: Los Angeles film
http://www.perthnow.com.au/jerusalem-uf ... 6001218068

Haven't looked too closely so...

From the Space.com article
For anyone who still sees a UFO through the sea of red flags, there's the video analysis that shows evidence of fakery. Robert Sheaffer, a longtime skeptical UFO investigator and author of the Bad UFOs blog told Life's Little Mysteries that, "the original Jerusalem UFO has now been definitely shown to be a hoax. Effects of the video processing software are clearly seen. The hoaxer used Motion Tile effects with edge mirroring to introduce camera shake into the video. You can see the mirroring effects along the edge of the video. This proves that the video did not go directly from the camera to YouTube, that it made a stop in between inside a sophisticated video editing software suite. Once you start editing it like that, a skilled hoaxer can put practically anything in it."

The Jerusalem UFO videos have created much controversy since they first appeared, with many believers vigorously defending the videos as real. They dismiss skeptical explanations such as these, but do not offer any better analysis. In science, of course, it's not enough to simply criticize a theory or explanation — critics are expected to put forth a better solution that fits the facts.

The appearance of the UFO over Jerusalem is ironic; for many, belief in UFOs is based on faith, not evidence.

Benjamin Radford is managing editor of Skeptical Inquirer science magazine and author of Scientific Paranormal Investigation: How to Solve Unexplained Mysteries. His web site is: www.RadfordBooks.com.

Life's Little Mysteries is a sister site of SPACE.com.

So Skeptic site has an article by an editor of Skeptical Inquirer who speaks with another Skeptic who has a blog on Bad UFOs and they find it's a fake?? Well fuck me bendy

Sorry if I'm utterly underwhelmed.

What are we looking at here, Cosmic Cowbell? Is this an exteme zoomed-in view of video #4?