Thats exactly what I was thinking it seems staged... just like that ghost girl / hitchhiker video. This video could easily be spliced with another video as the camerman exits the vehicle then pans up at the object already in the sky.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
UFO over Jerusalem--- Don check this out
- Thread starter Skymon876
- Start date
Thats exactly what I was thinking it seems staged... just like that ghost girl / hitchhiker video. This video could easily be spliced with another video as the camerman exits the vehicle then pans up at the object already in the sky.
Xylo
Paranormal Adept
I think you're on to something Angelo. One would expect the light flares in the lens of the camera to move at least a little bit when the camera moves, and the angle changes. However, the "flares" do not. Good catch.
JMikkola
Editor - World Nexus Publications
Hi all,
The only thing I noticed about the video that really seems odd, is that it looked spliced, but could have been caused by turning the video off on on again, but don't think that to be the case. Again, this video is an FLV, so I didn't do any analysis.
I don't speak Hebrew so I have no idea what they're talking about...other than they sounded wound up...
Jari
The only thing I noticed about the video that really seems odd, is that it looked spliced, but could have been caused by turning the video off on on again, but don't think that to be the case. Again, this video is an FLV, so I didn't do any analysis.
I don't speak Hebrew so I have no idea what they're talking about...other than they sounded wound up...
Jari
Infolad1
Purveyor of Hidden Things
I got a serious "Cloverfield" vibe off of that footage. And as Brian Now pointed out, and was my first thought, who's filming in the backseat? Why do they have a camera? I say camera, because it's pretty well lit to be a cell phone.
I for one will be very surprised if this is verified as authentic.
I for one will be very surprised if this is verified as authentic.
KEROUAC
Skilled Investigator
Hi guys,
The video analysis on the Dimension Zone (Forensic Video Analysis - Staking your reputation) is of course created with the only videos available, those on YouTube and Google, no original footage was sent to us, nor do I doubt it would be even if it existed. The analysis was straight and simple as a means of teaching a bit about spotting hoaxers and frauds.
There are too many anomalies within these Jerusalem videos to even consider them anything but a hoax and a fraud; and poor attempts at that. Let's just say I've seen better, and have actually experienced several sightings myself over the last 40 years...but each time it happened I never seemed to have had the opportunity to run and grab my video (or 35mm) camera, and let's not forget the tripod, before the bloody thing disappeared again!
It reminds me of a time that I was in Las Vegas when Barbara Streisand was giving her last performance at the MGM Grand, there were drag queens all over the place dressed like her... I heard an old man who caught a glimpse of the real Barbara coming into the restaurant before her show and he pointed her out to his wife, to which she replied, "The one by the slot machine over there looked more real that he did!"
The point of this anecdote (true story by the way), is that when we do get a REAL UFO on video, or other concrete evidence, there are always going to be nay-sayers. Even when one lands on the White House lawn and calls Obama by his first name!
For what it's worth,
Jari Mikkola
Editor - The Dimension Zone and The Journal of Anomalous Sciences
World Nexus Publications
There is something wrong with the way you are conclusively dismissing this. If this was a "lame attempt at hoaxing the media" as you say in your article wouldn't David Biedny have noticed when he was also analizing the videos? He also has some experience in this field. He hasn't come to the same conclusions. Are you 100% sure that all the videos are a hoax? If you are in any doubt about your findings then perhaps you should throw them out.
Jay
Skilled Investigator
Yes they were! Especially in the UK, but they had some top hits in the US as well.
Sorry, not trying to hijack the thread and discuss my music likes. I did find it odd / funny / interesting that song, "Don't Bring Me Down" was playing on the car's audio system.
JMikkola
Editor - World Nexus Publications
Hello Kerouac,
I totally agree with you, "When in doubt, throw it out." I am not one to compete with others regarding my conclusions, as I try to remain as objective as possible when analyzing UFO or paranormal digital or film media.
I just recently joined this forum and was asked to give my opinion...which everyone is entitled to. I don't know David Biedny, nor have I seen his analysis. But I'd like to see what has to say. Nor will I get into a pissing contest over who's better. If you think about it, evidence in courtrooms can direct the outcome both ways with the support of opposing forensic experts. The field of UFOs and the paranormal is a constant learning experience for all of us heavily involved in investigation and research...we weren't there (Jerusalem) when this happened, nor did we know those who submitted these videos. If this were a court hearing, this evidence would not have been admissible, as the witnesses were unavailable to answer questions by the court.
Let's just suffice to say, that I've been doing this for a very long time (although I have another job that pays the bills) and was taught a lot of tricks by some of the best. With that said, I confess because I don't accept money for my analysis, I'm not an expert. But that, an expert does not make! I do however have passion (and if you went to the Dimension Zone you saw what it is), and that often is far more valuable to me. Because I have taught many a class, and have always tried to instill in my students, "The truth is ALWAYS the truth, and the evidence itself doesn't lie...only those interpreting it does."
Hat's off to David.
Jari
I totally agree with you, "When in doubt, throw it out." I am not one to compete with others regarding my conclusions, as I try to remain as objective as possible when analyzing UFO or paranormal digital or film media.
I just recently joined this forum and was asked to give my opinion...which everyone is entitled to. I don't know David Biedny, nor have I seen his analysis. But I'd like to see what has to say. Nor will I get into a pissing contest over who's better. If you think about it, evidence in courtrooms can direct the outcome both ways with the support of opposing forensic experts. The field of UFOs and the paranormal is a constant learning experience for all of us heavily involved in investigation and research...we weren't there (Jerusalem) when this happened, nor did we know those who submitted these videos. If this were a court hearing, this evidence would not have been admissible, as the witnesses were unavailable to answer questions by the court.
Let's just suffice to say, that I've been doing this for a very long time (although I have another job that pays the bills) and was taught a lot of tricks by some of the best. With that said, I confess because I don't accept money for my analysis, I'm not an expert. But that, an expert does not make! I do however have passion (and if you went to the Dimension Zone you saw what it is), and that often is far more valuable to me. Because I have taught many a class, and have always tried to instill in my students, "The truth is ALWAYS the truth, and the evidence itself doesn't lie...only those interpreting it does."
Hat's off to David.
Jari
Jari,
A few obsevations. It is obvious that the the 4th video is available to download as an mp4 (both the short and long version) with a resolution of 480P. In your analysis however, rather than using the video, you chose to use a screen shot to demonstrate camera jiggle. I am curious why you didn't use the actual video footage for your demonstration. Since at the beginning of the short version, lower left hand corner, you can see automobiles traveling on the road, do you deny that this is actual video and not an image being presented? Here it is for your convenience.
Also, you suggest you've been "doing this for a long time" and were taught a lot of tricks by "some of the best", can you a bit more forthcoming with any formal training you've had or allow us to judge "some of the best" for ourselves?
I guess for me, for someone to make these claims (I'm not an expert but...) and yet claim the 4th video series posted on youtube is only available as a low res FLV and therefor doesn't present itself for detailed analysis seems oxymoronic if you know what I mean?
The 3rd video is an obvious fake (and was caught out as such from the beginning ) and for you to include it along with your analysis of the other 3 (and make it a major focus) is some what misleading. Kinda like an attempt at guilt by association. It's inclusion weakens your analysis (IMO).
By what standards would you ever consider these video's to be -NOT- in doubt.?
Straighten me out please.
Infolad1
Purveyor of Hidden Things
JMikkola and DB both make excellent points. I tend to agree with DB about the fourth video.
In the footage with the people in the car, there's an obvious cut from when they get out of the car and
we see the now familiar footage from the fourth video. Is the car footage disinfo put on after the fact?
But without the original footage, and a direct professional level investigation, these all are opinions
and speculations, although JMikkola & DB's are really good ones.
Given the area and country this occurred in, I don't expect to get the "truth" on what happened anytime soon.
In the footage with the people in the car, there's an obvious cut from when they get out of the car and
we see the now familiar footage from the fourth video. Is the car footage disinfo put on after the fact?
But without the original footage, and a direct professional level investigation, these all are opinions
and speculations, although JMikkola & DB's are really good ones.
Given the area and country this occurred in, I don't expect to get the "truth" on what happened anytime soon.
plumbbob12
Skilled Investigator
Jmikkola:
I don’t know about “when in doubt, throw it out”. If accepted, this quote could apply to the entire field of UFO studies, and a good deal of scientific endeavors, as well. Doubt and skepticism is what our technical world is built on. We develop a hypothesis, test it, and then we try to disprove what we found by finding alternate explanations for a phenomena. If we find none that are adequate to the task, we say that we have a new theory as to how some sort of physical phenomena works. Hardly an atmosphere for throwing something out because it challenges us. Personally, I prefer the “gray box” idea of S.F and others. As with the “Dome of the Rock” UFO sighting, I put it in my gray box until research shows that the null hypothesis(s) are incorrect, in which case we would say that there is good evidence to show that this event was something captured in real time, and the film was not tampered with. In the end, that is all we can say.
I don’t know about “when in doubt, throw it out”. If accepted, this quote could apply to the entire field of UFO studies, and a good deal of scientific endeavors, as well. Doubt and skepticism is what our technical world is built on. We develop a hypothesis, test it, and then we try to disprove what we found by finding alternate explanations for a phenomena. If we find none that are adequate to the task, we say that we have a new theory as to how some sort of physical phenomena works. Hardly an atmosphere for throwing something out because it challenges us. Personally, I prefer the “gray box” idea of S.F and others. As with the “Dome of the Rock” UFO sighting, I put it in my gray box until research shows that the null hypothesis(s) are incorrect, in which case we would say that there is good evidence to show that this event was something captured in real time, and the film was not tampered with. In the end, that is all we can say.
[video]http://www.youtube.com/embed/bubMki2qsHE[/video]
Are you still confident it's a hoax? I'm not.
Are you still confident it's a hoax? I'm not.
I'm not sure what that video is supposed to show. A blinking light?? It blinks twice in the same exact spot if that's the case.
Let's take away the video entirely for a moment. A major UFO event just happened over a very populated area (not to mention a prominent religious location) with thousands of people nearby (can anyone confirm an estimate of the number of people nearby??) . This UFO lowers itself to nearly ground level. It shines bright enough to illuminate several blocks. Then it flashes super bright, and takes off at breakneck speed straight up.
So, .. no one other than those that shot the videos saw this?? How many witnesses would you expect to immediately draw attention to this matter?? A hundred?? several hundred?? 50?? 10?? I mean how many?? But how many do have we seen from this major event?? None as far as I can tell. Doesn't that provide at least a clue as to whether this thing actually even happened??
No one was awoken from sleep by a massive flash in the sky?? No one was present at the time?? Anyone awake within a reasonable distance (?? a mile?) would have seen it. If you look at the videos and think about what kind of reaction SHOULD have happened it seems pretty clear to me that something is very wrong with this.
I'm always interested in genuine UFO sightings, but I would bet everything that this is not it.
Yeah.. That video doesnt show too much, could be a car, bus, streetlight. anything really.
If you go to the Jerusalem weather station here...
http://www.02ws.com/station.php?section=pic_movie_archive.php&lang=0
type in the date 27/01/2011, or the 28/01/2011 or any date
Click show... you can see your supposed UFO return each nite...lol... pretty cool!
JMikkola
Editor - World Nexus Publications
Hello Jonah,
Again, I don't want to get into a contest here...what started out as a simple training exercise on the Dimension Zone as an attempt to shed light on not believing everything at face value, has turned into a debate that no matter who says what will not be believed by everyone. The sole purpose was to provide additional information on how our observation was made regarding this video.
This video link you provided me is NOT available in M4P and the highest resolution available for it is 656x*480 pixels .flv from YouTube, which is what we used. Yes it can be converted to M4P during the download using the YouTube Download utility; however, you just add resolution degradation into the cloning equation. So I chose not to do that.
As far as the camera wiggle, I use Adobe Photoshop After Effects CS5 (most common tool on the net to perpetuate hoaxes) to analyze the camera shake radius in the video. Yes this video had it, but limited to within the same circular area...inherent to APAE's parameters of wiggle.
It's also quite easy to manipulate lighting (day or night) to produce lightning type effects, including bounced reflections, as well as camera flaring. And yes you're right there are automobiles in the 4th video, and yes I did see them, however the example given was taken from another video copy using a still frame and there was NO 4th video yet posted at the time I created the example on the Dimension Zone. And would explain why the 4th surfaced so much later than the earlier hoaxes; gaving them more time to perfect the trickery.
Still the 4th video does not comply with the physics of video magnification of the lighting, as the UFO maintains its shape, size and brilliance where the surrounding lights do not.
I'm far from being an expert in the forensics, but let it suffice to say I was involved with several US government projects that required a high-level security clearance, as a systems architect in the aerospace industry. Although the photographing and analysis of high-speed flight and unidentified objects is not my area of expertise, or area of responsibility, I learned much of from my colleagues that did while working on these projects. So yes, I'm no expert, I'll be the first to admit that. What I am however is an educated amateur who attempts to analyze digital and film media from an area of the world where truth and credibility is a MAJOR issue.
Which is why, as much as I'd love to say these are conclusive evidence of a UFO visitation, I find none of them the slightest bit compelling after the analysis, much less significant.
As far as your comment of 'guilt by association,' name me a country on this planet that does not prosecute those associated with a crime, by those that did, simply because they were associated with them and demonstrate culpability. I have been known to resign from a few investigations (UFO & paranormal) as soon as I discovered ANY attempt to tamper or deceive, during the investigation. Because I value my reputation, creditability, and integrity.
If you choose to believe my analysis, fine; if not, that's fine too. I have been wrong in the past, and am more than willing to listen objectively to facts presented as counter points (without supposition), and readjust my way of thinking or my opinion if the counterpoint be logical and explainable.
Hope this helps clarify,
Jari
Again, I don't want to get into a contest here...what started out as a simple training exercise on the Dimension Zone as an attempt to shed light on not believing everything at face value, has turned into a debate that no matter who says what will not be believed by everyone. The sole purpose was to provide additional information on how our observation was made regarding this video.
This video link you provided me is NOT available in M4P and the highest resolution available for it is 656x*480 pixels .flv from YouTube, which is what we used. Yes it can be converted to M4P during the download using the YouTube Download utility; however, you just add resolution degradation into the cloning equation. So I chose not to do that.
As far as the camera wiggle, I use Adobe Photoshop After Effects CS5 (most common tool on the net to perpetuate hoaxes) to analyze the camera shake radius in the video. Yes this video had it, but limited to within the same circular area...inherent to APAE's parameters of wiggle.
It's also quite easy to manipulate lighting (day or night) to produce lightning type effects, including bounced reflections, as well as camera flaring. And yes you're right there are automobiles in the 4th video, and yes I did see them, however the example given was taken from another video copy using a still frame and there was NO 4th video yet posted at the time I created the example on the Dimension Zone. And would explain why the 4th surfaced so much later than the earlier hoaxes; gaving them more time to perfect the trickery.
Still the 4th video does not comply with the physics of video magnification of the lighting, as the UFO maintains its shape, size and brilliance where the surrounding lights do not.
I'm far from being an expert in the forensics, but let it suffice to say I was involved with several US government projects that required a high-level security clearance, as a systems architect in the aerospace industry. Although the photographing and analysis of high-speed flight and unidentified objects is not my area of expertise, or area of responsibility, I learned much of from my colleagues that did while working on these projects. So yes, I'm no expert, I'll be the first to admit that. What I am however is an educated amateur who attempts to analyze digital and film media from an area of the world where truth and credibility is a MAJOR issue.
Which is why, as much as I'd love to say these are conclusive evidence of a UFO visitation, I find none of them the slightest bit compelling after the analysis, much less significant.
As far as your comment of 'guilt by association,' name me a country on this planet that does not prosecute those associated with a crime, by those that did, simply because they were associated with them and demonstrate culpability. I have been known to resign from a few investigations (UFO & paranormal) as soon as I discovered ANY attempt to tamper or deceive, during the investigation. Because I value my reputation, creditability, and integrity.
If you choose to believe my analysis, fine; if not, that's fine too. I have been wrong in the past, and am more than willing to listen objectively to facts presented as counter points (without supposition), and readjust my way of thinking or my opinion if the counterpoint be logical and explainable.
Hope this helps clarify,
Jari
I'm not claiming a blinking light in the camera stills as proof a ufo was there. But it does suggest the 'ufo' object may have been captured on cameras other than the videos we've all seen.
Your other arguements, which try to appeal to incorrect local-population-reaction; I find unconvincing. You do not know how people are supposed to react to 'A major UFO event '. You do not know how directional the light emitted from 'the object' was/was not, nor just how spectacular/unspectacular the view from the ground would be to an onlooker. I do not see the entire neighbourhood being woken up by two extremely short, silent, light flashes, especially at 1:00 am. I would have kept right on sleeping.
You seem to use a lot of hyperbole and conjecture in your analysis, but few facts to back up your certainty.
Let me be clear, again... I am not claiming the 'Jerusalem UFO' videos are authentic and not a hoax. I am claiming that, thus far, I have not seen clear evidence debunking them. And this includes so-called forensic analysis, which, from what I've seen thus far has failed at debunking mainly because of noise issues with the video samples the investigators had.
Furthermore, another local tourist webcam caught a light flash in the area at approximately the right time. It could have been one of the two flashes caught on camera.
Furthermore, as I've stated before, building architectural details are exposed to the camera during the period of the flashes.
Could it all be a hoax? Of course it could all be digitally staged. But I still don't see the smoking gun.
If you do have convincing proof of a hoax please share it.
---------- Post added 02-08-2011 at 12:08 AM ---------- Previous post was 02-07-2011 at 11:15 PM ----------
I still do not see proof of hoax in this analysis.
I don't see anything really new being shown by the 'hoaxkiller1' videos.
On the other hand, I admit the local tourist/weather station webcams are not proof of validity for the 'Jerusalem UFO' videos either. Just more pieces to the puzzle...