• 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!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

UFO over Jerusalem--- Don check this out

Forums New posts
Hello Softbeard,

I'm not sure what you mean about the hue of the lighting being wrong...which light, which hue? Also if you compare the daylight photo (provided by O2SW) of the view, I cannot see the Dome of the Rock in it all in the daylight (albeit resolution sucks swamp water). In addition your angle is wrong as you're not even showing the stadium in the angle you drew on the map... if you twist that count-clockwise where the stadium is comes into view, then the Dome of the Rock is out of view.

I've worked with surveillance equipment for many years now (we have 19 cameras with In the Shadows, each used for different types of investigations), and I doubt that they would be using a very expensive wide-angle view for a 24x7 web cam (which if they did would provide us with a much much, better view at a higher resolution). Also having been to Jerusalem, not so many years ago, I remember hills everywhere...I'm not convinced that the Dome would not be visible in this camera at a mile away IF the camera were pointed at it, and was NOT obscured by the many hills (in Rome the Vatican can be seen nearly from anywhere in Rome at further distances), especially since a gold dome would reflect light brightly. (Of which I had failed to mention did NOT reflect any of the light from the UFO on the Dome of the Rock from the originally submitted YouTube videos.)

Yet it is evident that the lights from the stadium did cause a momentary burn-out of the sensitive lenses until they readjusted...not once by twice...(and I didn't breakdown a third video for Sunday) and the frames in the video that were white after the burnout, were not white in the original.

There is enough information for me that it is not proof, nor does it collaborate the previous aforementioned videos... Which is enough for me to throw it out...as paranormally null.

Jari
 
Hi, Jari.
I mean I don't think the stadium lights would cause the 'flash'/ghosting effect seen in the webcam photo. The effect in the photo appears far too even to be caused by a stadium light shining into the camera at an off-angle of, what, ~15deg.(check the map). Also, the hue of the flare is 'too white' (as in color-temperature), I think, to be the stadium lighting seen in other photographs of the stadium lights.
No, I think my angles are correct, assuming the webcam is pointing due north.
The question does come down to the webcam's actual field of view, I think.
Don't forget, the 'UFO object" may have been at a pretty high altitude when captured by the webcam, so it would not be necessarily obscured by hills.
Check the videos again, Jari. I think you'll find the 'UFO object' properly lighting its surroundings, including the temple dome. Don't forget, nobody said the UFO was directly over the dome the whole time. It's trajectory could easily have been above and quite a bit behind or a bit in front of the dome.
You should not be including the 3rd 'tourist' video in your-data set on your site. This video already been generally concluded to have been an obvious fake.
I still think you are using shifting, selective arguments, while making implicit assumptions in your analysis and jumping to conclusions of a hoax too quickly.
I think, overall, it's credible to argue the webcam did indeed capture one of the flashes. Whether the UFO was/was not in its field of view remains an open question at this point.
 
blowfish said:
Hi Folks,
Real or a Hoax?


Its better than the UFO Jerusalem Video,
Click to expand...

I wondered if this could just be a glimpse of land poking through the cloud?

On the subject of this thread I had left it alone for for a while as i was starting to doubt the whole thing but these recent posts have opened the whole thing up again. Perhaps Mr DB was right.
 
Im inclined to consider this is a hoax, Someone at another board noticed that the person responsible for the first video is facebook friends with a teacher who teaches visual arts at the school where the 4th video posters go to, this link removes the independant, from the phrase independant witness's.
On the issue of no cars, someone from the area mentioned that at the time it was Shabbat, and that anyone driving a car in the old city would risk having rocks thrown at their car.
in accordance with local custom, there should have been very few cars on the road at that time.
 
I am leaning towards it being a hoax, but at a hight level. I think it was well coordinated and planned.
Maybe we can put this one to bed now
 
Plum,
I don't know enough to know whether this is fake or not and won't pretend to, but your pronouncement that it is fake because the guy recording shouts in surprise BEFORE the object shoots up is nonsense. I just went back and watched the video and it is very plain to see that right BEFORE the exclamation, there is a VERY BRIGHT FLASH. So, the guy sees this flash, says, "Whoa", then the thing shoots up. The flash was startling and the exclamation was certainly appropriate for the flash. Did you not see the flash?
Anyway, like I said, I don't know if it is a hoax or not. Certainly could be, but its authenticity cannot be questioned based upon your analysis.
 
softbeard said:
But, Jari, those hilighted frames are taken from the webcam data-store and are present in the webcam feed. There's a direct link available to the webcam's server.
http://www.02ws.com/station.php. I've seen the 'flash' frame myself.
If you read back a bit in this thread you will see that names of the witnesses have been mentioned.
I think you are jumping to conclusions of hoax too quickly and glossing over the bigger picture.
You still have not addressed concerns with your video analysis concluding a hoax.
Click to expand...

Alas Softbeard,
I've been doing a lot of investigation over this video...and here's what I've found.

Having spoken with the Israeli Weather Service, I've uncovered what I believe to be a very important piece of information. The weather cam is pointed due NORTH and the field of view does not include the Dome of the Rock and is way too low on the horizon behind Nanalat Shiv'a on the outer edge of the Old City of Jerasulem, and sets nearly due EAST.

They also confirmed that it's the flood lights of the University's community football (soccer) field we see (not the stadium) which is very close to the weather cam. And yes they informed us that it had been a problem several months ago, and occurred quite frequently, forcing them to replace their camera for one with better optics. So they acquired a camera with a better aperture device that recovers and adjusts instantaneously to bright light sources and compensates accordingly; thus it’s no longer a problem. Which is why the mysterious white out only showed up on a SINGLE PARTIAL frame, and not the three, the maker of the video would like us to believe.

I've also seen a counter argument that this does not prove the light was not visible from the weather cam, and the YouTube video's before it, which may have captured the same UFO higher and further behind the Dome (which is why it doesn't reflect off the dome). If that were the case, the size of the UFO and depth perception would make the UFO much larger in the first videos than they appeared, which in all likelihood would have been a lot easier to see by a lot more people considering the size it would have been!

If it had been visible within the Weather Cam's time lapse photos on the far horizon (as pointed out) AND behind the DOME, triangulating the position and size of the UFO would prove, it just wasn't possible.

And oh, just one last point...before I put this issue to bed...I've also spoken with one of my old colleagues at Bosch here in the Netherlands and shown him the stills, as well as an expert video surveillance technician at Bosch...they both confirmed that the stadium lights, that close to this camera, could have caused the problem we see in the still, especially with the cheaper and older models.

Our web pages have been updated with the latest information...
Unanswered Questions - UFO Over Jerusalem
Questioning What Is Probable

Thanks,
Jari
 
This and the Utah UFO.

My take is as we get closer to the release date of The Battle of Los Angeles, we'll be seeing even more videos. I can't wait to hear what people think about those videos.
 
They also confirmed that it's the flood lights of the University's community football (soccer) field we see (not the stadium) which is very close to the weather cam. And yes they informed us that it had been a problem several months ago, and occurred quite frequently, forcing them to replace their camera for one with better optics. So they acquired a camera with a better aperture device that recovers and adjusts instantaneously to bright light sources and compensates accordingly; thus it’s no longer a problem. Which is why the mysterious white out only showed up on a SINGLE PARTIAL frame, and not the three, the maker of the video would like us to believe.
I've also seen a counter argument that this does not prove the light was not visible from the weather cam, and the YouTube video's before it, which may have captured the same UFO higher and further behind the Dome (which is why it doesn't reflect off the dome). If that were the case, the size of the UFO and depth perception would make the UFO much larger in the first videos than they appeared, which in all likelihood would have been a lot easier to see by a lot more people considering the size it would have been!
If it had been visible within the Weather Cam's time lapse photos on the far horizon (as pointed out) AND behind the DOME, triangulating the position and size of the UFO would prove, it just wasn't possible.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the response and analysis, Jari. It is appreciated, I think, by many people on this forum. With the information, you provide, I do agree with you that the case made for claiming the 'blinking light' seen on the weather webcam as being the 'Jerusalem UFO' is weak. Unless there is new information, most likely, the UFO was out of the camera's field of view.
I still question the explanation that the stadium lights are responsible for the glare-effect seen in the webcam frames. I have seen direct full frames of the glare effect from the weather webcam. Still, admittedly, this is not proof of anything in itself.
Which brings us back to the question of what is the evidence of a hoax here? I have not seen any valid technical arguments, so far, for dismissing any of the 3 'Jerusalem' videos as fakes.
I do not see the 'mirror-line' argument as valid.
Lighting and geometry behave correctly in the 3 videos.
The 'tourist' video is an obvious fake, but it should simply be discarded from the data set.
Weak behavioural arguments against the videographers are just that; weak.
Now, new footage comes from Utah, purportedly of the same type of display seen in Jerusalem.
Stranger and stranger...
 
Angel of Ioren said:
My take is as we get closer to the release date of The Battle of Los Angeles, we'll be seeing even more videos. I can't wait to hear what people think about those videos.
Click to expand...

You have a falsifiable hypothesis to work with there. If these videos increase in frequency to suddenly drop off after the movies release it would support your theory.
 
trainedobserver said:
You have a falsifiable hypothesis to work with there. If these videos increase in frequency to suddenly drop off after the movies release it would support your theory.
Click to expand...

Yeah, in addition, Spielberg's Super 8 is coming out as well. Which I mentioned a while back in the thread...

Sorry to be clogging up this thread, but I've had some time to do some research in the past couple of days.
This teaser about the soon to be released movie, "Super 8" has me worried. Note the bolded text.

Super 8 - J.J. Abrams' tribute to Spielberg definitely has touches of "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" in the trailer with the truck and railroad tracks scene, and it would be nice to see this one live up to old-school Spielberg's standards. Things are pretty hush-hush about the movie so far, but it does have something to do with Area 51 and kids capturing something creepy on their Super 8 camera. The movie has already started a viral marketing campaign via the web and even snail mail, so it's looking to be one of the biggest blockbusters of the summer when it hits theaters on June 10, 2011.
Click to expand...
 
Hotkafka said:
Yeah, in addition, Spielberg's Super 8 is coming out as well. Which I mentioned a while back in the thread...
Click to expand...

There you go.

Also, I would think that if these do turn out to be part of a movie's viral ad campaign that they would come clean about it afterwords. So, it does seems like something that could be reasonably tested.

I have to wonder if major production companies would do it that way though. None of these videos really seem to relate directly to the movies mentioned IMHO. If they were actually part of a campaign for a real movie something would point you toward that movie I would think. While they may be inspired by these upcoming movies or the general increased interest in UFOs in Hollywood I don't feel they are directly tied to them but time may tell.
 
Jaime lends his expertise in image analysis and deductive reasoning to declare the Jerusalem videos real and the most important UFO videos ever! (staggers into hallway shouting gibberish)
 
Uh-oh, Jaime Maussan's on the job, eh? I was wondering when we'd get to this.
Well, has this guy ever declared anything as fake? That being the case, I don't think Jaime's declaration amounts to much either way. Logically, his opinion should be discarded and disregarded.
You know, for whatever it's worth, I have never felt purposeful deception in any of Jaime's stuff. Just incredible naivity.

However, the interesting part of Jaime's video is closer to the end, where one of the purported videographers and witnesses of the 'Jerusalem videos', Eligael Gedalyovich, is seen talking about the incident.
 
softbeard said:
You know, for whatever it's worth, I have never felt purposeful deception in any of Jaime's stuff. Just incredible naivity.
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem credible to me that a professional journalist with the experience that he has in the video industry doesn't see through the majority of incredible videos that he runs across. For whatever reason he appears to have what amounts to a religious faith concerning these things that prevents him acknowledging any evidence of fraud or hoaxing. It should be interesting to see how far he takes the religious implications and imagery. Jamie has a following and his taking up the banner of authenticity for these videos is inserting them irrevocably into many people's UFO mythos. It could really shake some people up to the point of hysteria. I've seen it happen over less. I will never forget 1988 and 1989 for the insane 88 Reasons Christ will return on Sept. 12 1988 that was making the rounds in certain circles. I spoke to several people who were actually very disturbed or in some sort of religious manic phase over it. That's why I shake my head at stuff like this. Irresponsible people can generate so much fear and anxiety if they aren't careful.
 
trainedobserver said:
It doesn't seem credible to me that a professional journalist with the experience that he has in the video industry doesn't see through the majority of incredible videos that he runs across.
Click to expand...
You also have to consider, that yes, Jaime does consider himself a professional. 'Professional', to him, also means that his profession needs to put food on the table. So, I wouldn't consider it outside the realm of possibility that, yes, he does recognize that a lot of his material is dodgy at best. But, from his viewpoint, it is material he can use.
I'm sure, in Mexico, being on tv and having a show is on par with, at least partially, being an entertainer. So, journalism aside, he gives himself the benefit of the doubt, and uses whatever material is available at the time to spin his profession.
Here's the link to Eligael Gedalyovich's video
[video]www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOjdAIWbVlE[/video]
 
Back
Top