UFO @ Jerusalem, 2011. Call Captain-D

[Akhenaten]

That's probably because what you keep trying to ask is completely pointless, as, it seems, are everyone's efforts to explain to you why these videos are fakes.





What I've demonstrated is that this fake video does not prove any point at all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqzeed-Iv5E&feature=player_embedded





These comments are posted immediately below your linked video by the person who made and posted it:



•This video was made JUST FOR FUN.

•This video was made JUST TO TRY TO REPRODUCE WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE ORIGINAL VIDEO.

•This video only shows how easy is to reproduce what happens in the original video

•This video was made so the people can have a better perspective and try to be open to the possibilities.

•The effects showed on this video can be better done with more time and skills




Which part of this is giving you the most trouble?

[kageki]

These comments are posted immediately below your linked video by the person who made and posted it:




Which part of this is giving you the most trouble?

As I keep having to repeat myself, it's easy to make all sorts of fake videos including a fake 9/11 video.

Try reading. You seem to have difficulties with this.

[Akhenaten]

As I keep having to repeat myself, it's easy to make all sorts of fake videos including a fake 9/11 video.





And this is news to whom?

Why do you keep mentioning 9/11? Isn't one infraction for it enough?



Try reading. You seem to have difficulties with this.





No, I do not.

[Stray Cat]

What you are saying is that a video alone isn't proof then.
Of course a video is proof. It's proof that some people will believe any old guff that's posted on WooTube.

There is no need to prove a video claiming to show things that defy the laws of physics is not genuine, the burden of proof rests with those that claim the video is genuine.

So for the last time. Any critical analysis that points to technical faults (lack of parallax, lack of foreshortening when zooming, mirroring of outer edges, signs of manual pixel lightening, non changing shadows, audio track manipulation) all have to be overcome by the people who are claiming this video to be genuine.

[kageki]

Of course a video is proof. It's proof that some people will believe any old guff that's posted on WooTube.

There is no need to prove a video claiming to show things that defy the laws of physics is not genuine, the burden of proof rests with those that claim the video is genuine.

So for the last time. Any critical analysis that points to technical faults (lack of parallax, lack of foreshortening when zooming, mirroring of outer edges, signs of manual pixel lightening, non changing shadows, audio track manipulation) all have to be overcome by the people who are claiming this video to be genuine.

No what you are saying is that a video isn't proof at all. The 9/11 video is proof to you and it's irrelevant if someone made a fake 9/11 video. So for the last time, the fake Jerusalem video proves no point at all.

How do the videos defy the laws of physics?

Anyways I guess there is no further discussion since apparently ALL the videos have been conclusively debunked. It would be nice if these "witnesses" or "actors" came forth, but that hasn't happened yet unfortunately.

[Aepervius]

"How do the videos defy the laws of physics? "

If speaking about the Jerusalem one, did you read what was written about shadow and light propagation ?

[Stray Cat]

No what you are saying is that a video isn't proof at all. The 9/11 video is proof to you and it's irrelevant if someone made a fake 9/11 video. So for the last time, the fake Jerusalem video proves no point at all.
It is possible for one piece of evidence to stand up to scrutiny. However, in the bigger picture the fact that someone can make a fake video does not necessarily prove they did. Your comparison with the 9/11 is slightly pointless as the Jerusalem UFO left no lasting physical evidence with which to verify it. Therefore, all we have to work with is the video.

How do the videos defy the laws of physics?
Lack of parallax, unexpected parallax, bright lights that only light up what was already light, bright lights that don't change direction of shadows, mirroring of night time lights in a landscape that shows no symmetry, exceleration without signs of propulsion, interlaced frames and progressive frames in the same bit of footage... you know, that kind of thing.

Anyways I guess there is no further discussion since apparently ALL the videos have been conclusively debunked. It would be nice if these "witnesses" or "actors" came forth, but that hasn't happened yet unfortunately.
The young film maker people who published video 4 were supposed to be doing an interview. I haven't heard if that's happened as yet. It seems everyone else is clamming up.

[Angel Love]

Apparently The Temple Mount video maker has said that his video is a hoax to Israeli channel 2 news. I'm looking for corroboration on this.

[Angel Love]

http://www.facebook.com/pages/All-News-Web/302771843259

Update: 5th Feb 2011

The battle rages on, from AllNewsWeb on facebook:

All News Web I can still confirm that I am the only person the witnesses have spoken (other than someone from Israeli TV station Channel 2) and that I know they were at Armon Hanatziv that night-this failed attempt at debunking kind of confirms that.
Will be going on Radio within the next few days to reveal what I know of the UFO jerusalem incident: It should be a pretty interesting interview

Anybody else have any info on this supposed confession?

[tsig]

No what you are saying is that a video isn't proof at all. The 9/11 video is proof to you and it's irrelevant if someone made a fake 9/11 video. So for the last time, the fake Jerusalem video proves no point at all.

How do the videos defy the laws of physics?

Anyways I guess there is no further discussion since apparently ALL the videos have been conclusively debunked. It would be nice if these "witnesses" or "actors" came forth, but that hasn't happened yet unfortunately.

Are you trying to back around into the point that some fake videos don't prove that all videos are faked therefore aliens?

[Akhenaten]

Are you trying to back around into the point that some fake videos don't prove that all videos are faked therefore aliens?





I'm more suspicious that it's "You can't prove that all videos are real/faked therefore 9/11 was faked."

[kageki]

Are you trying to back around into the point that some fake videos don't prove that all videos are faked therefore aliens?

No I'm not trying to do that. I am criticizing that fake Jerusalem video just like what I have said, but I think it illustrates the double standard of so-called skeptics regarding video evidence. Also that it is actually hard to ascertain the authenticity of a video and that a so-called skeptic will never accept only a video as proof of ufo/aliens.

So can we agree that the fake Jerusalem video serves no point whatsoever?

[Stray Cat]

No I'm not trying to do that. I am criticizing that fake Jerusalem video just like what I have said, but I think it illustrates the double standard of so-called skeptics regarding video evidence. Also that it is actually hard to ascertain the authenticity of a video and that a so-called skeptic will never accept only a video as proof of ufo/aliens.

So can we agree that the fake Jerusalem video serves no point whatsoever?
However, it's not just about the video. It's about the whole circumstance.
It's about a body of evidence building up, the video being just one part of it.

There are no double standards here.

[Vortigern99]

What is a "so-called skeptic"? Either one is a skeptic or one is not.

[Astrophotographer]

No I'm not trying to do that. I am criticizing that fake Jerusalem video just like what I have said, but I think it illustrates the double standard of so-called skeptics regarding video evidence. Also that it is actually hard to ascertain the authenticity of a video and that a so-called skeptic will never accept only a video as proof of ufo/aliens.

No skeptic will take a single video as proof of anything that is extraordinary. It is too easy to fake them. You need something more substantial and independent. So far, that independence has no appeared in the Jerusalem videos. Two of them came from the same spot (they appeared on the 29th as best I can tell), the third was a bad hoax trying to cash in on the first two, and the fourth appeared days later (on February 2nd from what I can tell) after the first two had been on the web for all to see. No real independent confirmation of the videos has occurred. That could be produced by live video from security cameras and multiple witness reports from the area. Nothing of the sort has occurred, which means the videos should be considered highly suspect (as if they weren't already).

[Mike!]

What is a "so-called skeptic"? Either one is a skeptic or one is not.

I think it has something to do with being skeptical of skeptics promoting skepticism, maybe.

[I Ratant]

I think it has something to do with being skeptical of skeptics promoting skepticism, maybe.
.
But can you be certain about that?

[Akhenaten]

.
But can you be certain about that?





I think he might just be acting.

[Belgian thought]

I think he might just be acting.

Hmmm- this case is a bit like the old and trusted (and one of my favourite) sayings "Build a mousetrap and the world will beat your door"

:)

[Akhenaten]

heh heh

:)

[dudalb]

That's probably because what you keep trying to ask is completely pointless, as, it seems, are everyone's efforts to explain to you why these videos are fakes.

Wow, this is just like a discussion with a Holocaust Denier...

Oh wait, Kegeki is one......

[kageki]

Wow, this is just like a discussion with a Holocaust Denier...

Oh wait, Kegeki is one......

Wow someone else that can't read a thread.

Well I'm glad we established that the fake Jerusalem video serves no point at all.

[manniequinn]

manniequinn your link doesn't work. If it did I will assume that it's video 4 not video 3, that would explain why you see cars :D

Notice the title : Jerusalem UFO update - Three angles on synch - 4th footage Ultimate proof

And yea I was right.

yea i was tryin to put the link correct on here but when i posted i was a new member so it wouldnt let me, i had to find a way to cheat it haha, but thankss

[manniequinn]

Welcome to the forum Manniequinn.
As Angel Love has said, the middle video (video 4) is actually a video.
The still photo was used for video number 3.

But if you believe the event to be genuine, I await with excited antici...



.... pation, your analysis to show how everything is perfectly in place and to be expected in a video.

well thank you haha, and honestly I am a person who would like to believe that there is something out there, so when i see videos like this I am always hoping that they are true. I'm no video analyst and i dare not even put myself in any category close to that but I just figured i'd put my two cents in so maybe someone with more knowledge could shed some light on the matter. if its fake then so be it, but if not then I would like to have had some part in showing that it isn't. :p

[Mister Earl]

Having just read this thread from front to back, I just had to pop in to say:
Kageki, you are an incredibly dishonest person. You've been shown to be wrong multiple times, and each time you react by goalpost moving and attacking the people who show you to be wrong. Whatever reason you are here for, it isn't for finding the truth of the matter.

Also, hat tip to Stray Cat's excellent sleuthing.

[kageki]

Having just read this thread from front to back, I just had to pop in to say:
Kageki, you are an incredibly dishonest person. You've been shown to be wrong multiple times, and each time you react by goalpost moving and attacking the people who show you to be wrong. Whatever reason you are here for, it isn't for finding the truth of the matter.

Also, hat tip to Stray Cat's excellent sleuthing.

None of that is true and no one has disagreed that the fake Jerusalem video serves no point at all.

If the videos have been conclusively proven to be fake then so be it. I haven't pursued the matter at this point so your post was not just wrong, but unnecessary.

[RoboTimbo]

None of that is true and no one has disagreed that the fake Jerusalem video serves no point at all.

If the videos have been conclusively proven to be fake then so be it. I haven't pursued the matter at this point so your post was not just wrong, but unnecessary.

Still attempting to switch the burden of proof, then?

[AdMan]

...so your post was not just wrong, but unnecessary.


That's what I'd say about all of your posts, actually.

[Mister Earl]

None of that is true and no one has disagreed that the fake Jerusalem video serves no point at all.

Everything I said was true. The second part of that statement is a dodge. You have been shown to be factually incorrect in this thread, and you refuse to address this. A simple "I'm sorry, I was wrong" would do much for your credibility.

If the videos have been conclusively proven to be fake then so be it. I haven't pursued the matter at this point so your post was not just wrong, but unnecessary.

Are you conceding that the video you were viciously defending as real is a forgery, as was stated by pretty much everyone else earlier?

[kageki]

That's what I'd say about all of your posts, actually.

Well I guess that makes the both of us.

[kageki]

Everything I said was true. The second part of that statement is a dodge. You have been shown to be factually incorrect in this thread, and you refuse to address this. A simple "I'm sorry, I was wrong" would do much for your credibility.



Are you conceding that the video you were viciously defending as real is a forgery, as was stated by pretty much everyone else earlier?

Show me an example. I've repeated my statement about the fake Jerusalem video many times now.

If it's fake, it's fake. They were some pretty good actors though I guess.

[AdMan]

Well I guess that makes the both of us.


You asked for examples of UFO hoax videos with actors. I gave you examples.

You're now saying this was unnecessary, after you'd asked for it? Why is that?

[Vortigern99]

Kageki, please see posts #77 and 85 in this thread. In them Stray Cat shows major discrepancies between the video footage of the supposed UFO and the expected workings of real-world physics.

If after you've read posts #77 and 85, you still feel that we have no sound basis for rejecting the video as legitimate, feel free to explain your reasoning.

Thanks. :cool:

[kageki]

You asked for examples of UFO hoax videos with actors. I gave you examples.

You're now saying this was unnecessary, after you'd asked for it? Why is that?

And I've explained why the fake Jerusalem video is pointless and raised a question about the people in the video.

How was that unnecessary?

[Sledge]

What is the point you're trying to make, kageki?

[AdMan]

And I've explained why the fake Jerusalem video is pointless and raised a question about the people in the video.

How was that unnecessary?


I didn't post the fake Jerusalem video. Not sure why you're referring to my post.

Please keep you posts straight.

[kageki]

Kageki, please see posts #77 and 85 in this thread. In them Stray Cat shows major discrepancies between the video footage of the supposed UFO and the expected workings of real-world physics.

If after you've read posts #77 and 85, you still feel that we have no sound basis for rejecting the video as legitimate, feel free to explain your reasoning.

Thanks. :cool:

Here I'll even help you out:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread658652/pg1

So yeah I guess they are hoaxes. You have to admit it was pretty good acting.

[kageki]

I didn't post the fake Jerusalem video. Not sure why you're referring to my post.

Please keep you posts straight.


Originally Posted by kageki View Post
...so your post was not just wrong, but unnecessary.

That's what I'd say about all of your posts, actually.


Originally Posted by kageki View Post
And I've explained why the fake Jerusalem video is pointless and raised a question about the people in the video.

How was that unnecessary?

I didn't say you posted the fake Jerusalem video.

[Vortigern99]

Here I'll even help you out:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread658652/pg1

So yeah I guess they are hoaxes. You have to admit it was pretty good acting.

Pardon me, but... huh?

Why did you quote me, then proceed to ignore what I had written in reference to Stray Cat's debunking, post a link to someone else's debunking page, begrudgingly admit the videos are hoaxes and finally end on a complete non-sequitur?

Please explain.

[kageki]

Pardon me, but... huh?

Why did you quote me, then proceed to ignore what I had written in reference to Stray Cat's debunking, post a link to someone else's debunking page, begrudgingly admit the videos are hoaxes and finally end on a complete non-sequitur?

Please explain.

I'm not knowledgeable in this field as I said earlier so I can't comment on anything technical so I just have to accept them for the most part.

So it's fake right?

[Mister Earl]

So it's fake right?

If you're told it's fake for a fifteenth time in a row, will anything change?

[Frying Dutchmen]

I'm not knowledgeable in this field as I said earlier so I can't comment on anything technical so I just have to accept them for the most part.

So it's fake right?

I am knowledgeable in this field and my answer is what ever you want it to be.

[Frying Dutchmen]

There's another video It's the fourth or fifth one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH_eUxwe1DI&feature=player_embedded) I have to say I'm now convinced.

[Stray Cat]

There's another video It's the fourth or fifth one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH_eUxwe1DI&feature=player_embedded) I have to say I'm now convinced.
That's the full version of video 4

Analysis seen earlier in this thread , or here on my YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84IK8X3HXro

I haven't gone into detail yet about the full version, but you'll notice that the quality of the image from inside the car is totally different to that when they get out of the car and start 'filming' the UFO.

Also as they drive up the hill, there are background city lights that blur in nearly the same way as the ones in the UFO footage do, but again they don't show the horizontal lines that are so clear on the actual UFO footage as the camera moves quickly to follow the UFO as it zooms upwards.

I think, these film students made the UFO video first and then filmed themselves driving up there as a way of making the whole thing more convincing. This however is just speculation based upon analysis of the footage.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I've repeated my statement about the fake Jerusalem video many times now.

Well, I haven't answered because you seem dishonest and antagonistic, but if you're really Jonesing for someone to answer your question about whether it's "pointless" or not, the only way I think it's possible to reply is by asking you to define "pointless", and perhaps to provide an example of a video with a point. What features would a video need to have a point, in your estimation?

[Angel Love]

Pardon me, but... huh?

Why did you quote me, then proceed to ignore what I had written in reference to Stray Cat's debunking, post a link to someone else's debunking page, begrudgingly admit the videos are hoaxes and finally end on a complete non-sequitur?

Please explain.

Good luck with that request :D

[kageki]

Good luck with that request :D

I've responded already and the people in the video are related and thus not a non-sequitor.

[Akhenaten]

I've responded already and the people in the video are related and thus not a non-sequitor.





Related to each other?

Related to the people in the other videos?

Is this a whole family of actors running about making these videos?

Enquiring minds want to know.

[kageki]

That's the full version of video 4

Analysis seen earlier in this thread , or here on my YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84IK8X3HXro

I haven't gone into detail yet about the full version, but you'll notice that the quality of the image from inside the car is totally different to that when they get out of the car and start 'filming' the UFO.

Also as they drive up the hill, there are background city lights that blur in nearly the same way as the ones in the UFO footage do, but again they don't show the horizontal lines that are so clear on the actual UFO footage as the camera moves quickly to follow the UFO as it zooms upwards.

I think, these film students made the UFO video first and then filmed themselves driving up there as a way of making the whole thing more convincing. This however is just speculation based upon analysis of the footage.

The two videos were uploaded on the same day.

[Akhenaten]

The two videos were uploaded on the same day.





When were they made?

[Mike!]

Here I'll even help you out:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread658652/pg1

So yeah I guess they are hoaxes. You have to admit it was pretty good acting.

You are, far and away, too easily impressed.

[kageki]

When were they made?

I don't know. Can you tell from the video?

[Akhenaten]

When were they made?





I don't know. Can you tell from the video?





No, which makes this:


The two videos were uploaded on the same day.





kind of irrelevant, now doesn't it?

[EHocking]

I'm not knowledgeable in this field as I said earlier so I can't comment on anything technical so I just have to accept them for the most part.Actually, no you don't just have to accept them, or anything (at face value).

Do you accept every opinion you see on the news or in newspapers/magazines?

Do you accept the opinion on a subject from everyone you meet?

If not, why not? I'd bet that you are not an expert in all fields that you hear opinions on in the media (I'm certainly not) but that does not detract from your ability to apply critical thought to these opinions. Seek other opinions on matters that interest you and then balance up the arguments.

The only difference between you and a practicing sceptic is that "we" usually don't accept a "fact" at face value, as you seem to be implying above that you do.

You can still be open-minded (say on the existence of UFO/Aliens) and sceptical.
In fact, by definition, to be sceptical you MUST be open-minded to new facts and concepts.

[Stray Cat]

The two videos were uploaded on the same day.
Videos 1 and 2 were uploaded on the same day by two friends.

Video 4 (the one with the footage of the FILM STUDENTS driving up Temple Mount before getting out of their car to film the UFO) that Frying Dutchman linked to and which I was responding to, was uploaded days later, after they had seen the original 2 and the later 3rd video.

They had at least 4 days to make their version.

[kageki]

Videos 1 and 2 were uploaded on the same day by two friends.

Video 4 (the one with the footage of the FILM STUDENTS driving up Temple Mount before getting out of their car to film the UFO) that Frying Dutchman linked to and which I was responding to, was uploaded days later, after they had seen the original 2 and the later 3rd video.

They had at least 4 days to make their version.

What I meant was the short and full version of video 4, but I guess it doesn't matter that they were uploaded separately so nevermind.

[kageki]

No, which makes this:





kind of irrelevant, now doesn't it?



Originally Posted by Stray Cat View Post

I think, these film students made the UFO video first and then filmed themselves driving up there as a way of making the whole thing more convincing. This however is just speculation based upon analysis of the footage.

This must be irrelevant too since Stray Cat doesn't know when they were made either.

[kageki]

Actually, no you don't just have to accept them, or anything (at face value).

Do you accept every opinion you see on the news or in newspapers/magazines?

Do you accept the opinion on a subject from everyone you meet?

If not, why not? I'd bet that you are not an expert in all fields that you hear opinions on in the media (I'm certainly not) but that does not detract from your ability to apply critical thought to these opinions. Seek other opinions on matters that interest you and then balance up the arguments.

The only difference between you and a practicing sceptic is that "we" usually don't accept a "fact" at face value, as you seem to be implying above that you do.

You can still be open-minded (say on the existence of UFO/Aliens) and sceptical.
In fact, by definition, to be sceptical you MUST be open-minded to new facts and concepts.

I am unable to respond to this post since I have no knowledge on the subject:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6853226&postcount=283

What do you suggest that I should do then?

[Akhenaten]

This must be irrelevant too since Stray Cat doesn't know when they were made either.





Pay no attention to him. He's just an actor.

[Akhenaten]

I am unable to respond to this post since I have no knowledge on the subject:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6853226&postcount=283

What do you suggest that I should do then?





Ooh, please, Sir! I know this one!

[EHocking]

I am unable to respond to this post since I have no knowledge on the subject:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6853226&postcount=283

What do you suggest that I should do then?I can only suggest you do what I do.

Educate myself. And I don't mean that to be a put down.

If you are genuinely interested in a phenomena, you need to educate yourself sufficiently to at least be able to apply a ******** detector to any arguments for and against a conclusion. Unfortunately this takes time.

A default position is to "stalk" some of the posters that you have encountered here and review their other posts on the subject.

At least then you can apply a "degree of confidence" in their expertise on a subject and can move forward with a fairly valid working hypothesis based on what you DO know, e.g., "a source I have confidence in has presented evidence for/against X.".
You can always throw out this hypothesis when something more compelling is presented that props it or counters it.

[Stray Cat]

You can always throw out this hypothesis when something more compelling is presented that props it or counters it.
This is very important (are you reading kageki) and why I rarely offer anything as 100% conclusive proof.
It is always open to further evidence coming along and proving me wrong... OK, so usually that evidence doesn't come along, but still, there's no room here for smugness. :D

[I Ratant]

Ooh, please, Sir! I know this one!
.
Remember the MA!
Always remember the MA when tempted to respond as the thread so obviously needs... :)

[Akhenaten]

.
Remember the MA!
Always remember the MA when tempted to respond as the thread so obviously needs... :)





:whistling

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I've responded already and the people in the video are related and thus not a non-sequitor.

...so I take it you're not going to define what you would consider a video with a point to be, then?

[tsig]

I am unable to respond to this post since I have no knowledge on the subject:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6853226&postcount=283

What do you suggest that I should do then?

I'd suggest you try to learn from some of the posters here who know more about aliens and UFOs than the aliens themselves do.

[AdMan]

Here's some good analysis from Ben Radford:

Hoax in the Holy Land: Jerusalem UFO a Proven Fake (http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/jerusalem-ufo-hoax-1319/)

[kageki]

This is very important (are you reading kageki) and why I rarely offer anything as 100% conclusive proof.
It is always open to further evidence coming along and proving me wrong... OK, so usually that evidence doesn't come along, but still, there's no room here for smugness. :D

Off course I realize that and that really wasn't the point.

The point is that I am unable to rebut your analysis because I don't have knowledge about videos, but I doubt most people in this thread do either and are accepting them at face value as well.

[kageki]

Ooh, please, Sir! I know this one!

You don't need to be called on to say something.

Out of curiosity, are you an expert on videos?

[Angel Love]

Off course I realize that and that really wasn't the point.

The point is that I am unable to rebut your analysis because I don't have knowledge about videos, but I doubt most people in this thread do either and are accepting them at face value as well.


You don't need to be an expert to see things. Video 3, obvious fake, just look at it. For the others, look at them, read what others say, then look at them again, see if you agree, if not say why not. I can't see anything in Stray Cats videos and post that are only understandable to "experts", there are even some things I might not agree on.

[Sledge]

EDIT: That's weird, I'm sure I wasn't posting in this thread.

[kageki]

You don't need to be an expert to see things. Video 3, obvious fake, just look at it. For the others, look at them, read what others say, then look at them again, see if you agree, if not say why not. I can't see anything in Stray Cats videos and post that are only understandable to "experts", there are even some things I might not agree on.

This isn't just seeing things. I don't know anything about interlaced and progressive scans for example. Can you explain something is a cgi in a video by just looking at it?

And what are these things you might not agree on out of curiosity?

[The Pig]

Here's some good analysis from Ben Radford

I think the mention of the size of the object was weak and unnecessary.

[The Pig]

I'm more suspicious that it's "You can't prove that all videos are real/faked therefore 9/11 was faked."
Or 'if we can't accept a video/videos as proof of a UFO, we can't accept a video/videos as proof of what happened on 9/11' would be my guess. kageki?

[Akhenaten]

Ooh, please, Sir! I know this one!





You don't need to be called on to say something.





No, I don't. I have an 'Automatic' setting.



Out of curiosity, are you an expert on videos?





Yep. I've seen thousands of them. Here's one of my favourites:


WIKRkvCKri8


That's what a real spaceship looks like when it takes off. Cool, n'est-ce pas?

Notice how it looks just like the Jerusalem UFO didn't.

[Akhenaten]

I'm more suspicious that it's "You can't prove that all videos are real/faked therefore 9/11 was faked."





Or 'if we can't accept a video/videos as proof of a UFO, we can't accept a video/videos as proof of what happened on 9/11' would be my guess. kageki?





Our inquisitive friend seems oddly silent on this speculation.

[Bell]

That's what a real spaceship looks like when it takes off. Cool, n'est-ce pas?

Cool indeed! You don't even see the cables used to lift it up!

[Akhenaten]

Cool indeed! You don't even see the cables used to lift it up!





The actors doing the voice-over were pretty convincing too.

[Stray Cat]

One of the really cool things about it is that the interlaced frames colour separate into RGB... I've never seen that effect before. Thanks. :)

[I Ratant]

The actors doing the voice-over were pretty convincing too.
.
And the camera following it, with the 3-second delay from earth to the moon...
So "they" say.... :)

[I Ratant]

One of the really cool things about it is that the interlaced frames colour separate into RGB... I've never seen that effect before. Thanks. :)
.
Somewhere in all the crap I have here is some video of shooting water bottles.
In any one frame, the interlacing shows up as a oscillation between the two scans.
Something like the pressure wave of the bullet pushing the cap off the bottle is interesting, with all the position changes of the bottle and the cap.
Must put some effort into finding that, I guess.
But here's another artifact of video.. this time a CMOS imager that scans down the scene, line by line. The frame rate of the camera used (Aiptek) is 1/7th of a second. Makes images of moving objects into art... :)

[Bell]

The one of the locomotive reminds me of that classic black and white photo of a racing car.

[I Ratant]

The one of the locomotive reminds me of that classic black and white photo of a racing car.
.
I was on my 10-speed going to the left, the train going to the right...
The wiggles in the fence line are not an on-the-spot image of an earthquake~ ;)

[Mike!]

EDIT: That's weird, I'm sure I wasn't posting in this thread.

Proof of alien abduction!

[Stray Cat]

I've just read a bit of his blog... the phrase 'loser' seems like projection to me.

But, I'm all ears for this evidence as to why we're wrong.

[Darat]

Moved a bunch of posts that were about the posting of an email address - we're looking into it and if everything seems OK we'll return the posts.

Sorry for the interruption and we'll now resume service as usual.

[Stray Cat]

Just thought I'd clue you up with the latest developments in the Jerusalem UFO hoax.... errrr... I mean sighting. :D

The latest bit of "evidence" to emerge is another WooTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHLOW4iuYh0), this time taken from the Jerusalem Weather Cam (they have a website here (http://www.02ws.com/station.php?section=webCamera.jpg&lang=0))

Which claims the light can be seen in the weathercam picture for 28th January at just before 1am.

But if anyone wants to spend a few minutes looking though the weathercam pictures, you can clearly see the light (from a building) comes and goes quite often regardless of which 24 hour period you choose to look at (they have archives going back to 2008).

How far will people stretch credulity to maintain a belief in this?

Answers on the back of a twenty pound note should be sent to:
Mr Stray Cat
Squid Fishing Monthly
Iwontstandinyour Way
Rockthis Town
Route 66

[Akhenaten]

How far will people stretch credulity to maintain a belief in this?





http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/20ExtraordinaryPounds.jpg

[Access Denied]

How far will people stretch credulity to maintain a belief in this?
I wish I could be as carefree and wild, but I got cat class and I got cat style.