Jerusalem 4th UFO hoax - simple audio analysis

[ufopolitics]

AUDIO MEANS ZERO, NOTHING, I COULD PLAY DARK SIDE OF THE MOON MIXED WITH MICHAEL JACKSON THRILLER (RIP) AND STILL MEANS NOTHING....

VIDEO FACTS, LIGHT FACTS, ANGLES OF VIEWING VERSUS AREAS IN REAL LIFE MATTERS...NOBODY HAVE DONE IT YET...

WE WILL PROVE IT WAS A REAL EVENT

STAY TUNED...

[toukoqouko]

@ufopolitics If "audio means zero, nothing", then we can just arbitrarily decide that nothing else means nothing. Video facts mean nothing, light facts mean nothing, angles of viewing mean nothing. Michael Jackson isn't dead because all the evidence to the contrary means nothing! What's your point? You can't just conveniently ignore and forget the errors that prove these videos are fake. By the way, typing all in caps doesn't add credibility, it makes you look like a computer illiterate.

[astrallife]

if you recorded the audio of the video and was stereo, you are right. If the audio was mono, then you can not have this conclussion

[toukoqouko]

@astrallife I downloaded the YouTube video in FLV format and extracted the audio data directly from it. I didn't record. If it was mono, I wouldn't have got any result.

[astrallife]

@toukoqouko maybe the person who took the video, before upload, had it through software.

[toukoqouko]

@astrallife That is the point. They had it through video editing software, added the ufo, edited the conversation to make it seem more realistic.

[astrallife]

@toukoqouko Of course what you are saying is logical and respectfull. But I was saying that maybe the person transfered the video to a pc (to see in bigger screen for example) and something happenned there. I dont really care if its true or not though. What I really care is that in 2011 we already have a ufo/alien record sightings, and thats happenning for a reason.

[ufopolitics]

@toukoqouko You speak "Too Freely" when you said "They "Added the UFO" like it was a simple and easy job to be done...it is obvious you either have not observed all the real effects performed on this videos or otherwise You are a complete ignorant in "Adding" animations into a Dynamic Background...it is either one of them...You make a choice.

The UFO is NOT just some white pixels added randomly, note it contains lights that are orbiting around a centered light...they project as an Ellipse,etc

[patman0250]

what about all the people who saw the fuckin thing?? nice try !

[toukoqouko]

@patman0250 That was the clearest indication of a hoax from the beginning. A conflict zone, one of the most watched spots on the planet, a city with almost a million people, cameras everywhere, the videos show cars on the streets - and nobody saw it. Except film maker Eligael and a few of his film school friends. Whether or not someone saw it, the videos are hoaxes. If it was real, I doubt they would have made all these hoax videos.

[patman0250]

@toukoqouko idk man it be simple for a sceptic to make a hoax out if the vid if he wanted .. just to piss the believer off . i just havnt seen any hardcore compelling evidence is all . the debunker vids sint enough for me

[SunTzu1983]

Oh and when I say option. what I mean is maybe there is a button on the camera that *switches* from interlace to progressive and vice versa.

[SunTzu1983]

And the reason why I say maybe it was switched to interlaced from progressive is because you really can't tell it's interlaced until the UFO is gone and the camera looks up creating interlace artifacts on the structures. And even though it was shown since the car scene that it was set to interlace, maybe the camera operator was clumsy and periodically hit the mode switch button by accident, because they supposedly came from a party and can make mistakes from having a little fun and carelessness.

[SunTzu1983]

But of course if it was faked, then we will never see the original video because like you said earlier, then it wouldn't have a UFO in it.

There was good evidence that compared the UFO being progressive on a interlaced background and even though a camera can not run these modes both at once, I wonder if maybe it had a button to change that option and maybe because of all the excitement that maybe the person recording hit the button at the very moment the UFO took off. Far fetched, but possible.

[SunTzu1983]

Anyways. I'm gonna let everyone draw their own conclusions, because that's what were all going to do anyways until something comes out that is just in your face, and not youtube video debunking, because I believe real debunking, or proof of it being real only starts with the original video with it's true resolution. Youtube resolution is very poor, even when it claims to be 1080P. Because it REALLY isn't, there is too many artifacts and the original video format wouldn't be compressed.

[SunTzu1983]

@toukoqouko Fair enough. I'll accept that. Though I would like to correct myself and say that the DOTR could be within the frame, yet obstructed by other structures.

Also, what makes me think more that it's true, is because of my recent findings of a person who found information on a debunker that contacted the manager for 02ws while this was still fresh and wasn't deleted and he stated that the DOTR is indeed inside the far right of the frames, but was obstructed as to not be seen.

[SunTzu1983]

Better video watch?v=eUnNXKhRthg

[SunTzu1983]

Sorry for my typo. I mean to say, what sources claim that the cam is no WHERE near the dome of the rock? Legit non-bias information sources please. Not debunker sources either.

[toukoqouko]

@SunTzu1983 The burden of proof is on you if you want to claim Dome of the Rock is visible on the camera. That should be easy to show. If you're interested you can go to the weather cam's website and see its location on a map. You can read the camera owner's description about what's in the view. You could also read his comments on YouTube on the video you just linked. But until someone has any evidence Dome of the Rock is in the camera view, there's nothing to disprove.

[SunTzu1983]

@toukoqouko But you said that it's been "known" for two months that Dome of the Rock isn't even near that weather cam's field of view. When you say "known", you give off the impression that there is some kind of evidence that your aware of to support this. All I am asking is if you give evidence to support your OWN statement.

[toukoqouko]

@SunTzu1983 As I said you can check the weather cam's website to see where it's located. 02ws dot com

[SunTzu1983]

@toukoqouko It clearly says below "This is a look into the north horizon of Jerusalem. You can see Malcha at the left side and all the way to the old city at the right." - The temple resides within the old city. Proof right there.

[toukoqouko]

@SunTzu1983 I already responded this privately. Why do you repeat it when you know it's false? With this logic, you can prove Pentagon is in the view as follows. The text clearly says the camera shows a part of the Earth. Pentagon resides on the Earth, thus Pentagon is in the image. Proof right there. You can ignore direction mismatch because the view is horizontal. If you're unsure about what's in the picture you can email the camera owner. He has responded that DoR is far outside the view.

[SunTzu1983]

@toukoqouko Your analogy is a bit dramatic. I am simply saying that whatever was caught on the camera view could contain the temple, since it has the old city in it's view, and this part of the old city may contain the temple, though obstructed. Your analogy is more liken to me saying that, since you can see eastward on the camera that china might be there too. Your analogy has no concept of space.

[toukoqouko]

@SunTzu1983 My Pentagon 'proof' is equally flawed to your 'proof', that's the point of analogies. "The temple resides within the old city. Proof right there." As you can see your 'proof' doesn't consider direction or distance either. Nothing indicates DoR would be in the frame. The evidence is strongly to the contrary.

[SunTzu1983]

@toukoqouko It's pointing north yes, but since the view is horizontal, it's catching land westward and eastward. Correct that it doesn't show ALL of the old city, but that doesn't mean that the temple isn't in what is caught on the camera.

The links I posted earlier highlight the temples location. In daytime and at night. And the terrain looks identical to the supposed hoax video, if you have photographic memory and can imagine it at a different angle.

[SunTzu1983]

w w w [dot] abovetopsecret [dot] com [slash]forum [slash] thread658877 [slash] pg1

If you scroll down it has a conversation of someone who contacted 02ws. The manager there clearly say that the dome can't be seen, but it is indeed located in the camera shot.

[toukoqouko]

@SunTzu1983 I read that ages ago, and all the follow-ups. He clarified "Dome of the rock is not in the frame, not even after building obstructing it".

[SunTzu1983]

@toukoqouko Can you direct me, or show me this clarification? Because I believe in that forum it says that a debunker was dishonest about what the manager really said.

Also here is another good read

w w w [dot] abovetopsecret [dot] com [slash] forum [slash] thread656737 [slash] pg80

[toukoqouko]

@SunTzu1983 You can find the phrase with Google.

[SunTzu1983]

And ironically enough the Jerusalem Weather Forecast has remove a lot, you can't even watch anything the cam has record in 2011.

[SunTzu1983]

Quoting member bluemooone2 at w w w [dot] abovetopsecret [dot] com [slash] forum [dot] thread658652 [slash] pg1

Very nice summery with a good dose of Mr Mask Style . You sir remind me a lot of Harlan Ellison , hehehe. And , by the way, its a great Idea to start this topic afresh for debate

The one video I would like to add to the OP is the one made by discl0sur3 . It kinda makes you go huh ! Well , it makes me go Huh ! anyway )

watch?v=mHSqRKmhQcs&feature=pl­ayer_embedded#at=25

Very syncroed

[SunTzu1983]

Oh and documents? I would love to see those please. Thank you.

[SunTzu1983]

What sources claim that the cam is no one near the dome of the rock? Legit non-bias information sources please. Not debunker sources either.

[SunTzu1983]

Eligael was involved with a different video that you have supposedly debunked. So Eligael confirmed a different video than the video you posted. And you are trying to debunk a youtube video that is from YDMU1, not Eligael. Like I said before, the video could of suffered manipulation to support a debunkers view that it's a hoax, not just the other way around. And to say that the original video has no UFO on it is nonsense, giving you don't have the original camera/vid. YT is not always "original"

[toukoqouko]

@SunTzu1983 I know Eligael didn't publish this one, that's why I said YDMU1 did. I said Eligael among many others has confirmed that YDMU1 is the original publisher of "video 4". If you mean there could exist an unpublished genuine version that nobody has seen, sure... but imaginary evidence has zero relevance.

[SunTzu1983]

@toukoqouko As long as you understand that "Absence of evidence, does not mean evidence of absense"

[SunTzu1983]

Mean I can't believed I typoed a Sagan quote lol

"Absence of evidence, does not mean evidence of absence.

[SunTzu1983]

And I spoke in simple english. So I hope that my meanings were very clear.

[SunTzu1983]

Lastly I got only one more thing to say. Stanton T. Friedman.

[SunTzu1983]

Can't wait for someone to post that the Jerusalem City Cam video is a hoax and why it's a hoax. watch?v=ZjL45EB32T0

[toukoqouko]

@SunTzu1983 It's been known for at least two months that Dome of the Rock isn't even near that weather cam's field of view.

[SunTzu1983]

Plus the fact that if anyone DOES study the original video, it has to be studied with out bias. Because anytime someone has studied something with ANY fixed view on the studied object, they will manipulate evidence to suggest their belief/view.

[SunTzu1983]

And what makes you think YDMU1 has the original video? Because he simply says it is? I can make a youtube account and post literally anything and claim it's the original video. Until someone actually analyzes the original recording, it's just here say. To be honest I can care less if it's a hoax, but I just simply bring up the truth that it's not as easy as analyzing a youtube video, because lets face it, people alter things both to make it look real AND to make it look like a hoax. TimeWillTell

[toukoqouko]

@SunTzu1983 "The original video" here means the video in the form it was originally published. YDMU1 published it on YouTube. This is a well documented fact. Eligael has confirmed this. I'm not sure if I understood your point. The "original recording" won't be available for analysis because there's no ufo on it. Assessing the authenticity of a YouTube video IS as easy as analyzing a YouTube video.

[SunTzu1983]

watch?v=ZjL45EB32T0

[SunTzu1983]

watch?v=3duqthV4cQ4&feature=wa­tch_response

[SunTzu1983]

And I really really doubt you have the original video.

[toukoqouko]

@SunTzu1983 Sorry, it's not a matter of opinion. It's the original video posted by YDMU1 on February 1. You can easily check it yourself if you're interested in the truth.

[SunTzu1983]

Maybe you put that there? Or perhaps someone else put that there? Because this video is all over youtube and who knows who could of altered it and repost it on youtube and call it the original. I'm not impressed. And of course if someone says something multiple times, it's gonna pretty much sound the same. You can't say "oh well a person has to sound different every time". Voice actors know how to make the same sound very well repeatedly. So not impossible.

[toukoqouko]

@SunTzu1983 It's impossible to produce an identical sound even for a voice actor. That's not a matter of opinion. Timing of each syllable is exact, no difference when measured with 20 microsecond accuracy. Not only that, but every vibration of air, measured 44100 times per second, is exactly the same. Even if he's a voice actor, he can't produce a stereo sound on a monophonic audio recording. There's no question it's a result of manipulation.

[GrumpSkull]

Spotto! Well done, to think I must have heard the soundtrack hundreds of times.

[Triptweeze]

Very good catch!