Wednesday, February 09, 2011

Jerusalem UFO Videos | Hoax in the Holy Land: Jerusalem UFO a Proven Fake

Jerusalem UFO Still From Video (4)
          

     
By Benjamin Radford
www.space.com
2-8-11

     Several videos have surfaced online that supposedly show a UFO hovering over an Islamic shrine known as the Dome of the Rock on Jerusalem's Temple Mount some time after midnight on Jan. 28. The videos have sparked a furious debate about whether we finally have evidence of UFOs.

As a veteran investigator of many UFO photos and videos, these images strike me as highly dubious, and all signs point to a hoax.

Why are the Jerusalem UFO videos suspicious? SPACE.com's sister site, Life's Little Mysteries, counts the ways:
First, no one knows who took the videos. In UFO reports, as in police investigations, anonymous reports are usually a red flag that something's bogus. There are very few legitimate reasons why a genuine witness would not want to be identified. (For example, fear of reprisals from gang members or the mafia; though it seems unlikely that the aliens threatened anyone to keep quiet.)

If you were one of the first people in the world to capture some of the most amazing video footage of a UFO taken in the past decade, why would you post it anonymously on YouTube instead of either submitting it to professional analysis, or making money by selling it to CNN or MSNBC? (In fact, there's some speculation that most or all of the videos were actually posted by a single person, which would guarantee a hoax.) Surely at least one of the videographers -- or someone working with them — would have come forward in the past 10 days to sell their story to a newspaper or tabloid. Suspicious.

6 comments :

  1. Although Mr Radford makes some reasonable points, contrary to the articles headline, he offers no proof of these being fake. I don't know if they are or aren't, but if we're going to call them proven fakes, let's have some hard scientific evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good Day Hassayampa Slim,

    Thank you for taking time to make comment.

    I would argue that the onus is on those that are making the claim of something extraordinary in the videos, not the other way around.

    Radford doesn't point out the "physical flaws" in the videos, which I hope to do ASAP. In short, there is missing data between the first and second videos, and this shouldn't be, presuming they are what that have been alleged to be, i.e., two separate videos taken at the same time from the same location and vantage point.

    What you label as "reasonable points" I believe are more then that as we do have a history of empirical data in regards to low flying UFO sightings in populated areas.

    A baseline could be created with said data, which would enable a mathematical theorem or probability to public response to such events, or "in this case lack thereof."

    All of this falls under the guise of scientific method I might add. Henceforth, although Radford might not be aware of the flaws in the videos, "the lack of witnesses" re a low hovering/flying UFO over a major tourist area is a valid (scientific) factor based on established patterns from previous (cases) empirical data.

    Cheers,
    Frank

    ReplyDelete
  3. "I would argue that the onus is on those that are making the claim of something extraordinary in the videos, not the other way around."

    Ah, the nebulous word "extraordinary". Which lacking an objective, scientifically determined definition and criteria, can mean anything to anybody. Rendering it meaningless.. Any evidence regarding UFOs, aliens, or anything "paranormal" will be found and evaluated using ordinary tools, ordinary techniques, by ordinary people.

    Some of the points against the videographers are questionable at best.

    #1 "There are very few legitimate reasons why a genuine witness would not want to be identified."

    Anyone familiar with UFO Report literature would know there are undeniable risks in identifying oneself as a UFO witness. As common as UFO sightings have become, there is still a social stigma attached to it and many reported witnesses have experienced ridicule and harassment from family, friends neighbors and even faced repercussions in their professional lives, even when the alleged sighting in no way related to the job or work performance of said witness.

    True, a witness might become famous for reporting and videotaping a UFO, so what? The videographer's identity has no bearing on the validity of what they claimed to have captured, even otherwise level-headed and professional people lie, are mistaken, fooled etc.


    #2 "If you were one of the first people in the world to capture some of the most amazing video footage of a UFO taken in the past decade, why would you post it anonymously on YouTube instead of either submitting it to professional analysis, or making money by selling it to CNN or MSNBC? (In fact, there's some speculation that most or all of the videos were actually posted by a single person, which would guarantee a hoax.) Surely at least one of the videographers -- or someone working with them — would have come forward in the past 10 days to sell their story to a newspaper or tabloid. Suspicious."

    If the videographer(s) did step forward to take credit and accepted compensation for the story on CNN, MSNBC, BBC, etc.. claims would be made that they did so exclusively for those reasons, it would be deemed suspicious and dismissed as a hoax.

    As to why the videographers didn't put it up for professional analysis.. Actually, they did. Or at least made it available to any professional who wished to do so, on YouTube, where it would be most accessible.

    If Radford is asking why they didn't PAY for a professional analysis from a specific company or companies, I can't say. However, the videos remain on YouTube, up for anyone to download, scrutinize and debunk anytime they desire.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good Day dlazerous,

    You wrote:

    Ah, the nebulous word "extraordinary". Which lacking an objective, scientifically determined definition and criteria, can mean anything to anybody. Rendering it meaningless..

    Let me further define "extraordinary" specific to this case: the notion from the videos is that a "non-conventional craft," with the innuendo being something "alien" briefly hovered over the "Dome of the Rock" then shot off at a terrific speed.

    You Wrote:

    Any evidence regarding UFOs, aliens, or anything "paranormal" will be found and evaluated using ordinary tools, ordinary techniques, by ordinary people.

    Of course in today's age and the tools available to the average person, this indeed will happen (and certainly has in this instance); however, I would argue the more admissible the case, more "qualified" (civilian) individuals would enter the fray, if not the military (speaking generally) from whatever country an event occurred, utilizing the "tools, techniques etc.," afforded to those bodies.

    You wrote:

    Some of the points against the videographers are questionable at best.

    #1 "There are very few legitimate reasons why a genuine witness would not want to be identified."

    Anyone familiar with UFO Report literature would know there are undeniable risks in identifying oneself as a UFO witness.


    This is a valid point, although I don't believe that's the case here.

    You wrote:

    If the videographer(s) did step forward to take credit and accepted compensation for the story on CNN, MSNBC, BBC, etc.. claims would be made that they did so exclusively for those reasons, it would be deemed suspicious and dismissed as a hoax.

    I have no doubt that claims of it/them (the videos) being a hoax, and or claims to the opposite would exist under any circumstances.

    The benefit would be the ability to vet the witnesses.

    You wrote:

    As to why the videographers didn't put it up for professional analysis.. Actually, they did. Or at least made it available to any professional who wished to do so, on YouTube, where it would be most accessible.

    Good point and this is where we find the defects in the video themselves aside from the ancillary defects of the case, i.e., no supporting witnesses, calls to the authorities, local chatter in forums from witnesses, other photos, videos (closer shots) etc., etc.

    Again, I haven't had time to publish the analysis, but hope to soon; however, in the mean time, here are the defects in the separate videos that render them defective on their face re evidence:

    ~~~~~~~~CONTINUED IN NEXT COMMENT BELOW~~~~~~~~

    ReplyDelete
  5. ~CONTINUED FROM COMMENT ABOVE~

    If one looks closely between video #1 & #2, you'll notice that there is missing data (lights) between the two recordings.

    These shots are alleged to have been taken in the same place and at the same time (obviously); you'll note the the luminance of the lights is much brighter (and the shot is closer) in the second then the first; henceforth any (easily) visible lights seen in the first shot, would not only be seen in the second, they would be "brighter"–that is simply not the case!

    The second video also shows "two" lit objects as it begins to exit the shot–the others don't. The evidence dictates that these are two different pictures!

    In the 4th video, the most impressive to date, you will notice the luminance of the city lights is "enhanced" to the point they are "bleeding together" when we see the flashes (right before the object exits the screen); empirical data culled from other videos with extremal bright flashes (e.g., "low flying meteor shots") show that an external light flash does not effect the static lights in the image.

    Conversely, if one uses "software to enhance or brighten the light" in video or static images, it "increases the luminance" of all the static lights in the area the "effect was applied. I personally use this effect often myself and am very familiar with it.

    In conclusion the preponderance of evidence clearly indicates that these images are products of a hoax.

    Cheers,
    Frank

    ReplyDelete
  6. The statement above that "no one knows who took these videos," is simply NOT TRUE! Nor is it true that all of the videos have been 'debunked.' Mostly the 4th video, the one that is minus the 2 flashes of ground level light has been debunked to my satisfaction.
    * Here are a few of the actual names:
    Yuli Cohen, Michael Naumkoff and Dor Tibi, who shot the 4th video and are scared to report to major media. Can you blame them?
    Eligael Gedalyovich, shot the now infamous 1st video.
    Thanks to newsman Michael Cohen m.cohen@allnewsweb.com for tracking down the witnesses and speaking with them. Mr. Cohen states, and I believe him, that these people spoke humbly–and in a manner NOT depicting people who would know how to 'fake' a video. In fact, these people wouldn't know the first thing about how to fake a video!
    To me, Frank's 'faked' video above is obviously faked. Just jerking the camera up-wards does not in my eyes, show that the object 'shoots' up-wards; the camera shoots up-wards. Also, the 'object' is too round and its light is spread out much too widely to be real.
    Special thanks to Frank Warren for putting together a 'faked' video that exemplifies a fairly good faked video; but not convincing enough for me.

    ReplyDelete

Dear Contributor,

Your comments are greatly appreciated, and coveted; however, blatant mis-use of this site's bandwidth will not be tolerated (e.g., SPAM etc).

Additionally, healthy debate is invited; however, ad hominem and or vitriolic attacks will not be published. Please keep your arguments "to the issues" and present them with civility and proper decorum-FW






LIVE SIGHTING REPORTS BY MUFON