UFO videotaped Twice over the Dome of the Rock

[GenericGuy]

If it’s a hoax it’s the best I’ve seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xb9JoGyy98&feature=player_embedded#t=0s

[CrimsonAngel]

That's the best hoax you've seen?

[pffh]

It's a ball of gas reflected off a weather balloon that was dropped from an experimental military aircraft attempting to reflect light off the moon to jupiter.

[Kuma Kode]

The first half is utterly ridiculous. Look at how the light flares don't change when the camera moves, and how if it turns to far to one side, the entire image distorts. It's a video of a flat plane; the city is an image.

For the second half... well, adding a white blob onto a featureless sky section is not difficult to do.

[UserClone]

Why, have you seen a better hoax, filmed simultaneously from more than one angle, by two distinct people with two different types of cameras?

[Kuma Kode]

They would actually have to be two separate instances. The duration of the static hover seems vastly different between the two videos.

[rayne_dragon]

It isn't very convincing at all until the second clip, which is far more authentic looking than the first. However, taken together they definitely seem like a hoax to me.

[UserClone]

Eh, it's a hoax I'm sure, but I found it fascinating all the same.

[Halna LeGavilk]

I'm gonna say hoax.

[Dust]

http://www.ufoeyes.com/2011/02/02/the-jerusalem-ufo-what-we-have-so-far/

Several of the videos debunked already, they're working on the rest.

[Ravens_cry]

Well, if its real, as in this is actual video not a hoax, it is a real UFO. However, and people forget this, UFO just means 'Unidentified Flying Object'. It doesn't mean automatically 'Space Aliens'.
Just remember that, people.

[Kislath]

Fake. What are the odds a UFO would just drop in at the very moment a camera had been fixed on that location for... QUITE some time beforehand for no apparent reason? Lights, camera.... and... ACTION!

Seriously, all you hoaxers out there: give us some context, already, some reason for us to believe the whole thing isn't staged.

[Haruki-kun]

Why, have you seen a better hoax, filmed simultaneously from more than one angle, by two distinct people with two different types of cameras?

You're not gonna like the answer. :smalltongue:


Well, if its real, as in this is actual video not a hoax, it is a real UFO. However, and people forget this, UFO just means 'Unidentified Flying Object'. It doesn't mean automatically 'Space Aliens'.
Just remember that, people.

YES! Thank you! I've been defending this for a while now. If I throw a rock into the air and someone sees it without knowing what it is, it's a UFO.

[Anxe]

{scrubbed}
For the best hoax you've seen, why not the movie District 9? It looks real doesn't it?

[weeping eagle]

Well, if its real, as in this is actual video not a hoax, it is a real UFO. However, and people forget this, UFO just means 'Unidentified Flying Object'. It doesn't mean automatically 'Space Aliens'.
Just remember that, people.Not identified by whom?

You say "UFO", I say "IFO"...

[Worira]

I'm going to say it was a Space Wizard.

Any objections to this theory will be met with "magic".

[FoE]

I saw that video! I thought it looked very authentic. Very cool, and I say that without sarcasm. (For once.)

[Ravens_cry]

Not identified by whom?

You say "UFO", I say "IFO"...
IFO as what, exactly? There is a thousand and one possibilities quite mundane that would have to be eliminated before we can even consider extraterrestrial intelligence. And even if we can't identify it do to a lack of information, that STILL doesn't mean its ETI. It just. Means. We. Can't identify. it. Ufologists make a big show over the fact governments have taken an interest in these cases. But think about it, even if they aren't ETI, the government still has a very valid reason involving TI, more specifically foreign governments. There doesn't have to be some big conspiracy to explain government interest, merely prudence.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

This is obviously real, no way it could be fake.

[weeping eagle]

IFO as what, exactly? There is a thousand and one possibilities quite mundane that would have to be eliminated before we can even consider extraterrestrial intelligence. And even if we can't identify it do to a lack of information, that STILL doesn't mean its ETI. It just. Means. We. Can't identify. it. Ufologists make a big show over the fact governments have taken an interest in these cases. But think about it, even if they aren't ETI, the government still has a very valid reason involving TI, more specifically foreign governments. There doesn't have to be some big conspiracy to explain government interest, merely prudence.In the post I replied to, you seemed to take offense that "UFO" is popularly used to mean "alien spacecraft". I claim that "unidentified flying object", used literally, is pretty much a useless term, because it's incomplete - it says something is unidentified, but doesn't say from whose perspective. The "alien spacecraft" meaning, by comparison, is the one that is actually concrete and sensible, and thus we should accept that this is what "UFO" means now, and that the term itself was so poorly conceived that it was inevitable to have its meaning hijacked.

In reality, we should call these things what they are, be it a flying light, orb, saucer, triangle, cigar, whatever. After all, if you call something a "flying light", it's pretty obvious that you haven't identified it, or else you'd call it a "shooting star" or whatever.

[_Zoot_]

YES! Thank you! I've been defending this for a while now. If I throw a rock into the air and someone sees it without knowing what it is, it's a UFO.

An Unidentified Falling object? :smalltongue:

[Valameer]

Woo! Go Go Iron Man!

[grimbold]

'We See Em in Mississippi all the time'
her voice
wow
otherwise at first it seems ridiculous and then the second clip is more realistic
however i think its merely a weather balloon

[shadow_archmagi]

I'm going to say it was a Space Wizard.

Any objections to this theory will be met with "magic".

And any objections to magic will be met with QFASA

[arguskos]

It's the newest incarnation of Sparklelord! We're all dooooooomed! :smalleek:

[Ravens_cry]

In the post I replied to, you seemed to take offense that "UFO" is popularly used to mean "alien spacecraft". I claim that "unidentified flying object", used literally, is pretty much a useless term, because it's incomplete - it says something is unidentified, but doesn't say from whose perspective. The "alien spacecraft" meaning, by comparison, is the one that is actually concrete and sensible, and thus we should accept that this is what "UFO" means now, and that the term itself was so poorly conceived that it was inevitable to have its meaning hijacked.

In reality, we should call these things what they are, be it a flying light, orb, saucer, triangle, cigar, whatever. After all, if you call something a "flying light", it's pretty obvious that you haven't identified it, or else you'd call it a "shooting star" or whatever.
I don't see it as useless. There is a basic division of all questions, the answered and the unanswered, the solved and the unsolved. UFO is a technical term for certain ones that have not been solved, specifically the ones appearing to be flying.
If we identify it, then the problem will be solved, the question answered and we can use more specific terms like 'aircraft', 'satellite', 'Venus' or 'firefly' Or even, and this has become easier and easier with CGI and video editing software available on the home computer, 'hoax'.
But until then, UFO is useful designation for the unknown, the unsolved, the unanswered.

[Dr.Epic]

Meh, I've seen documentaries about how easy it is to fake a UFO using video. I need more testimonials before I believe this thing is the real deal.

[Asta Kask]

And Debunked. (http://www.youtube.com/user/HOAXKiller1)

[Dr.Epic]

And Debunked. (http://www.youtube.com/user/HOAXKiller1)

Thought so.

[weeping eagle]

I don't see it as useless. There is a basic division of all questions, the answered and the unanswered, the solved and the unsolved. UFO is a technical term for certain ones that have not been solved, specifically the ones appearing to be flying.
If we identify it, then the problem will be solved, the question answered and we can use more specific terms like 'aircraft', 'satellite', 'Venus' or 'firefly' Or even, and this has become easier and easier with CGI and video editing software available on the home computer, 'hoax'.
But until then, UFO is useful designation for the unknown, the unsolved, the unanswered.I don't want to belabor the point, but again: answered, unanswered, solved, unsolved... by whom? Terms like these encourage intellectual laziness by implying that whoever utters them has more authority than they really do.

When someone says "unidentified flying object" in the technical sense, they really mean "an object that I haven't identified, and as far as I know, that no one else has either". Well, why not just say that? Maybe just because it's too wordy. Maybe because that opens the speaker to questions that he doesn't want to answer, like "what are your qualifications to identify this object?" or "how much research have you done on what other people say?". Or maybe because the speaker really wants to connote "alien spacecraft" while still having plausible deniability.

Better to not overstate your credentials, and simply say:

* "flying [object]" (I don't know what this [object] is), or even
* "strange flying [object]" (I don't know what this [object] is, and I personally think it's strange)

[Ravens_cry]

Or simply UFO, it means the same thing and is hell of a lot faster to say. We could say "feeling of joy at others discomfort" but Schadenfreude does it in a lick. I can't identify it, therefore it is a UFO for me.

[Anxe]

And Debunked. (http://www.youtube.com/user/HOAXKiller1)

Doesn't that just prove it could be created using after effects? Hoaxkiller doesn't compare the original camera shot to something a person could make, only to what machines can make. While it looks like that, couldn't a person just as easily produce something like that with a camera on a hillside?

[Asta Kask]

If it could be created by a computer, Occam's Razor generally does the rest.

[Kuma Kode]

Occam's Razor: It slices, it dices, and it removes unnecessary complications from forum discussions.

[Anxe]

Same logic applies to any explanation... If it could be done by an ET, then Occam's Razor applies.

[Asta Kask]

Of course. But what is more probable - that someone traveled at least 4 lightyears to brighten up Jerusalem... or that someone made a fake video?

[Kuma Kode]

Same logic applies to any explanation... If it could be done by an ET, then Occam's Razor applies. Except that Occam's Razor dictates that if all things are equal, the simplest answer is the best. Saying that it can be done with a computer doesn't require additional information. We already know computers can do that. Saying it was done by an extraterrestrial first requires the existence of the extraterrestrial itself. Hoaxing with a computer does not require the introduction of an unproven third party.

[Anxe]

Probability doesn't dictate what actually happened. Yes, I believe this one is a hoax. However, similar things have happened in the past. The earlier events were proven to not be hoaxes, but actually unexplainable. I'd link to them, but the moderators decided that the link was worthy of scrubbing.

If it doesn't require additional information then why did Hoaxkiller make that video? Shouldn't everybody already have the information to know how the Dome Light could've been made with a computer?

I guess my point is that while the easiest explanation is that this is fake, it isn't the only explanation.

Also, that Hoaxkiller didn't compare his created footage with real footage, only with something that he assumed to be created footage. If he'd done his comparison with real footage I would be more willing to accept his (and your) argument.

[Castel]

If you identify something as a UFO... doesn't it technically stop being a Unidentified Flying Object? :smalltongue:

[Ravens_cry]

If you identify something as a UFO... doesn't it technically stop being a Unidentified Flying Object? :smalltongue:
If you admit you find out, either from lack of information or lack of expertise, you can not, at this time, solve a question, is it not still question. UFO is a designation for a kind of question.

[Kuma Kode]

Probability doesn't dictate what actually happened. Occam's Razor isn't about what actually happened. It's a logic schematic for what to do if you have several options for what could have happened. It is more logical to go with the simpler option until evidence points towards a different one.

Lets say you find a tree fallen in the woods.

Which do you immediately think...
1) A storm knocked the tree over.
2) Aliens crashed into the tree and knocked it over.

Occam's Razor says "take number 1." With what limited information is found in the woods, both options are possible. However, option 1 requires less of a stretch of the imagination. We already know trees can be knocked down by storms. It happens a lot. Option 2 requires us to come up with a whole system relating to extraterrestrials and even accept the existence of aliens, which are not conclusively proven to exist, unlike storms, to function.

Occams' Razor does NOT say "ALIENS DO NOT EXIST, THEREFORE OPTION TWO IS IMPOSSIBLE." It says "Go with option 1 until evidence surfaces that indicates otherwise."

People apply Occam's Razor in every day life, they just don't really notice it.

[Miklus]

They would actually have to be two separate instances. The duration of the static hover seems vastly different between the two videos.

Yes, it is over 20 seconds in the first shot and around 2 in the second.

The only thing amazing is what some people are willing to believe.

[Demon 997]

And any objections to magic will be met with QFASA

It makes me sad/happy that I got that.

[Asta Kask]

However, similar things have happened in the past. The earlier events were proven to not be hoaxes, but actually unexplainable.

No, they were not proven to be hoaxes. You cannot prove a negative - no one can prove that an observation is not a UFO, a hoax, or Santa's reindeer. This means they are unexplained - which is not the same as unexplainable.


I guess my point is that while the easiest explanation is that this is fake, it isn't the only explanation.

Certainly. For every set of events there are an infinite number of explanations. However, we are creatures with a lifespan of three-score and ten years, and as such it benefits us to go with the more probable explanations.

[AsteriskAmp]

Occam's Razor isn't about what actually happened. It's a logic schematic for what to do if you have several options for what could have happened. It is more logical to go with the simpler option until evidence points towards a different one.

Lets say you find a tree fallen in the woods.

Which do you immediately think...
1) A storm knocked the tree over.
2) Aliens crashed into the tree and knocked it over.

Occam's Razor says "take number 1." With what limited information is found in the woods, both options are possible. However, option 1 requires less of a stretch of the imagination. We already know trees can be knocked down by storms. It happens a lot. Option 2 requires us to come up with a whole system relating to extraterrestrials and even accept the existence of aliens, which are not conclusively proven to exist, unlike storms, to function.

Occams' Razor does NOT say "ALIENS DO NOT EXIST, THEREFORE OPTION TWO IS IMPOSSIBLE." It says "Go with option 1 until evidence surfaces that indicates otherwise."

People apply Occam's Razor in every day life, they just don't really notice it.

Actually, Occam's Razor dictates that you should go with the one the asks for less new assumptions.


Taken from: Wikipediahttp://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor)
Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle which generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects.[2] For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place.

[Kuma Kode]

Actually, Occam's Razor dictates that you should go with the one the asks for less new assumptions. Correct. That's pretty much what I was saying, but I did it less elegantly and therefore took up several paragraphs.

[Worira]

ASSUMPTION ONE: There was a wizard.
ASSUMPTION TWO: He cast a spell.

[AsteriskAmp]

ASSUMPTION ONE: There was a wizard.
ASSUMPTION TWO: He cast a spell.

Assumption:

There are wizards
They are able to cast "spells"
Such spells can defy predefined laws of physics
The spell can defy X law of physics, add one for each law defied.

[shadow_archmagi]

Assumption:

There are wizards
They are able to cast "spells"
Such spells can defy predefined laws of physics
The spell can defy X law of physics, add one for each law defied.


Someone is requesting QFASA, sounds like.

[grimbold]

Assumption:

There are wizards
They are able to cast "spells"
Such spells can defy predefined laws of physics
The spell can defy X law of physics, add one for each law defied.


you forgot
There is Magic
It somehow has not been allowed to destroy the world

[AsteriskAmp]

Someone is requesting QFASA, sounds like.
What has a Quantitative Fatty Acid Signature Analysis have to do with magic or spells?

[Anxe]

Occam's nasty Razor wounds me deeply.

[Asta Kask]

Well, now you know. And knowing is half the battle!

The Bad Astronomer (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/02/09/holy-ufo-hoax/) looks at it. And comes with the following observation:


It’s pretty cool, but an obvious hoax. Imagine you’re standing late at night videotaping the scene with a friend because it’s so pretty. Out of nowhere a bright light comes down out of the sky, hovers over one of the most famous temples on the planet, then flashes brilliantly and shoots straight up at fantastic speed.

Would you just stand there like a lump without showing any reaction at all, like the guy in the video?

[Anxe]

I like Bad Astronomer's debunk better. The mirror obviously isn't true, while Hoaxkiller only gives doubt of it's validity, not certainty of it's falseness.

[dehro]

if there was even the slightest chance of it not being a hoax, I would think we'd hear about it from religious authorities too..
we're talking about a "possible something" happening on what is one of the few places on earth sacred to all 3 major monotheistic religions...you'd think they'd at least take an interest, other than shouting "alien".

[Traab]

I dont think these videos will ever be believed, wether its about aliens or ghosts, until we have video like this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfPWpEKhgfk

or this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYjFKsJjCP0

[Asta Kask]

The thing is, given our current technology I don't see how we could trust even something like that. After all, we're fairly certain supernatural or alien creatures weren't involved in those videos.