A startling new pair of videos depicting UFO footage from Jerusalem appeared on the web late last week, causing a subsequent stir on various blogs over the weekend (which included a segment during the third hour of my radio program last night). The videos, while showing activity so remarkable that they almost certainly suggest some sort of computer manipulation, may present something far more unique, due to the way they corroborate with one another so perfectly.

The primary video, which appeared on YouTube Friday and was subsequently linked to various blogs, depicts a strange object changing altitude at tremendous speeds over the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount, located in the Old City of Jerusalem. Additionally, a man is present in the foreground filming the craft with his cell phone; the alleged footage taken with the phone appeared on YouTube the following day.

Below are both videos, linked in order of their appearance:

UPDATE: A third and fourth video have now also appeared online, this time from yet another angle purporting to show the strange object over Jerusalem (scroll to the bottom of this post to see the video).

Obviously, if what this footage purports to show is authentic, we are looking at something truly astonishing. If one synchronizes the two perspectives, the audio matches entirely… though the sources used aren’t the same. In other words, the voices that are softer in the first clip are noticeably louder in the second and vice versa. This is because of the speaker’s proximity to the recording device in question relative to each piece of footage, and seems to prove that audio, at very least, was being recorded simultaneously from both the primary camera and from someplace on “camera two” (the cell phone). Could this lend credence to the idea that the primary footage and the cell phone video were indeed both filming the strange objects that appear in each clip?

Granted, looking at the first film makes it pretty obvious a man with a cell phone was standing there filming the event as well; however, it is important to note even the more mundane consistencies, if the two pieces of film are to truly corroborate with one another, and thus help viewers discern elements of fakery (or the lack thereof).

Next, synchronization of the two video clips also shows that the object behaves the same in each piece of footage, and at precisely the same time, from slightly different angles. Though this doesn’t rule out a CGI job well done, it does at least strengthen the possibility that what we’re seeing is real, since such multi-source corroboration is seldom presented, at best. However, this event would likely have to have been witnessed by several others in the area, even at 1:00 AM (as stated by the individual who uploaded the primary video). Indeed, witness corroboration of this event from outside the two known cameramen could make this circumstance truly extraordinary.

Though a fairly extensive analysis was posted yesterday on Youtube (see the comments of user “HOAXKiller1” below the clip available here), this evaluation of the film, I suspect, may have been issued prior to the release of the second corroborating film from the cell phone user. Additionally, some of the comments “Hoax killer” makes aren’t completely justifiable by logic. Consider this statement: “light should not have reached the back right side of the man’s jacket, that is impossible if the light is coming from the front.” It is possible, however, if there were a reflective solid surface behind the individual in question. Though we can only guess what structures were behind those filming the event (at least until their identities are potentially made known), a waist-high stone wall is already visible in front of the cell phone user. If this represents a balcony (again, something that can’t be confirmed at present), it stands to reason that a wall of similar color may have existed behind the individual on camera in the original film. The balcony is made of light colored stones, as we can see, and hence a wall of similar construct may have reflected light quite easily, if the source were bright enough (Update: the location listed for the first two videos in this series has emerged as the Armon Hanatziv panoramic lookout, near the vicinity of Mount Zion).

Additionally, the photos from the aforementioned analysis don’t show conclusive evidence of “photo manipulation”, but merely digital artifacts that could be interpreted as such (although, granted, we can’t rule out the possibility that they indicate tampering of some sort). It stands to reason, however, that many of the “artifacts” pointed out could just as easily have been present in virtually any kind of digital footage, manipulated or not, for the more obvious reason of being recorded in a digital format to begin with.

In theory, the appearance of the second piece of footage from the cell phone user should make gathering data more helpful for investigators. Hopefully, a few individuals with better ability to discern data using software and technology than I could offer will take time to try and do so, rather than dismissing this case outright. Indeed, considering a traditional “skeptic’s” argument, we might note that people are indeed quick to say things like “if UFOs were real, you’d think somebody would have filmed a decent video by now, especially with all the cell phone cameras people carry around today.” And yet, even if the footage above represents just the sort of thing an unapologetic skeptic might have been describing, even those staring at the smoking gun will inevitably say, “well, if it’s uploaded to YouTube, it can’t be trusted,” or some similar “argument” seeking only to justify one’s preconceptions. As was the case with “Hoax Killer,” many will likely go into this with one very obvious preconception: that the object represented in the videos is a fake… and hence, it will inevitably become whatever the eye of the beholder wishes for it to be (and therefore dismissed as such).

That said, I’m certainly no stranger to skepticism myself, and wouldn’t bet my career in ufology on the veracity of these video clips. However, similar footage from other parts have begun to emerge as well. Consider the footage below, shared with me by Nancy Planeta, host of The Vixen’s Vault Radio Program:

Indeed, if similar footage begins to emerge from elsewhere around the globe, then perhaps investigators won’t be so quick to dismiss the Jerusalem “anomaly.” What are your thoughts on this footage? Also, does anyone have access to information about UFO groups in the area that could gain access to witnesses, or perhaps the cameramen themselves? Please feel free to use the comments field below, or to email me if you prefer.

UPDATE, 12:42 AM, 2-2-11: Now a third and fourth video have in fact appeared on YouTube, purporting to also show the mysterious object over the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem from a completely different angle (special thanks to GR correspondent Christopher McCollum and Nancy Planeta for bringing “number three” to my attention):

And number four…

Finally, here are videos 1, 2 and 4 synchronized in one frame for comparison:

Real or fake? I must admit, number four there almost looks too good to be true… does that mean it is? 😉

Dome of the Rock image by David Baum.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Micah Hanks

Author: Micah Hanks

Micah Hanks is a writer, researcher, and podcaster. His interests include areas of history, science, archaeology, philosophy, and the study of anomalous phenomena in nature. He can be reached at info@micahhanks.com.

19 Replies to “Startling Consistencies: Emerging Evidence of UFO Sightings Abroad (Updated)

  1. Ed,

    Indeed, I’ve updated the post with the third alleged video appearing at the end of the article above. I too, however, feel like the third video seems slightly dubious… but perhaps time (and further witness corroboration) will cast light on this illuminating mystery.

  2. Whether it’s real or fake doesn’t really matter, because it looks like a dot. As long as UFO footage is like this, then it can’t be proved as real.

  3. Checking the last third video, and after seeing the first two, the viewers is left asking “where’s the flash?”

    Meaning the flash of light (@ 1:22) that caused the two men in the first video to exclaim “Whoa!”, and happens before the light takes off in less than a second (@ 1:23).

    Also, and maybe it’s just me, but the light in the first 2 videos seems “warmer”, like a bit yellowish, whereas the “blob” in the third seems “cooler”.

    *Sigh* maybe I don’t want to take the third one too seriously because the tone of the voices and the conversation ANNOY me

  4. Well,

    no matter how many versions may appear:

    The Jerusalem backdrop is pretty static. No car headlights moving, no inhabitants switching on or off their bedroom lights. No traffic lights switching.

    All cameras are pretty much upright and horizontal,
    aperture artifacts as well, except in the foreground, which shouldn’t be possible.

    All cameras are pretty shaky before the “descend” of
    the blurred blob, and surprisingly not after it’s ascend. At least there, two filmers should behave different.

    And, as another commenter noted, there is nothing to see but a point of light. 5 by 5 pixels. Heavens. There are billions of cellphones on this planet, millions of decent cameras, both analog and digital.

    All we get is blurred light blobs.

    I would suggest just another CGI, just observe how the Jerusalem backdrop becomes illuminated during
    the impressively straight ascend of the bright blob.

    It’s not just the Dome that brightens. The roads in
    the “background” should not follow…

  5. i believe it is indeed real. the only way we will know for sure, is if independent witnesses who were in the direct vicinity of the object, ie. underneath it, come forward to speak about what they witnessed.

  6. Ok people , what is it going to take to get you all to understand here , that we are , or never have been the only human race there is in the trillons of miles in space. proof is sitting here in front of you, an your going to wait for the goverment to tell you ok , we have are being visit from another planet, geez you all the goverment, i wouldnt trust them to take out the trash. you know there lieing to us all , an here is the proof, WAKE UP PEOPLE !!!!!!!!!

  7. I don’t know if we’re the only *human* race or not, but I’m certain Earth-bound species are not the only intelligent life in the universe. “Trillions of miles” isn’t even in it – there are 6 trillion miles in a single light year – we’re most definitely not alone.

    However, you can hardly call these videos proof. Just consider the sophistication and availability of video editing software. Objectively speaking, the null hypothesis *must* be that any given event is a hoax. And for these videos, I think the parallax video that someone made pretty effectively shows this to be a hoax.

    For me personally, it’s not a matter of waiting for a government to confirm extraterrestrial life, but more a matter of consensus among trusted authorities (whether that be governments, the scientific community, etc) that the phenomenon is authentic. Until that happens, I

  8. I’ve never posted here before. I have a BA in photography from Royal Melb Institute of Tech, Melb, Australia. I am also a professional matte painter. Worked on The Fifth Element, LOTR, Superman Returns.

    I’m not here to prove or disprove, but to educate on a few issues.

    Camera lenses: Every lens manufactured for cameras phones, video cameras will all distort, diffract and cause aberrations to the light entering that lens.

    It will cause colour shifting from one camera to the next (this is before the light gets to the sensor).

    So comparing distortion, colour shifting, flaring etc from one camera to the next is pointless.

    Comparing those effects WITHIN any given shot is another story however. The orb in Vid3 does NOT produce the same star pattern flaring that every single other light source does in that scene. That alone suggests a fake to me.

    So the optical artifacts should be consistent within the frame.

    ZOOMING: I saw someone use the optical illusion of lights getting smaller the more you zoom in. This is correct, visually the point light sources appear to come into finer more focused resolution. ‘DIGITAL Zooming’ is a different matter entirely. It just enlarges a 2 dimensional image. A REAL optical zoom by the use of a lens, WILL produce the visual effects as described above, but a digital zoom will not.

    Digital Sensors: The respective colour temperature of various light sources is automatically compensated for by most camera systems when set to AUTOMATIC. Unless the user has disabled it and set it manually – Most non professionals dont do this. This is usually called white balance.

    Again, comparing the colour of the light sources within the scene against other camera systems is futile as each with have been calibrated differently by either the respective camera/phone manufacturer or user or both.

    Having said that, a shot of a city at night will show many different coloured light sources within the same scene as those lights sources ARE different.

    I would be looking for expected colour shift from a reference light source to the ‘object’. If the shift in colour temp is consistent from the ref light to the object in the other vids then you’re getting somewhere.

    MPEG/JPEG Artifacting: This is harder to use as a case for or against. Lots of people see compression artifacting as evidence of digital manipulation. The camera is digitally manipulating before you even see the footage. Again, each camera, phone etc will produce it’s OWN artifacts.

    So you all dont start chasing your tails, keep the above in mind when examining these videos. DONT assume anything when cross checking between videos (visually, I’m not talking audio here.. altho perhaps an audio engineer can shed light on this side of things).

    Consistency within the shot scene must be verified as much as possible before you start comparing it against other videos.

    For what it’s worth, I slowed down the videos saving out the flv file and looking at them frame by frame in QT. I dont know if it’s the frame interlacing (if used – I dont think so but that needs to be verified) but it looks like the object splits into two pieces when it shoots up into the sky. I cant tell if its an artifact or not though!

    Was it one of ours or one of theirs or complete BS??

  9. @Reinhard “I would suggest just another CGI, just observe how the Jerusalem backdrop becomes illuminated during the impressively straight ascend of the bright blob.”

    It’s not light ‘lighting up’ all of Jerusalem, it’s a high intensity light source illuminating the atmosphere between the source and the camera lens. By all accounts it is winter and cold there which only adds to the density of the air. What you’re seeing is in effect, the air, dust etc particles all being lit up. This has a blanketing effect of the scene.

    We see it every day at sunrise and sunset (although different colour).

    The dome being highly reflective will brighten up with the flash, but the roads beyond are being lightened due to the atmospheric brightening as described.

    “The Jerusalem backdrop is pretty static. No car headlights moving..”

    Yes there are.. in Vid #1 you can see moving cars.

    “And, as another commenter noted, there is nothing to see but a point of light. 5 by 5 pixels. Heavens. There are billions of cellphones on this planet, millions of decent cameras, both analog and digital.”

    Consumer cameras and certainly phone cameras are NOT up to scratch and will only ever give you 5 x 5 pixel blobs. I have pro gear and can shoot hidef vid and high res stills. It wouldn’t be much better than these vids without a serious telephoto lens.

    I’m not saying this is proof the vids are authentic.. only that your arguments dont hold up.

    I would love these to be the real deal, but I will debunk them till I’m blue in the face before I accept them as so.

    Cheers

  10. RPJ,

    There are others I’ve found… Israel’s NRG news site covered the story as well:

    http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/206/770.html

    Looking at the Google page rank for NRG’s home page, they rank at number seven; this is on par with Drudge Report here in the US. Also, I’ve included a link to a translation of the site in question, featuring the UFO article, courtesy of Google’s translation services:

    Mystery over Jerusalem: UFO Over Wall

    There will be more to come in a future update here at the site…

  11. One very simple question: why no cell phone pics/video, from very near where it’s hovering? Especially at it’s lowest point. Lot’s of time to take video, and something that close, that big? There should be lot’s of cel phone video from numerous locations down in the city.
    Until I see a whole bunch of video, taken from nearer or at the location-hoaxville. I’m saying this as someone who is pretty sure that there is indeed, something out there.

  12. Hi RnDinSLC,

    Thanks for pointing out the association between the film Battle: Los Angeles and the alleged UFO films over Jerusalem… however, where has “confirmation” of this appeared online? At present, I have found this story (http://www.news.com.au/technology/jerusalem-ufo-footage-could-be-marketing-stunt-for-upcoming-battle-los-angeles-film/story-e6frfro0-1226001218068) alluding to the fact, but this is still mere speculation as far as I can tell.

    The story linked above was also reprinted by Fox News, but stems from the original Australian source News.com.au. It was posted today at 8:30 AM… has more information about the alleged viral marketing campaign come forward that I’m unaware of?

  13. hi,
    I must say that only the first two movies sounds real.
    But the forth one: 1. sounds like a recording in a close rome and not in open space 2. the astonishment of the voices sounds fake and artificial.

Comments are closed.