Based in Brooklyn, NY, I write about all things creepy and strange. My book based on the real haunting of Doris Bither (The Entity 1982 movie) will be released soon. Got a question? Drop me a line.

I thought I had seen and heard everything there was to about the Jerusalem UFO. Apparently not, as there are claims of a 5th video that has recently surfaced of the infamous UFO incident. It is still not clear what it is we are seeing, or if it is all a hoax, but there exists several videos shot from different locations of a strange light that comes down close to the Temple Mount.

The videos are all impressive if you ask me, but I still remain skeptical. I have heard all the theories and claims about these infamous videos yet none of them prove anything. Whether this was a hoax or the real deal, it just seems that as time goes by, we are all still as confused as when we first laid eyes on the videos.

  • Apocacist

    @Terry Terry, you are incorrect. You are falling into the same problem as HOAXKiller1. Please google “rotating a camera about it’s optical center” and you will find countless articles, publications, books, and wikipedia articles that clearly state that rotating a camera causes ZERO parallax and perspective change.

    I will be posting a “final word” video tonight to end this silly debate once and for all. Please check it if you have any questions.
    (sorry if this comment is a dupe, i got a page error)

  • King of Light
  • AnonD

    Wikileaks.. aliens.. what’s the difference.

    Niburunews.. heh heh heh. Your daily source of reliable information spiced with some lunacy.

  • ApocacistISdumb

    Apocacist doesn’t know what he is talking about. The only time you don’t get parallax when rotating a camera is if the camera is on a tripod, and is precisely calibrated to rotate the camera perfectly on the center of the lens’s entrance pupil. If the camera is not rotated perfectly then there will be parallax. Any and all hand held camera movement will cause parallax. Also, Apocacist claims there is no perspective change when you rotate a camera…. that is just dumb. A camera is a perspective view and when you rotate the camera you are rotating the perspective. You then are viewing something from a different perspective when you rotate your camera. Apocacist is not very bright…

  • Apocacist

    You are forgetting the concept of “finite resolution”. Even on a tripod, the center of rotation would be slightly off, yet no parallax. Why is this? That’s because the only requirement for no parallax is that the camera translational movements be small compared to the distance to objects and that the resultant pixel shift be less than the camera pixel spacing. Think for yourselves! Do some experiments! Research! This is NOT rocket science! I’m not the only person who has proven HOAXKiller1 wrong in the past. Go check my youtube channel. Anyone with independent thought can easily see through his disingenuous attempts to “debunk” me. Those who continue to stick your heads in the sand… well, let’s face it: nothing would change your mind anyway.

    All I’m saying is that his methods are in no way scientific and do NOT stand up to any level of scientific scrutiny.

  • terry the censor

    @King of Light

    How does that article demonstrate your claim that government agents are poo-pooing UFO videos? It says nothing about the tasks the government contractors will perform. What the article suggests is that the contract has to do with military operations, being that the job sites will be in “MacDill Air Force Base, along with Kabul, Afghanistan and Baghdad.”

    You have not demonstrated HOAXkiller1 — or anyone else criticising these videos — is a government agent. You’re just making stuff up.

  • terry the censor

    Has Apocacist persuaded a single person that all but himself are blind?

  • Jenfaer

    sighhhhhhhhhh…i’m not getting into this one…

  • Apocacist

    @Terry I’ve only been arguing pretty basic science and I’ve been more than willing to provide more information to anyone who wants it. I think it’s very important that people think critically about any claim that people make. It’s sad that all this information is readily available to anyone who looks.

    On the topic of finite resolution, my last video demonstrates mathematically that given the geometry of the video in question, one would have to move the camera by 1.8 cm before any parallax can be detected. Let me know if you have any questions about it and I’ll be happy to elaborate. However, there is nothing that can get beyond the physics of finite resolution. There really is no arguing with the statement that all camera movement will cause a detectable parallax. Certainly on a microscopic level, the camera is always moving yet parallax is not always detectable. My statements are simply the same thing generalized to a larger scale.

    And I haven’t felt the need to defend myself against HOAXKiller1’s “apocacist debunk” videos because they seem obviously disingenuous o me. However, I’d be happy to explain myself to you if you want.

    After my interactions with HOAXKiller1, it has become clear to me that he is not interested in truth. In fact, anyone who disagrees with his claims gets called names and then blocked from commenting on his work. And remember: it is possible to think this incident is a hoax without believing that “no parallax=fake video”.