UFO hovers on Dome of the Rock Temple Mount ?

God does not have to ascend himself in human form and than to die for 3 days and then again go back to heaven.
God does not have to die for the sins of humans, he has the authority to forgive anyone.
A human being born from a mother's womb is innocent, he/she does not have any sin carried over from the ancestors. We are only responsible for our own actions not the actions of our ancestors.
Christians are highly misguided people. If you ever happen to read the Bible, you will be able to recognise the truth. Please read the Bible with an open mind. It has been fabricated with the passage of time.

 

If you were curious you would be wondering what could have caused those lights. Instead you assume that the light is a manifestation of a supernatural thing or intelligent aliens or something like that. That is not being curious, it's the opposite, and a not very intelligent attitude, not fore somebody older than 15 (I don't know if you are).

What is my opinion? I only see a light in a video that moves slowly down and then quickly up. I don't have any other information so don't know what it is.
It could be many things and some explanations are more likely than others. You and others don't seem to understand this simple concept.

 

I do certainly believe in supernatural occurrences and that is why that could be a possibility. If you don't know what it is, you should research similar historical events (Why that site? Why this time? etc...) and relate it, instead of throwing away all possibilities due to your personal beliefs.

 

It could be a possibility because you believe in supernatural occurrences? Just to be clear, you think that the laws of physics change based on what you may or may not subjectively believe at any given time?

Perhaps because people who want to pull a hoax know that such a location is likely to get religious people like you to believe them much more readily?

 

I agree, strange things have been happening recently, perhaps we are nearer to the end times.

Some say these videos are a hoax (another forum).

 

Are you saying that you completely understand your universe based on the "laws" of physics? I do believe that the spiritual world exists but you cannot apply materialistic physical laws on aspects beyond the equation that was originally applied on a specified matter.

Perhaps but are you certain of that? What do you say about the fact that the video was shot by different people in different areas?

I'm not saying you should believe this but if you were a scientist researching a topic such as this, there is a large difference between being skeptical and cynical.

 

A closer video shot from a different angle:

[video=youtube;WYEOLwgGzPg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYEOLwgGzPg&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL[/video]

 

I don't completely understand the universe, but why is that necessary to come to a conclusion on the videos you posted?

I do understand that video editing exists, and I do understand that film crews in more than one location can collaborate to make a fictional film. Hollywood does it all the time.

See above answer about video being shot in different areas.

There is not actually a "large difference" between being skeptical and cynical. Just the opposite, actually. Although they are not synonymous, they are related, and are listed by Merriam-Webster as "Related Words" for a reason: One who is "cynical" is "skeptical" of the motivations of others.

 

I think it's interesting to read about UFO sightings. I feel the same with haunted houses, ghosts, and psychic phenomenon. They may have seen something, but if so, unsure as to what it was. I've read several taped this event simultaneously, and especially with one of the videos, there are claims that it's a fake. In New York City, recently they saw what appeared to be UFO's. Many people stood out on the street to watch, and even called authorities to report them. At the end of the day, they determined it was just balloons....

Just wanted to add, here's the YouTube video where they are trying to suggest this is a hoax.

[video=youtube;h5s78wr0UF0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5s78wr0UF0[/video]

 

That is my conclusion, nevertheless, it cannot be eliminated because you do not have enough evidence to prove the videos were fake.

Why would someone spend money, time and effort to do such a thing? They were not film crews. In fact, it is clear a bunch of tourists were filming the first video and locals filmed the other three from different angles. They did interview some of the witnesses and all confirmed it was real. This is more acceptable to me based on what I've seen from the videos rather than a "Hollywood prank".

A good scientist should be skeptical and not cynical or biased (irrelevant of how the words relate, they have different meanings).

 

The onus of proof is upon the person who wants to prove that something exists, and not on the person who wants to prove the non-existence of something. Absent evidence that the videos are real, there is no reason to take the position that they are real.

I hope I don't need to write a list of the ridiculous scenarios in which your standard of proof would cause unsubstantiated theories about the veracity of a newly discovered fictional film to be considered just as valid as the statement that the film is a fake.

Attention? Fun? Screwing with religious people?

Really? It is "clear" that it was tourists and locals filming it? It's not possible that people collaborated to do this? Or, even a single person, if the video that Rebecca posted above is correct?

It is "clear" from having watched Jurassic Park that dinosaurs populate an island in modern times.

Well, as long as people claim to have witnessed it, then they must have. It's not like they could just lie, right? For such a blatant object over a populated city like Jerusalem, there seems to be a low amount of people claiming to have seen it. How many people immediately claimed to an independent third party to have seen it before the videos were released? Surely the Jerusalem Post got plenty of independent calls, or Facebook got a bunch of posts, prior to people having seen these videos?

Skepticism is a position of doubt about a certain object. Cynicism is the doubt of a person's motivations. Cynicism is a form of skepticism. That is to say, the skepticism as it relates to someone's motives.

If the skepticism of the model "good scientist" that you refer to includes skepticism as to motive, then a "good scientist" should, indeed, be cynical.

I would also point out that a hypothesis is a bias, and hypotheses are used all the time by good scientists to guide their research. A scientist wouldn't even bother doing an experiment if they didn't already have a prejudice as to what the result might be.

So, I would argue that just the contrary of what you said is true: Bias and cynicism are both important traits of good scientists.

 

In other words, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Likewise, you do not have enough reason to disprove this video because so far you're speculating scenarios and theories.

Hard to believe unless someone was actually shooting a movie.

American tourists and Jewish locals but if you still think they collaborated, that is your opinion. The video posted by Rebecca does not show the same "phenomenon", that was more like a balloon to me. I have posted several videos before including the apparition that occurred in Egypt, illustrating the features that is usually witnessed by these luminescent like-orbits.

Well, how long did this event occur for? 3-4 minutes at most I would say? This happened at 1:00 AM according to the videos and now ask yourself how many people were awake at that time and had cameras to capture this? I would say 4-5 people is about right given the short time scale but there could be more (just not posted yet).

It starts with hypothesis and in most cases, an experiment is done to provide the unknown results or to confirm results based on the hypothesis. This is where bias/cynicism should not coincide with the experimental work of the scientist; otherwise, actual results would not reflect accuracy of the experiment.

This is very invalid. So are you telling me you'd consume a drug from a pharmaceutical company with specific interests and bias in a certain field or towards a certain objective? If that is how you think, then I'll end it here.

 

I don't have to disprove the video. The onus is on you to prove its veracity.

Jesus just revealed to me that he wishes for you to wire me $50,000. Disprove it, please, or start heading to the bank.

Someone was shooting a movie. Where that movie was shot remains unknown. The person or persons filming it remains unknown.

What were the names of the tourists? Where can they be contacted? Have they submitted the original videos on their cameras to a reporter for examination?

The video I referred to was the one which Rebecca embedded, and which is an examination of the supposedly real videos shot in Jerusalem. I was not referring to the link to the New York balloons.

Four to five people would be awake and outside at night in a big city like Jerusalem? You can do better than that.

I noticed that you didn't bother answering whether the supposed witnesses reported their observations to an independent third party before the videos were posted online.

Right. So, bias is used in a hypothesis, and therefore present in the mind of a good scientist, right? You will concede that a good scientist has to be biased?

As for experimental results being inaccurate, you have improperly equated bias with dishonesty. A scientist can have a prejudice about what the results ought to be, and still show the accurate, different results, as long as he is honest in his reporting. Bias and dishonesty are not the same.

Also, I never said that cynicism was used in a hypothesis (I used it as an example for the importance of bias) so I don't know why you mixed that in there. For some reason you want to conflate the two.

Just so there is no confusion, I'll repeat: You stated that good scientists should be skeptical but not cynical. However, cynicism is just the skepticism of someone's motives. So, if you believe that the importance of a good scientist being skeptical also includes being skeptical of motives, then you were wrong about cynicism being bad, according to your own skepticism-is-good standard.

Well, then you might as well "end it here" (also known as "throwing in the towel"), since I have nothing against having a bias or specific interest, for the reasons stated above.

Bias is present in every scientist. It's just another way of saying that someone has an opinion. I wouldn't trust a scientist who didn't have an opinion on anything because their work would have no goal to it. A completely "disinterested" scientist would have no purpose behind their work.

 

I don't throw away possibilities, just assign probabilities based on what we know (not on what some believe). Let's say for example these three possibilities for the light on the temple:

-Fake/staged
-Atmospherical/meteorological/electrical phenomenon
-Intelligent supernatural manifestation

Would you say they are equally probable? I don't

 

I may have confused the issue by posting about the UFO (balloon sighting) in New York as well. Sorry. But, here's a few directly related to the UFO hovering around the Dome of the Rock Temple Mount. In these videos, they are claiming it's a hoax.

HOAX - UFO Over Temple Mount in Jerusalem - Motion Tracked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHOc35nmUDk

HOAX - View 2 of UFO Over Temple Mount in Jerusalem - Motion Tracked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSkvUxi4CHE

HOAX! - Third View of UFO over Temple Mount in Jerusalem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5s78wr0UF0

HOAX! - Video 4 of UFO over Temple Mount in Jerusalem is Fake - HOAX!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKR1OIQFsFg

UFO HOAX - UFO over Temple Mount in Jerusalem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFfQUQnGGtg

HOAX - Re-Stabilized - UFO over Temple Mount in Jerusalem - Bad Quality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu0oWghEHoc

 

There's some strange things in the universe, forces that the human mind can't even begin to contemplate. I guess anything is possible, human understanding is the biggest limitation of them all. I bet we don't even understand 1% of the universe, maybe it's beyond our understanding but human ego will never admit that.

 

I 100% agree. I rue the day we know everything. Its going to take all the fun out of making sh*t up!

 

i told you god is ET

 

They filmed it from the "Tayelet" near my house, It's a 5 minute walk on foot.
I examined the video presented on youtube and the Hebrew language "Tones" they used to speak with each other, the story of how they filmed it (which i also found several holes in it)

It's a fake 100% as far as I'm concerned, unbelievable this video went so viral on the internet.
Side note: I do believe that ET's are visiting Earth, and there are definitely some genuine UFO sightings but this is not one of them.

 

I don't have to prove it either but that does not mean you can imply your conclusions saying otherwise.

It is irrelevant to get into all the details of this but I am not rejecting the possibility of any supernatural phenomenon just because it is not "scientifcally" proven yet.

They might have but they probably posted the videos online before any local media coverage.

Personal choices and opinions should not interfere with the accuracy experimental work. A biased scientist will most likely be dishonest in his/her work, even un-intentionality. The context of bias here is regarding the work of the scientist and it should not interfere with the actual scope of the experiment.

Skepticism is a good and mandatory trait of any successful scientist, however, cynicism is not preferable. Here is why I differentiate between both and I hope you understand my point clearly. A skeptic scientist will look at any specified objective/subject with an open mind, reason and is willing to accept the experimental results when proven that he/she is wrong. A skeptic is free to form his own opinion of course. On the other hand, just because you think "cynicism is a form of skepticism" does not actually make them the same or even similar. A more accurate description is "cynicism is the negative form of skepticism". A cynical scientist, even if proven that he/she is wrong, will likely not accept claims and will look at matters in a negative aspect with a close mind.

You are welcome to form your own opinion.

See above.