At least one of the Temple Mount videos is probably a hoax. It is time for the people who made these videos to step forward and offer their testimony. If they do not, then it must be concluded that the whole sequence is probably an invention.
The 'Dome of the Rock' episode reveals a tendency to 'want to believe' and we must all be very careful to maintain the question and not jump to a conclusion, especially with video 'evidence'. We know the phenomena is real but we should also know that there are many out there who enjoy making fools of 'believers', who pride themselves in successful fakery - it feeds their egos. There are also many out there who subsequently 'pervert' quality evidence. We see it officially (look at how Jim Penniston's statement about his encounter in Rendlesham Forest was perverted by the NSA/CIA), and we see it amongst those who cannot take the truth and fear propels them to undermine.
Whether this was real, fake or a subsequent perversion is hard to know - but its a good lesson nevertheless.
... and there's the 4th vid to appear, different location... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RF87eEUXmM
The audio glitches originally concerned me, but I couldn't tell whether or not it was just poor MP3 encoding or not. This HOAXKiller1 chap is also not well versed in analysing evidence, as is shown in the counter-hoax video posted here (http://tinyurl.com/64kgg28). Also note t that re-shooting video off of a TV or computer monitor isn't uncommon (we run into it fairly often), since not everyone knows how to transfer the footage.
He unfortunately does have a point regarding the background being a still picture, of which is avaialble at Wikipedia: http://tinyurl.com/6fxml2e. It also explains why the videographer didn't pan up to see the ensuing lightshow that the other three videos show: He couldn't extend past the edge of the picture.
Bear in mind, this isn't the first time we've had someone duplicate what might probably be legitamate UFO shots, with the motive of detracting from the originals. The O'Hare UFO photos come to mind.
I still haven't run across any good arguments against videos 1 & 2, although #4 gives me pause, since it doesn't match the first two quite as well. This may just be a matter of PoV, though.
Actually the Wikipedia photo doesn't match the video exactly. If you overlay the two images in Photoshop, you'll see that they're not a precise match. But it's not surprising that very similar views would exist of such a famous location, and obviously from a very accessible vantage point. The video looks and sounds like any camcorder scene to me. Finally, despite a microscopic point of silence or two that may be in the audio, the people sound genuine. I just spent over a year living in a tourist town in the Ozark Mountains in Arkansas USA, and believe me I know what southerners sound like. Actors faking it never get it right, and I can't imagine the vast audio library that the hoaxers had access to that would allow them to splice that dialogue together!
Overlaying the two images in PS won't provide a match regardless of whether they're of the same image or not, since the video image was shot at slight varying angles to the screen that was displaying the image. As well, the video is overexposed slightly, making the image appear slightly different. When I said that the two are identical, I should have elaborated: I compared the features of the image, detail by detail, and between not only the individual windows in the foreground being lit, but also the identical appearance of the lens flares, the details all match.
Let's say, for aguments sake, that these two images were taken by two unrelated individuals, using two different cameras (one still camera, the other video), supposedly at two different times. The chances of these two different individuals catching the same window light pattern are highly unlikely. Having these two individuals catch the *exact* same lens flare pattern on not only two differnt cameras, but on what are essentially two different mediums (still image and video) are nearly impossible. For this to have even come close to happening, the two cameras would have had to have the same lens and aperature configuration, and have been set at the same focal lenght and f-stop settings. Also, note that the lens flares do not re-orient themselves as the camera is rotated on it's z-axis (the flares' arms should stay consistent with the camera's orientation), and the videographer fails to track the object on it's rapid ascent, since that would entail having the frame pan past the border of the image.
There is the *slight* posibility that the same make of camera could have taken both the video and still images, but the only video cameras that are capable of capturing the Wiki image's resolution of 2272×1704 have a minimum six-digit price tag attached, used by Hollywood production crews. The likelyhood of a bunch of tourists lugging around industrial-grade equipment like this is very unlikely.
Basically, the probability of these two images not being from the same source is astronomical. While the readers of Unknowncountry.com are no strangers to unlikely synchronicities, there is no indication that this is the case here.
I've noticed a few new descepancies in this video: On the audio, notice that the camera is being buffeted by a fair amount of wind, of which isn't present in the earlier two videos. Unfortunately, I can't find a version of the fourth video that doesn't have it's audio tampered with to see if it correlates or not. Also, in the other three videos the object doesn't appear over the Dome of the Rock itself, but rather it's partway between the mosque itself and the Islamic Museum to the south. The object in video #3 unfortunately appears directly over the Dome, and also stays at it's decent for 2 seconds shorter than in the earlier two videos.
Yes and No. The discrepancies between the still and video images are about three dimensional perspective, not angles on a flat surface.
The larger question is who is behind it all, which I suggest is Granny from Mississippi. Her voice can be heard to declare that they have seen such lights before. Further it is well known that discussions of how to make UFO hoax videos is a common topic of discussion over pea salad at the church potlucks.
Dan, I think you missed a bit of evidence in regards to how this video was produced: The image was shown on an LCD display, and re-recorded with a handheld video camera. This is evidenced by the acute pixilization shown when the camera zooms in, as well as the fact that the pixels don't remain static in relation to the camera's frame, but rather track with the background. So, yes, this is indeed about an angle on a flat surface.
The "larger question" has also already been dealt with: "Is this video authentic?". Who made the video is irrelevant. If it had been authentic, then it would be important to see if the witnesses had more information. In this case, however, why pay more attention to someone whom didn't deserve our attention in the first place, negative or otherwise?
As it is, we have absolutely no evidence regarding who made the video, regardless of what goes on at church functions. If the audio clip of "Granny" was added in post, there is no indication she even had any involvement, as there's actually no indication that she was talking about lights, let alone UFOs. The only potential clip to be in context says, "Is that a UFO?". Otherwise, there is the potential for all of the clips to have been taken from pre-existing sources that originally had nothing to do with the hoax. Don't be so quick to assign blame, especially blame based on personal bias.