just google "jerusalem UFO hoax"
Yeah, I read one debunking analysis. It's just his point of view, nothing more. He picks things he wants to see.
For starters, the spineless armchair philosopher is making a mockery of something that can seriously affect life of the witness. UFO witnesses can expect general ridicule in their community, being passed by promotions at work and even being fired as unreliable. There were cases where children of UFO witnesses had been harassed at school by other children. There were cases where rotten vegetables were thrown at witness in public in broad daylight and derogatory words shouted at them.
It is highly regrettable that spineless guy is able to make living by humiliating and dwarfing perfectly honest people.
90% of UFO cases don't get reported exactly for fear of ridicule not just of the witness, but of his/her whole family. I met 4-5 people on UFO forums that had personally seen UFOs, but they never reported them. They are making absolutely no fuss about it, they are just curious to understand what had happened. Are they all than fakes?
Second, as for the reflection of the UFO's light on the Dome of The Rock, that was a very good one. I have full respect for that one. But weather reflection was there or not can only be done if both before and after photos were available and compared. One can not tell which reflection belongs to which light source, until one light source was removed. Otherwise, reflection would be there, just the armchair philosopher pretended not to see it.
Third, as for video editing possibility, it's completely laughable. Why on Earth would one need expensive and sophisticated software to shake a video footage? Just take out your mobile, turn on the recording and shake it and you'll get 'shaken' footage for free. Most footage taken by hand held mobile cams is already shaken. Basically, that guy is seeing unicorns every-way he looks. It's just proof that he is not a serious researcher, but that he's pushing an agenda.
Third, possibility of the hoax is not a proof of hoax, as a general case is not proof that in a particular case had happened. Proof of the hoax is that hoaxer was caught preparing or performing the hoax. If one bald man robs the bank, it doesn't mean that all bald men are bank robbers ;-). All these 'I can fake it' videos more show that that guy who's so quick to find the way to fake it, is good at misleading people and maybe does it for living, so he is most probably untrustworthy.
That painted vessel is, in Diaz case, is not a proof that Diaz did the same. Additionally, Diaz's UFO shoots a beam of solid white light, that can not be replicated by any technology on Earth. Such, beams of solid light were mentioned in Benwaters case, Coyne helicopter case etc.