It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The "Taliban UFO" -Are we "hurting belief" in the the UFO phenomenon?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2014 @ 04:48 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

because it looks like cgi




posted on May, 21 2014 @ 04:53 AM
link   
a reply to: conundrummer
aaaaannndddd how much time does it take et to get here? you said "given enough time" now what do you mean by that? how do you know how much time they would need and how do you know they haven't already had enough time to get here? do you believe time started with us?



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: tanka418

because it looks like cgi


Seriously bad answer.

Sorry man, but "CGI" doesn't "look" like anything, does not have "it's own look", and is incapable of having a "look". This "look" you are speaking of is purely subjective, and subjective doesn't work!

Please show me one wee bit of real evidence that this is CGI...without resorting to the original mirrored background video...

At this point I don't think any of you even know "why" you think it CGI; you have simply decided that it must be, so therefore...this is not how such things are investigated, or judged...so far this "determination" is more BS than the video.

So...it appears that y'all don't know; so you have decided, sans evidence, this is CGI.


edit on 21-5-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   
The only thing real in 99.5% of the UFO discussions is the reality of all the fake information and pictures. That is what exists to discuss.



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: tanka418

because it looks like cgi


Seriously bad answer.

Sorry man, but "CGI" doesn't "look" like anything, does not have "it's own look", and is incapable of having a "look". This "look" you are speaking of is purely subjective, and subjective doesn't work!

Please show me one wee bit of real evidence that this is CGI...without resorting to the original mirrored background video...

At this point I don't think any of you even know "why" you think it CGI; you have simply decided that it must be, so therefore...this is not how such things are investigated, or judged...so far this "determination" is more BS than the video.

So...it appears that y'all don't know; so you have decided, sans evidence, this is CGI.



Well then join the "I believe thus I believe everything I see" ranks. Post every obvious cgi ufo you can find and challenge people to prove that it's fake, while discrediting the phenomenon in the process, if you feel like irritating the hell out of people


edit on 26-5-2014 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: canucks555

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: tanka418

because it looks like cgi


Seriously bad answer.

Sorry man, but "CGI" doesn't "look" like anything, does not have "it's own look", and is incapable of having a "look". This "look" you are speaking of is purely subjective, and subjective doesn't work!

Please show me one wee bit of real evidence that this is CGI...without resorting to the original mirrored background video...

At this point I don't think any of you even know "why" you think it CGI; you have simply decided that it must be, so therefore...this is not how such things are investigated, or judged...so far this "determination" is more BS than the video.

So...it appears that y'all don't know; so you have decided, sans evidence, this is CGI.



Well then join the "I believe thus I believe everything I see" ranks. Post every obvious cgi ufo you can find and challenge people to prove that it's fake, while discrediting the phenomenon in the process, if you feel like irritating the hell out of people



Very smart and nice of you to completely miss my point!

For future reference: IF you can't prove it's CGI; it probably isn't. What I see are far to many lazy people just hanging a label on something instead of actually investigating and learning the reality.

So...is it CGI, or real?!? YOU DON'T KNOW!!!!



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

For future reference: IF you can't prove it's CGI; it probably isn't.




For future reference: that is what is known as argumentum ad ignorantiam, or the appeal to ignorance fallacy. You should be quite familiar with it by now.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418




For future reference: IF you can't prove it's CGI; it probably isn't.


That has to be one of the worst arguments I've ever seen.

Take a look at this image:



Does it "look" like CGI to you? No....it looks very, very, VERY real.

And yet: the entire image IS CGI

It was created using 3ds Max. Not one thing in that image is "real". However, someone would have a hard time proving that.

Which means, according to your argument of "if you can't prove it, it must be", then everything in that picture MUST be real.......even though it is not.

Graphics technology has come a very long way. Things that were impossible to do just 10 to 20 years ago, are possible now. And it's not going to stop getting "more real" as time goes on.

Here is another example:

Here is an image from a computer came called "Riven", which was the sequal to the game "Myst". It was put out in 1997. All images were pre-rendered (which took hours), and it was a point and click game. You were presented with an image of where you were, you clicked where you wanted to go and a new image was loaded. It was highly acclaimed because of how "real" looking it appeared:



Not perfect, but damn impressive for 1997.

Many people wished it had been a "free movement" or "real time rendering" game, but the technology was just not there.

Now, using the Unreal 3.0 engine, I was able to make it real time rendering. Here is a video of what I did, and it's only a rough draft:



And Unreal 3.0 is OLD now. They have version 4.0 out (and is even more fantastic).

Again, not perfect of course (especially since what I did was just a rough draft). But it shows you what technology is evolving into.

Soon, you'll see videos that are completely CGI.....and you won't be able to tell the difference at all. Which means certain tell tale signs (wrong shadows, wrong lighting, etc) will not be there, because the entire scene will be rendered, people included....so the lighting, shadows, everything, will look, 100% real.

But according to your argument: that means it must be real.

Beware of using absolutes when arguing about something.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   
I only have one question for everyone here:

Does anyone think that ANY of the UFO videos that have EVER been shown, or new ones that will continue to be shown until official disclosure, could possibly be an actual alien, non terrestrial craft?


edit on CDTTue, 27 May 2014 09:26:26 -0500000000America/ChicagoMayAmerica/Chicago262626am by TrueMessiah because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

WOW!!! That's amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The fact that you still don't get what I'm saying. You are talking like I don't know CGI...but, alas, you still don't get it.

I do a wee bit of "CGI" my self...professionally. (more of a hobby, but, I occasionally get paid for it). I'm also rather adept at the programming of computers; so I know a little about the software and how it works...I just want ya to understand that I do know about "CGI" and what is involved...


Now then...IF I had the time, and inclination, I could take ANY of you "CGI" images, analyze it, and determine IF it was CGI or not. There are very subtle "tells" in ALL images...

But...what I don't see here is ANYONE actually analyzing the so-called CGI images to determine whether or not they are in fact artificial. It seems obvious, from y'alls reaction to my questioning; that y'all don't really care IF it is CGI or not; you have decided that something is, and that's the end of it. That is not how to conduct an investigation...period. That method is in reality the application of extreme ignorance, and certainly not the denial of it.

So...care to try again? How do you KNOW it's CGI


Oh, by the way, Eric...your first image; looks like CGI...and that is a cursory inspection of the image.
If you look you may see inappropriate shadows.


edit on 27-5-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
I only have one question for everyone here:

Does anyone think that ANY of the videos that have EVER been shown, and ones that will be shown until official disclosure, could possibly be an actual alien, non terrestrial craft?




Yes absolutely



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: eriktheawful

WOW!!! That's amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The fact that you still don't get what I'm saying. You are talking like I don't know CGI...but, alas, you still don't get it.

I do a wee bit of "CGI" my self...professionally. (more of a hobby, but, I occasionally get paid for it). I'm also rather adept at the programming of computers; so I know a little about the software and how it works...I just want ya to understand that I do know about "CGI" and what is involved...


Now then...IF I had the time, and inclination, I could take ANY of you "CGI" images, analyze it, and determine IF it was CGI or not. There are very subtle "tells" in ALL images...

But...what I don't see here is ANYONE actually analyzing the so-called CGI images to determine whether or not they are in fact artificial. It seems obvious, from y'alls reaction to my questioning; that y'all don't really care IF it is CGI or not; you have decided that something is, and that's the end of it. That is not how to conduct an investigation...period. That method is in reality the application of extreme ignorance, and certainly not the denial of it.

So...care to try again? How do you KNOW it's CGI




And apparently you failed to understand MY point: your argument: "If you can't prove it, then it must be real." is: GARBAGE.

Don't care how many years of CGI experience you have. Don't care whether or not you can or can not prove something is or is not CGI.

Your arguemnt: "If you can not prove it is CGI, then it must be real." is incorrect, and a logical fail.

And in the spirit of ATS: You just went on and on about how you can prove things are or are not CGI, but that you've never seen anyone here do it.

Talk is cheap. Let us see you do it.

Or are you going to give the lame excuse of: I don't feel like it.

Back up what you say. Else all you are doing is talking and not proving very much.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
I only have one question for everyone here:

Does anyone think that ANY of the UFO videos that have EVER been shown, or new ones that will continue to be shown until official disclosure, could possibly be an actual alien, non terrestrial craft?



Since I haven't seen every UFO video I cannot say. I don't think every youtube video can be debunked, for whatever that's worth. Have yet to see one that convincingly places ET at the helm.


Here's one for you: Will anyone seeking "official disclosure" accept any such disclosure from an official source which does not confirm their personal beliefs regarding ET contact?



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
And apparently you failed to understand MY point: your argument: "If you can't prove it, then it must be real." is: GARBAGE.

Don't care how many years of CGI experience you have. Don't care whether or not you can or can not prove something is or is not CGI.

Your arguemnt: "If you can not prove it is CGI, then it must be real." is incorrect, and a logical fail.

And in the spirit of ATS: You just went on and on about how you can prove things are or are not CGI, but that you've never seen anyone here do it.

Talk is cheap. Let us see you do it.

Or are you going to give the lame excuse of: I don't feel like it.

Back up what you say. Else all you are doing is talking and not proving very much.


Wow...let's just change the subject okay?

I don't think I said quite what you "think" I said.

Now on to that bit of "Let us see you do it"...I believe I already have done that...did you miss it. Some comments about your "first" image...and how the shadows and light are wrong. And, If we were to lok very close into the image, we will also find that the edges of many objects are not properly aligned either.

If we look into the image you posted with the rock face, stairs, etc...we will find that the wood grain in the "posts" are the same. If we look into virtually any CGI image we will find areas where texture repeats...something that never happens in nature...and a sure "tell".

So yes; talk is cheap. And that is all I ever hear when it comes to "CGI"...always talk, never anything substantial.

So, again; If you can't prove it is CGI; it isn't.
By the way...that is kind of like being innocent until proven guilty....a concept I'm sure you can grasp.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

I don't think I said quite what you "think" I said.


It says what it says:


originally posted by: tanka418
For future reference: IF you can't prove it's CGI; it probably isn't.


Perhaps you didn't write what you "think" you wrote.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

No....afraid your "proving" in that post won't work since I said the image was CGI when I presented it.

How about we try again? You tell me, which of the images is CGI and which are real? Careful......as I have stuck real ones in here. (anyone else can take a stab at it too if they'd like):

CGI or Real?


CGI or Real?


CGI or Real?


CGI or Real?


CGI or Real?


CGI or Real?


I'll post the answers later.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

Since I haven't seen every UFO video I cannot say. I don't think every youtube video can be debunked, for whatever that's worth. Have yet to see one that convincingly places ET at the helm.


Here's one for you: Will anyone seeking "official disclosure" accept any such disclosure from an official source which does not confirm their personal beliefs regarding ET contact?


Regarding your first paragraph: Its not about how many you have seen. I'm essentially asking do you think such a video exists? Taking all those you have and haven't seen into consideration.

Regarding your second paragraph: Your question seems to imply that the "official source" wouldn't be credible. If it came straight from the horse's mouth (i.e. high ranking gov. official, POTUS, NASA) then there's no reason for it to conflict with any personal belief....especially if you were already in favor of ET existence being a definite reality.
edit on CDTTue, 27 May 2014 13:51:35 -0500000000America/ChicagoMayAmerica/Chicago353551pm by TrueMessiah because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueMessiah

originally posted by: draknoir2

Since I haven't seen every UFO video I cannot say. I don't think every youtube video can be debunked, for whatever that's worth. Have yet to see one that convincingly places ET at the helm.


Here's one for you: Will anyone seeking "official disclosure" accept any such disclosure from an official source which does not confirm their personal beliefs regarding ET contact?


Regarding your first paragraph: Its not about how many you have seen. I'm essentially asking do you think such a video exists? Taking all those you have and haven't seen into consideration.

Regarding your second paragraph: Your question seems to imply that the "official source" wouldn't be credible. If it came straight from the horse's mouth (i.e. high ranking gov. official, POTUS, NASA) then there's no reason for it to conflict with any personal belief....especially if you were already in favor of ET existence being a definite reality.


There is no way of knowing whether a video I have yet to see exists. That falls within the realm of faith, and based on what I've seen so far, I have no such belief. Maybe/maybe not is the best I can do.

I wasn't implying anything. You have but to read a few threads on this site to see the "TPTB would never tell us" and "Never A Straight Answer" and "paid disinfo agent" type sentiments. If no "official" source can be believed, how is "official disclosure" to come about? Through fringe and conspiracy sites? We have that already. And there have already been "official disclosures" which have been immediately dismissed by CT'ers as "disinfo". If Obama were to officially disclose that the government has no evidence whatsoever of Extraterrestrial contact, would that be sufficient for those who believe otherwise, or would it be dismissed?



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: tanka418

No....afraid your "proving" in that post won't work since I said the image was CGI when I presented it.



Why don't you address the real issue here...and it ain't whether I can "tell" a fake image or not...that is actually rather immaterial.

The real issue here is the crying "CGI" when virtually any image that isn't "liked" appears. That is the only demonstration one needs around here. Y'all are wrong in doing so; it only serves to demonstrate your prejudice, ignorance, and worse yet, your unwillingness to learn.

You have fun with your "pictures"; I have real work to do.





posted on May, 27 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

Your reply is not surprising and was fully expected.

-------------------------------

Anyone else game?

I'd like to see some guesses here, just to see how folks do. All post the answers later this evening.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join