posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 05:16 AM
a reply to: Koolsville
The reality is that videographic documentation of a UFO encounter or sightings has ALWAYS had its problems. Those problems have changed over the
years though. Back in the eighties and nineties, it was resolution trouble. Only movie cameras and other high spec, high value recording gear had a
hope in hell of resolving quality detail at a distance. This led to all sorts of things in the sky being mysterious, rather than simply unusual.
Then you had the era of the handy cam and the smartphone come in later on, but the problem these days is not so much one of resolution, but more of
the ability we now have to manipulate these images with far too great a degree of sophistication, for relatively little cost and effort. A polished
fake can look as legit as can be, and the only way to tell is to pull the image or video apart in much more complicated software, than was used to
doctor the image or video being investigated.
But the truth is that video, images... these things never amounted to a hill of beans where proof of anything is concerned. Forensic, testable
evidence, chunks of craft, alien DNA, the evidence of the passage of a craft through a treeline, or scorch marks left on the ground, these things have
far more value than images and video ever do, because they are far harder to fake, far more costly to arrange, and could yield far more information
about a UFO than any video ever could.
That is why I no longer care what gets photographed or recorded. I only care what is found, tested, sampled and experimented on, because that stuff
does not lie to us nearly as readily as our eyes do!