Let me just start by saying that my words were an attack on a generalazation, and not you Gazrok. You know I respect your words..........most of the time.

Originally posted by Gazrok
And a good 80% or so probably DESERVES to be debunked.

You know what, I disagree. "Out of focus", "fuzzy", "lens flare" and the like don't equal "DESERVES to be debunked" in my book. It is abundantly clear that these have become reasons to debunk. Most of us have never seen a UFO before, so unless a picture of an alleged UFO is presented to me, and the UFO has 'Wham-O' written on top of it, or it's so obvious that it's a fake, I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. Regarding UFOs and aliens, I thinks it's almost a Pavlovian response for us to automatically look for flaws in any evidence that has to do with these subjects. That is the crux of the problem and it continues to hinder the search for the truth. Most of us have never seen an alien before. How do we know what a real alien looks like? Every picture of an alien that's been posted on this website has been "proven a hoax". Where's the proof? If you don't know what one looks like, how do you know? I certainly don't know what one looks like, so unless I'm seeing strings hanging from it's arms, or the actual prop itself, I'm not going to call it a hoax.

If we take everything at face value, and proclaim "look, it's a spaceship!", and then are proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) wrong, then instead of helping UFOlogy, we've hindered it even moreso....

I could take a picture of anything that was "real", and if my mind wanted to find something "unreal" about it, I could. It's more of a psychology than anything. If one wants to see something, they see it, if one doesn't, then they don't. One more thing here, so what if we find "real" proof, the government will still deny it and no scientist in his right mind will touch it. That's just the way it is. So why be so critical? What's the point?

THIS is why we must eliminate the plausible before leaping to the fantastic.

What you consider to be "fantastic", I consider to be "plausible" and a real fact of life already. It's only fantastic because the government and the media say so. So what else is new? I'll trust my own judgement over theirs any day. If they don't want it to become a reality, it won't, regardless of how strong and clear the evidence. This, and not the lack of solid evidence, is really the road block that we have to find a way around.

Peace

[edit on 1-3-2005 by Dr Love]

[edit on 1-3-2005 by Dr Love]

Originally posted by Dr Love
Let me just start by saying that my words were an attack on a generalazation, and not you Gazrok. You know I respect your words..........most of the time.

Originally posted by Gazrok
And a good 80% or so probably DESERVES to be debunked.

You know what, I disagree. "Out of focus", "fuzzy", "lens flare" and the like don't equal "DESERVES to be debunked" in my book. It is abundantly clear that these have become reasons to debunk. Most of us have never seen a UFO before, so unless an picture of an alleged UFO is presented to me, and the UFO has 'Wham-O' written on top of it, or it's so obvious that it's a fake, I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. Regarding UFOs and aliens, I thinks it's almost a Pavlovian response for us to automatically look for flaws in any evidence that has to do with these subjects. That is the crux of the problem and it continues to hinder the search for the truth. Most of us have never seen an alien before. How do we know what a real alien looks like? Every picture of an alien that's been posted on this website has been "proven a hoax". Where's the proof? If you don't know what one looks like, how do you know? I certainly don't know what one looks like, so unless I'm seeing strings hanging from it's arms, or the actual prop itself, I'm not going to call it a hoax.

Just wanted to let you know that I wasn't trying to imply you were speaking of anyone as a "disinfo agent" in cas I inadvertently caused you to come to defense, not my intention at all.

Having said that, to your above statment I'd want to ask/say: Does that mean that you believe that a fuzzy or grainy or lens flared photo or video should be looked at with 100% belief?

I think you would say no, just as I would. When you take that into account and the fact that this community has seen so many hoaxes and outright disinformation attempts in the form of photographic and video "evidence", any serious seeker should look at any new information from a rather skeptical standpoint, you know?

I think that's just a miscommunication on the term debunking, I don't think Gazrok literally means that "everything is false" I think he's saying "It's far better to view things as false until their truth can be better asertained." Which is really a respectable and responsible viewpoint, in my opinion anyway.

I think that line of thinking is shown in his next statement:

If we take everything at face value, and proclaim "look, it's a spaceship!", and then are proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) wrong, then instead of helping UFOlogy, we've hindered it even moreso....

With the nature of the community and it's past problems, it's not very prudent to take anything on face value. That's all that is being said there. He's not outright speaking in condemnation of all instances.

You make the point yourself in the following statement:

Originally posted by Dr. Love
I could take a picture of anything that was "real", and if my mind wanted to find something "unreal" about it, I could. It's more of a psychology than anything. If one wants to see something, they see it, if one doesn't, then they don't. One more thing here, so what if we find "real" proof, the government will still deny it and no scientist in his right mind will touch it. That's just the way it is. So why be so critical? What's the point?

You're right people see things in different ways. But there lies the inherent danger of "Ufology"(pardon the term). Sometimes our desire can get the better of our judgment. That is what I think a semi-skeptical vantage point helps to guard against, and I think that's the main focus of Gazrok's words. Such words are once again illustrated below:

Orig. Posted by Gazrok
THIS is why we must eliminate the plausible before leaping to the fantastic.

See, he's just saying that we should take our emotions out of the situation and view the subject at hand with a eye for the mundane. Doing so may open up a truth to the matter which is founded in the easily explained. If so, great, the mystery is solved and the trouble is averted. If not, well that is where we can find true gems of the field, and where more serious analysis can blossom from.

That's not irrational, is it?


Anyways, that's all I wanted to touch on. Not trying to belittle anywone or their values/thoughts.

By the way, really cool how you got your post read by jennings on the daily show, I was really impressed that it happened, and sickened that it was the butt of a joke.



X

Originally posted by Dr Love
What you consider to be "fantastic", I consider to be "plausible" and a real fact of life already. It's only fantastic because the government and the media say so. So what else is new? I'll trust my own judgement over theirs any day.

Perhaps you can help us understand your experience on these topics?

I know Gazrok has had some extensive experience in the area of UFO research, and myself, a former researcher with MUFON.

Please don't assume we're trying to "belittle" you or anyone else by storming in and claiming longer hours with these pesky alien hoaxes, and you're better off just listening to us. That's not my point.

The primary issue is... "is this happening?"

If it is, how do we educate the "unwashed masses" that it is?

My primary frustration with the "UFOlogists" (and conspiracy theory community in general) is that there is far more disinformation in support of these topics, than there is in "official debunking". We're so much our own worst enemy that no one should be overly concerned with real UFO evidence emerging from UFOlogists... and if it did, it'd never be believed.

This video has too many problems...
1) repeating line (it's over my f-ing house)
2) fake wind (it's really fake)
3) vague object (could be many things)
4) no second vantage point (just walk 50 feet to the right damnit)
5) the "high wind" is not effecting the trees
6) the short span of video
7) brightening brings up reflection below "object"
8) no one else in the scene noticing this amazing sight
9) THE SOURCE WEBSITE IS HIGHLY SUSPECT!
Far too many aspects set of too many "red flags".

We have experienced researchers here on ATS. Gazrok is one of them. This is an advantage few other boards have.

Every picture of an alien that's been posted on this website has been "proven a hoax". Where's the proof? If you don't know what one looks like, how do you know? I certainly don't know what one looks like, so unless I'm seeing strings hanging from it's arms, or the actual prop itself, I'm not going to call it a hoax.

First, I should clarify that it wasn't you Dr. Love, that called me a debunker, hehe....

We seem to simply approach it from different angles. I go in with the thought that it is likely a hoax or misidentification. Why? Because I've seen SO much of it in the past...and I've seen it held up for the world to see, only to see it ripped to shreds and convincingly so. To me, these do more harm to UFOlogy than any fuzzy video or pic. Perhaps it's why such things bother me so much.

As SO said, in most cases, we're (UFOlogists in general) our own worst enemies. And the worst part of it, is that there IS good evidence out there. We don't HAVE to accept fuzzy videos or pics when we have gun camera footage from the Mexican Air Force. We don't HAVE to accept statements of a one-armed Swiss farmer who talks to aliens, when we've got signed affidavits from Sergeants, Majors, Colonels, and Generals in the Pentagon! Likewise, there are some good pics, there are some good videos, etc. And such items stand up to the kind of scrutiny we'll get from the skeptics. So, in order to present evidence that will convince even the skeptics, we have to make sure that it will stand up to scrutiny....

Thanks for the kind words Xatnys.

I certainly don't see Gazrok as a disinfo agent. If he is, then he's doing a really crappy job of it.

Originally quoted by Xatnys:
Having said that, to your above statment I'd want to ask/say: Does that mean that you believe that a fuzzy or grainy or lens flared photo or video should be looked at with 100% belief?

No, absolutely not, but at the same time, I think that most of the evidence here is overly criticized, and that criticism might not be justified. Where as you say that grainy, fuzzy and lensflared photos and video should not be looked upon with 100% belief, I say that those certainly shouldn't be the reasons to discount the alleged evidence's authenticity. We live in an imperfect world where imperfect evidence will be presented. We have got to take this into account. One might find a flaw in the evidence. So then one should analyze that flaw just as critically. Does this make sense??

Originally quoted by SkepticOverlord:
Perhaps you can help us understand your experience on these topics?

I know Gazrok has had some extensive experience in the area of UFO research, and myself, a former researcher with MUFON.

I have none and I'm certainly not arguing the qualifications of either you or Gazrok, I just think that we all need to step back and analyze everyone's critique, including our own.

Peace

No, absolutely not, but at the same time, I think that most of the evidence here is overly criticized, and that criticism might not be justified. Where as you say that grainy, fuzzy and lensflared photos and video should not be looked upon with 100% belief, I say that those certainly shouldn't be the reasons to discount the alleged evidence's authenticity. We live in an imperfect world where imperfect evidence will be presented. We have got to take this into account. One might find a flaw in the evidence. So then one should analyze that flaw just as critically. Does this make sense??

I think that's the same thing that my post, when read in its entirety, says. So we are not far from agreement.

I think you're taken aback by the manner in which the process is done, but the underlying key is that those steps of qualifying the evidence are being done, even though the observation seems to come from an outright semi-skeptical vantage point.

The essence of the discovery of truth is the same, even when the observer may seem to be skeptical of the information.

I'd say that even though one viewpoint takes a emotional stance, that is, the desire for a piece of evidence to be true. And another viewpoint takes a logical / scientific stance, not believing the evidence until it has proven itself.

There can be true seekers on both ends, if they both take the proper steps to test a piece of "evidence".

It's just that you will normally find that the logical or scientific (read: skeptical) observers are the one that normally follow the procedure of quantifying the evidence, whereas many emotional ufologist do not.

Anyways, that was basically just a re-hash of my first post.





X

edit: Yep back to topic sounds good. U2U me if you'd like to talk more though, I've enjoied it much.

[edit on 1-3-2005 by Xatnys]

Was anyone able to get a still shot of the video clip that can be posted here?

I just noticed the trees weren't moving in all that wind. thanks for pointing that out S.O.

Nice but I think it is not genuine. I noticed the sound was inconsistant and out of sync. and while the camera moves the object appears to move not in a natural motion. It would be good to get a few more critques though.

[edit on 1-3-2005 by FLYIN HIGH]

Look guys, I've got a pretty good computer and monitor here at work and I certainly can't ascertain if the trees are moving or not. I don't want to start arguing about every little flaw that's detected, but c'mon, the video's not of good enough quality to clearly see some of the flaws that have been pointed out. And also, it sounds like real wind to me.

Peace

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
This video has too many problems...
1) repeating line (it's over my f-ing house)
2) fake wind (it's really fake)
3) vague object (could be many things)
4) no second vantage point (just walk 50 feet to the right damnit)
5) the "high wind" is not effecting the trees
6) the short span of video
7) brightening brings up reflection below "object"
8) no one else in the scene noticing this amazing sight
9) THE SOURCE WEBSITE IS HIGHLY SUSPECT!

I have to leave for the day, but I have give my opinion on these before I go:

1. I don't understand why this is so odd.
2. Like I said, it sounds real to me.
3. Agreed, but that doesn't mean it isn't a UFO.
4. Can't argue with this.
5. Impossible to tell.
6. It is short, but again, that doesn't mean it isn't a UFO.
7. Once again, impossible for me to see with the naked eye.
8. Right, I don't see anyone else. So what? That doesn't mean it isn't a UFO.
9. You may be right, but that doesn't mean it isn't a UFO.

Just my opinion. Do with it what you may.

Peace

[edit on 1-3-2005 by Dr Love]

This thread has really come to life in my absence. Thanks everyone for your input. To address the side-topic of the day... Gaz, I have no doubts regarding your experience with UFOs and started this thread with the hopes (expectation) that you would interject. Along with others, of course. I just think that the video is simply inconclusive at best. I understand SO's points regarding the video but don't necessarily agree with them. We must remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I have an excellent 22" high resolution CAD monitor along with a 1G NVidia graphics card; so I am seeing some excellent graphics from the vid. I honestly cannot tell if the trees are moving or not. I cannot tell if there is or is not a hill in the background. But really, some of that is moot.

I believe that we need to be focusing more on the devil in details than on the simple video. Remember, your eyes can deceive you. We now have a date and a videographer, but I didn't notice if we had a location or any other data regarding the sighting. IS there more video? I am certain that there is, but where? Is there any data regarding other sightings in this area at this time? If so, what were the witness descriptions? etc...

I'm glad I resurrected this video. I am determined to figure this one out. Thanks everyone!

I watched all 12 of those videos and didn't see anything that even resembled the same site in the daylight. Yeah, the very first video was the same but that was about it. Other than that I can hardly understand what the heck this guy is babbling about... flares, clouds, distortions etc...

I don't know either.

After going back and rechecking it might not be the same building.

Just out of curiosity...

Are there any real videos or photos that have not been proved to fakes or do they not last long out in the public??

I watched the video a couple more times to see if the trees were moving in the wind. The shot that we do get of the trees is so short that its too difficult to notice.

For those of you who said that the movement of the UFO was too unnatural, I don't think it was supposed to be moving. I believe it was just stationary.

I still think it could be one of two things:
1. A distant brush fire coming over the mountain/hill.

2. A genuine UFO.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
This video has too many problems...
1) repeating line (it's over my f-ing house)
2) fake wind (it's really fake)
3) vague object (could be many things)
4) no second vantage point (just walk 50 feet to the right damnit)
5) the "high wind" is not effecting the trees
6) the short span of video
7) brightening brings up reflection below "object"
8) no one else in the scene noticing this amazing sight
9) THE SOURCE WEBSITE IS HIGHLY SUSPECT!
Far too many aspects set of too many "red flags".

Add to the List the MOST obvious debunking FACT...

10) Theres no such thing as little green men in spaceships.

Interesting footage. Does anyone have an inkling where it was shot? The only question I have is this: Did the shooter have the wherewithal to include the streetlight for scale, or was it coincidence?

Check the thread containing the report about the sighting, as Skibum mentioned, there are other videos showing the site (and the hill) in the daylight....

I just noticed the trees weren't moving in all that wind. thanks for pointing that out S.O.

Devil's advocate here, WW, being from FL you should realize that this happens ALL the time here. If I had a nickel for everytime I felt a strong wind and then DIDN'T see the tops of the trees moving, I'd be rich...

Still, I think the evidence is pointing more towards lights on a hill...(like I said before even seeing the accompanying report... )