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.

 

Video and photographic evidence does NO GOOD

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Any good video will just simply dismissed as very good CGI or a very good hoax...too good to be true.

Any good photo will just simply dismissed as a very good Photoshop...too good to be true.

Not to mention that the government will intervene somehow.

Maybe the ONLY possibly convincing video is one coming from a source that people would not think would want to make a hoax whatsoever, e.g. government video, NASA footage, etc.

So yeah, I think the sad truth is that civilians will never be able to CONVINCE ("convince" is the key word here...not "prove" because that's another can of worms) the public with just mere video or photographic evidence, regardless of how good it is.

Videos of cryptids, however, are probably more convincing since people are already familiar with animal videos and to make a complete 110% convincing CGI of an animal is really hard. I mean, look at King Kong...the CGI there I can tell is fake. Even I could tell in Jurassic Park. But it was still really damn good eye candy.




posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   
I agree with you, thio. A single picture or video, no matter how high the quality, will never suffice to convince the public that there are UFOs. Almost any visual artifact in a picture or video can be explained rationally as a result of some terrestrial, natural, or technological process. Because humans have developed such capacity to manufacture realistic images of the unconventional, a human tends to believe that any realistic image of the unconventional has been manufactured. As discouraging as it may be for UFO believers, the public's critical view is correct. As technology advances, the burden of proof for ufology also advances. Currently, picture or video may change a few minds, but generally it can do nothing more than to solidify existing viewpoints.

So what is the burden of proof now? I think that governmental disclosure by a major country would be sufficient. Of course, that's not likely to happen. Also, mainstream scientific discovery -- research published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals, repeatable experiments -- would be rather convincing. Finally, mass public encounters of the second (or above) kinds would be undeniable proof. Such an occurrence would be likely to bring about de facto governmental disclosure and/or scientific acceptance. Would society accept any lesser evidence?

On the other side of the question, what is the burden of proof to show that there are no UFOs?



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Non-believers don't have the responsibility to prove there are no UFOs since the default situation is that there aren't crazy things flying around in our skies. So it's the believers' responsility to prove their claims. After all, it is OUR claim that there are UFOs. Non-believers aren't claiming anything...they're just refuting.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Ufo sightings are growing all the time,many from people who do NOT believe, now they have a puzzle do they believe what they saw with their own eyes? or do they believe a story put forward by the government that don,t convince them,you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can,t fool all of the people all of the time,many were embarrassed to speak about them in the past, not so these days, especially with vast amount of sightings that are coming forward from the average joe.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by thiopental sodium
Non-believers don't have the responsibility to prove there are no UFOs


Amen! I count myself as a "wisher" - not a believer. I WISH aliens were visiting us. I hope they are. If they aren't, nobody is watching and we'd better take care of things here ourselves because nobody will get here in time to step in if we screw up.

As for video evidence, I'll believe it when I wake up to see that CNN, MSNBC, and FOX are all covering a live event with obvious alien craft in our skies, using their own cameras.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sophismata
As for video evidence, I'll believe it when I wake up to see that CNN, MSNBC, and FOX are all covering a live event with obvious alien craft in our skies, using their own cameras.


Um, considering the Big Media are all part of the big hushdown to keep this stuff secret and under the carpet, I'm pretty sure you won't be seeing that sort of material on those networks anytime soon. Dr Greer knows all about that.

The only time you'll see this on the big networks will be if government / illuminati can no longer keep this a secret, or if ET have decided to announce themselves for one and all. By then, I don't think you'd need CNN or FOX to tell you - it will be there on your (and everyone's) own doorstep before your very eyes.

EDIT: Then again, perhaps the hoaxed alien threat Wernher Von Braun warned about will initially happen via the tv networks in cahoots with the shadow govt. They will be an integral part of the overall propaganda machine?

[edit on 26-2-2006 by RiotComing]



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by RiotComing
Um, considering the Big Media are all part of the big hushdown


You're joking, right? Right? Seriously, don't attribute to conspiracy that which can be better explained by incompetence. Or something like that.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sophismata

Originally posted by RiotComing
Um, considering the Big Media are all part of the big hushdown


You're joking, right? Right? Seriously, don't attribute to conspiracy that which can be better explained by incompetence. Or something like that.



Incompetence? Do you seriously think that's what it is? Surely YOU are the one who has to be joking. I would expect more astuteness from a visitor to a conspiracy site like yourself. Take a look at these links to get an overview of what is going on:

www.disclosureproject.org...
www.disclosureproject.org...

There are many many other examples to read on how the important information is hushed down, destroyed and / or ridiculed. This is their policy. Here is an example from the British researcher and ex-MILAB employee Barry King (taken from "The Voice, the history you need to know" thread over at UFO Casebooks):

1997 also saw me to be shown on National TV. Channel 4 ran a series of 'Paranormal' progs covering many subjects entitled "Fortean TV". Channel 4 sent a crew from Rapido TV to film/interview me for one of the progs. The format for that particular prog was MIBs and I was to be filmed giving my run ins with these characters. The film crew arrived and set up their equipment, I was to be filmed in silhouette and my voice was to be electronically altered for the prog. All went well and standard but the head guy started asking questions and we soon got onto Peasemore, Abductions, the whole kit and kaboodle! The cameras were rolling all the while, they got the lot, and they seemed very pleased with the interview, I even got the (what seems patronising now) hand on shoulder, "You've done well, your country will be proud of you" type of speil. Anyway, some couple of weeks later, being in regular contact with both Rapido and Channel 4 all seemed set for transmission. In fact right up till 24 hrs before all seemed A-OK for screening. The night of the prog itself began OK but where I and many others were expecting an edited segment the format of the prog changed and in the second half of the 30 minute prog they used some really rubbishy stuff just to fill in time, they cut my interview. I phoned Rapido next day to enquire about it but the guy in charge was never available, no matter how often I rang, always being fobbed off with one excuse or another. When I stated that unless I speak to someone I'm coming into London to Channel 4 and see the producers in person. That got the guy on the line. He was very apologetic and sounded very sheepish, very anxious, he really did not want to speak to me. Push came to shove and I demanded why no interview, if they had no intention of showing it why use valuable time and effort plus film crew costs in the first place. He buckled under and told me that Channel 4 were advised to drop my interview at the very last minute, that meetings had been taking place during the day just hours prior to screening. Channel 4 were told to drop it and destroy the tapes.


Open your eyes and your mind. If you *trust* CNN (or any big media outlet for that matter) implicitly, then that's your call. But you're just letting yourself be willingly programmed by the state to hear what they want you to hear. If you're cool with that then fine. It's a (supposedly) free world.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by RiotComing
I would expect more astuteness from a visitor to a conspiracy site like yourself.....If you *trust* CNN (or any big media outlet for that matter) implicitly, then that's your call.


First, my failing to see a conspiracy under every rock is not lack of astuteness. I am here on ATS to read about aliens and UFOs, which require no conspiracy to exist. The governments of the world may (shocker) be ignorant of what's going on. As for "trusting" CNN... It's not about that. They're a commercial organization. They'll cover any big story that isn't obviously bogus (and some that are) and that will grab viewers. If aliens land, it WILL be on CNN. That's all I meant.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   
By themselves, a photo or video doesn't carry a lot of weight. However, if a photo or video is backed up by other photos or videos from independent sources, eyewitness accounts, physical evidence, alien ashtrays, dead aliens, etc., then they are not completely worthless and they do add weight to the entire evidence package.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join