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.

 

what makes a ufo sighting credible?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I have seen countless video's, seen countless pictures, and read tons of stories. But only some of them have a true impact on me.
What does it take for you to truly believe?

[edit on 6-3-2006 by enthuziazm]




posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   
The source first. Hard to discount police officers or military personnel. I have a real hard time with any digital photographic source. I know the high end technical equipment and software isn't available to everyone, but some amazing effects can be achieved now-a-days with home equipment. Heck, when I watched 'Forrest Gump' I was convinced Gary Sinise was legless.

Not

[edit on 6-3-2006 by NotClever]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   
I know what you mean. Not a single picture, video or police officer report has convinced me.

I think its going to take a spectacular event to prove they are real.
What if a UFO had flown over the olympic stadium during the opening ceremonies. Thousands of people with cameras, hundreds of reporters with tv cameras. That would be proof.

The next best thing would be if a UFO crashed in a major city, again with thousands of people, reporters and cameras.

An of course the best, if they actually landed and spoke to the world.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Ok. Here's the proof i'd go for:

-The aliens land their UFO on the roof of the White House, and put up a banner saying: "It's YOUR turn to hide!!!"

Ok. Lets get to the real ones:

1- The person(s) who contributed the eveidence, and their background.
2-The Witnesses - always good to have different view points - a great variety probably means that most are just speculating.
3- Some sort of Media, however captured from different points by different people who did not know of the other people being there at the time! For example, 3 individual parties are camping on different sides of a mountain. Each party contains 3 people. 3 reports the next day say aliens/UFOs/Big green hairy flying pigs have been spotted at 3 individual locations (however in the same area). There are different medias - people will have different accessories with them, some may have still images from a phone, some may have real photos, and some may have good video footage. All of the evidence would be difficult to doctor.
4- Proof the different groups of witnesses do not know each other.
5- Possible evidence from an investiagtion (maybe not crop circles, but something along those lines - crash site evidence for example would be awesome)

By adding more i am really making it unlikely that a UFO case will ever pass.

Live footage is good.

6- Must not be April the 1st.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

what makes a ufo sighting credible?



What does it take for you to truly believe?


You've actually asked two questions in your OP. And neither really goes with the other.
Credibility and belief are not one and the same. There are some naive folk here on ATS who believe any piker coming round the bend with their outlandish claims. That would be belief.
These same people offer no proof of their credibility which means a) they may not be telling the truth or b) they ask that you take their accounts on faith(belief).
As far as myself what would make a sighting credible would be for the sightee to provide some sort of corroborating evidence(ie another witness or a photo). This would not necessarily make it true but it would provide a measure of credibility. Now as mentioned photos in this day and age are suspicious(heck even my little cheap digital has a limited list of effects it can add to a photo before I download or print) but at least it's something that can be analysed and proven true or false. And I always preach to people to make copious notes and turn in reports to the revelant agencies(MUFON,FUFOR,NICAP,NUFORC, etc) when they see a UFO. Because it is afterall an object that flies and has no reasonable explaination.
As for belief, well I already believe I just haven't found that one thing that would make it all true beyond reasonable doubt. But I haven't given up.

"Wanna make the perfect truth-tini? Two parts vodka, no part fact."
Stephen Colbert



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
In the eyes of the mainstream... nothing.
With video and pictures the best you will get is “If it is not real then it is a very good hoax.”



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Ah my cynical friend you must not know of Stanton Friedman.
I myself have many sighting reports that I view as credible. Does that make them true? Does that mean they're real?
Nope. But it means that I have seen evidence that convinces me they are not total fabrications and may in fact point to something that has not been explained readily.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Nothing is....

There will always be the greater population that would deny your sighting.
Making you look like a fool. Regardless of your hard work and debabting there will always be the critics in film that will down play you as a hoax.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   
I would go along with sightings backed by photographic evidence, multiple stills and video from different, unconnected people in several locations (3-D photos and video would help), along by physical evidence of a material or a functioning artifact that is simply not possible to have been made by humans at this point in space or time, confirmed by a group of scientists, including the most skeptical of the bunch I can get, verification from military and political authorities, and if I could get on a plane or bus and go to wherever the UFO/Alien thing is and put my very own tongue on it. Live aliens would also be a big plus. I would put my tongue on them, too.

Basically, I would want the same level of proof that UFO aliens exist that would convince me the Washington Monument exists.

Why, you may ask, are you such a skeptic? And I would have to reply that I am a such a skeptic because I very badly want it to be true, and not a lie or a hoax or a misidentification, so I need to have the greatest absolute proof I can get.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Well, first and foremost, would be if I personally saw one. That might sound kind of funny, but in all seriousness, the firsthand account is better than anything you will read or see or have told to you. It's pretty hard to deny something you witnessed with your own eyes. (I've never seen a ufo or alien, in case anyone asks)

Failing that, I'd want basically exactly what Shakeyjc listed; multiple, independent, credible witnesses, and video (not pictures, too easy to fake, though admittedly video can be faked too).

The background and reliability of the witnesses is important. If Crazy Jim spotted a bright light at 3am while getting drunk in the bush, that's not particularly credible. If somebody with a solid reputation for reliability and sound judgment makes the same claim, especially if corroborated by others, then it's time to listen. For example, if a renowned scientist or politician or doctor or somebody like that makes the claims, I would take it as more reliable, because there are certain ethical guidelines that they must follow, even related to areas outside their career, and would be taking a risk to their professional lives by fabricating a hoax.

I would also take it as much more reliable if the witness(es) was somebody I knew personally to be reliable, such as a friend or family member.

Some kind of physical evidence would also be good; for example, video, a crater where it landed, scorched trees from the propulsion system, that sort of thing, though that proves nothing on its own. It can be used to help corroborate, though.

I haven't done a lot of research in this area, but I have read a few accounts, and I've never read one that met all the criteria I put forward. Most are usually by a single individual or perhaps a small group. Of the few accounts I have read, the only one that I have been able to take seriously is Roswell. Most of the witnesses seem credible, and the contradictory military reports prove, if nothing else, that they are covering up something.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by enthuziazm: what makes a ufo sighting credible?


There is noise, and there is signal, and it helps to know the difference. Only, sometimes there is no signal.

Speaking strictly for myself, I always look for enough information to allow the object to be identified if it's something prosaic and NOT a flying saucer: time, date, location, and directions (of view and of travel) at a minimum. After all, if there's not enough there there to be recognized if the thing is ordinary, how can anyone seriously hope to identify it as something unknown?

After that I want to know what a person saw and/or experienced, not necessarily what they thought or felt. Descriptions like "it was about xxx feet long" or "it was xxx miles away" or "it was travelling xxx mph" are mostly useless unless the object is already recognized; tell us how many degrees it covered, or that it looked about the size of your outstretched hand, or that it went from A to B in xxx seconds, etc.

I also want to know, not what happened, but what else happened. What was going on around the witness? Too often some "little" detail is left out; thanks to the internet, that is less of a problem than in the past, but it still irks me. For instance, I was reading an apparently very credible account of a witness to a giant silver object gliding silently over a neighbor's house. I got curious and actually looked up her address (dontcha love broadband?). Apparently she didn't remember she lived a few hundred meters or so from a Marine air field, directly in-line with one of the runways, or I'm sure
she's have mentioned it in her UFO report.

Something that especially appeals to me are are the "stupid" details: things which seem to make absolutley no sense, but, I feel, are the real key to the UFO phenomenon. They are the things which most researchers try to ignore, even belittle, but need to be incorporated into any real theory.

Phototographic evidence is pretty uniformly miserable (and video even more so), and what decent images do exist are suspect nowadays. I do enjoy the occasional debunk, if, as I said, there is enough information available to make any kind of analysis at all, but it's usually just too easy.


What does it take for you to truly believe?

Belief has no relation to credibility. That said, I can be convinced that a theory is useful and pertinent. In the case of UFOs, show me a theory which explains both the commonalities and the stupid details -- without invoking magic.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   
I have never seen anything in real life. No weird lights or sounds. No weird metalic devices under my skin, or new scar designs on my back. So for me, I haven't had anything profound that has made me completely convinced.

The thing that keeps me believe, and hope for somthing to be out there, roots from the simple fact that it's not a nice feeling to be alone. It's kind of comforting/exciting to think that there could be other life out there. Even if it isn't as intelligent as us, it would still be remarkable, and would open up a new field of science and wonder.

I just hope I am lucky enough to have a sighting, or something else...
something that could help me have full belief in what's out there.

but until then, I will keep reading, watching, and listening to everything people have to offer. that's the main reason that people are involved with ATS. They believe something, and they want information, and might possibly discuss it.
The fact that you are reading this, means people out there want to believe. And that almost helps me keep my interest so strong.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join