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.

 

Why is most UFO footage the same?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I've seen "many" video's of suppossed UFO footage but what urk's me is that it's all the same.

Most somewhat credible footage is usally filmed at night showing light's from a far distance.The light's wich usually are grouped and flash on and off for a short period of time,basically it look's like a bunch of star's that are grouped together.This type of footage can be easily hoaxed because it's filmed at night and has no detail.

90% of the suppossed UFO footage that is filmed during the day last's just a few second's usually consisting of an object that appear's and then suddenly takes of at a ridiculous speed as if it know's it's being filmed.Why does it alway's speed away after a few second's?This type of footage is filmed during the day,that's why most of the footage last's a few second's so it cant be analyzed that well.

I believe in UFO's but I'm sick of all the Hoax video's that are out there.In today's age of CGI technology and computer editing I'm sorry to say that 99% of the video's cannot be real.Considering that a vast majority of adult's have a cell phone that can either take pictures or record video there would be more footage of certain event's.

[edit on 15-2-2007 by Samblack]

[edit on 15-2-2007 by Samblack]

[edit on 15-2-2007 by Samblack]




posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Samblack
I believe in UFO's but I'm sick of all the Hoax video's that are out there.In today's age of CGI technology and computer editing I'm sorry to say that 99% of the video's cannot be real.


Could you please quote your data source as a reference to support your claim, so that the rest of us can verify the authenticity?

Thanks.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   
What should really be "Realized" is that some of the most facunating footage caught can be wittnessed from another location with the same results of the lense.
When you have the opportunity to be a "True" wittness with verifiable sighting's of said"UFO'S" , it becomes left to the mind and the one's who want to deny ignorance. IMO....



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   
They might be the same species, planet. Or it could be the fact that we are all using the same technology to tape the events in question.

Plus alot of fakes are created using the same tried and true methods.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Originally posted by Samblack



90% of the suppossed UFO footage that is filmed during the day last's just a few second's usually consisting of an object that appear's and then suddenly takes of at a ridiculous speed as if it know's it's being filmed.
In today's age of CGI technology and computer editing I'm sorry to say that 99% of the video's cannot be real.







Please provide some evidence on those statements.
99% ? Please.
Anything to back this up, will be welcome.

Thanks,
Lex

[edit on 15-2-2007 by Lexion]



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   
There's some really good footage out there. In my personal heirarchy I hold shuttle/space footage in the highest regard.... The blurry shaky-cam sh!t can get a bit,... tiring. Being ambiguous at best, it can leave too much up to speculation which makes it basically moot to the mainstream, and a boner for tinf-hat bashers.

With the space footage, we can at least say. "ok it's not atmospheric, it's not a mis-identified jet/'copter, etc.". Since we know where the shuttle/MIR/station cams are we can at least ARBITRARILY range unknowns caught "on film" (if we had 2 cams with the object on film simultaneously I'd remove the ARBITRARILY


SOME of the footage shows unknowns VS the horizon, which let's us say "ok, so they came into frame HERE and went THERE". This atleast gives us a relative range and velocity.

What makes me pay attention is when an object will either change direction, or show a "trail" when not in the atmosphere....but I don't know if this is persistance artifact of the cam or a real observation, (the trail, not the vector change).

Aside from the infamous tether footage, I think the "Where is MIR" footage the best.




[edit on 15-2-2007 by Stale Cracker]



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Most UFO video, like most UFO sightings, are misidentifications of ordinary things. Mylar balloons, a lot of them.

On the other hand, there are a few UFO videos that do show something unusual that is obviously not ordinary. None have conclusively shown alien (whatever that might mean) flying vehicles... yet.

As for quality, if a UFO was floating in the air outside your house right now, how could you get a photo of it and what would you use to do it. You only have a minute. The clock is ticking.

Maybe you'd grab a cell phone camera, or some little pocket camera with grainy 400 speed film and no flash. Chances are pretty good you're not going to be ready with a Hasselblad with a lens the size of your leg and high-resolution infrared film. As a result, the photo/video you end up with is going to be poorly exposed, grainy, red-shifted way out of focus or some other such thing. Pretty much what you see out there.

And digital cameras are the worst. Aside from the lousy resolution, in low light most have terrrible auto shutter speeds that you can almost measure on a freakin calendar.

These UFO things don't show up on any kind of schedule, and may not actually exist the same way we do. But that doesn't mean these things aren't "real," and their existence is completely independent of the fact that people don't usually take good photos of them.

As for hoaxing, do you really think it's that easy? Try it. Create a good hoax video that has us all convinced, let it linger for a couple of years, then let us know it was you and how you did it. I doubt that you'll be able to create something that even mildly catches our attention. Ninety-nine percent of us will spot it instantly as a fake. Of course, there will always be the one percent who will believe any grainy, dark video of a balloon with a candle on it is conclusive proof of ET incursion into our world. But those people are idiots, anyway.

Love to see what you come up with!


[edit on 15-2-2007 by SuicideVirus]



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lexion
Originally posted by Samblack




Please provide some evidence on those statements.
99% ? Please.
Anything to back this up, will be welcome.

Thanks,
Lex

[edit on 15-2-2007 by Lexion]

If we're talking about the videos on YouTube frequently linked to by ATS posters, I think 99% is low. They fall into four general and partially overlapping categories


  1. gross misidentification
  2. deliberate hoaxes
  3. quality so poor that it could be anything.
  4. no provenance.

I occasionally see an exception, but not often.

However, there is a bias here. Most of what surfaces on the internet is froth, noise and hyperbole. That needs to be filtered out. More on what kinds of filters are likely to work best in a later post.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   
I've seen alot of great videos on the net of UFOs and aliens. But never something I can call definitive proof. The truth is, even if there was some solid evidence of video or audio most would deny it's authenticity. Especially with easy access to computers today, anyone can create a "decent" hoax. That's the whole problem with our technological advancements, it makes it harder to believe what you are seeing. This is also unfortunatly an unattackable stance of debunkers. They can call it a CG hoax and there is no way to disprove thier stance. Computers are truly a double edged sword for the UFO researcher.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 03:02 AM
link   
You might as well take all of the anonymous videos and photos and instantly dump them in the trash. They're below completely useless.

Anonymity is fine on places like this board, where it's mostly opinion and sniping. But nobody should accept a UFO photo or video without there being at least some chance of tracing it back to a source who is a real person. And I don't mean "Hector Gonzales" from Mexico.

Anonymous = Forget it.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Eh, there are a lot of hoax out there, but there are just as many authentic videos as well. The one with the two lights over Lake Erie for instance.

Allred5923 makes a really good point. How coincidental could it be that two or more people have gotten the same event on tape in different locations? I'm sure if buildings or something are in the film, you could look at the two films and see if the angles in which the target was filmed match up or not. But, how can that be fake?

Royal76 made a great point as well! Maybe one certain species likes to examine us humans.

Most of the tapes are of the same type of incidents, yes. I believe the only explanation for this is that, well, they stay high in the sky so the only way we can get them on film is to film them while they are up there in the sky. We haven't caught any walking the Earth so we can't really get any different footage.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Samblack
I've seen "many" video's of suppossed UFO footage but what urk's me is that it's all the same.

Most somewhat credible footage is usally filmed at night showing light's from a far distance.The light's wich usually are grouped and flash on and off for a short period of time,basically it look's like a bunch of star's that are grouped together.This type of footage can be easily hoaxed because it's filmed at night and has no detail.

90% of the suppossed UFO footage that is filmed during the day last's just a few second's usually consisting of an object that appear's and then suddenly takes of at a ridiculous speed as if it know's it's being filmed.Why does it alway's speed away after a few second's?This type of footage is filmed during the day,that's why most of the footage last's a few second's so it cant be analyzed that well.

I believe in UFO's but I'm sick of all the Hoax video's that are out there.In today's age of CGI technology and computer editing I'm sorry to say that 99% of the video's cannot be real.Considering that a vast majority of adult's have a cell phone that can either take pictures or record video there would be more footage of certain event's.

[edit on 15-2-2007 by Samblack]

[edit on 15-2-2007 by Samblack]

[edit on 15-2-2007 by Samblack]


THIS is GOOD thinking. You are being objective. BUT... it is getting closer and closer to where the "anomoly" MUST be admitted.

You say "all UFO vids look the same"

So do all vids of F16s
of F18s
of 747s
of the ISS (ever note you NEVER see the whole thing? hmmm)

Perhaps they look the same BECAUSE ...

These craft are ALL of the SAME FLEET.

If you are among a battallion of US Army GRUNTS you are probably NOT going to run into that many SQUIDS, no?

If you are at a FOOTBALL game, you are probably not going to see much tennis on the field that day, no?

If you are at a STRIPCLUB it is probably safe to say the people would NOT stop and sing "praise to Jesus", no?

See what I mean?

Just a thought. Keep the open mind... but let's get real. If they all look like the same or similar craft... then we may have ONE FLEET

Now...

I will point out AGAIN...

When an individual or a SMALL group of people has a sighting... there's DAMNED good chanc they had an abduction event that night.

Ask the RIGHT questions.

We are getting caught up in "pretty lights".

The SAME way, mind you, that a DEER does when standing in the middle of the road.

HEY! LOOK OUT FOR THE HEADLIGHTS!!

Respectfully
SP



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southpaw11
Now...

I will point out AGAIN...

When an individual or a SMALL group of people has a sighting... there's DAMNED good chanc they had an abduction event that night.




Do you have a source for that information?

So you meant to say if I had a sighting from a good distance away, there is a (to use your words) "DAMNED good chanc" I was abducted as well?

I seem to be missing something in that argument.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 06:44 AM
link   
You are an avaerage guy out driving down a rural road one evening. Theres no streetlights and the skies are pretty and clear with the stars shining brightly.

All of a sudden a bright light appears above a field about half a mile off to your right ahead and you realise that there is an object there.

So you stop the vehicle and wind the window down and you are suprised to hear no sound whatsoever. The light subsides somewhat and you realise that its mounted on the underside of a triangular shaped object, about 300ft across that is just sitting there, breaking all the laws of physics that you can comprehend.

Now bear in mind that you are an average guy. You haven't got the latest pentax/nikon high resolution camera to hand right next to you, you have a cellphone with a camera on it that barely takes decent photos of things even when the subject is posing perfectly still in broad daylight. Any picture you take of that object is going to look like a bright light in the distance against a dark background. I'd put a large amount of money on the fact that, as the enormity of what you are seeing sinks in you will, after a few seconds of initial jaw dropping shock be pant-wettingly terrified and fairly eager to get the hell out of the way just incase this particular craft is occupied by creatures who see you as no better than you view a lab rat.

I guess what I'm trying to say above is that the person who presents a perfectly framed, well lit and gorgeous photo of a UFO is more probably the faker because those things take time to set up and compose and - although I think one in every couple of hundered thousand people wouldn't be scared stupid by seeing such a thing - the majority of us would just be getting out of the way.

I think thats a better explanation of why UFO images and videos are so rare and so poorly composed, rather than dismissing 99% of them as fakes. Yes there are fakes out there, and yes they cloud the issue, but please don't discount the human condition in all this.

[edit on 16/0207/07 by neformore]

[edit on 16/0207/07 by neformore]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Neformore,

Two things:

1) That was one of THE best written and articulate posts I have ever read, very very well done! So, I am voting you the WATS award for the month...seriously, outstanding and thanks for the post.

2) Could you please send me a link to your avatar, equally outstanding, who is it?



Peace to you, and please keep it up! Mondo



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   
What strikes me is that most of the footage is caught from a distance - ok, I understand that you might be looking at the skies and see a strange object and begin taping it.

But here is what puzzles me - isn't that same object directly overhead someone somewhere!! So if a huge object is seen from a distance - does it not make sense that it would be even more imposing hovering directly over some area - we never see those shots!!



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mechanic 32

Originally posted by Southpaw11
Now...

I will point out AGAIN...

When an individual or a SMALL group of people has a sighting... there's DAMNED good chanc they had an abduction event that night.




Do you have a source for that information?

So you meant to say if I had a sighting from a good distance away, there is a (to use your words) "DAMNED good chanc" I was abducted as well?

I seem to be missing something in that argument.


YES. If you were ALONE or with one or two other folks... sure.

Ask yourself.

did you wake at about 0300 or 0400 that night?

any marks, bruises, punctures on your body the next day?

any vivid "lifelike" dreams that night?

do you remember the SCENT or ODOR in the dreams?

If so, you just proved your own case. YOU won't smell ANYTHING in your dreams.

was there the scent of sulfur in the house next morning?

wake up in the wrong bed?

sounds on the roof at about 3am?

all that... YES. you MAY very well have had an event if YOU are the only one seeing that anomoly.

Interesting concept, no? They give you a "diversion" to focus on... "pretty lights"... so the "meat"... the abduction itself... remains masked and out of mind...

My source:
281.893.1666. ask for Derrel. He's got ALL the evidence. He can talk to you about mass abductions, about symptoms, signs, etc.

www.alienhunter.org if you want to review him online first. Don't get freaked by the "hypnosis" stuff... it's NOT backalley voodoo... and he's got more than 2000 case files to prove it.

If you answer the questions I posted in here... and find results that "concern" you... He will be able to help.

SPout.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by howtrue88
What strikes me is that most of the footage is caught from a distance - ok, I understand that you might be looking at the skies and see a strange object and begin taping it.

But here is what puzzles me - isn't that same object directly overhead someone somewhere!! So if a huge object is seen from a distance - does it not make sense that it would be even more imposing hovering directly over some area - we never see those shots!!



What if the "visible frequency" is channelled... controlled... altered... whatever ... so that ONLY the intended parties see the anomoly?

Superior technology implies concepts BEYOND our grasp, no? Might even appear "supernatural" to us simple cavemen ... uggajugga!

In other words.... what if the anomoly can be made visible to SELECTED individuals if so desired? Now THAT would create a MESS, no?

Hence...

ATS.

We are here to sort through the BS and find the truth.

Just a thought...



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   
I see what you are saying howtrue88, someone has got to be near these things, even right underneath. Maybe its related to all the sightings with no radar image, at some views or angles due to a technology we just don't understand, its just not visible?



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   
This has always baffled me too - personally, Ive seen a couple of discs at close range (50 ft.) but I didn't have equipment with me - but the fact that I did see these objects at such close range forces me to think somebody would have got a pic or video of one close up by now. My only explanation for this has been that the energy disbursed by these things may only allow the equipment to work at a distance? For certain, when I saw these things up close they disturb the environment drastically - animals don't want NOTHING to do with them and they flee at high speed!



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join