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.

 

Do We Assume Vids-photos-stories are FAKE or REAL?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   
At ATS, are we to assume that a video, photo, or personal experience
is FAKE until proven REAL, or REAL until proven FAKE?

A lot of ATS members exclaim, "Prove to me it' real!", while other
consistently say, "Prove to me it's fake!". What is the generally
accepted AboveTopSecret standard?

It seems that too many threads die off without a general consensus.
Perhaps an ATS committee of the Wisest and Most Knowlegeable
members could be formed to deliver a final ruling on some of these?

-CareWeMust (Chicago)




posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   
only god gives final rulings.

we generally have 3 groups, ct. otc, and objective. i would say its a 40-40-20 split respectively. i try to be objective and will leave it at that.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   
My personal opinion is that the burden of the "de-proof" is on the debunkers.

That be said, I've seen so many fakes on this forum I don't even bother reading video or photo threads anymore.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I view every video and photo because it only takes a second and i may see a real sighting. I don't believe they are always real but anyone saying it is for sure a hoax has to prove it to me.

I have lived a long life and met many people and no one i have ever met has ever made a hoax video much less a believable one so when i see an elaborate video that is said to be a hoax i always wonder what is the motivation for making the video.

I mean not many will see it and the news won't pick it up so why bother. I think if they are made it is as dis-info or to "muddy" the waters and why do that if there is no merit to alien life.

Accusations always have to be proven.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by carewemust
At ATS, are we to assume that a video, photo, or personal experience
is FAKE until proven REAL, or REAL until proven FAKE?


Neither of the above.


Originally posted by carewemust
A lot of ATS members exclaim, "Prove to me it' real!", while other
consistently say, "Prove to me it's fake!". What is the generally
accepted AboveTopSecret standard?


Better question. It all depends on what you intend to do following acceptance of the reality.

If, having accepted that a sighting is good, all we intend to do is throw a marker on a scorecard: "us 1, sneaky aliens 0", then it makes no difference at all, and if that's all I was here for then I'd hoot with pleasure even if Ghost Raven turned up again. It's all just a light show. Go us!

If on the other hand we're meant to accept an account and act further on it, even if it's just to write to our representatives, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for something more than a simple linear story. Not proof, because it's generally not possible to prove these things, but corroboration: collateral details, circumstances and even apparently unrelated recollections whose combined effect is to strengthen the account.

If, on the third hand (don't stare it's not polite), our ambition is to build a canon of evidence which we can analyse for patterns and use to predict future phenomena, maybe even be present at them (I don't mean this to sound like entrapment, more like an engineered meeting), then we really don't want an evidence base that's polluted with lies or information that's so vague as to be useless, leading us down a million blind alleys.

For the record I'm a third-hand type of chap. Questions are the wind that blows away the chaff. Or so I flatter myself.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   
When you see a Ship land 100 feet away from you, a person has a strong feeling that they might be real indeed...



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Assumption is for loosers. The real way to prove something is to be objective and let the evidence speak for itself. If the claim is true then it should be 'bulletproof' to every debunking attack, which is why I'm often mislabeled as a debunker.


Too bad this place has been _really_ boring the last month or so. There's barely nothing that interests me as of now. =/



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bocephus
When you see a Ship land 100 feet away from you, a person has a strong feeling that they might be real indeed...


That would be a very nice level of proof, indeed. And according to some people, they've been "fortunate" enough to have that happen for them. Not me. I'm still waiting. Maybe it will happen, maybe not. If it does, it'll be the coolest. If it doesn't, then I guess that makes all those other people insane liars.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Ive noticed almost every thing here is labeled hoax.

If the pic is to clear its "cgi", and it seems to be a race with alot of people who can prove it "hoax" one way or another.

But on the other hand I wouldnt want it the other way either, everything is real and such. Its is important to be critical of everything.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
At ATS, are we to assume that a video, photo, or personal experience
is FAKE until proven REAL, or REAL until proven FAKE?


I like to use what I call the 'skeptically open minded scientific' approach.
I don't reject anything in forehand, but I try not jumping to conclusions even if I agree with what's being presented to me.

I have seen, what I believed to be, a UFO and it didn't change my mind about the subject or the way I look at it.

For some people I guess the 'faith' in something is enough. It is not for me. I want evidence. I want to know things.

"It is better not to believe in things for which there is no evidence." -- Bertrand Russell

Personally I think is the best approach. The way we are going to find out these, and other questions about the universe and ourselves, is through science and scientific judgment and research.



A lot of ATS members exclaim, "Prove to me it' real!", while other
consistently say, "Prove to me it's fake!". What is the generally
accepted AboveTopSecret standard?


This kind of argument gets us nowhere. If you don't have enough evidence to say for sure if something is true or not, either try to research and assert it's authenticity, or if you can't - which is usually the case - I don't think you should jump to any conclusion, much less using the arguments 'prove me it's fake'.



Originally posted by jprophet420
only god gives final rulings.

we generally have 3 groups, ct. otc, and objective. i would say its a 40-40-20 split respectively. i try to be objective and will leave it at that.


I'm sorry.. I got a little confused by this. You said you try to be objective and yet claim that 'only god gives final rulings'.
That doesn't sound very 'objective' to me.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Take from them what you will. I've not seen anything yet that will convince me.

I live in hope, sorta cos I know.

Take what you see / read with a pinch of salt. Hoaxes are a fact, but if you've actually seen the real thing - and dismissed it as a hoax. Then at least you can say you've seen the real thing.





[signature edit/removal failed]

[edit on 11-7-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I don’t think it will ever be proven one way or the other in our life time or our grandkids life time. Unfortunately it would seem proof is an individual thing only handed out on a need to know basis. And most certainly does not come in the form of video, photos, or words. I hope I make it on the list before my time is up but I am not going to hold my breath.

I disagree with SuicideVirus In that anyone that thinks they have been given proof is labeled an “Insane Liar” just because they can not prove it to others. Proof is not theirs to give try as they might. I am sure there are plenty of insane liars around but it would be foolish to bet your life on who is and who isn’t. How would you ever really know?



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   
I feel two ways on this issue. I like to ‘go easy’ on people who are telling a story. If they are ‘freaked out’ and hesitant to tell their story, the last thing they need is for people to immediately jump on them and declare a hoax. My reasoning is that if it IS a hoax, the person will trip themselves up pretty quickly. This has happened twice here in the last couple of months. One was Ghost Raven; the other was a fellow who claimed to be a member of a prison gang and had some experiences. Both tripped up within a few days. They both also were ADMITTED HOAXES; there is no middle ground here. They did it on purpose and admitted it. There is no room for ‘believers’ in this scenario.

But this brings up an unfortunate FACT, and that is that ‘we’ as interested parties, are targets. For some reason some people delight in concocting a story and trying to put one over on those who are interested. This is not just ‘government disinformation,’ it is largely comprised of ‘regular’ people who think this behavior is funny or a test of their prowess. Who knows? But we have ample evidence (some above) that this happens on a regular basis. There isn’t room to detail these occurrences, but there is ample evidence in the literature.

The fact that we are targets for hoaxers means we have to practice unusual vigilance. To the question, then: Assume a hoax. Test for it. If the story stands up, let it happen. (Good example: Betty and Barney Hill.)

What I categorically and adamantly reject is this flawed notion that a skeptic must prove a case is NOT true rather than the other way around. Gentlepeople, that is not how science works. You have an hypothesis. You test it. You present it for peer review. If your experiment is replicated successfully, it has a chance to turn into a theory. Maybe at first your theory is rejected, even if it’s correct, but eventually, truth and science will prevail. You will be vindicated. But for those people who take the point of view that “it’s real unless you PROVE to me it’s a fake,” I say: You’re not in the running for the Rational Thought of the Year Award, sweetie. Go get Copi’s “Introduction to Logic” and report back when you understand it. Until then you are on “Ignore.” You are not worth the time it takes to wade through your posts.

Now: how should you proceed? Just a couple of thoughts before this turns into a tome.

First, reject categorical statements. I know, that’s a contradiction like ‘eschew obfuscation’ but here’s the deal. Right now there are statements on ATS that say: “The drones are a viral marketing campaign for Transformers.” And “Dr. Keith is our Isaac hoaxer.” On the first page of Ghost Raven, “This is an obvious hoax.” And on a recent balloon attack: “That craft is under intelligent control.” All complete and utter nonsense. None of those statements are true. (Notice they are on both sides of the issues.) So when people say things like that, you can rest assured they have no idea what they are talking about.

Secondly, become familiar with the literature. Ufology is like any other field. It has a history. Stuff has already happened. You can’t expect to come on here having read nothing and even understand what the issues are. If you haven’t read Timothy Good and Richard Dolan, you have no business lecturing others about government disinformation. If you haven’t read a few books on Roswell, you have no business declaring whether it is fake or real. If you laugh with derision at Hynek’s “swamp gas” explanation for what is truly a pretty good sighting, you don’t know what he actually SAID was taken out of context because you’ve never read the entire quote, have you? I thought not. If you don’t know what George Adamski and Truman Bethurum actually SAID you won’t recognize the commonality of their stories with modern writers such as Greer. If you come on here and start to lecture others about what constitutes UFO evidence, and you don’t know the literature, that’s like a high school drop out purporting to be qualified to remove my appendix. No, thank you. In this case, I’ll trust Greer, not you.

So, my take on all this is to be compassionately skeptical. That’s the safest and most productive approach.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I always question UFO videos. They always seem too low quality to me to take seriously. There are only a handful of UFO videos I've seen that seem remotely real to me, oddly enough though I've seen other UFO believers question those particular films...

The one thing that's never made much sense to me though is the fact that in the past when cameras weren't as common and were of lower quality, there were a ton of photos of UFOs close up and what not. Today, however, most photos seem at a distance... I've never been able to quite grasp why why this is...



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
If it is 100% real then debunking won't work...it is real.

Pictures of flocks of birds as UFO fleets and other comic gems are the reason I have become more and more skeptic about this stuff.

I basically look at all of them as "not proven" until judgement. Yes I would tend to say fake with most but really all are "not proven", as on a personal level how do I prove a fake?

But "not proven" is not the same as "may be real" or "is real". Santa and the tooth fairy are not proven either way but my judgement is they do not exist.

So in conclusion, as I see it, it is not really a question of black and white, fake or real...but a lot of murky grey. None of it is proof of the existence UFO's or Aliens it is all "not proven" until, hopefully, there is proof that I can accept.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Why assume anything? The correct methodology is to ask for the evidence that establishes the authenticity of the image or video. It it is authentic, this shouldn't be difficult (although it is not always best played out on a public forum, mind). You also need authentic supporting data, including as much witness testimony as you can get.

the INTERPRETATION of the video or image is yet another thing. It's only worth doing after authenticity is vouched for. For example, the Lake Erie videos were authentic, but the claims made for their interpretation were completely bogus. They showed planes.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
My personal opinion is that the burden of the "de-proof" is on the debunkers.

That be said, I've seen so many fakes on this forum I don't even bother reading video or photo threads anymore.


I completely disagree with this. What could your rationale for this burden shift possibly be?

There are an infinite number of possible bogus claims. The person making the claim must supply the evidence. A photo or video by itslef is NOT evidence of anything. If you believe that it is evidence, you'll be easy prey for every juvenile hoaxster who comes along.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   
A BIG THANK-YOU!

to everyone who weighed in on the question. I suppose until we have
a major news headline announcing the landing of a UFO, we'll all just
have to approach the vids, stories, photos posted on ATS from our
own personal belief systems. Most threads will have heated discussions
and then slip off of page 1 without a definitive conclusion, unless it's
determined to be a "Hoax". It will be great when the day comes that
a thread is labeled "REAL ET CRAFT" by the ATS admin! Hope its within
our lifetimes.
-cwm



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Here's news footage for you...
keep your eyes to the skies cuz they are there and not always visible...video.google.com...



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Isn't that an edited version of a video created for the sci-fi channel, modified and replayed on an asian language station?




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join