Madrid news explaining UFOs and CGI

I watched this video from Madrin explaining that videos on the internet of real looking crafts are fake. Apparently they are reasuring people that they are made on computers.

I wonder if there concern growing or hype.



[edit on 18/7/07 by Rhain]

OP, this is interesting. Especially the craft that was show at 33 seconds left on the clock. It is a type not seen before by me.

Would you be so kind as to post this on the CARET/drone thread so that those there can evaluate this development?

And hopefully someone can give an accurate translation to English. I would but my Spanish is mostly of the Texas flavor, and not to be totally relied on.

Edit to add: Never mind, I'll go ahead and post it, giving you the credit for finding this.

[edit on 18-7-2007 by NGC2736]

It looks very very fake to me, CGI without a doubt, plus it looks like a UFO designed by a human

The biggest mistake by all fakers is this:


Why do their crafts move like ours do, THEY DON'T.

They move independantly in their own physics, turns where no Gs exist etc, it's simple these are fake "."

I think of greater importance within this thread, is that the media is constantly pushing out the idea that all UFO sightings are fake.

If as Rhain said, the press creates a campaign to re-assure people that UFO sightings are nothing more than hoaxes, it will be easier to cover up potential real incidents.

Very true i must admit, i don't like the way the subject is ridiculed on national television most of the time, most of the time the reporters will have ti kick in a little joke about little green men or something, but then again there are a lot of people out there making outlandish claims and putting out hoaxes to the press, the dark side of Ufology! It's really going to take a mass sighting of some kind, during the day for anyone in the mainstream to take it serious.

Originally posted by SimonGray
I think of greater importance within this thread, is that the media is constantly pushing out the idea that all UFO sightings are fake.

If as Rhain said, the press creates a campaign to re-assure people that UFO sightings are nothing more than hoaxes, it will be easier to cover up potential real incidents.

True, but we should not forget that the majority of reports is indeed fake. I dont think any news agency wants to fall in the fake ufo trap, and loose credibility. I dont think what they showed is something negative, it shows what is possible today with software and a camera, and we should be aware of that.

Originally posted by SimonGray

it will be easier to cover up potential real incidents.

Are you saying there ARE real incidents of the clarity of the
Chad/Drone hoaxes ?

Or, saying they are calling all UFO pics/vids hoaxes ?

There are plenty of unexplained pics/vids for our viewing
pleasure.

Sadly, those of the quality of the Chad/Drone pics are obviously
(IMO) hoaxed.

I would LOVE to see our "black project" airframes presented
like this, but it ain't gonna happen.

Regards,
Lex

I don't mean to be SimonGrey's attorney, but I think he said that they're trying to say ALL UFO pics/vids are hoaxes, that there's been no 'real' UFO activity at all.

And under those circumstances, it would be rather easy to cover-up any possible 'real' UFO incident, should it happen.







[edit on 23-7-2007 by Duby78]

Originally posted by Lexion

Sadly, those of the quality of the Chad/Drone pics are obviously
(IMO) hoaxed.

Regards,
Lex

The thing is, it's like the old Memorex commercials where the glass shatters. The current state of CGI is such that anything can be faked. And because it can be done, we cynical humans assume that all of the clear pictures are.

If we got a picture in tomorrow that was clear, and NOT a drone, most people here would assume it was fake, no matter who posted it. And one of the many CGI artist would be able to duplicate it, simply because the technology is that good, which would be "proof" to many that it was fake.

This is like saying that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK just because a trained sniper could, under the right conditions, and with no pressure or nerves, hit such a target three times in a row from that distance in that space of time. Just because something can be done a certain way is not proof that it was done that way.

And the cry I hear is why don't people give their personal info up when they have such pictures? Would you really want to subject yourself to all the attention and outright name calling that would go with such a public disclosure? Would you want your kids to hear at school that you were a (insert childish name calling) and faked a photo of a UFO, because they heard their parents say it "must have been faked because it's so clear that it must be CGI"?

What would be the payoff for all of this? If you tried to make something positive out of it and wrote a book, even if it sold well, you would still be called a profiteer. How many times do we here get down on somebody just because they sell something related to an experience? Yet, that is the American way, sell what you have that's unique.

The UFO community needs to find a way past the hypocritical way that we react to such things. We brand everything a hoax, and those involved as opportunists, and yet we want proof. But we set the standard for proof so high, that it is nearly impossible for anyone to deliver. And when someone tries, and fails to live up to what we want, we run them through the grinder.

It seems like, with the current climate in UFO study, that we're doing a fine job for the government, or NWO-Illuminatti-whoever, of keeping any truth that may surface from ever being known. And we feel good about doing this.

Don't misunderstand me, I DO NOT want to give the hoaxers a free pass. But I sure would like to see a more open climate to reporting whatever needs be reported, without scaring people into silence.

Edit for spelling---NGC2736

[edit on 23-7-2007 by NGC2736]

Originally posted by NGC2736

The UFO community needs to find a way past the hypocritical way that we react to such things. We brand everything a hoax, and those involved as opportunists, and yet we want proof. But we set the standard for proof so high, that it is nearly impossible for anyone to deliver. And when someone tries, and fails to live up to what we want, we run them through the grinder.

It seems like, with the current climate in UFO study, that we're doing a fine job for the government, or NWO-Illuminatti-whoever, of keeping any truth that may surface from ever being known. And we feel good about doing this.

An excellent post, NGC2736, particular the quoted bit above. Far, far too many people dismissing photos/vids/testimony without even bothering to check whether there might be any truth behind the claims.

The present attitude seems to be:
Video too clear... obviously fake ...
Video too blurred... obviously faked/useless
Photo too clear... obviously fake
Photo too blurred... obviously fake/useless

Person saw UFO ... No they didn't... They saw clouds/venus/birds/planes/insects/floaters on their eyeballs/nothing & they are lying
Person... 'Hang on mate, I was there and know what I saw!'
Skeptic... I know better.

It's a brave person that sticks their head over the UFO parapet nowadays

NGC,
Much respect, and thanks for the reply.

If I took a picture of this quality, would I go public ?

Damn straight, I would. Maybe I'm in a minority
by saying that, but that's how I am.

I'd turn over whatever media I used to take the
photo/video to a trusted source (J. Ritzman comes
to mind), give any and all information that I
deemed pertinent to the situation.

But, what are the odds of that happening.

BTW, I do carry a digital camera and cell phone at
all times.

Regards,
Lex

Thanks all, for noting my mini-rant. I want evidence, real evidence as much as anyone. I want to feel the material, in my hand, that crossed the stars. I understand the frustration of those who want to believe, but cannot without ironclad proof.

I cannot see a way past the point we are now at, and this point excludes almost everything. As someone who wants to die knowing that even though I am too old for the stars, they will be there for my grandchildren, I want to find a way not to ignore the truth while screening out the lies.

I am not so jaded, myself, that I will dismiss everything unless it is proved beyond any doubt, (and when is such a thing possible?). Call me a dreamer, or a believer, but I am here just as you are. And if we were not all dreamers and believers at heart, we would not seek the truth so hard. We don't want to be deceived, hoaxed, but we want to know that what there is here on this ball of mud is not all there is. I will not accept lies, but I will also not let my heart become so cold that I cannot hope for a new truth.

Maybe we need to give more thought to what can see with an open mind, with less prejudice, and try to perceive the workings of the cosmos with the eyes of a child. Not an ignorant child, but at the least one who is open to all the possibilities that may lay just beyond what we think we know.

We are children of the Universe, and we cannot be sure that what we know is all there is to know.

Lex, I respect you for the stalwart heart that you show. You have my wish that an "event" come your way, for you I think would be the strongest to hold your ground.

Originally posted by Paul the seeker
The biggest mistake by all fakers is this:


Why do their crafts move like ours do, THEY DON'T.

They move independantly in their own physics, turns where no Gs exist etc, it's simple these are fake "."

i thought laws of phisics were universal, no?
i don't get your point

NGC, I respectfully beg to differ. I know what's most likely fake and what's most likely not. The CARET bullcrap is straight out of bad early '90s CGI...way too much fake shine on it.

On the other hand, there was a black triangle vid from Canada from about April or so that, to my knowledge, still has no explanation. It unfortunately was overshadowed by this CARET stuff...please stop defending it and let it die a natural death.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
NGC, I respectfully beg to differ. I know what's most likely fake and what's most likely not. The CARET bullcrap is straight out of bad early '90s CGI...way too much fake shine on it.

On the other hand, there was a black triangle vid from Canada from about April or so that, to my knowledge, still has no explanation. It unfortunately was overshadowed by this CARET stuff...please stop defending it and let it die a natural death.

I am not "defending it", as you claim. If you have read my posts, you would know that I have alighted on the side of the fence for this being a hoax; at least as far as the pictures, which is all that has been proved so far.

However, it is not bullcrap to look into things. And despite your vast knowledge and pronouncements of what is and is not, I will look where I damn well please. While you may be comfortable with just knowing the fact that the pictures are CGI, some of us want to know why they were done in the first place when so little was to be gained. Some of us are interested in the reason for such an elaborate hoax.

If you have other sightings/information that you feel is being overshadowed by the CARET debate, then revive the thread and call our attention to it. It could even be the reason for the whole drone hoax, to drown out the real event. That idea would at least make more sense than anything I've heard for a reason so far.

If, for whatever reason, you are uncomfortable with the direction of the various aspects of the drone debate, then just ignore it. But please refrain from ordering others to follow your lead, because some of us really don't take orders well.

Is that first clip of the drone ascending near the house one of saladfingers? I dont recall seeing it before. Maybe I've just lost track of this thing