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.

 

Will The Real Footage Please Stand Up

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   
With the advent of CGI and Photoshop can ANY Ufo documentation be taken seriously?It seems to me that these new technologies are a hoaxers dream making even AUTHENTIC evidence questionable.Can the experts even tell the difference?




posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   
From the countless arguments available on this site, I'd say it's becoming incredibly difficult. There are two sides now: one side theorizes that if an object can be replicated in CGI, it was most likely created in a modeling program. The other side accuses the first of their unwillingness to "believe", and (accurately) point out that if "the real deal" showed up, the first side would still laugh it off.

I'm only bothered that somewhere, someone is laughing very hard at these two sides. I want to find out who they are.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
My view is none of them are real. Especially all the blurry lights in the distance on some night time videos. I think if a race was advanced enough to make it here they would be advanced enough to completely mask their presence, not drive around at night with their lights left on, lol.

For that matter, why would an alien ship really need to leave orbit to study us? Why take the risk? Even with our primitive technology we can eavesdrop on damn near anything and take high def pictures from space, imagine what they can do. What advantage does it give them to enter the atmosphere? Especially when you see reports saying the "thing was so big it blotted out the entire noight sky, must have been 3 miles wide" So, taking a 3 mile wide ship 1/2 mile from the earths surface over a city area does what for them?

My view is if we don't have real videos by now by the hundreds we wont ever anytime soon. I mean, you can't walk down the street without getting filmed from 8 different angles, but millions of people a year see UFOs and all we get are blurry pics and questionable videos? At least now days the fake are more entertaining, not the the cheesy hubcap on a string people used to convince themselves were real.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xfile
Can the experts even tell the difference?


Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't, depending on the number of errors left out in a CG image. Note that similarities of real and CG images don't matter, its the errors left out by the artist which help uncovering the fraud.

So suppose you can make a CG image which resembles a real one 100%, it says nothing about the CG image, no amount of argument is going to settle it, but if you make a CG image and leave a few errors/artifacts, which can be reproduced easily by many, you have conclusive proof that the image was CG.

Anyway, I usually bypass the CG point and rely on other things associated with the sightings, such as whether there are multiple reports or whether it is published in newspapers or whether the person reporting it is anonymous etc etc.

An image, however genuine it looks, is never an evidence and never was.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Every time this subject comes up I say the same thing. If a real event were to occur, it could be photographed and videotaped by multiple people from multiple angles.

This would lead credibility to a story as it would be very difficult for multiple people to fake something from multiple angles etc....

If enough people witness something... yeah the evidence will be there.


And yes, CGI etc does make it pretty hard to tell these days....

As for the experts... well yes and no. Many images can be explained by really looking at them... but others may simply be too vague.

Its a battle.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   
The CGI stuff, a lot of it... it just looks too artistic somehow. With the Caret stuff and now the Haiti stuff... if I didn't know better I'd say it was produced by the same 'stable'. There's just something about the direction that is very similar.

I fully believe it is computer generated and I look forward to the day that someone finally owns up to it!



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Well, if looking past page 1 of this posting area, then perhaps you will find something, but then again it is an older picture (actually 2 pictures) also analyzed and presented this weekend in Denver with a scupture model being built showing I guess what they preceive as the model these two photographs show.

Of course, lights up in the sky really do not mean much, if a zoom or a photo enlarging lens is not used.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The eyes can be deceived, but then that is where expertise comes in if the photos warrant even being looked at. At one time it was thought that about 10% of the UFO cases can not be explained - as of yet - according to the skeptics -- and not at all -- according to others who set out to prove that these photos were first of all a hoax, only to end up saying that as far as they are concerned -- it is proof that flying disks were in the skys, and the photos are not a hoax. (about May 11th, 1950 and photos shown on June 8th, 1950 or so.)

??




[edit on 8/10/2007 by AmoebaSized]



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Lights in the distance will always be lights in the distance. They are really nothing more than curiosities.

As for the coming fact that eventually, you will be able to create photorealistic images via computer, UFOs will require multiple relaible witnesses and physical evidence. Anonymous youtube clips are not physical evidence.

Now, if you had a few dozen relaible people see something, with mutiple cameras on mutliple angles showing the same thing, and maybe some physical damage left behind, that is evidence. But a 20 second teaser isn't, never has been, never will be. It's no different that people throwing hubcaps into the sair.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   
But perhaps we should consider this;

In an age when everything can be fabricated, what constitutes solid evidence anymore?

Before I came into the US, the embassy asked for proof of relationship to my mother, who had helped facilitate the process. Unfortunately, she had been away for most of my childhood; the only thing my siblings and I had was a reprinted scan of the only photograph we had, which showed my entire nuclear family (mother, father, siblings, self) together. Although this was five or six years ago, and our third-world nation generally lacked the means, we were informed that the embassy could not accept the scan, as it could have been fabricated. It was suggested that we do an (expensive) DNA test.

What little trust that's left in the world is being hoarded by increasingly narrow-minded individuals. The fear and the skepticism is understood, in light of what has surfaced in the world recently. But should it be this way?



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I feel that real, authentic, "strange" UFOs are extremely rare and only a small number of people have an encounter with them. I'm talking about maybe less than a half-dozen encounters a year on the whole planet.

That would mean that well over 99 percent of the videos or photos you see are likely something ordinary like an airplane or a reflection of house or car lights, seen unusual atmospheric circumstances, or fakes.

The remaining number are Unidentified. Meaning just that. Nobody knows what the hell they are. You can hypothesize and speculate all you want about alien saucers or ghosts or witches on broomsticks, but without additional positive evidence, that's all it is. Speculation.

At this point in time, and regardless what some people may believe, we have no proof of life anywhere other than here on Earth, nor do we have proof that alien life is visiting Earth. If you think otherwise, you are sadly misinformed.

[edit on 11-8-2007 by SuicideVirus]



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Oh, I think the Trent UO is something that qualifies as something not being able to be built on this Planet. Even if secrets were being done, this world verily had at the most - a rocket engine after WWII. Whatever it is in that photo is not going to fly without wings and a power plant, and it seems the power plant is underneath the UO and of something that is bronze color while the top was not as shiny as a alumium hubcab (baby moon) and brighter than the water tank also shown in the photo at that farm. Since scientists are still working on plasma and that is difficult, there is nothing electrostatic, electrogravitic, or anything this Planet seems to have, and especially at the time to power that disk which is moving in those two pictures. So although I can say, it is not proof and I do not have to believe it, I still have to admit -- there is nothing on this Planet at that time to have powered that object in that picture. Just because it appears darker in the 40X blow-ups of the object, does not mean that if those photos were in color it would make it any more interesting.
Not at that time back in 1950. Jets were just starting I think to be made.



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Oh by the way, has anyone seen these pics before

www.ufocasebook.com...
www.ufocasebook.com...
www.ufocasebook.com...
www.ufocasebook.com...
www.ufocasebook.com...
www.ufocasebook.com...
www.ufocasebook.com...

They seem to good to be true in my opinion but apparently the pictures were taken by 4 seperate people who didnt know each other



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Personally I think most of it a crock.....

No way should a couple of photos be acceptable proof.

Even as far back as WW2, reconnaissance aircraft were taking photos and military threat assessments and plans made. Who knows what they were really filming. We are now aware of all the dummy tanks and towns the the Brits built to fool the Nazis. So in short you can't be sure that what you are filming really is what you think it is and that is with a discernible object. Any artifacts are really irrelevant...yet here on ATS some people are sold on UFO fleets etc by barely discernible "objects". OK they may be UFOs in any real "unidentifiable" sense but to claim intelligently manufactured / piloted craft is a joke.

Then we have human eyewitness accounts. Well we only have to look at the perpetrators of a crime and see how varied eyewitness accounts can be. Sometimes the arrested perp looks nothing like the witness statement (although perhaps that's over zealous corrupt officers :lol
. Plus humans are liars and practical jokers. I trust none of them.

I will not be convinced because someone says so, or because there is a pretty picture. I believe you need "evidence" from more than one source and from more than one type.

Imagine a scenario where an "Unidentified Object" was seen and filmed from varying close and far distances by digital and film cameras and video. Unusual sounds and commentary also recorded by multiple sources.
All these and other eyewitness statements correlated. Better still if there is multiple radar evidence. Even better physical ground evidence should it be a "lander". Chuck into the mix affects on equipment or any meter readings from measuring gear.

Now that is a situation where I would be getting closer to taking notice that this isn't just delusional, wishful nonesense. Maybe my burden of proof is higher but I won't be flagging "Thai Lanterns" or seagulls as alien invasion fleets.

That there is something going on I am sure. Rendlesham..maybe...but that big black triangle Nick Pope was on about has me wondering..and by all accounts the US too!!

Maybe it would be a valid exercise to work out acceptable criteria for usable evidence. There again perhaps not. I am not aware of "any" sighting that would reach any decent standard...and that would give this forum nothing to discuss



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xfile
With the advent of CGI and Photoshop can ANY Ufo documentation be taken seriously?It seems to me that these new technologies are a hoaxers dream making even AUTHENTIC evidence questionable.Can the experts even tell the difference?
If they have access to the original, I think that the answer is "Yes".

What is difficult is to try to see if a small 320x240 FLV video highly compressed posted on YouTube or bad JPEG copy of a photo are real.

Give the original video or photo (original photo, negative or file from the camera card) to an expert and they may have the tools to say if it is a real video/photo or if it was created or altered in any way.



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

Originally posted by rocksolidbrain

Originally posted by Xfile
Can the experts even tell the difference?


Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't, depending on the number of errors left out in a CG image. Note that similarities of real and CG images don't matter, its the errors left out by the artist which help uncovering the fraud.

So suppose you can make a CG image which resembles a real one 100%, it says nothing about the CG image, no amount of argument is going to settle it, but if you make a CG image and leave a few errors/artifacts, which can be reproduced easily by many, you have conclusive proof that the image was CG.

Anyway, I usually bypass the CG point and rely on other things associated with the sightings, such as whether there are multiple reports or whether it is published in newspapers or whether the person reporting it is anonymous etc etc.

An image, however genuine it looks, is never an evidence and never was.
Thanks for that tip Rocksolid!As i confess to the fact that i have trouble weeding out the fakes that other more able people here are able to identify.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dulcimer
Every time this subject comes up I say the same thing. If a real event were to occur, it could be photographed and videotaped by multiple people from multiple angles.

This would lead credibility to a story as it would be very difficult for multiple people to fake something from multiple angles etc....

If enough people witness something... yeah the evidence will be there.


And yes, CGI etc does make it pretty hard to tell these days....

As for the experts... well yes and no. Many images can be explained by really looking at them... but others may simply be too vague.

Its a battle.
I see your point Dulcimer but doesnt that limit the evidence to ONLY those that were able to be seen and photographed"en mass"?




top topics



 
0

log in

join