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.

 

The Endless "It's CGI!", "No, it's Not!" Debate

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I know it's been suggested here before, but I think it might be a good idea to take all these unattributed videos or photos, where the only debate is about whether or not they could be CGI, and shove them all into their very own consolidated thread or forum. Then people can compete to has the biggest CGI wiener to their hearts content without it clogging up the rest of the forum.

To reiterate my opinion, it doesn't matter if it's CGI or not if it's unattributed or comes from an anonymous source. Yes, it could even be actual footage of alien beings, but if it comes from an unknown source, it has no more value than somebody throwing a salad bowl into the air and taking a photo, because nothing is proven as a result.

"I'm an expert and I can tell you it's CGI."
"Well, I'm an even bigger expert and it's not!"
"Sez you!"
"Yeah, sez me!"

Whatever. It doesn't matter if we don't know where it came from. At that point, the discussion moves out of the realm of UFOs and Aliens and into the realm of what's possible or not with computer graphics.

Just a suggestion.




posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I'm with you Sui. Not only is the issue nver settled, the points raised become so arcane that no one who is relatively uninterested in the debate can follow along. Given the tone and content of this debate, I'm not convinced that the experts are. Once you resort to the argument that, "Well, I'm an expert and I can SEE the difference where you're not an expert, therefore you CAN'T see these differences only I see, then you've lost me. If you can't explain, in plain terms, what the differences are, then I maintain there are none. You can claim you have implants and that you talk to aliens every day in your head, too. It's at the same level.

Besides which, as you point out, the entire issue is academic without supporting evidence. Pictures, movies, etc. don't count for much these days unless you have a lot more non-picture evidence along with it. I would even go so far as to say pictures are not primary evidence these days, they only corraborate other issues.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Sounds good to me.

And, to be honest, I go with my
first gut-instinct.

If it looks fake, I discard it.

If it catches my attention, I'll
watch it again. And again until
I either discard it, or put it in
the "maybe" file.

Great post.

Regards,
Lex



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
This is exactly what puts me off the UFO forum.

Rather than taking the image for what it is and trying to come up with a possible reason for it, threads get bogged down in a multitude of armchair Photoshop "experts", who, once they have manipulate an image so much, declare it as a fake.

I highly doubt that even if they themselves took a picture, they would accept it as such and probably debunk it themselves, just to get in on the whole Photoshop wang-measuring crowd.

Just because you know how to use photoshop, that does not an image specialist make.

Of course, if it is fake, them list your reasons in clear and concise ways. Just claiming it as so hardly adds any value to the debate.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Count me in. There is more than one thread that I've abandoned here on ATS when, after heartily debating myriad merits or weaknesses, the thread self-destructs on the CGI-bravado issue.

This was classic:


by Stu
I highly doubt that even if they themselves took a picture, they would accept it as such and probably debunk it themselves, just to get in on the whole Photoshop wang-measuring crowd.


"Photoshop wang-measuring crowd" OMG - I'm still wiping tears from my eyes...


But... what an accurate statement - some of these guys would debunk their own photos as CGI just to be the CGI Topper! Stepping on their own CG-wangs is more like it.

Anyway - there sure are a lot of other variables that deserve our collective scrutiny and discussion regarding many of these topics. Why is it that the photoshoppers always hijack the threads and thereby ruin a healthy discourse for everyone else?

Well - that was fun. What can be done about it? Not much, me thinks...



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Outrageo
Stepping on their own CG-wangs is more like it.


Giving them WAY too much credit, IMO. You can't step on it if you can't find it.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   
yeah tha'd be cool.. but what your voice ultimately teaches us here is that we cannot trust any alien video unless we know its source.. which for all videos I have seen posted here we have no source.. (I hope someone proves me wrong cuz thats sad).



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 03:58 AM
link   
STOP USING YOUTUBE AND LEAKVID OR WHAT EVER AND SHOW ME HARD, DIVX VIDEOS THAT LAST OVER 30 SECONDS AND MAYBE ILL PAY ATTENTION. SELL IT TO THE NEWS AND OR SOME .




[Mod Edit: Please see The use of All Caps and Terms And Conditions Of Use section 1b) Profanity. Thank you - Jak]

[edit on 11/8/07 by JAK]



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 04:00 AM
link   
1 PICTURE HERE
1 PICTURE THERE

20 SECONDS HERE
20 SECONDS THERE


People, if you saw something real, it would last longer, and you have taken more photos!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 11-8-2007 by weknowyouknow]

[edit on 11-8-2007 by weknowyouknow]



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 04:01 AM
link   
If the bible was 30 "pages" long, would you believe it?



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 04:17 AM
link   
for a start any sensible person who caught a clear ufo on film would not just upload it to youtube anonymously and leave everyone to debate whether it was CGI or not.

They would be phoning tv/newspapers/politicians/nasa/ESA & Video experts to authenticate the film and present it at a mankind changing press conference. Or maybe thats just me?

[edit on 11-8-2007 by yeti101]



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Weknowyouknow, couldn't you have put that all in one post? You can edit and add on. It just makes the thread easier to read.

Anyway, on topic.
Most of us come to ATS looking for information, or a better word, truth.
I would love to see a real extra-terrestrial craft captured on film for the world to see. When I see a video posted on ATS I want to see people make sure it is truth.
When people see what they believe is a hoax and show why, that is Denying Ignorance. This includes showing how a video clip could be fabricated using computers. Denying ignorance is the site's motto something we should all strive to do.

If a video is reasonably believed to be CGI, of coarse it should be discussed in that thread. It is on topic.

If this is posted and being claimed to be truth should it not be discussed then and there that it is fabricated with computers?

[edit on 11/8/2007 by Umbrax]



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Why not go to your local library and get books on photoshop and 3d software apps. Maybe even learn it for yourself.Then you too can participate in a much broader sence within the threads. We no longer live in a world where a camera uses actual film, it goes straight to disk or cd or removable media. Someone shouldn't have to lay it out to you in "laymans" terms, because in alot of cases(especially 3d) you cant, it uses terms that are not from a normal persons vocabulary. Do you know what HDRI,GI,SSS,Diffuse,ambience,specular,bump mapping,normal mapping,Sub-polygon displacement, Nurbs,ect even reference? Do you know the difference between scanline and ray traced renders are? Can you tell VRAY from Renderman, or Brazil, or Final render? If not, how can you disscuss cgi(or something not being cgi)? I think pushing an agenda for aliens while looking past the evidence(none so far except statistics on the probability of life outside earth) is not denying ignorance in any way. With so many die hard belivers, I think becoming a hoaxer for money making is looking better all the time. I would try it myself, but I think I would be kicked off for doing it if I was ever found out.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by weknowyouknow
If the bible was 30 "pages" long, would you believe it?


The bible is ~700 pages and I still don't believe it.

[edit on 11-8-2007 by danx]



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Well I agree about the whole cgi vs non-cgi debate is useless. Mostly because those that want to believe so badly and know nothing about modern cg software don't really understand how simple it is for an advanced video hobbiest to create such a thing.

But your right, all involved miss the whole point. Come on, "disclosure" and real evidence is not going to come from an anonymous poster on youtube or some crap. So without more knowledge about the witnesses themselves ALL videos are a waste of time.

And then there are the nuts that are so caught up "analyzing" the video they never stop to use their common sense about what the video is depicting in the first place. Like the latest one where ufos are buzzing the beach. Yeah right, an advanced alien race reaches earth and.....buzzes the beach in some third would country? Why? Whats the point?



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Umbrax, Lord...

I fully agree - CGI is definitely part of most of these discussions, as well they should be. A film clip or still photo is many times all we have to go on.

Yet, the OP makes a valid point: what we are referring to here is not simply reaching a determinant: whether a visual medium is computer-generated or not. It is the "beating of the dead horse" syndrome that we tire of. Once we have accepted that a given shot is CGI, it seems that many arm-chair CGI-pros, "experts", and a small army of vocational CGI-wannabes then want to continue arguing with each other ad nauseum about which one of them knows more intricacy about the CGI-filed than the other.

Yes, discussing CGI has merit. But once we've all agreed an item is cgi, can't we move on? The drones threads is a perfect case-in-point. Nearly everyone participating has accepted the CGI argument, most believe the drones to be a hoax. Then, every once in a while, some new guy jumps in who hasn't read the previous posts proclaiming that he/she thinks the crafts may be real. Immediately, the CGI-fanatics then pounce all over each other trying to "top" one another with "proof".

You see - we don't mind discussing CGI - in fact, we readily accept it as a vital tool in our arsenal of investigation. What we are expressing some frustration over is "ATTITUDE" - the 'holier-than-thou', 'better-than-all-of-you', 'you-fools-don't know-squat' degradation of the thread when the CGIers, once again, start their disrespectful rants.

I've worked with computer graphics all my life - 23 years professionally, yet I immediately run for the hills when the screaming starts. What does that add to our knowledge. How is that sharing, denying ignorance for all to benefit?

Some of these CGI-pundits are clearly young, immature, self-centered, and just lack armloads of people skills. Too much time in front of the screen battling figments of someone else's imagination, I guess.

We would simply like to argue other merits of a given case, in a civil, polite, mutually respectful, mutually beneficial manner without having the discussion disintegrate into CGI pissing matches every few pages or so.

Ok - I'm off the soap box... thanks to the OP for at least shining a little rayvision-illumination on the topic.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I think this kitty is CGI........

files.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 11-8-2007 by darkheartrising]



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
But your right, all involved miss the whole point. Come on, "disclosure" and real evidence is not going to come from an anonymous poster on youtube or some crap. So without more knowledge about the witnesses themselves ALL videos are a waste of time.


It's been my belief that this statement is about 99% correct. At least use a chain of trust through someone whose honesty and integrity is believable.

Truth can be stranger than fiction at times. Even real photos can have some odd effects that can be hard to explain. Analysis needs to be approached in many ways with many eyes. Too much belief in one's own beliefs can be trouble.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   
I think that the beautiful thing about truth,is that it is self-evident. If you believe something to be true then believe it. Don't worry about the next person. You have nothing to prove to anyone in this world except yourself. I know UFO's exist because I have seen one. I don't care if anyone else has see one or believes, its does't effect my truth. If someone wants to believe me fine, if not fine, it doesn't change the truth. Sorry, a little of topic but slightly relevant I suppose



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by kleverone
I think that the beautiful thing about truth,is that it is self-evident. If you believe something to be true then believe it. Don't worry about the next person. You have nothing to prove to anyone in this world except yourself.


Yes, I see your point. But believing in something does not make it an actual reality. People believed the earth was flat sheet but it is not. My inability to explain or recognize what something is does not change what it is in fact.




top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join