Contemporary CGI + Photoshop = Believable Fakes; Why Increased Government Camera Surveillance?

My introduction to ATS was through the "Chad" UFO controversy. It began with the posting of several curious pictures to the popular website for the popular late night radio talk show Coast To Coast AM with George Noory. Then it grew as sightings and reports of similar, yet more complex, craft began to increase. Which has so far culminated in reports from an "Isaac" who supposedly has first hand knowledge of the genesis, architecture, and manufacture of these intriguing crafts and associated technology. Without getting into details, the three previous links will provide plenty, I have just one question to ask. Before I do that I'd like to bring up a couple of points of general contention that this issue has aroused.

First point of contention: There seems to be three camps surrounding the issues that were initially propagated by "Chad" and "Isaac". Those that are undecided if the craft and technology depicted in the images are real. Those that believe that the craft and technology depicted in the images are real. Those that believe that the craft and technology depicted in the images are not real, and are the result of modern computer generated imaging (CGI) technology such as Maya, 3DMax, Lightwave, and digital imaging enhancement software such as Photoshop. Second point of Contention: That whether real or hoax, we, the general public, are being conditioned as the result of a government or privately funded experiment.

None of these issues have been conclusively resolved here at ATS. But this week there was the tantalizing video footage of, at least, two UFO's in Haiti that was posted to YouTube. This latest tale has been labeled definitively as a hoax here ATS. It appears the result of CGI technology. It seems that those who are taking the time to create such footage are getting better and better at it all the time. That the footage of the UFOs over Haiti is remarkable, it is also rather remarkable that the story didn't live more than a week before being labeled a hoax, unlike the "Chad" and "Isaac" controversies which are still ongoing.

To take a couple of steps backward in order to go forward, it is well known that Britain has become a "surveillance society" partly through the use of unprecedented numbers of CCTV cameras that have been deployed throughout the country. Reportedly 4.2 million CCTV cameras, about 1 for every 14 people, are being used to monitor the British population. Most recently China is reportedly enacting a high-tech plan to track its people. China will use CCTVs and facial recognition software to keep track of its population in major cities. There are, of course, millions of CCTV camera's in use here in the United States. New York City is the latest CCTV poster child even though a project dealing specifically with deploying CCTV cameras in NYC began as early as 1998. Lately the government of NYC is notable for its proposal to limit public filming and photograpy.

[Will be continued in next post.]







[edit on 13-8-2007 by Areal51]

[Continued]

We know that reality TV can be faked, staged. The evidence of the Hatian UFOs show an increased ability among the general public to fake video footage depicting extraordinary events. The "Chad" and "Isaac" controversies show how communities can become divided over unsubstantiated and unverified evidence. The question is:

Why would governments, in the age of CGI software and digital imaging software that can be used by the average Joe to produce astonishingly accurate and believable results, for the purpose of security invest heavily and deploy technology that can be made to fit anyone who uses it?

It doesn't seem logical or practical for governments to use technology for the purposes of security a technology that cannot itself distinguish between real and fabricated events. I have thought many times that judicial systems would soon rule photographic and video evidence of any kind inadmissible in courts of law because the means to detect and vet forgeries and fakes are becoming less and less reliable. Yet it seems as if the exact opposite is occuring. That photographic and video evidence from sources that are recognized by authorities as being trusted sources will still carry the weight of evidence in how authorities fight crime and prosecute offenders. The hole in the matter, of course, lies in the honesty and integrity of those trusted to use, maintain, and gather evidence associated with the technology that has been deployed by governments. Does the NYC precedent of limiting the use of cameras by the general public foreshadow a time when regular citizens will not be allowed to use photographic and video evidence that was obtained "illegally" in court cases? And so, if private security agenices such as, for example, Blackwater are put in charge of security systems relied upon by governments, then where does that leave the average Joe? Where does that leave government and would-be honest members of the public military and security sectors?

Will it matter the truth of events matter, or will the results of communities, public and private, becoming divided over whether something is true or false, genuine or forged, matter more?

I guess I had more than one question to ask. Talk about smoke and mirrors, David Copperfield has nothing on this. And bureaucracy will get even worse, if anybody can imagine that. At this moment, as I'm writing this, I think all of this surveillance mumbo jumbo is a distraction. A distraction for something that will not be revealed in a graphic way but discovered through subtle evidence. Evidence that will be impossible or nearly impossible to vet on the Internet. Despite technology, communication, "real" communication is being returned to whispers between two people in a "private" space. The technology is a front for something else. What that is, I have no idea. I'm beginning to think that 911 or the Iraq war, genuine or staged, is about as graphic as it gets. Everybody gets a turn? Things will only be graphic for the benefit of the general public, but the core activities will remain in operation on a subtle level just as it always has. As long as there is confusion, there will be the means to gain control?




[edit on 13-8-2007 by Areal51]

Excellent post! You bring up some very thought provoking ideas. I must admit that I had never considered an eventual refusal to view 'photographic evidence' by the average person because of the ability for it to be digitally altered. Perhaps the day will come where the only photographic evidence admissible in court are pictures taken by law enforcement offices, police cruiser dash cams and so on.

However, even though photographic evidence can be manipulated, if it is being presented by a very trusted source, I believe the majority will accept the photograph as fact.

EDIT TO ADD: and unfortunately a trusted source may in reality not be very trust worthy. The 'trustworthiness' can be fabricated, but if people think the person is trustworthy, well, then there isn't much one can do...

[edit on 8/14/2007 by DCFusion]

Originally posted by DCFusion
EDIT TO ADD: and unfortunately a trusted source may in reality not be very trust worthy. The 'trustworthiness' can be fabricated, but if people think the person is trustworthy, well, then there isn't much one can do...
[edit on 8/14/2007 by DCFusion]

Yes, DCFusion, this is what I'm driving at. That whether things are real or not real, true or false, will matter less and less. That the opinions and evidence presented by trusted sources will matter more. It's kind of that way now, but, perhaps, it will be more prevalent in the future. At least there still is a modicum of trust left between citizens of the world, but it seems to be eroding because of all the hype over surveillance technology. Because governments are deploying and publicizing their use of surveillance technology, because the FBI is reintroducing the Junior G-man program, things like this will eventually mean that citizens will trust each other less and less, and trust "trusted authorities" more. If there's no due process in courts then there's no fair treatment of citizens under the laws of their respective countries.

We here at ATS rely heavily on trusted sources but we also seem to try and vet as much information as we can between ourselves because we still maintain a certain level of trust between one another. Most of the debates that we participate in here wouldn't even be possible if members didn't overcome their insecurities to keep quiet about things that they know to be true. Radical ideas have been expressed here, but when it gets to the point where citizens have the impression that other citizens, civilians, are spying on their activities, then the Internet will, perhaps, become the first place where one avoids expressing controversial views. Right now, for many people, it is the last place for expressing controversial views. For many people their social situations make it impossible to voice what they really think and believe, and so they come to places like ATS to make their points. For example, if the authorities were to say ATS is not to be trusted, and ATS says the authorities are not to be trusted, and both sources claim that each are engaged in surveillance of the actions of its members, who do we trust? It seems to me that all of this hype over surveillance is intended to make the matter of who to trust ambiguous. Make it ambiguous enough so that juries and grand juries will have no choice but to go with authorized sources rather than the sources they know to be right. The matter of knowing which sources are right would be difficult if not impossible to discern. At least now many of us believe that we know which sources are right. What happens when we no longer believe that? What happens when we go with authorized sources simply because they are authorized, but we are no longer capable of discerning if the source is right or wrong? The agendas for increased surveillance and reliance on authorized sources of information seems to spell trouble for the fabric of society, free expression, and easy communication.