It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Ok, so what would you expect from the real deal?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 11:22 PM
The other board about the youtube UFOs is out of hand and since this is a tad off topic I thought I would play by the rules and start a new thread.

So, everyone is convinced that its CGI using real footage and at the minimum the Vue software. We have no firm "proof" of this, just coincidence and a combination of amateur and expert observations.

My question is this: everyone jumped in to debunk this video because it is too good to be true and because a lot of us are looking for actual proof of the paranormal and hoaxes just bring everything down a notch. So what do you expect from a real video? What would you have to see in order to know without a shadow of a doubt that it is the genuine article?

I ask this in a round about way of pointing out that the proof to debunk this video is very sketchy and very circumstantial. Plus a lot of people have problems with things like how the video came into light (posted on youtube, not airing on Fox news), the audio, the details etc. So tell me what it would take to make you a believer!

posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 11:51 PM
Great thread topic

Well. I guess what I would expect to see in a video would be similar to something I saw in real life. A silver disc shaped object that appeared to defy gravity by no conventional means. No thrusters, no propellers, just silently floating. Not saying that all have to look like that but I guess you sorta just know truth when you see it or at least I'd like to believe I do

posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 11:55 PM
I think personal experience (like kleverone above) is the most common way people are 'converted' into believers.

As far as video footage goes, you can't trust any of it. Sure, it could be real, but for the sake of fair skepticism, i regard all 'amazing' UFO videos are guilty until proven innocent, and so far the UFO hoax videos far outnumber the 'real'.

posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 12:20 AM
Until an alien ambassador(or many of them) land on all major goverment lawns or in highly populated areas and announce either thier willing friendship or our eventual enslavement, thier is no proof. Unless someone is good enough to hunt and drag them into the open, and display the on national TV. Or the allowance of news reporters to go for a "ride" on a ship while filming. Not announcing yourself(in the case of aliens) while observing other cultures is called spying. No one with good intentions spy. If they want to understand us, it sure must be hard for them when they don't even trade information of thier culture with us, or ours with them. Outside of a few religious nuts, thier coming forward would change little for the current generations of earth.

posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 12:24 AM
I'll be taking notes. Maybe later I'll make a fake that will fool everyone.

posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 12:25 AM
Interesting. So it seems so far you guys are saying that no amount of evidence that isn't personal would prove positive their existence.

And if they did land on the White House lawn and talk to the president, I don't know what I would believe they really wanted since I, as a rule, despise and distrust the mainstream media.

And good point about the spying. I never thought of it that way. Either they are up to no good or the government is up to no good. I agree that the majority of the population wouldn't freak out if they were some benevolent force.

posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 12:32 AM
For starters I would like to see one, just ONE "UFO" video that had ZERO, and I mean ZERO, NONE, NADA CGI elements in it that wasn't just an obvious hoax.

Many "Ufologists" decry the CGI argument but the facts are EVERY SINGLE "high quality" UFO video has SEVERAL, indisputable CGI elements in it.

Many have some "real" elements too, that's called composting, some even have seemingly impossible effects, but they STILL have CGI elements that would NOT be in a genuine video PERIOD.

IMHO of course.


posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 12:36 AM
i feel that i am open minded to the whole thing and am ready to give something the benefit of the doubt when it seems like it is authentic. the problem is you can't trust a video on youtube or the news, ot anywhere for that matter, so as soon as there are more that 5 reasons why it is fake, that pretty much does it for me for that clip.

that haiti video is very close to being convincing and i am sure it is just a matter of time until someone makes one that can fool everyone. but even when that happens.. bottom line is you cant trust a video alone.

posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Leigh Scott

My question is this: everyone jumped in to debunk this video because it is too good to be true and because a lot of us are looking for actual proof of the paranormal and hoaxes just bring everything down a notch. So what do you expect from a real video? What would you have to see in order to know without a shadow of a doubt that it is the genuine article?

I'll preface this by saying I would not believe unless I was there, however there are several things that would peak my interest, the main one being more than 20-30 seconds of some "craft" flying over the camera. In real life traumatic events where cameras are present there is a ton of footage, people don't shut their cameras off.

Second, I would expect the "craft" in the video to be doing something purposeful, like landing. Not flying over a crowded beach in some 3rd world dirt hole.

Third, I would expect it to be all over the news, talking wall to wall. The same treatment any major story gets.

There are many other things I would expect, but that should point you in the direction I'm headed anyway.

posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 11:57 AM
For a simple start, I'd like to see some Verifable Evidence. That means there's some evidence that can be verified, like date/time/where/when/what camera etc. Without it I wouldn't really waste too much time on a single picture/video that came my way.

This is my attempt at modernizing Project Blue-Book’s fields. They had a standard form that dictacted if a incident was worth investigating at all. You know, treating the whole UFO phenomena like a science, unlike some of the sensationalism we currently see today:

Standard Information

1. Date:

2. Approximate Local Time:

3. Length of Time Observed:

4. Number of Witnesses:

5. Location:

6. Description of Incident:

7. Sound: (that the object made)

8. Camera Used: (most people readily know and are happy to boast)

9. Video Used: (same as camera)

10. Program/software used to Upload video/picture: (might help verify the trail of programs that could be involved in pixilation, compressing, and otherwise giving the video an edited feel)

An Example:

Standard Information

1. Date: 12-8-07

2. Approximate Local Time: 845pm EST

3. Length of Time Observed: 45 seconds

4. Number of Witnesses: 1

5. Location: Springfield, MA

6. Description of Incident: daylight orb, followed from NE to south SW trajectory

7. Sound: None

8. Camera Used: NA

9. Video Used: Sony HDR FX-1E Video Camera

10. Program/software used to upload video/picture: Windows Movie Maker 2.0

This is all information that a sober Human that has encountered something should be able to provide. It doesn’t disclose who the witness is, or other personal data. Without a significant portion of this data, is a video/picture really worth our time? I think you know the answer, its not.

What are some simple things that can be done with this data? Research the area for other incidents; see if other witness’s exist. Maybe somebody got other pictures/videos? Maybe there was an air show that day? Or Meteorological study with weather balloons happened 2 miles away? Or maybe realize that palm tree shouldn’t be in the video if the location given was Homer, Alaska!

It also builds the foundation for those future (and necessary!) arguments over digital editing. Knowing what camera is used, what programs touched it last can go a long way to explaining why some videos came out the way they did.

In the end, using this type of stuff as a checklist would go a long way to standardize how ATS picks apart videos/pictures. The current process of arguing and arguing just feeds those that get their kicks out of us; ie hoaxers, viral marketers, board trolls, and even those who may exist to spread disinformation.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 12:07 PM
Those are very good suggestions Leibolmai!!!!!!

Could the ATS staff look at this? Maybe it can be used in a special submit sighting area (similair to the submit news area)?


posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 12:19 PM
In short and I apologize for the one liner in advance but I just feel this way, something like the O'hare UFO incident but with multiple pics or video also. That will be the clincher for me.

[edit on 15-8-2007 by Bunch]

posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 03:07 PM
I hear what you're all saying and I really like the checklist.

I just wonder what I would do if I found myself in possession of such a tape. I mean everyone expects it to be on the news, but how would you get it there? This stuff is rarely taken seriously, so I doubt that if I picked up the phone and called CNN, FOX or even local stations that they would give me the time of day.

Next issue is the paranoia factor. I would be terrified to have something like that. The actual experience would be traumatic enough, let alone having verifiable proof. Once you see something like that, you would realize that it IS real and then a lot of the other conspiracies, cover-ups, etc. might probably be real too.

To be honest, I would probably copy it and post it all over the place until the mainstream media came looking for me. At that point, enough people would have seen it so it would be impossible to bury it or make me disappear. At that point, with multiple copies floating around I would be secure in letting go of the master for analysis and I would then provide all of the details mentioned earlier. Taking it a step further, I probably would only post a small portion of it so that I could verify that I had the original, longer footage in my possession.

That's why I wonder about everyone jumping on these videos with such certainty. A lot of the complaints and critiques are valid. A lot are just conjecture. I fear that if the real deal came forward it wouldn't get past the first line of defense (people like us) so it would never be taken seriously.

posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 04:08 PM

I share the same concerns that you have just stated.

But as Leibolmai said, there is a criteria that this type of events have to meet in order to take them seriously not only by us but for the entire poulation. This UFO community has been ridicule for years just because of this reason. Because we have jump the gun before doing some research ourself, before trying to present something as proof.

The only thing I have seen in the UFO community in general now is that we police ourselves way better than it the past and that is nothing but a good thing. For that reason when someone present something is analyze first by us before we all go crazy claiming that is the real deal.

I imagine than when something finally comes out that is what we really seek, it will be so easy to recognize as real that most people would have no other choice to accept it.

In the case of the Haiti incident just use that checklist that the member in the above post mention, and see how much you can get. (Not saying that you believe in it BTW)

[edit on 15-8-2007 by Bunch]

posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 04:27 PM
Can you list explain this video I was given by a friend?
I kind of think it's a bird.

1. Date: 09/02/06

2. Approximate Local Time: 6:00pm Mountain Time

3. Length of Time Observed: 4 seconds

4. Number of Witnesses: 2 at location, could be more in town

5. Location: Rapid City, SD

6. Description of Incident: Near sunset. Saw object hover, pointed cam then it was gone.

7. Sound: Was not turned on. The object made no noise.

8. Camera Used: NA

9. Video Used: Canon XL1 - Mini DV Tape

10. Program/software used to upload video/picture: Adobe Premiere Pro 2

[edit on 15-8-2007 by martianvirus]

posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 04:35 PM
There is ways to show off videos without being concerned. There are people to go to before going public that won't ridicule you, and maybe even take a scientific approach.

Take for examples orgnizations like MUFON etc. They have local investigators in almost every state of the union. They can keep things confidential.

Also, to expand further on that checklist, even when you get all that information it doesn't help if the video/picture itself is of poor quality.

Take for example the helicopter chasing orbs post that's up. You can't even tell that its a helicopter at the end, so how can one identify the previous objects they filmed? You really need to have both good information, and video/pictures in one basket. Back it up with physical evidence like burnt patches/radiation/pieces of unknown origin, and then you'll have a real case for the history books.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 04:43 PM
I'm already a believer, but to convert the true skeptics I think it would take nothing less than a sighting in daylight, a close up sighting of a true nuts and bolts craft obviously under intelligent control and displaying extraordinary flight characteristics.

This ship would be flying low and slow over several towns, sighted by upwards of 50 to 100 people seperated geographically. It would be caught on high quality video and still cameras, with the witnesses agreeing to hand over the cameras untouched to investigators who then send the films/pictures to websites like this one, as well as national news agencies in it's entirety, unedited and full length.

Together with corroborating witness statements taken at the scene of the sightings as soon as humanly possible in an attempt to rule out people in different towns 'getting their story straight' for the purpose of a hoax this scenario would be absolute and undeniable proof.

Skeptics, take a bow and exit stage left.

posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 06:43 PM
So, if I was out and about all by myself and I saw something--even if I photgraphed it--I should keep my big mouth shut?

posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 07:03 PM
I don't think that being a "believer" makes you more gullible, nor do I think that a "non-believer", spends endless amounts of their time trying to debunk every single photo/video ever produced for scrutiny, that wouldn't make sense, if you don't believe, how would debunking vids/pics make you more of a non-believer? Seems like a waste of time.

I think that it is alot of the believers who are the most critical of new vids/pics because they want to be able to have undisputable evidence to substantiate their belief that there is life that exists other than our own here on earth, by debunking and identifying fakes, this makes their view more credible IMO.

I shy away from comment on aliens/ufo's because I lack the knowledge of this subject, though I am interested and enjoy the debate that occurs when new vid/pics arrive on the scene.

The question posed by the OP was intriguing and I just wanted to post my observations on what I see happening in the highly debated threads.

posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 08:12 PM
If you are really Leigh Scott, like you claim, but you don't prove....

....then why on Earth do you think people should tell you what they want to see in a UFO video? If you are a Visual Effects, Cinematographer, Editor, Producer, and Actor, and whatever else, what makes you think people would even want to tell you exactly how to make the perfect hoax UFO? Is that what this thread is REALLY about? You wan't to know what people want to see, so you can join in on the hoax's?

Serious question's....

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in