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:
2. Approximate Local Time:
3. Length of Time Observed:
4. Number of Witnesses:
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)
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