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.

 

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

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
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?


That's a good question, IMO it will depend of what is being presented.

If anyone brings out a video/pic with no other witnesses then is going to depend on what is presented and the ability of the person to answer questions about the event and about what is been presented, this is the way most hoaxes are exposed because of the lack of desire of the person involved to come foward and answer some SIMPLE questions, that opens the door for analysis to take place from a skeptic point of view.

At least thats my take.




posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I expect to look out my window and see the most breathtaking objects in the sky.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I've said it before and I'll say it again...my mind is made up, aliens exist and they've visited Earth. Paleocontact evidence and the Ramey memo convinced me.

That being said, 99.9% of videos are out of focus objects or CGI. Please don't whine to me about how I am a skeptic, instead try to produce evidence that your video is real.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 12:02 AM
link   
As a skeptic, I am looking for the following 2 points as the most important elements to whether something might be real:


1) good, clean UNEDITED footage

and

2) MULTIPLE videos of same UFO from different sources. This is the most important factor and is what's missing from almost every clip seen on the net.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tall Devil Man
2) MULTIPLE videos of same UFO from different sources. This is the most important factor and is what's missing from almost every clip seen on the net.


I bet anyone, 1 million dollars, that our next hoax will be JUST LIKE THAT!

Damn, they don't even have to use their brain now to make their money, they just milk people for their ideas.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Well, I should have made a third point, which is that the person shooting the video is not anonymous.

If we have 10 different videos, by ten different people, of the same sighting, and that sighting looks really good, then hell, even I might start believing!

[edit on 16-8-2007 by Tall Devil Man]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 12:33 AM
link   
A wise man once said;

"Believe none of what you hear, and half of what you see."



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 01:07 AM
link   
For me to believe it's the real deal?? I kinda want to see them come in "Independence Day" style. A few ships making a real impressive entrance that everyone will notice, and no one can deny. No pictures or video needed, just look up.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 03:15 AM
link   
I am a believer but I dont think we've got anything yet. For me to believe its the real deal I'd like to get a couple of high quality videos which actually have a decent view of the UFO rather than some screwy out of focus footage.
Or of course if Aliens actually made contact....
I think my expectations of the video might be abit to high though...

For me it'd also be easier for me to believe if the video came from a respected member of the community rather than some randomer. I know this is abit unreasonable because anyone might video a UFO and create an account on these forums just to post it but I'm sure alot of people would find a UFO video easier to believe if it came from a respected member of this community.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by Tall Devil Man
2) MULTIPLE videos of same UFO from different sources. This is the most important factor and is what's missing from almost every clip seen on the net.


I bet anyone, 1 million dollars, that our next hoax will be JUST LIKE THAT!

Damn, they don't even have to use their brain now to make their money, they just milk people for their ideas.

I am Leigh Scott. I am a filmmaker and UFO enthusiast. No nefarious plans here, just my hobby and what interests me.

The whole point of this thread was to call attention to people like yourself who state without a doubt that this is fake or that is fake and this is how they did it etc. My point is that if you say the video of X is fake because clearly they used Maya, and then it comes out that they didn't use Maya, YOU ARE WRONG!!! Your theory is faulty, your methods corrupt, etc. At the end of the day, you may be right that something is a hoax, but when you state that something is emphatically this or that with no evidence, it concerns me. The first line of defense for these types of things is the UFO enthusiast community. They will be the first ones to pay attention and in general give the benefit of the doubt because they hold the belief that these types of things are at least possible. Others in the scientific community and the media simply do not believe that it could ever be true. So, if on message boards and in the inner corridors of the UFO community people come forward with no evidence and state that their opinion is FACT then the whole operation is pointless.

Is the Haiti UFO fake? Probably. Why? Because it is exceptional and there is little to no background to the circumstances that led to its supposed capture. Is it fake because it is clearly CGI? No. Is it fake because the people on the tape don't react in a way that you would expect them to? No. Is it fake because they clearly used Vue6 to create fake palm trees? No. I suspect its fake because there is a lack of supporting information. That's it.

That's what makes me curious. That's why I asked the question. Not to make a hoax, but to get an idea of what type of infrastructure other enthusiasts expect or want to see. I think it is a strong demonstration of ignorance to put yourself out there by telling people they are stupid for not accepting your theories about how this video was created. That really has no place in an open minded, truth seeking community.

And go ahead and devise some way for me to approve my identity. I believe strongly in posting as myself, be it here or on movie sites etc.


















posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 05:08 AM
link   
If nothing exists within the photo or video that provides even a slight reason to question it's legitimacy... and if no discrepancies are revealed when matching the event's details with what is seen in the image or video, then I'll very possibly consider it genuine.

It's similar to how professional paranormal investigators approach their cases... they're not looking for reasons to believe, they're in fact looking for reasons not to believe. Only when all reasonable attempts to discredit something come up short, does the possibility of an authentic sighting or experience present itself...



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 05:55 AM
link   
for me to beleive any film the author would need to submit the raw footage to an imaging expert and have it verified as not being tampered with.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 07:17 AM
link   
With the advent of all this darned, crippling CGI, what would be the only footage I'd believe with my own two eyes?

Live footage.

Imagine a mundane news piece to camera, politcal news, you know...dog saves kid from drowning; local businesses going out of business; morning tv fashion show in the studio garden, that sort of thing.
And then something happens in the sky...something undeniable. It doesn't matter what, just as long as the cameras kept rolling and broadcast it across the country.

Let's see those sweaty little wannabe special effects hoaxters lay claim to that, or the skeptic army try and debunk it. What a happy day that'd be!!



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leigh Scott
Is it fake because they clearly used Vue6 to create fake palm trees? No.


I am sorry but I just cannot see the logic in your statement above.

Are you trying to say that someone would add fake trees to real, genuine footage of a UFO ?

If so why ?

In response to the original query (kind of) I don't think the general masses would believe any footage unless it was "officially" sanctioned as "genuine" by one of the Western worlds leading Govt institutions.

If one of these videos was shown on a major channel with backing by NASA it may stand a chance of altering mindset's amongst the scientific community but even then, unless followed up by further video at regular intervals and / or physical evidence or mass public sightings I am afraid it too would fade from mainstream news as quick as you could get indigestion from a McDonalds and six pack.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by chunder]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Sorry I'm not a fast to post folks. Little catch up. First that video with filled out checklist right before my last post should get its own thread, rather then get addressed here. Didn't mean to ignore it, but I was in the middle of posting mine at the same time it looks.

Second, I see alot of folks saying that multiple witness's ala independance day would do the trick. But that's already occured and still no end to debate.

For example, Phoenix Lights were seen by many, with many different videos, pictures etc.
Previous to that, and one closer to my heart since it occured in my state, check out Night Siege: www.ufoevidence.org...
Previous in chronology to that, I would implore you to look at the 1942 battle over Los Angeles:
en.wikipedia.org...

I would say that multiple witness's, with multiple videos/pictures has already shown to be inclusive on answering the facts behind the UFO phenomena.

Not to say that these alone don't had ALOT of credence to the existence of something going on. But what exactly we can't be sure.

To really convince the world, it would have to be very public sighting such as those described above, and then combined with one of the following things:

1) physical evidence (UFO pieces, ET bodies etc) to determine a non-earth origin
2) Direct communication from vehicle (either in greetings or threats) establish a identification (though said communication could be deceptive itself, we'd least know there is an inteligence behind the UFO in some form)



Thirdly, alot of folks seem to be worried this thread will give hoaxer's a too do list. That is indeed a worry, but I'm not overly concerned. In fact, I think I would turn the table and say that any good debunker should know his enemy, and at least know how to faux a photograph, edit a video, etc. Without personally knowing what it takes, how does one expect to expose a fake?


Cheers,

Leibolmai



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tall Devil Man
As a skeptic, I am looking for the following 2 points as the most important elements to whether something might be real:


1) good, clean UNEDITED footage

and

2) MULTIPLE videos of same UFO from different sources. This is the most important factor and is what's missing from almost every clip seen on the net.



Phoenix lights anyone?

I think out of all the videos that were taken, there must be one real video, and that's all we need to prove UFOs exist. Couple that with the astounding amount of people who say they were abducted by aliens in those odd flying saucers, all with the same alien description and similar sequence of events, this has to be real.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I don't think Leigh Scott understands that all UFO media types should be considered fake until proven real. Not the other way around. If you think things are real first, you are going to catch yourself being deceived by the Devil.

When I personally debunk an image or video, I start with a clean slate every time. I take the evidence that is presented to me, and I calculate every possible way that image or video could have been made. From the real deal, to a flying hubcap, to CGI, to anything. Once I have calculated every single possibility, I continue my research on the evidence to fill in the rest of the puzzle. I picture an old style scale, one side is Real, other side is Fake, and I play both sides of the debate in my head. I put all the supporting evidence on the Real side of the scale, and all my nonsupporting evidence on the Fake side of the scale. In the end, whatever side of the scale is more heavy is usually the truth. THEN, and only then, will I start to debate it on a forum.

Take this debunk for example:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Took me only a few minutes to solve this one... not once did I say CGI. I don't think the problem is not believing, I think the problem is believing something without proof. Even though I have proof that aliens exist, I still don't believe every picture and video I see.



[edit on 16-8-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Wouldn't worry too much about providing a to do list for hoaxers. I think most of them know enough already!

I was going to reinforce the point about expecting it to be bigger news when it came, though your rebuttal of the multiple sightings point made me stop and think.

However, look at the way the O'Hare incident spread through reporting. There's no images of it, no video footage - no primary source material at all on You Tube or similar, yet I think it could be argued that it made more of a splash globally than any of the supposed hoaxes have managed with aesthetically more impressive evidence.

Stories have a way of building in that manner when there is genuine mass eyewitness evidence in them. I am more persuaded by several independent accounts than one youtube posting with little or no explanation, source or whatever.

The point I am getting at is not that mass sightings are more or less incontrovertable than videos like the Haiti one. It is that impressive video evidence is not to my mind the most persuasive factor in a story. Partly that's because of the growth of CGI that makes it so difficult to prove what's real and what isn't, but it's not just that. I suppose to some extent I would not just have to see the evidence, but have it proved to me that it had been seen - an important distinction.

LW



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   

What would you have to see in order to know without a shadow of a doubt that it is the genuine article?


Thousands of indepedent freaked out witnesses accompanying the video publish event.
You can't have a ufo video over a populated area, without any witnessess and at the same time claim that it's the realdeal!

I trust more the good old witnesses reports than any video easily done with CGI nowadays to mimic a real alien visitation.


[edit on 16-8-2007 by skeptical2012]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   
To be honest with you, I thought that it's a great video and it looks real to me. The CGI movies that comes out today doesn't even come close to this level of authenticity.

Some people on the other thread said that a palm leaf appears all of a sudden, but it's actually there the whole time, it's just blocked out when the craft appears behind it.

If this video indeed is fake, I praise the person / persons who have created it.

Amon Goeth



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join