reply to post by LazyGuy
WRT the Haiti Video...
It was actually created by an artist who was having fun with the new software, not the company that makes the software. Through the email conversation
we had with him we learned his intention was not to hoax the net but the video exploded in views on You Tube and people were climbing over each other
to get their speculation out there about these "UFOs". Lots of so called "respected" outlets and people presented this as the "real deal".
Within a few minutes of it hitting ATS our Video Imaging experts had conclusively proven to me that it was CGI, but I held my "digital tongue" for
the most part, until our membership could see the repeating trees in the landscape and discover they were part of the default tool set in the new
release of VUE, (the software that created the movie) and the other indications that it was CGI.
What amazed me most was the significant number of people who, in spite of the facts being laid out in front of them, refused to accept it was CGI.
There is a definite percentage of the population that literally NEEDS to find something that will validate their beliefs. That's when objectivity,
critical thought and logic go out the door IMHO.
The other thing that became evident to me was there are a handful of "respected" people and sites in this "field" who will promote ANYTHING
because their income depends on it. That is another very unfortunate situation for ufology.
My personal feelings toward several of these "respected" people have changed dramatically because of the Haiti Video and even more so "the Drones"
In an effort to move the "spotlight" away from these personalities who seemingly get duped by every hoax created, and therefor fuel the rhetoric
that this whole field of investigation is crazy and ludicrous, we (senior management of ATS/TAN) have been working hard at getting the best cases and
DATA reviewed and tested by widely accepted professionals who have nothing to gain or lose from the results and are independent/successful enough to
not worry about putting their name on the results should they indicate something out of the ordinary.
We are spending our money and time on this in order to present the stuff that requires NO "belief" (because the evidence is in hand and verifiable)
to the mainstream media and through them to the majority of the population. We hope that by focusing the attention on what is REAL we can help to
reduce the stigma, that I believe has been created, in part, by a well executed bit of social engineering, surrounding the investigation of this
2008 stands to be a banner year if our work is successful.
[edit on 12-29-2007 by Springer]