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.


So if photos and video aren't proof, then what is proof to an ATS'r??

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 10:47 AM
With today's technology, it seems just about anything can be faked. So what is proof to an ATS'r? If a photo is too clear, it must be fake, too far away, its 'inconclusive'. Same with video. Countless submissions. Endless debates. Am I the only one overwhelmed?

[edit on 11-4-2008 by VisionQuest]

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 11:09 AM
reply to post by VisionQuest

That is THE question, isn't it?

Of course, we cannot put all "ATS'ers" together in the same bandwagon because there are "true believers" and "true skeptics" around here anyway BUT I get your point.

Though this question remains very relevant, I sense this is just another thread which will go with endless debate and no definitive conclusion for both parts together.

One thing I've always wanted to do is try to "debunk the debunkers" in its core (for I am a believer, though with regards):
Post 5 different videos of a moving car on a road. Four of them would be REAL as in filmed and not alterated by any means. The other would be a CGI car passing by... you get the picture.

All I need is one good CGI producer guy to help me out.
Any one up for the bet no one will know the fake car?


posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 11:10 AM
Speaking only for myself, there is a very large amount of very good testimonial evidence out there that considered as a whole point toward it being very likely that something, although we know not exactly what, is going on. Sadly, this can not be used as "proof" due to the human factor (we're not exactly perfect observers) and differing levels of personal perception. But the sources of these personal encounters (pilots, cops, military, etc.) lend a great deal of weight to the argument that they indeed encountered something beyond a humans normal ability to explain what they saw. They saw "something" uncommon, unusual.

For me, it would have to be either an over the top personal sighting, something that to me at least would be irrefutable in my mind (which would be difficult) or something I could put my hands on, crawl around/take a ride in. I would have to be left with absolutely zero known terrestrial explanations for what I saw, zero. Nothing less.

Video and photos, especially in the modern era, are worthless for just the reasons you stated. How anyone can pour all of their trust/rational thought/critical thinking/beliefs in a recording medium that can so easily and artfully be manipulated is beyond me.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by Lost_Mind]

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 11:13 AM

Originally posted by VisionQuest
With today's technology, it seems just about anything can be faked.

I agree with that 100% but for one point. Today's tech, yesterday' doesn't matter. Photoshop and hubcaps, it's all the same.

Picking apart a pic or vid is healthy. I'm a believer but I don't like to be fooled either.

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 11:15 AM
Something on the news, live.
Not on youtube, not on ATS (although Im sure it would be straight away)

To know that what Im seeing is live, unedited, direct feed.

Failing that, in person

I am a skeptic, who does believe in aliens and flying saucers, but doesnt believe the pictures or video

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 12:29 PM
reply to post by Mark Roazhar

I'll second this opinion. I don't like most of the video and photographic evidence produced by the latest generation equipment, because of the ease by which digital images can be manipulated. However, there are several film photos that I recall seeing in the late 60s, early 70s, long before Photoshop or other editing software existed, that sure do make one step back a bit. I know, there were still some crude methods of manipulating images, but with film, it's much more difficult to putz around with a negative.

With all that being said....if I take the image, it will be good enough evidence for me. So it's not a huge leap to admit that there just may be some other source of imaged evidence that is also good enough for me.

I think the primary reason many of the videos and images presented here at ATS get ripped apart is due to the medium and the sources.....YouTube? Who really thinks that is a legitimate source? And mostly anonymous posters? Another source commonly used are sensational websites or publications with an obvious bias and little credibility. Most of these images are damned by association.

I don't think there is a single critical skeptic here who won't admit that there might just be some kind of evidence that is good enough.

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 12:42 PM
I'd just like to point out that one of the reasons I'm such a proponent regarding the Battle of Los Angeles, is that it satisfies the above posted criteria.

Not only is there multiple testimony from trusted personnel, but there is a photo that supports the claims.

Further (this was 1942 so there was no CNN yet) the event was reported in 'real time' on major news outlets. CBS Radio did a broadcast report on the event, and newspapers across the country and around the world reported the story.

Further still, the LA Times photo was printed and distributed long before image alteration techniques like photoshop were even invented.

While it can't of course be proven to have been an 'Alien Spaceship' in the image, it certainly can be proven 'not of Earth Origin' IMHO, after studying the extensive evidence involved in the case, and holding the objects characteristics up against the standards of the evidence.

I do think it's possible to 'prove' with pictures and video, but you'll need supporting testimony for the case that is also above reproach. There are very few cases that have both. And even then there will be those who will refuse to listen to reason (note I didn't say refuse to 'believe', I'm being specific, that there are those who will refuse to even examine the evidence). That is also apparent with the Battle of LA.


posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:56 PM
It comes down to this (I believe), the internet is
NOT a vehicle that anyone can put any subject as serious
as visitors from somewhere else on.

The reason most of us are here is that we want to believe,
we'll rip stuff apart, we'll smile and agree, when we see
that the poster is a regular and even-handed. We'll jump
up and down on sceptics or debunkers saying "stop ruining
my want" but really, there's nothing here.

I'm not saying people are lying when they report a 'sighting'
I don't mean to insult folk who have beliefs that may not be seen
as mainstream.
Think on the idea that someone walks up to you in the street and
starts talking to you the way we do here.
what I'm saying is we've never physicallymet each other,
we don't know each other and yet we meet... we talk of things that
others scoff and we do it with trust.

An outsider would balk at most if not all, of the stuff on this site.
Monsters, Goverments treating their people like idiots, Ufo's
and my favourite... old white men running the world from
darkened rooms.

The internet is for gossip and porn... this was the future for me,
where's my jet-pack?

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 06:02 PM
To repeat:

* Multiple photos of the same thing from different angles and people, none of them anonymous. Stereo photos are the best.

* Artifacts (alien critters, if possible) associated with the photos that can be verified as alien/anomalous by independent labs.

* Verification by multiple independent labs and experts.

* Government acknowledgement of the veracity of the photos and lab results.

* The ability for me, personally, to go and see the thing itself and touch it.

Are these requirements too tough? You could do it for something as simple and real as the chair you're sitting on. Is it too much to ask for something that's existence is questionable? I don't think so.

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 09:50 PM
reply to post by Nohup

ATSers dont need proof. In fact if you have proof we call it disinfo. We believe what we want to believe. We are way beyond needing proof

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 10:20 PM
It has to be logical, to me. See, i view things in probabilities and possibilities. I approach each story as if it were true, sight unseen. Then let it do its own job of discrediting itself.

Too clear? Well, that is because one would assume some level of turbulence around the UFO due to electrical charging.

Those little dots of light in the night time sky are junk, that is for sure.

The only way to provide me irrefutable proof is to find material, physical material, that withstands scrutiny. Otherwise, all the evidence does is (at best) push one possibility further than another or (at worst) discredit itself with a juvenile and lame attempt at fraud.

I rarely post in UFO threads. you can tell what is fake, and what deserves further consideration. No need to discuss it further. If i need help, i call in the troops. ArMap and Internos are about as good as i need to determine a conclusion.

Too bad Ritzman doesn't post anymore.

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 10:24 PM
Proof of an actual craft in an ATS museum along with the various technologies and examples of their working abilites. Aliens as tour guides would also be a nice touch. Virtual reality displays of space flight and other planets. Yeah, we're spoiled here. You have to pay a much higher entrance fee though. Sorry, no pictures or videos of the museum are allowed. All visitors will be strip searched and flashed with the red thing.
ATS MIB Come back soon.

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 10:46 PM

Originally posted by RWPBR
ATSers dont need proof. In fact if you have proof we call it disinfo. We believe what we want to believe. We are way beyond needing proof

That is unfortunately accurate in many cases. For the most part, with UFOs, second hand experiences just don't cut it without corroborating evidence. Those who have had first hand experiences with things that are obviously not of this world are maybe the lucky ones, although without proof to show others. It's gotta be frustrating to hold something like that in your head and know, but not fully be able to share it. And after an experience like that, you don't personally need proof. I can appreciate a person's honest experience.

But I, after 40 years, have still never had that experience. Maybe someday. Maybe not. Maybe I don't have the neural construction in my brain necessary to experience the thing. So it's going to be tougher for me to buy the story. I'm going to need more.

Of course, the people who just believe without the first hand experiences, who think some blurry photos of specs in the sky, or images of what they think are old washing machine parts lying around on Mars, are proof positive of "aliens," well, they're just idiots.

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 10:54 PM
True proof = official disclosure by the ET's not government officials, irrespective of the sighting and quality thereof.

Personally, I think that ATS does not want disclosure as this will make ATS redundant. Is ATS with-holding anything, I ask? What happened to John Lear and sleeper - they fell down that sink hole in Guatemala!! They were actually pushed by reptolid things!!

Hmmmm - I wonder about ATS's intentions - It's currently at Roswell and we all know that Project Mogul is REAL. Baloon, what baloon! How many people do you need to interview about a baloon???


posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 11:12 PM
Alright, falling under the category of "debunker", I'd like to join in this debate.

Most of us at ATS do believe that something else is out there. Conspiracy's, UFO's, ghost's, etc. Either through personal experience, curiousity or something else.

There are different category's of ATS member's. There are pro's and con's to each type. There are the debunker's (like myself) who don't believe anything until there is undeniable evidence that can't be debunked at all lying before us. We believe that 95% of what is posted on these forums are false or made up. The pro is that we won't be fooled as easily and if we do find a little piece of evidence that is undeniable, it'll be just that. Undeniable. The con is that if something does pop up that is genuine, but takes a resemblence to something else, we'll probably blow it off as another fake.

There are those who are neutral and like to look at all the evidence before making a decision (where as the skeptic/debunker will generally have our minds made up after the first few seconds of video footage). There are the believer's. They realize that every video or photo could possibly be real. Although some of them can be very intelligent people, most of them spend more time trying to prove that it's real then looking at the truth that it may be nothing more then a helicopter or an airplane. Then, there's those that aren't very intelligent at all, but post anyways.

A lot of our posters are very investigative (I consider myself to be one of those posters) and we won't stop until we get answer's.

Anyway, my point is that you are referring to a portion of ATS. For example, if we did a pie chart, the debunker's (the members that you are referring to) are only a piece of the pie. Sometime's, we can get quite annoying. Just when you think you have sure proof that aliens exist, here we come running with a piece of paper in one hand and a piece of toilet paper sticking out of our butt's and our pant's not even pulled all the way up, to tell you that you're wrong. Forgive us.

For a lot of member's, the video's and picture's provided on ATS are enough. For some of us, it isn't. We need more before we call all our friends and tell them that they're being spyed on by aliens.

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 11:24 PM
The President coming out and making a speech that Aliens exist wouldn't even be good enough for me. I personally would have to see them live, touch them, speak to them and travel to their home planet to believe it anymore. This is why I believe it's just good old human ingenuity until I'm proven wrong.

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 11:34 PM
While it would be nice to have an artifact or disclosure, let's face it probably won't be forthcoming. I think the only stuff that ATS will get that will even come close to being considered proof is photos and videos from a mass sighting that correspond with what people claim they saw.

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 11:46 PM
reply to post by Sator

Sator you make valid points for sure but you forgot one important category of ATS'er - "The Skeptical Believer" - like myself!

I don't necessarily think it's "debunking" on some peoples behalf. I think real debunking is going into a thread with the preconception that the topic or theory is false. Whereas a skeptical approach may simply be looking for truths and possibilities without the intention of debunking.

For instance, if someone on ATS claims that Aliens have set-up an underground base below their suburban backyard and they are fighting against the said Aliens with thought weapons (this has been said on here by a member) - to suggest that the person may be mentally ill as opposed to experiencing reality is NOT a debunk. It's merely examining the topic from the standpoint of a higher probability.

It's not saying "I don't believe you" but it is saying, it's highly likely that there is a more prosaic or more probable answer. To challenge someone with intelligence and logic is not to debunk IMHO. Especially if that person may believe that Aliens do indeed exist and probably have 'underground' bases in some parts of the world. Do you 'get 'where I'm going on this?

Anyway I digress - so back to the topic. I think that nothing in the current framework of 'proof' here at ATS is acceptable. Not unless for instance we see ET's in the flesh on the nightly news walking around in public... or we actually walk the sands of Mars. So until we get the higher level of proof, it's simply a question of High or Low Probability. The ability to sort the wheat from the chaff with metered logic and discretion.

Nice thread Op. I hope it doesn't descend into a circular argument like many threads here.

[edit on 11/4/08 by InfaRedMan]

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 11:53 PM
I've been on this board a while now and I have learned how to better spot a fake. I still always enjoy the initial subjective "wow factor", but have learned a lot of the tell tale signs of image fakery.

However, what does constitute proof? Well you can't actually state that. The reason? Because I've seen only a few articles which could not be fully explained away to me, or to the board in general. Of course, you are always going to have extreme voices on both sides of the debate, but the trick is to look at the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind the stances and evaluate it for yourself.

Proof would be a a video which would stand up to scrutiny and still be unexplainable. For example, we've seen tell tale signs of CGI in this board. We've also seen tricks used by hoaxers. But we've have also seen very odd things like the flashy light over stephensville texas, which I don't think anyone ever came up with a good answer for (weird shapes in the sky).

posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 03:37 AM
It is 4/12/08 and i am sitting here with my aliens friends wondering if there is any intelligent life on ATS. I used to care, wanted to make the public aware, et cetera. Naturally i was rejected and scorned because the aliens i encountered did not meet their (ATS) criteria, they are really alien, not just different looking, alien. Star Wars aliens they are not. Ever try to fake an "invisible alien"? If someone offers their "opinion" on your thread you are supposed to discount your knowledge and personal experience for their snap judgement. If you don't you are relently hounded by a pack of hyenas crying in dismay that you discounted their opinion and stuck with the truth. I gave up trying to explain to people who didn't want to listen so now i just scan the boards for newbies and their stories.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in