a seemingly good video from the netherlands

Is this cgi? I can't tell. The camera battery allegedly died hence the short video...

reply to post by reject


Hi reject
Already discussed here
Could this be the Best UFO Footage Ever? (Clear Video of UFO)

May i ask why "The Netherlands?"
Isn't Texas in the U.S.A. ?

I say fake.

If its not CGI, I think it suspended between two points outside camera shot using thin fishing wire.

LOL, I was waiting for someone to yell fake on this.

Every picture and video is fake. Every eyewitness account is mistaken.

This video needs to be investigated by a professional before it can be deemed a fake or CGI. Or if it is fak the person who shot it needs to say he/she faked it. Until then it's a U.F.O. until identified.

Someone could say every theory about black holes is false because I don't believe they exist, There's more evidence that backs ufology than there is for black holes or evolution. In ufology you don't have to go back billions of years because pictures, video and eyewitness accounts are happening today. This is both circumstantial and direct evidence.

Originally posted by polomontana
LOL, I was waiting for someone to yell fake on this.

Every picture and video is fake. Every eyewitness account is mistaken.

This video needs to be investigated by a professional before it can be deemed a fake or CGI. Or if it is fak the person who shot it needs to say he/she faked it. Until then it's a U.F.O. until identified.

Someone could say every theory about black holes is false because I don't believe they exist, There's more evidence that backs ufology than there is for black holes or evolution. In ufology you don't have to go back billions of years because pictures, video and eyewitness accounts are happening today. This is both circumstantial and direct evidence.

Glad I dissapoint you.
I did say 'I say fake'

Why do I say its a fake? The camera position never changes. They never try to move around to see if they can get a better image of it. It's not like its CCTV, its a hand held camera. Short footage before the cameras apparent 'loss of power'. Don't know about the sound as I'm at work and can't listen.

As for you apparent lack of faith in blackholes or evolution thats up to you. I wont try and convert you as long as you dont try and convert me.

Originally posted by Mark Roazhar

Originally posted by polomontana
LOL, I was waiting for someone to yell fake on this.

Every picture and video is fake. Every eyewitness account is mistaken.

This video needs to be investigated by a professional before it can be deemed a fake or CGI. Or if it is fak the person who shot it needs to say he/she faked it. Until then it's a U.F.O. until identified.

Someone could say every theory about black holes is false because I don't believe they exist, There's more evidence that backs ufology than there is for black holes or evolution. In ufology you don't have to go back billions of years because pictures, video and eyewitness accounts are happening today. This is both circumstantial and direct evidence.

Glad I dissapoint you.

I did say 'I say fake'

Why do I say its a fake? The camera position never changes. They never try to move around to see if they can get a better image of it. It's not like its CCTV, its a hand held camera. Short footage before the cameras apparent 'loss of power'. Don't know about the sound as I'm at work and can't listen.

As for you apparent lack of faith in blackholes or evolution thats up to you. I wont try and convert you as long as you dont try and convert me.

So now you can "divine" how a person should act when they see a U.F.O.? So they never try to move around so it's fake? That makes no sense.

Secondly, I think evolution occured and there is black holes. It's called reductio ad absurdum. Why does the pseudoskeptic accept black holes, evolution, virtual particles and more basically without question but with ufology which has more evidence than these things, any flimsy answer to try and discount it will do? I believe it boils down to a pre-existing belief system that these things don't or can't exist so you look at every picture or video with this priori in place.

Originally posted by polomontana

So now you can "divine" how a person should act when they see a U.F.O.? So they never try to move around so it's fake? That makes no sense.

You're not making sense? What are you on about?
What sense of the word are you using the word 'divine'?
Why would he just use the zoom, instead of walking closer?

Originally posted by polomontana
Secondly, I think evolution occured and there is black holes. It's called reductio ad absurdum. Why does the pseudoskeptic accept black holes, evolution, virtual particles and more basically without question but with ufology which has more evidence than these things, any flimsy answer to try and discount it will do? I believe it boils down to a pre-existing belief system that these things don't or can't exist so you look at every picture or video with this priori in place.

Why even mention the black holes and evolution items then?
Pre-existing belief system? I believe in aliens, but I know theres a lot of people who get a real kick out of planting fakes on the net.

I've given my reasons as to why I think its fake, why do you think its real then?

[edit on 30-4-2008 by Mark Roazhar]

Originally posted by internos
reply to post by reject

 

Hi reject

Already discussed here
Could this be the Best UFO Footage Ever? (Clear Video of UFO)

May i ask why "The Netherlands?"
Isn't Texas in the U.S.A. ?

link 1

whitley strieber

Sorry, about that...anyways, internos, what's your opinion about the video?

reply to post by reject

Ah, i see
My take is that the video has been brightened for unknown reasons, the poster declined both the invitation to Join ATS in order to discuss it and to share the original, unedited, uncutted video.
There are NOT visible fingerprints of hoaxing but as said, the brightess of the video, given that the sky color is light, may have hidden very important details. The only way to assess it would have been to talk straight with the guy and to take a good look at the original video:
by decision of the poster, no one of these options is presently available:
he claimed to have decided to give the original to Jamie Maussan "for further investigations" or something like that.


[edit on 30/4/2008 by internos]

Originally posted by polomontana
Why does the pseudoskeptic accept black holes, evolution, virtual particles and more basically without question but with ufology which has more evidence than these things, any flimsy answer to try and discount it will do? I believe it boils down to a pre-existing belief system that these things don't or can't exist so you look at every picture or video with this priori in place.

There aren't scientists trying to hoax or fake their work every other day, unfortunately the same can't be said for the so called 'ufology' field.

Yes there are scientists who fake their work and data, and those are bad scientists and do bad science, and they are usually debunked pretty quickly by real scientists.

When the same example is applied to 'ufology', when someone presents outlandish claims, faked data, hoaxes, there are people who will accept it blindly, and in some cases even after it's been determined to be fake.
Hell, there are still people believing Billy Meier and other hoaxes/hoaxers who have long ago been debunked!

The problem is that the ufology field lacks credibility. I will concede - and this is also my personal belief - that the field has been tainted on purpose by certain agents, but it's also, and continuously, tainted by crackpots and people who accept things blindly without scientifically analyzing and questioning the data.

Some may say "but those crackpots/hoaxers don't have anything to do with ufology", and I tend to agree, because I would like to think of Ufology as the field of scientific study of UFOs and related phenomena. Unfortunately some of Ufology and 'ufologists' keep embarassing themselves and the field.

One example would be the conferences (X-Conference, etc) or press conferences (Disclosure Project), that keep putting crackpots side by side with credible people and data.

Until Ufology and ufologists repudiate and distance themselves from crackpots and bad data, start analyzing the data scientifically and without the prejudice and bias of their own beliefs, the science community, and even people in general, will not take Ufology seriously.

By the way, Mark Roazhar was merely stating his opinion that the video is fake. Although he might have more explicitly state his reasons for saying so, should I remind you that the burden of proof is on the person claiming that it is true/real?

Having said that, why do you think the video is real? I would be interested in knowing your reasons. Thank you.


edit: spelling.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by danx]

Originally posted by Mark Roazhar

Originally posted by polomontana

So now you can "divine" how a person should act when they see a U.F.O.? So they never try to move around so it's fake? That makes no sense.

You're not making sense? What are you on about?
What sense of the word are you using the word 'divine'?
Why would he just use the zoom, instead of walking closer?

Originally posted by polomontana
Secondly, I think evolution occured and there is black holes. It's called reductio ad absurdum. Why does the pseudoskeptic accept black holes, evolution, virtual particles and more basically without question but with ufology which has more evidence than these things, any flimsy answer to try and discount it will do? I believe it boils down to a pre-existing belief system that these things don't or can't exist so you look at every picture or video with this priori in place.

Why even mention the black holes and evolution items then?
Pre-existing belief system? I believe in aliens, but I know theres a lot of people who get a real kick out of planting fakes on the net.

I've given my reasons as to why I think its fake, why do you think its real then?

[edit on 30-4-2008 by Mark Roazhar]

You never hear divine used this way?

13. to discover or declare (something obscure or in the future) by divination; prophesy.

15. to perceive by intuition or insight; conjecture.

She tried to divine wether her marriage would end in divorce.

Divine is the root word of divination.

My point is, you can't use human nature as a basis on wether or not the video is fake or not. People react differently in these situations.

Why didn't he walk closer? Why didn't he move around or scream? These questions can't be used to point to a video being fake. That was my point.

There are bogus theories in science so should we discount scientific discoveries because of this? No.

Just like you can't use fakes to discount ufology.

My take is that most pictures and videos of U.F.O.'s are real until proven fake. It's just like innocent until proven guilty.

The burden of proof is on the skeptic who is making the claim that it's fake or that the eyewitness was mistaken.

If a person witnesses a murder and the person who did it, it's up to the defense attorney to dispute this if they are making the "claim" that the person didn't commit the crime. The eyewitness doesn't have to prove anything, they verify what they saw and the burden of proof is on the skeptic who is claiming they didn't see what they saw.

So we don't know how their technology affects the space around the ship. They could be warping the space and this how they move around so quickly and this is why some pics and videos are blurry. So until these pics and videos are examined by professionals, it remains a U.F.O. until identified.

Originally posted by polomontana
There are bogus theories in science so should we discount scientific discoveries because of this? No.

Just like you can't use fakes to discount ufology.

Oh, I totally agree, just because there are fakes, frauds and hoaxes, doesn't mean it's not a real field and phenomena.

However, you can, and people do, use the fakes and hoaxes to doubt (and introduce doubt into) the phenomena. Is it really that surprising? It's human nature and the disinformation agents and campaigns rely on it.

My take is that most pictures and videos of U.F.O.'s are real until proven fake. It's just like innocent until proven guilty.

The burden of proof is on the skeptic who is making the claim that it's fake or that the eyewitness was mistaken.

No, the burden of proof is not on the 'skeptic'.

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven (from wikipedia)

The bold claim, whether you want or agree with it or not, is that these objects exist, therefor, the burden of proof is on people claiming or showing data to assert their existence.

I believe UFOs are real, and some are from extra-terrestrial origin, but I do not agree with your perspective. And I will tell you why.

I'm all for questioning and analyzing things scientifically, because, honestly, this is the only way were are going to prove that the phenomena is real! I don't want to believe, I want to know. And I want others to know. If what I'm presenting is not based on scientific evidence and research, then it's going to be subjective to each persons own beliefs and biases.

If you start by claiming that it's real - which I think is a logical fallacy - your perspective and bias is going to influence the result of the research and analysis.

If a person witnesses a murder and the person who did it, it's up to the defense attorney to dispute this if they are making the "claim" that the person didn't commit the crime. The eyewitness doesn't have to prove anything, they verify what they saw and the burden of proof is on the skeptic who is claiming they didn't see what they saw.

I think you are a bit confused regarding burden of proof. Your example is also incorrect.

Yes, the person accused of committing a crime will have a defense lawyer and it's his job to dispute the accusation, but because someone accused him of a crime in the first place!

A person doesn't just take someone or the state to court, and say "I will prove that I didn't kill anyone". It's the other way around.

That's why there's the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in criminal cases. Because the burden of proof is on the person making a bold claim, for example, accusing someone of having committed murder. And that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The person accused doesn't even have to prove his/her innocence, although for obvious reasons he/she should try. It's the prosecution that has to prove that he/she committed a crime.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by danx]

Danx,

Your whole post proves my point.

The burden of proof is not on the eyewitness but the prosecutor. The eyewitness just gets on the stand and verifies what he or she saw. The defense attorney who is claiming they didn't see what they saw has to prove otherwise.

We come to know the truth through a thing called reason. We send people to death row based on the reason of 12 individuals.

With U.F.O.'s and the beings who fly them, we have evidence that they exist beyond any reasonable doubt.

We have both direct and circumstantial evidence.

Direct evidence - eyewitness accounts from Presidents, pilots, military, police officers, high ranking government officials, alien abductions and more.

Circumstantial evidence - cave paintings, ancient manuscripts, paintings, pictures and video.

Why is saying these things exist a "bold" claim?

If I were to say I saw a pink elephant flying in my backyard, that's a bold claim because there is no evidence that corroborates what I'm saying.

With ufology you have a ton of circumstantial and direct evidence that supports the claim.

Your premise about knowing vs. believing is bogus. People knew the earth was not flat before it was confirmed.

We know things through reason. I don't believe U.F.O. and the beings who fly them exist, I know they exist beyond any reasonable doubt.

Like I said there's a ton of evidence that supports ufology and for most of the evidence you have zero counter evidence. All you have is heresay from the skeptic who is substituting their opinion for evidence.

There's more evidence that supports ufology than there is for evolution, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, string theory, M-theory, virtual particles and more.

Originally posted by polomontana
Danx,

Your whole post proves my point.

The burden of proof is not on the eyewitness but the prosecutor.

No, the burden of proof is on the person making a bold claim, which in the case of criminal prosecution used in your example, happens to be on the prosecution.

On the case of UFOs, it is on the people claiming that they exist (or are from a certain origin). Like I said in my previous post, you might no agree with it, but that is the bold claim.

Now, I'm not saying that they don't exist, in fact, I do believe they exist, I have seen one myself that couldn't explain, and have my own theories of their origin. But I realize that this is a bold claim and if I were to try and convince someone of what I have seen or believe I would need credible and solid evidence.

With U.F.O.'s and the beings who fly them, we have evidence that they exist beyond any reasonable doubt.

Oh I agree with you that there's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that UFOs exist and are flying in our skies. UFOs however, don't say anything about their origins and that's what people most of the time confuse.

Why is saying these things exist a "bold" claim?

Because it's not accepted by the majority of people and the scientific community.

If I were to say I saw a pink elephant flying in my backyard, that's a bold claim because there is no evidence that corroborates what I'm saying.

Unless of course you were someone who had seen (or thought they did) a pink flying elephant and caught it on tape/photograph.

And the majority of people and skeptics think of UFO reports and photographs and videos, the same way you would think of someone who would tell you pink flying elephants exist and is not a "bold claim".

Your premise about knowing vs. believing is bogus. People knew the earth was not flat before it was confirmed.

I don't agree with this characterization. Until you have confirmation that something exists or is the way you think it is, you only believe it exists or is the way you believe it is.

Confirmation is the key. Until then, everything else is just a belief, hunch or opinion. And you can't convict someone of murder based on a hunch, and you can't prove that UFOs are of alien origin based on your opinion.

We know things through reason. I don't believe U.F.O. and the beings who fly them exist, I know they exist beyond any reasonable doubt.

Oh I know UFOs exist, because there are plenty of great and real videos and photographs of unidentified flying objects, and I have seen one myself. On the other hand, I believe intelligent alien life exists and has and is visiting us.

There's more evidence that supports ufology than there is for evolution, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, string theory, M-theory, virtual particles and more.

What do you mean by Ufology? Ufology to me means the study of the UFO phenomena. If you're using ufology to mean that UFOs exist, again, yes I know they exist. If by ufology you mean that they are extra-terrestrial in origin, then, again, I don't know, but I believe some of them might be.

Addressing your comparisons, well I don't think we can put all those things in the same bag.

We have evidence of evolution. There are fossils that show how some animals evolved. Do we have fossils showing this evolution in all animals? No we don't, but that doesn't mean evolution isn't real, the same way that you agreed that just because some UFO videos or photos are fake doesn't mean they all are.

And we have evidence of the effects that the bodies we call black holes have on their surroundings.

Many of the other examples you gave are scientific theories in progress and in my opinion don't deserve to be lumped with the previous ones. There is, however, circumstantial evidence for some of them. We haven't been able to prove them, doesn't mean they are or aren't real.

Danx,

You are basically agreeing with what I said but some of your post doesn't make sense.

Of course the burden of proof is on the skeptic.

How do you prove you saw a U.F.O.? That doesn't make sene.

If a pilot see's a U.F.O. all he can do is report what he saw. If the skeptic chooses not to believe him then they have to prove that he didn't see what he saw. Or they have to impeach the witness. This means go after his character.

It's like if I never been to Disney World and someone tells me they have been to Disney World and I say prove it. Now he can show me pics of his trip to Disney World but as a skeptic I can say these are doctored photos. He can't do anything to prove to me that he went to Disney World.

This is how the skeptic operates. No matter what they want the eyewitness to prove it. The eyewitness can give the skeptic all of the evidence and they will still say they didn't see what they saw.

At some point it goes from skepticism to protecting a belief system.

In the real world we operate on reason. If I have a pilot that can't be impeached describe what he saw and then I look at this in context with all of the other evidence then I can say these things exist beyond a reasonable doubt. Should I give more weight to the pilot or the skeptics opinion?

When I say ufology, I mean all of the evidence. You can't look at these things in isolation because you will get an incomplete picture.

Again, there's more evidence for ufology than there is for evolution. There's no direct evidence for dinosaurs. Who has ever observed a Dino and observed it's evolution?

Now I accept things like evolution and black holes but there is more evidence that backs ufology that there is for these things. We have direct observation that backs ufology and you have to take the credibility of the witnesses into account. With ufology any lawyer worth his or her salt would love to have these witnesses.