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.

 

Debunking U.F.O. video and pictures

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I usually don't debate every video and picture because I have already answered the underlying question as to wether these things exist beyond any reasonable doubt.

I do check them out when there posted and I'm noticing an alarming trend from so called debunkers and pseudoskeptics.

It's a premise that's devoid of any reason or logic when it comes to calling every video or pic fake, flare, weather balloon or lantern without any investigation.

When a pic or video is posted your sure to find one of these things a few posts into the thread.

This is no way to get to the truth because it starts with a faulty premise.

The premise is that you know how a REAL extraterrestrial/extradimensional craft or being will look.

That's like looking for counterfeit money and you have no idea how real money looks. These things are fake opposed to what?

Or you start of with a priori that these things can't or don't exist and then your in the realm of belief. When your protecting a belief system sometimes illogical reasoning comes out and it's evident in these threads.

So it's a shell game. You can call every video fake if this is the premise of the debate and you will just be kicking tires as we used to say. In other words going in circles.

With todays technology it's easy to say a pic or a video of a U.F.O. looks like something else without any investigation.

What you need to know is the characteristics that are inconsistent if there are any with the object your comparing the video or picture to.

You then need to know who shot it and what were the conditions.

Even then if you can't find a "natural explanation" it's just left open or unknown. This is seeking the truth?

The real way to come to the truth is through reason and logic.

We do it in court rooms everyday and some people are convicted based on circumstantial evidence and the reason of 12 individuals.

The same is done in fields like Theoretical Physics, they come to reasonable conclusions on things like extra-dimensions, parallel universes and the multiverse based on the evidence and reason. Most physicist accept these things even though they don't have ABSOLUTE proof.

With Ufology you have direct, circumstantial, trace evidence and abduction cases. You have alot of evidence that's left "open" because a "natural explanation" was not found.

Extraterrestrial and extradimensional beings are a natural explanation in the context of extra dimensions and beings who are ahead of us in evolution and technology.

So there's evidence that supports things within ufology and you can come to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt or you can leave these things "open" and never get to the truth.

The debate needs to advance because the pseudoskeptics and many of the so called debunkers are truly turning logic and reason on it's head.




posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Personally I've noticed an alarming trend of sheeple going "OMG THAT'S SO A UFO HOW COOL UFOS ARE REAL OMG OMG OMG EVERYONE MUST SEE REAL UFO 100% ULTIMATE PROOF OMG!!!!!!" at the sillyest of videos that doesnt show anything at all.

So it really goes both ways.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by polomontana

Debunking U.F.O. video and pictures


Is a lot easier then proving them.


BTW I agree with your post 100%
Basically you need to use the "scientific method" to prove or disprove. Do you see that happening here?

en.wikipedia.org...

I have noticed that most people make up their minds quickly and they are slow to change. That goes for anything, including whether to believe or disbelieve in something. No amount of proof will satisfy, i'm guilty of that too. The reason I believe in these recent vids is because I have seen how a ufo moves, and these vids look exactly like I remember. (In regards to their movements). I can't brush them off so easily. I want to see proof, I want to see the scientific method in action.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by merka
Personally I've noticed an alarming trend of sheeple going "OMG THAT'S SO A UFO HOW COOL UFOS ARE REAL OMG OMG OMG EVERYONE MUST SEE REAL UFO 100% ULTIMATE PROOF OMG!!!!!!" at the sillyest of videos that doesnt show anything at all.

So it really goes both ways.


It's about more than a picture.

It's about looking at the totality of evidence within ufology and then coming to a reasonable conclusion.

If you are trying to get to the truth one picture at a time then your just kicking tires.

When the debate is set up on a faulty premise as this one is then the truth is elusive and reason is not to be found.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by polomontana
 


100% agree.

We do not need ignorant skeptics finding "proofs" for the explanations they want to provide people with.
We need people investigating things. People, who do not hesitate, based on the scientific investination, to tell "this is something that is most likely not man-made (terrestrial) so it must be alien-made (extraterrestrial)".



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   
If someone posts a photo of a seagull and calls it a UFO then I do not need to know how hypothetical extraterrestrial ships look like to say it's a seagull (unless those hypothetical extraterrestrial ships look like seagulls
).

In the same way, if I see signs of CGI work on a video I don't need to know what those ships look like to say that I suspect it of being a CGI work.

Also, we should never forget that the person that makes the claims (whatever they are) is the one that should supply the evidences to prove those claims, so when someone posts a photo or a video that he/she says shows an alien spaceship that person should provide some evidence that points the validity of his/hers opinion, just saying "it's an alien spaceship because I know it" does not work.

The whole evidence of Ufology (whatever that may be, considering that are contradicting opinions inside Ufology) is not relevant when we see a specific photo or video. If it was created with the idea of fooling people then it was probably made with those evidences in mind and the photo or video was made in a way that makes the blind believers say that it is real just because it looks like what they are expecting (or what they think/know an alien spaceship looks like).

What I have also noticed is the after the first post of a new photo or video that supposedly shows one or more UFOs is a useless post saying that soon there will appear some post saying it's CGI, Venus, balloons or swamp gas, regardless of what the photo/video looks like.

PS: I don't consider myself a debunker and/or pseudo-sceptic, but I doubt everything, I don't accept things just because some person that I do not know tells me that they are true.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Again,

This is why you have to look at the evidence within ufology in total.

Any video or picture can be called fake if you don't know what a real extraterrestrial/extradimensional being or spacecraft looks like.

It's really an illogical argument that has no end.

What you have to do is weigh the totality of the evidence within reason.

There's evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that something is flying in our skies that doesn't have a "natural explanation."

In this context a "natural explanation" is one that only includes things like weather balloons, flares or CGI.

This is the mistake of the pseudoskeptic and some of the so called debunkers.

They start with the priori that these things can't or don't exist. So they are not seeking answers, they are trying to re-establish what they already believe.

So these cases remain "open" in order to look for the elusive "natural explanation."

Extraterrestrial/extradimensional beings would be a "natural explanation" in the context of extradimensions and beings who are ahead of us in evolution and technology.

So the evidence is that there's something in our skies that defies a "natural explanation" in the context of weather balloons and flares.

You then build a theory on what these things can be that defy a "natural explanation."

You then look at the totality of the evidence and you reach a reasonable conclusion.

So far their isn't a theory that competes with extraterrestrial/extradimensional beings.

Some just leave it "open." That's not seeking the truth, that's just going in circles.

You have to look at all the evidence in total.

We have over 700 cases alone investigated by our government that they left "open." From 1948:

Witnesses: Sylvester Bentham and retired U.S. Army Col. Horace Eakins. Two objects: one, a buff or grey rectangle with vertical lines, the other a translucent "amoeba" with a dark spot near the center. The arms of the "amoeba" undulated. Both objects travelled very fast.

Witnesses: pilot Halter and radar operator Hemphill of a P-61 "Black Widow" night fighter. Up to six objects tracked on radar, only one seen visually. Dull or dark object shaped like a dirigible with a flat bottom and clipped tail end. Six seen on radar separately Pilot attempted to close on visual object, but it dove away fast.

Witness: USAF Sgt., control tower operator. One round, white light flew for 25 seconds with varying speed, bouncing motion, and finally a rapid erratic climb.

www.ufologie.net...

This is just a very small portion of the totality of cases.

62 kids in Zimbabwe investigated by Harvard Professor John Mack.
www.youtube.com...://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread274031/pg1

Travis Walton case
www.travis-walton.com...

Trace evidence

The following presents a statistical analysis of data found in 3,189 reports involving observations of anomalous phenomena or objects on or near the ground resulting in physical effects generated by the unknown objects observed. These events took place in 91 countries between 1490 and 2006. There are hundreds of additional reports of possible trace sites which do not involve the observation of a UFO. All but the most significant of these events have been removed from the primary files and located in a secondary catalog.The analysis permits certain regularities of these phenomena to be brought out. The data indicates there is a certain type of phenomenon which shows stable statistical properties.

Many of these events involve multiple witnesses, observing unknown objects under good seeing conditions, at close range, detailed objects visible for extended periods of time, resting on or near the ground with known reference points providing a certain connection between the observed object and the resulting physical traces. Small humanoids have been seen in a substantial number of cases meeting the high strangeness standards.

ufophysical.com...

My point is, going by every pic and video only obscures the truth because it's already established that many of these things defy a "natural explanation" in the context of weather balloons or flares.

The debate is now calling these things fake without any investigation and I think the debate is built on a faulty premise.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I agree. Although I don't care where one stands, I do expect them to have a reason for the stance they takes. And they should express it.

Researching often means learning. To call fake without taking the time to look means not learning.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
First of all, sorry for keeping on answering when I do not consider myself a pseudo-sceptic or a debunker, but as I do not agree with what you are saying and I have the possibility of replying I do it.



Originally posted by polomontana
There's evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that something is flying in our skies that doesn't have a "natural explanation."

In this context a "natural explanation" is one that only includes things like weather balloons, flares or CGI.
Why do you ignore all other possible "natural explanations"? Nature is not limited to weather balloons, flares and CGI (in fact, none of these are natural events), do you think that all UFOs must be artificial, whether by our own making (like weather balloons and flares) or by hypothetical extraterrestrial or extra-dimensional beings?


They start with the priori that these things can't or don't exist. So they are not seeking answers, they are trying to re-establish what they already believe.
The problem is that many (maybe the majority of them) believers do exactly the same thing but in the opposite direction; they start with a preconceived idea that whatever those things may be they can not be explained by "natural explanations", and here I a "natural explanation" is one that can be related to something natural (on Earth) in its true sense of related to Nature.


So far their isn't a theory that competes with extraterrestrial/extradimensional beings.
And what about living creatures from the upper atmosphere? Why is there to make an extraterrestrial/extra-dimensional beings theory better than one of upper atmosphere creatures?



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Armap,

I'm glad you are posting in this thread. You illuminate my points for me.

When I said natural explanation. I said "in the context of." That should tell you that I'm not just talking about a comet or meteor, I'm talking "in the context of" ufology when it comes to assigning a natural explanation to pics and videos of U.F.O.'s.

My point is that these things are meaningless "in the context of" the totality of the evidence within Ufology.

Debunking pics and videos might be fun but what does it have to do with the price of tea in China?

The debate is one of reason and logic when looking at the totality of evidence.

Of course the truth will evade you when you narrow your focus on every pic and video. If you don't know what a real extraterrestrial spacecraft looks like or how it operates, then of course every pic or video can be fake. Fake opposed to what?

This is why you have to look at the totality of evidence and then weigh it within reason.

If you look at the evidence and start with a priori that these things can't or don't exist then your just following a pre-existing belief system.

In a universe where only 4% is known, it silly to exclude these things that have plenty of underlying evidence.


[edit on 18-6-2008 by polomontana]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by merka
Personally I've noticed an alarming trend of sheeple going "OMG THAT'S SO A UFO HOW COOL UFOS ARE REAL OMG OMG OMG EVERYONE MUST SEE REAL UFO 100% ULTIMATE PROOF OMG!!!!!!" at the sillyest of videos that doesnt show anything at all.

So it really goes both ways.



Yes, I find it alarming that people don't go thru a PROCESS OF ELIMINATION in seeking the truth on what they are looking at...many want to believe SO BAD that they throw out all reason and logic.

INSTEAD OF (as example): Is it a bird? Well, lets do some research and analysis to see if that is possible. Is it a balloon? Hmm. Well, lets do some research and analysis to see if that is possible. Is it a military craft? Hmmmm. Well, lets do some research and analysis to see if that is possible.

WE ARE SEEING: OMG I know its an alien UFO. I don't care what people say or how much time they put into analyzing...I'm going to believe no matter what!

I just wish people would sit back, examine whatever they are looking at and go thru the PROCESS OF ELIMINATION BEFORE saying "I know 100% it is alien UFO"....and be OPEN to the possibility that said picture or video may not be of alien origin but could be very normal and earthly
When all other things are ruled out...then we should focus on "alien origin"




[edit on 18-6-2008 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I always start

“It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Sherlock Holmes.

I won't lie but I always see a pic/video as "fake" or misinterpretation of facts because when someone says "Its a UFO"... yes, its true.. it is an unidentified flying object. So, the first step is to try identify it, using our own cultural- technological background and knowledge to try identify it. After we exclude all what we know so far, we can say.. its really an UFO.
Is it from our planet or another, who knows?



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by polomontana
 


The reason the "pseudo-skeptics" come out and debunk misidentifications/cgi/closed minded individuals who can see things others cannot in their photos so they then outline the object/creature, then some people begin to see. Is because (I suspect) a lot of people want to make fools of people. Or they want to feel like the "pwnd" us. Also, after viewing several UFO videos over the years you get to know the difference between CGI and objects that are actually there in that point in space-time. Like the flying witch UFO thing from South America. Although it seems more likely that it is some sort of "flying platform" used by some sort of Military,etc. I KNOW aliens have been here. I guess I'm just one of those believers who won't change his mind, but I also don't buy into most related fringe subjects like remote viewing or channeling.

I love the STS video with the Tether. That was cool. Even if it is just debris.
lol let it be known that I don't believe they are all pieces of debris.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by trilateral_insignia]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   
I have sought some evidence of the nature of UFOs for decades, off and on. Now that I'm retired, I have more time to look, but no more success than when it was a part time hobby.


From what I have read and seen, including personal sightings, about one in every 85-90 reports remains almost impossible to find an earthly explanation for. Sadly, most of these are events that either time or conditions make impossible to gain more information about. Therefore the term "unknown" will likely remain, even here.

But if only ten percent of these unknowns are truthfully something beyond the scope of current earth science/understanding, then we are still left with an impressive number of events that need to be reasonably and scientifically investigated.

The rub comes from the fact that statistically, we had "better" reports when the masses of people were not as imaginative, nor technically empowered, as they are now. I still have no idea how to use photoshop, but I expect that I'm in a minority reserved almost exclusively for residents of the Upper Amazon.

Today we have a tech savvy populace with plenty of free time. A receipe for hoaxing and tomfoolery. It seems that we've entered a period of "hoax competition", with every owner of photoshop competing with every other. Sadly, sites such as this one have become the place to have them judged.

And the debunker/skeptics have become so jaded they seldom feel the need to do more than glance at a photo or video before pronouncing it fake. Believers, holding dear to tattered dreams of the stars, are just as worn down, and rally behind each new "proof" like groupies following The Hansons, though they too don't really want to do any deep analysis, lest disappointment follow.

Yet, statistics would seem to indicate that here and there, among the millions of fakes and hoaxes, a jewel must gleam. But like looking for diamonds at the public mine at Murfeesboro, Arkansas, after so many rocks, it's easy to miss the precious stones. Both sides grow weary, and if the chimera of contact is much longer delayed, I expect both camps to desert the battlefield en masse. Only the scarred and wounded war horses that really care will remain.

And to me that will be a good thing. Gone at last the blind believers in search of space brothers to save our species, gone the hoaxers who play for the crowds. Gone the proud debunkers with all their "first place awards for calling hoax", gone the lame scientists with their mantras of "No evidence" to ward off critical analysis.

Then, on some peaceful afternoon proof will alight from the blue. In some forgotten field of dreams a silent seeker will stub his toe on the El Darado of truth. Be it creatures from the vacuum of space itself or an ancient artifact, be it as elusive as the signal from somewhere beyond the sky or beneath the sea, there will come forth the answer to the riddle of the straw in the mountain of needles.

I'm patient. I'll wait till the fads have worn away for both sides. I'll go on looking then, just as now, for the answer to the what it is that we may have collectively glimpsed from the corner of our eye.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   
I'm with merka, ArMap, and GreeneyedLeo here....

I think MOST of us that try to rule out the obvious, is it a bird, is it a lens flare, is it or could it be the International Space Station...etc, would LOVE for it to be a real UNIDENTIFIED object!

I can't speak for everyone here that tries to LOGICALLY rule out the obvious...but I for one would LOVE to find the photo or video that's in the 5%, in the UNKNOWN category, as in, we ruled out EVERYTHING logically that it could be and it's still standing on it's own!

I think you're confusing the "drive-by" nay-sayers that don't even bother to watch the video or look at the picture and take in the story etc and just type a one line "Eh it's a bird..." to every single UFO picture. And they know who they are!

Now granted, as ArMap said, we just try to rule out the obvious...we're not saying that an alien technology could NOT have designed an inter-galactic ship to LOOK like a balloon...but hellloooo, look at the easiest explanation here...if they have, we have no PROOF of that...what we have proof of is that the vast MAJORITY of photos and pictures that show up here fall into the 95% category or so, they are either naturally occurring weather, birds, insects, mistaken identity with earth bound aircraft, lens flare, light reflections, satellites in space, even CGI and purposeful hoaxes of people tampering with videos and photographs.

And if you don't buy that it's a bird, or a balloon, or whatever that's your right of course! Believe what YOU want, not what the majority say but use your common sense in the meantime.

I LOVE ATS because you DO get so many different opinions. Read them all, then decide for yourself, case by case, and determine what your own set of criteria are for YOU to believe or rule out the photos and the videos. That's what it's all about anyway!

Great post NGC, star for you, I totally agree with you on all counts!

[edit on 18-6-2008 by LateApexer313]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


Wow. That was beautifuly said. Almost poetic



And this:



I'm patient. I'll wait till the fads have worn away for both sides. I'll go on looking then, just as now, for the answer to the what it is that we may have collectively glimpsed from the corner of our eye.


I agree with, though I dont think I can put it so eloquently as you


I am skeptic. I see so much stuff posted that only feeds my skepticism. However, I am still hopeful and look at EVERYTHING presented cautiously, but remain hopeful...which is what I think everyone should do, IMHO.

And someday, maybe I will be so lucky as to witness something myself that will just seal the deal for me


[edit on 18-6-2008 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
At this point, I have just grown too fatigued by the whole process of waiting for somebody to prove paranormality, particularly when it involves nothing but a video or photo, since a video or photo never proves anything by itself.

If the image is anonymous, it's in the trash.
If there's nothing more to it than video or still photo, then there's no point in continuing to care about it. The end.

Hey, maybe the photo or video really is of something from another time or planet. But if it can't be proven, then it's essentially the same as a curiosity or a unrevealed hoax. Too bad for me. Too bad for the witness. But what else am I supposed to do?

In this field, if you're not a skeptic, you're a sucker. Simple as that.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


Hiyah Nohup,

I am not quite as jaded as you are....yet....but I agree with this line of your post for SURE...


In this field, if you're not a skeptic, you're a sucker. Simple as that.


It's very frustrating for me to sit through threads like the one about the "Prophet Yaweh", while member after member buy into such a FLAGRANT charlatan, simply because they want to believe so bad, they will entertain fantastical bull spewing from a circus clown of a man as whatever his real name is....it's sad...and disheartening for those of us that use any shred of common sense to weed out the OBVIOUS dung that abounds in this topic.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by LateApexer313
 


I expect the compost heap of Ufology will soon become fertilizer for the hollywood tabloids or wherever all the true believers, and their symbiotic cousins the rabid debunkers, wind up. Right now we have to endure the stench of those who are here for a show.

This too shall pass.

And Nohup, I feel I can remain neither a total skeptic nor a sucker by keeping my focus on searching for the truth, each and every time I look. I never worry about what either side calls me, for the truth is bigger than labels, and whatever the truth should be, I would rather find it than have the ovation of one of these groups or the other.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by merka
Personally I've noticed an alarming trend of sheeple going "OMG THAT'S SO A UFO HOW COOL UFOS ARE REAL OMG OMG OMG EVERYONE MUST SEE REAL UFO 100% ULTIMATE PROOF OMG!!!!!!" at the sillyest of videos that doesnt show anything at all.

So it really goes both ways.


Way to prove the OP's point! *clap*

Care to link to 3 threads that show someone reacting like that?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join