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.

 

Are Photos and Videos Obsolete?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
I was thinking and came to the conclusion that photos and videos don't really serve much purpose to ufology anymore. All they can prove is that UFOs exist and I think there's enough evidence to prove that already. Maybe if someone finally got some decent footage of an alien it would help, but so far that doesn't exist. Instead we just waste time and manpower going over pretty much the same picture time and again and no matter what we conclude we forget about it right after. It seems like our resources can be better spent investigating things that might give us a more definite answer as to what this phenomena truly is.




posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
I was thinking and came to the conclusion that photos and videos don't really serve much purpose to ufology anymore.

It seems like our resources can be better spent investigating things that might give us a more definite answer as to what this phenomena truly is.


OK.. I'll bite.. Now that we know what you think doesn't serve a purpose in ufology, what are your thoughts on the avenue everyone should go towards? Please be specific with a detailed outline of the route we should go.

Also please define the following for us in addition to the requested route, please offer examples on what "Resources" you are speaking of, what "Things" are worth investigating, and what your concept idea is/are on for getting these answers to this phenomena (assuming you are speaking of the UFO phenomena)?



[edit on 10/30/2008 by JohnnyAnonymous]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Maybe I went a little overboard on that first post, but I still feel that there is a lot of wasted time that goes into analysis. Take the Turkey footage for example, we spent pages going over that and in the end no definite conclusion could be made. And even if we had decided it was legitimate nothing would have come of it. Nobody's mind would have been changed. It wouldn't force any kind of disclosure. It would just simply be another piece of evidence we could look at and say, "Yep, there's something going on," but we can say that already.

What I think needs to happen is more time spent on investigations like yours at Gilliland Ranch. There's really not much more we can get from watching lights in the sky, but I do feel like there is something to be gleaned from places like Gilliland and Skinwalker. These are places that seem to draw not only UFOs but other unexplainable phenomena as well. And I feel that these places can offer the next piece to the puzzle. I feel in the current Internet age we've started to take each case as an individual incident, when we need to start looking at the bigger picture and I feel places like these offer a microcosm of that bigger picture.

I've noticed time and again people complaining on here about the decrease in decent material because everything we're seeing we've seen in some form already. However, I noticed a lot of people were quite interested in the Gilliland investigation because it was something new and offered some compelling evidence. I'm not saying that individual sightings have lost their importance, but I feel we need to shift our view from these specific occurrences to the phenomena as a whole.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I dont think they are.

I simply think that unless the video has some quality, some attempt to foreground and frame the obejct, steadiness, proper focus and is an object that raises more questions than "is it a UFO", its really not moving us forward.

Right now im discussing ones in terms of whether they are birds, again even if they arent birds it wouldnt help.

Until we get good enough footage that we can say "ok it a clear and definate CRAFT" then we arent going to shunt any skpeticism. A good piece of footage should really not even be "UFO" it should be what kind of craft is this and who made it, kind of footage. Debunk the CGI callers first by testing it and then move on.

People say that we should have that footage by now. Truthfully how many people actually walk around ready and able to film the perfect shot? UFOs appear, people grab what they can on a cell, know little about how to film or why and the quality is what it is. EVen people who might have a camera would need to take it from its case, power it up and often people would just gawp and try figure out what something is first.

The ones who are ready and waiting with good equipment are generally very few, so maybe in a more positive and open minded climate we WILL start to see better footage.

People assume because someone is a "UFOlogist" that automatically means wherever they go with a camera, a UFO is automatically going to appear and give them great footage. Some UFO people have only seen one or two in their whole life, its a big old world.

Those who are interested should just keep their cameras to hand, and if they do see something, remeber to try get that killer footage.

Im sure someone will get some nice film sooner or later, something which really slams into dicussion with "balloons, swamp gas" or anything else even entering the fray.

The other thing is the media should try publishing the more credible stuff instead of wandering in and getting hoaxed by fishermen, that would really help. SOme of the ones the media cover as "real" make me cringe but then again that in itself just goes to show you, in terms of exposure hoax doesnt seem to matter because if Joe CBS says its true, for the masses, its true. Ironic but hey ho.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   
At some degree I agree with the OP. The video and photo evidences seem to have lost their appeal...

IMHO there are many factors to that, but -again, IMO- this has more to do with the advances in CGI then anything else.


One can say: "Oh, but when I see a very convincing picture/video of something that undoubtedly can be described as a craft, that will be the final proof for me"

Well, so I say this: go to youtube and look for "death star in los angeles". Or other known CGI videos...


It has became so incredibly easy/accessible to manufacture these kinds of images that I believe we ALREADY are at a point we cannot trust our eyes through a monitor/screen. I believe it is already impossible to discern from a "real" or a well-faked UFO video.

So what's the answer then? Personal experience that is!!


That's all I got for now...


Peace



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


The problem with most photos and videos is they show nocturnal lights and daylight disks. I am reading a book by Kevin Randle "UFOs in the 90a", and he makes a great case about those types of cases. The videos and photos can still be analyzed and some of the better ones can be blown up to reveal a nuts and bolts craft. I think that each new photo and video should be looked at in case there is something new to be seen.

For the most part, they will just be the same old nocturnal lights and daylight disks with nothing new to add to the information and hundreds of thousands of cases just like them.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
When I was in college in the 1980's, at the advent of the digital age, we had this discussion in photography class (I was a photo major).

The professor said that there would always be a need for film photography because film is so much harder to hoax than a digital image. He said that in a court of law, digital images would always be suspect, and film would always be more trustworthy. I am inclined to agree with him.

It is not really possible to upload visible proof to the internet, because the image or video must be digitized in order to do so, and digital information can be readily manipulated.

However, this does not mean that film photos cannot be taken, it just means that they are more difficult to widely distribute for analysis.

I suggest that film cameras are still preferable for those wishing to provide proof, especially if the encounter is close enough for a sharp photograph. Also, some film cameras have a 100% mechanical shutter release, and NO BATTERY or electricity of any kind is required to take a photograph. This means that you can take a photo with such a camera even if all nearby electrical devices are inoperable.

But you won't be able to provide it as proof on ATS unless you scan it in, thus lowering picture quality and digitizing the image, making it subject to digital manipulation.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by OuttaHere
 


Im not a photographer but my understanding is that film manipulation is much harder to check. It would be tampered at the negative level and without the negative you probably wouldnt be able to tell.

While digital images are easier to tamper they are also pretty easy to identify if you specialise in image analysis. I dont believe its possible to manipulate a digital image in any way that isnt visible under analysis at this time.

Any good footage or film that is worth real merit, meaning it actually looks like a craft should be sent raw data and checked right off the bat. That would help no end.

Most images arent worth doing because even if you can rule out many things you cant actually say its a "craft" so its validity doesnt really help a great deal in convincing anyone.

Someone needs to get some truly mindblowing footage which im sure with more people interested will happen sooner or later.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
No, but I am.

*rimshot*

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.


Seriously though, as technology advances, it's going to get harder to separate real from hoax. Such is the case with any advancement, there's an equal disadvantage to it (every action, equal and opposite reaction... rings a bell.)

What this means for the future, I won't pretend to know.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join