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.


Do you think that CGI technology has damaged UFO credibility?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:31 PM
Excellent post Gazrok. I mean providing there were multiple angles then im not saying its entirely believable but i think it would play a massive role in eliminating trick photography/cgi.

Its not too often we get events filmed from more than one angle, but as you say with camera's and cell phones owned by the majority of people it def increases the chance of multiple angles.

The phoenix lights is a sheer mystery with die hard believers and witness testimonies to skeptics who are adamants its flares. Oh well maybe something new will pop up soon on that scale

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:52 PM
I think its usually obvious which video's are CGI but we need someone somewhere to get a close up pic of a UFO to give this phenomenon any credence at all in the first place every single UFO video is of a supposed craft miles away and blurred i've never seen any video which has made me gasp in awe.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:43 PM
Some of NASA footage is probably better than any other footage out there imo. The 1 with about 8 lights that float over Africa in a sort of formation while 1 journeys to the middle of them giving off a strobe effect. That's unbeatable imo.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 06:18 PM
Anybody with an ounce of sense should already know that photos and videos were never proof of anything when it came to UFOs, and that hasn't changed. The only thing that has maybe changed is there may be fewer people out there who will see a photo or video and immediately jump to the conclusion that it's a photo of an alien spacecraft.

I don't see anything wrong with that. As people become more educated and aware of this stuff, the bar for proof should go higher, not lower. CGI just reminds gullible people that seeing (particularly second-hand) is a pretty poor reason for believing.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by Nohup]

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 06:23 PM
Almost definitely though I do admit without CGI, the UFO field would be pretty boring since researching to see if a particular case of UFO is CGI or not could last for weeks or even months, and its truly great when the find is inconclusive.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 06:41 PM
Good post OP

I certainly feel it is doing major damage to Ufology and only gives more ammunition to the negative type skeptics.

Sites like Utube and others should police the CGI downloads better and make sure they are moved from the UFO pages to a UFO CGI category or better still deleted.

If ATS can sort out the hoaxes and fakes no doubt these video sites can all so, I have no respect for the smart arse little PC nerds who get off on these type of ego trips.

I no that most of these vidoes are very creative but posting these and claiming them to be orthentic is just childish stupidity to say the least.

Star And Flagged.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 07:34 PM
I'd much rather see us flag "HOAX" than delete....if something is PROVEN (beyond most reasonable doubt) to be a fake (i.e. like finding the untouched same photo, etc.

The phoenix lights is a sheer mystery with die hard believers and witness testimonies to skeptics who are adamants its flares. Oh well maybe something new will pop up soon on that scale

I must stress that there were two separate events that night, one at 8pm, and the other at 10pm. The videos most are familiar with was of the 10pm event, and these have been shown very scientifically to be flares. The duration of none of the videos exceeds the burn time of the type of flare dropped, and the lights disappear in the exact order they would as falling behind the mountain ridge.... Of course, up to each to really decide for themselves, but if we are to be honest with ourselves and deny ignorance, then the evidence solidly supports the Operation Snowbird exercise. (for the 10pm event). However, NUFORC and other UFO reporting centers have similar reports of boomerang shaped craft sighted all over 3 states almost two hours before the videos of the 10pm event. Unfortunately, for the 8pm event, the same videographers weren't out and about. So we're stuck either believing the witnesses, or refuting them....with no progress either way on the earlier sighting.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:48 PM
I definitely think film is better, but that is because I liked good ol' manual photography. I am hanging on to my last, a Nikon FM3a but I have embraced digital. I think, though, that it's easier to see the hoax with CGI personally. As far as CGI in movies I think it pretty well sucks, as in the case of Star Wars. The old models looked far better than the CGI and if Lucas couldn't pull it off with his kind of resources how could a "prankster" fool UFO believers? I have no idea if I even made the slightest sense but in my mind it's right.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 09:01 PM
I have found what could be called a UFO hoaxer's treasure trove at this website below. It's aimed almost completely to the gaming crowd- but someone sufficiently evil could produce a VERY convincing UFO pic/ video with these FREE programs:

A treasure trove of free and nearly free 3d and video editing tools

I have got most of the items they show because I am learning the 3d field- and already, I can produce a UFO photo that'd make some people look twice. And no, I don't do that (to the general public). My friends, however... occasionally, I like to spoof them.

What I think should be done- is someone needs to get VERY good with hoaxing UFO videos, but be so above reproach as to not post them as real. Then... start training people how to spot GCI versus real high speed aircraft videos, which I believe would be helpful. The downside to this, however- is you'll have a hoaxer taking notes as well....

[edit on 2-2-2009 by wylekat]

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 09:50 PM
reply to post by daxman

Although CGI has created a greater burden for people searching for the truth, the only credibility hurt by CGI is the credibility of the hoaxer. And there is no such thing as "the credibility of UFO" there is the individual credibility of each eyewitness to be evaluated one by one. To lump all into one and judge them together is to generalize and then judge on a preconception, in other words to be closed minded.


posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:42 AM
Sadly yes, I agree. I think the CGI industry and new technology of computers as caused a lot of negativity towards UFO video/imagery.

I guess the only way to evaluate if a video [nowadays, not 10+ years prior] is genuine is to have multiple eye witnesses and if possible, multiple versions of the same video from different people at different angles.

But then, that's kind of the "Holy Grail" of UFO video, isn't it?

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 10:09 AM
The simple answer is YES - a lot of other things have also badly damaged ufo credibility.

Further thoughts on this....

a) it used to be "the camera never lies" - now nothing can be further from the truth. Whether it be still or video, almost anything can be created and to most people passed off as real.

b) we are saturated with video and pictures, even the most "incredible stuff" on film. Even if some filmed for real a ufo and alien en#er in great quality -- no-one would believe it --- in this way those who want to hide the UFO issue have won....

c) There is a lot of genuine stuff out there that is just discarded becuase it is "poor quality" - catching something on the mobile phone whilst out walking the dog is more credible than a perfect picture.

d) It is not just CGI, it is the whole power of image and video manipulation right there in everyones hands on a computer (if you have a computer) - does not require excessive skill either

e) wild hoaxes just makes people dismiss the real stuff

f) 30 years ago I made "chinese laterns" with wire and tissue paper and wool soaked in oil - worked well - set a top of tree on fire though... they are nothing new... more modern versions are light sticks inside helium balloons, sliver helium baloons in shapes and so on...

g) There were old photo technqies as well if someone wanted to really fake something - I did one as a joke when I was at school - even had the negative - was perfect even when scrutinised - was actually a drawing pin as a ufo... tops of streetlights make good ufo.s etc...

I for one have good reason to belive that UFOs are very real, both made by man (secret military stuff), and not from earth. I also have good reason to believe than many people do see real unusual things, and have encounters - most of which we never hear about - or they get dismissed as fake - when they are real.

I like to hear about and see every UFO/USO film, picture/story.... and weed out the fake from the non-fake... some we will never know what is real.

My bottom line? We must NOT let the fakehide the truth of the real ... but that is what is happening all too often now.

Yes - it is now impossible to prove anything, witnesses are dismissed out of hand too. If I videoed a conversation with an alien outside his craft I can guarentee that it would not be taken seriously.

Many times I have bought up something "real" as "real as it can be" on ATS and people just jump up and down and demand proof - and no matter what is presented from anyone - it gets dismissed out of hand. That is the victory of the disinformation people, through technology and mindset - we have to get real stuff back into view somehow - genuine stuff...

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in