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.


Why do we label some High definition photos of UFOs or ET as CGI?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 11:04 PM
So far, all I have seen from closeup pictures and videos is comments about them being CGI. Have it ever come to the mind that not all close things are all cgi? Heck, the only vids and pictures people call real are blurry and far away.

If it ain't closeup, it's real, but if it ain't far away, it has gotta be CGI.

Sure some closeups are CGI, and maybe some are just retarded, but really, think some of them through.

Look, here is a CGI UFO

Now here is a real UFO (possibly)

posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 11:10 PM
If the first one was would be all over the news.

Looks good though

posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 11:14 PM
I've thought of this from time to time as well.

I think that no matter what, we will never be able to tell the difference, because there will always be that argument.

Far away and blurry, easy to fake...
Close up and detailed... still fake...

I would like to believe that some of these photos are genuine...but I'll never know for sure until I witness an event of that caliber.

posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 12:10 AM
reply to post by Shoomoo

That second video of the ''Canada UFO Landing" , or "CARP Case" was proved to most likely be a hoax and the "UFO" was actually a pickup truck with strobes or a helicopter......

UFO landing at Carp: Too good to be true?

In 1989, the Canadian UFO Research Network (CUFORN) received a package from a mysterious "guardian" that stated a UFO crash had occurred near Ottawa. Initial response was that it appeared to be a hoax but some locals did investigate and determined where the possible landing/crash site was. For about two years it remained that way when more packages appeared, one of which contained a video of the crashed UFO. The images are not that impressive and appear to be some large object that is lit with flares nearby and a flashing light on top. However, this video began to make the rounds in the UFO community as something authentic. After the winter of 1991-1992, CUFORN began to investigate the case. An American Ufologist, Bob Oechsler, became involved in the investigation because he also received a version of the tape, which he showed to Dr. Bruce Maccabee. Both felt a UFO was present and needed investigation. Oechsler's behavior during the investigation of the area seemed suspect. The Canadian UFOlogists were amazed at how Oechsler seemed to know his way around and then managed to find the location of the video shoot while they decided to go to a restaurant to get a bite to eat. Oechsler then proceeded to find witnesses of the incident. Apparently, the UFO crashed in 1989 and, in August 1991, there was a subsequent landing that was recorded in the same area.

While Oechsler was busy looking for evidence of the UFO crash/landing, CUFORN began to investigate the more likely case of this being a video of a landed helicopter. Even though they could not find any helicopter landings that had occurred during the time period, CUFORN still was skeptical about the video. Back in the United States, Bob Oechsler had set up the television show "Unsolved Mysteries" to air the video bringing more people into the case. At one point, Dr. Maccabee referred to it as the "best footage of a landed UFO he'd ever seen" (Brookesmith 101). Maccabee's and Oechsler's opinions began to differ with those who were closely investigating the case.

Over the next few years, Oechsler's qualifications began to become suspect and Dr. Bruce Maccabee's connection with the case indicated he was either duped by Oechsler or that his analytical techniques were less than satisfactory. According to Tom Theofanous & Errol Bruce-Knapp:

Bruce Maccabee's motive and actions throughout the course of Oechsler's investigation are highly suspect and we feel that Maccabee owes an explanation to all those in our field who have trusted his judgment over the years.

The question is, is Maccabee being manipulated by Oechsler? Is he being conned or have his judgement and analytical capabilities become desperately impaired?

...Oechsler used his manipulative ability to build a story even though he knew of the circumstances and exactly what was going on and together with Bruce Macabbee, intentionally misled the public, the media and ufology using unethical means, and bad judgement in order to benefit financially and personally. (Theofanous & Bruce-Knapp):

With these closing remarks it was clear that Maccabee and Oechsler's opinions no longer mattered to people closely involved with the investigation of this case.

CUFORN/MUFON Ontario continued their investigation and began to seriously doubt the eyewitness stories. They began to suspect that the vehicle in the video was a truck with lights on top and the day-glow type wiper blades extended. Apparently, the nephew of the witness owned this type of vehicle. Further investigation revealed that the "guardian" might have been a friend of the family. The case began to unravel and the conclusions of CUFORN/MUFON Ontario were that the witness, the nephew, and friend were all involved in the hoax. In writing about the video, the MUFON Ontario bulletin stated, " That the Guardian video of a 'UFO landing' has, after analysis, proved inconclusive and likely is either a pick-up truck or (according to the RCMP investigation) a helicopter." (Theofanous & Bruce-Knapp). The case was rightly declared a hoax even though several prominent UFOlogists wanted to maintain the opposite opinion.

Full story

posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 12:18 AM
color of the object is "off" on the first one, obviously CGI

the second seems more like lights coming over a crest of a hill, fake also, but not CGI

Far away objects can be anything, upclose, well that is something different and I have never even seen even a GOOD CGI video of a UFO, let alone a supposed real one. I believe in other worldly life, but all UFO vids leave much to be desired.

Just my two cents, which is not much these days.

posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 12:50 AM
Unfortunately videos or pictures will never be accepted as proof of UFOs simply because it is so easy to fake. I can "create" a fairly passable UFO pic using Paint and there's lots of "talented" people out there who can do the same with CGI or moviemaker software.

top topics

log in