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.

 

Should UFO Hoaxers Be Prosecuted?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
A UFO Hoax cannot by law be proven to be 'Forgery". You would need to prove the existence of the real phenomena first. A baseline standard would have to be created/acknowledged before the forgery could be measured against it.


No, I don't agree with this interpretation.

The key word in forgery is deceit, a falsified object pretending to be something that it isn't. It doesn't matter whether a supposed object in a video is a weather phenomenon or a Unidentified Flying Object, it's the intent that counts.


I'm very sorry but the poster responding to you is corrent. The word forgery is more than just a description of an act. its a legal term that is tied to what someone could be prosecuted for. To prosecute someone for forgery of ufo footage, the footage would have to exist and have proven ownership goverend by documentation containing signatures. (the signature part is signifcant as ownership by seals and signatures is neccessary for a prosecution of forgery). the guilty party would then have to recreate his own copy of the owned ufo footage and release it as said same footage without attributing it as a copy for no monetary gain.

This wouldn't even be covered by counterfeiting which is essentially lesser forgery.

In terms of prosecuting people for providing false information that could be harmful there are present laws that would have to be used. It would also be incredibly difficult to do so with ufo footage. If the viewer can not identify an object posted as a UFO and the object to the viewer appears to be flying then they are looking at an unidetified flying object, regardless of what the truth is behind it. also if someone posts a movie of "alien space craft over london" that is created in a 3d editing suite. then if the footage is real or not is irrelevant it is what it is.




posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
.. prosecute someone for making a fake. How about prosecuting all the gullible people who will believe pretty much anything that is posted as evidence. It is them that drives the hoaxers.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by kerazeesicko]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
People only believe crap because they want to.
It makes their lives happier and gives them something to dream about.

What's next?
Do we prosecute people who tout mere books as the word of god? Prosecute the children who claim to have seen the virgin Mary?

People can use their brains or not, it's up to them.

For every law on the books there is a heap of money wasted on enforcement and a proportion of false convictions.
We really don't need to waste money hunting down fibbers and prosecuting more innocent people.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I can't believe I'm reading this!

There are people here who really think someone posting a hoaxed picture of a UFO on the internet should be prosecuted?......really?

Even talk of getting the Police involved!!!

Would any member here really telephone the police and inform them that they believe that a crime has been committed?.........and then tell them that that crime is a hoaxed picture of a UFO?.......who do you think would be getting their collar felt?.....the caller or the hoaxer?

I can only assume that there are some very naive members here, try a little test, google search "porn", note down the search results, and start making those calls to the police for prosecutions.

This is the internet folks!......there's some bad things around here.......UFO hoaxers are a long way off the top of that "bad list"



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I'm guessing all big pranks should be made illegal too? No, I do not agree.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Yes, absolutely.

Why shouldn't they?



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by socrates271
Yes, absolutely.

Why shouldn't they?


Perhaps you should say why they should?.........because I can certainly say why they shouldn't!



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Argyll
 


sorry to just jump in but here goes.

they shouldn't be prosecuted ONLY because it would scare people with real sightings away from reporting them and with how to prove it.

By making fake evidence they are slowing down the progress of all mankind for as little as a bit of money or even just a laugh.

I refer you to south park v. john edwards.
The biggest douche in the universe episode.

If you set back the progress of your own species for personal profit or amusement you are garbage deserving of punishment



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by socrates271
Yes, absolutely.

Why shouldn't they?


Well gee, considering the government and mainstream science believe that all UFO sightings are hoaxes or natural phenomenon, they could essentially prosecute anyone that claims to see an alien or ET ship.

But aliens don't exist, according to the government. So every alien sighting can be prosecuted.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Prosecute UFO hoaxers?

Sy, while you're about it, why not also prosecute a few of these other groups who waste other people's time and annoy people...

- People who r=write angry letters to their local newspapers
- People who write boring movie screenplays
- People you think MIGHT commit a crime
- People who can't speak English
- People who stub their toes
- People who pick their noses
- People who complain about how the Government is run
- People who who look unhappy
- People with ugly faces
- People with a low IQ

And just give up wasting time on minor things like arresting murderers, rapists and thieves.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Heliocentric
 



Its hard to argue spending money and resources on policing a topic like this.

Especially when intelligence and common sense are free, and should be enough to police it.



[edit on 11/27/2009 by VonDoomen]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Absolutely not.

Prosecution should only be reserved for those cases in which a hoax caused direct measurable damage or injury to person/s affected by it. That Alien Autopsy hoax in the media a number of years back... they did nothing wrong except for hurt the pride of those gullible enough to fall for it. However, in the case of a Hoaxer staging a close encounter on his neighbor, gets him jumpy, and someone ends up getting shot - yes, I could see the application of legal process to punish the perpetrator of hoax.

It wouldn't stop hoaxers, but I bet you that the UFO community would crumble under the lack of poorly analyzed hoaxes to discuss as new media and claims decrease in proportion to the severity of the legal repercussion. What you'd end up doing is applying the scientific method of analysis and logic to claims and media - because the Judges ruling will demand demonstrable evidence of the validity of the claim before the lawyers/judge can establish intent.

How many active and respectable scientists do you know that buy into UFOology? What does mainstream science have to say on the matter?

Yeah.

And IF there is some evidence within those claims and media that COULD be found to support AVH (Alien Visitation Hypothesis) by the scientific method, then a lot of good data may go unreported or destroyed because those in possession of it would not be likely to come forward out of fear of a lack of supporting evidence leading to legal repercussions.


No... Hoaxers should not be prosecuted, and I don't like the idea of creating laws to protect those who don't want to put forth the effort to exercise solid reasoning and research necessary to establish the validity of claims they are presented with. Especially if the claims are extraordinary.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 




Especially when intelligence and common sense are free, and should be enough to police it.


Actually, you'd be surprised of how little the use of common sense is when establishing validity and determining the real from the fake. When you look at a Navel Orange - common sense tells you that the fruit is orange in color. But common sense is wrong. The fruit itself isn't orange, you're just detecting the frequency of light reflected off of it. When you mix a can of red paint into a can of blue paint, we see purple paint. It's common sense right? But the paint isn't purple. If you run a sample through a spectral analysis - it'll show readings in red and blue. The color is actually mixed in our minds, because we don't have the sensitivity and resolution in vision necessary to detect individual photons or their frequencies.

It's not common sense... but it's true, and anybody who looks closely at those old-print comic books can see how we can use that understanding in practical commercial application.


Education, similarly, isn't free. This doesn't necessarily mean you have to pay for it... as there's plenty of knowledge given away for free on the internet, in libraries, through mentors... as well as other avenues. You don't have to pay a cent for it. But it isn't free. You do have to work at educating yourself, and it can be hard and stressful work if you really want to gain deep and comprehensive understanding of things. Education doesn't come from the passive input of data that can be poured into your mind like water into a jug. You have to have the drive and desire to engage it and absorb it.

And once you gain that education, the price of it comes at the dispelling of previous misunderstandings and beliefs. Some of which may have served well as coping mechanisms, or are treasured on a deeply personal level. It can be unsettling to have to leave the comfort of a favorite belief in order to accept a harsh truth. That's a powerful incentive for people to disengage from education, and at best will unconsciously cherry pick what they are comfortable with and want to accept, what can be morphed to fit to or reinforce their preconceptions, and everything else will pass through a sort of cognitive blind spot.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   




posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Who is going to lock up the government.
Some people think the government has been hoaxing us for years.
Or that the purpose of the government is to continually hoax us.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Well, setting aside the question of whether or not they should be prosecuted for perpetrating a UFO hoax, it has happened, just recently, in New Jersey.

www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric

Originally posted by pazcat
Seriously though, who is to determine what is a legit video or not? How does one go about determining is authenticity?


A photo or video somehow 'faked' (CGI, hubcaps suspended with strings, etc) publicly posted as 'unidentified object' equals forgery.

A photo or video showing a true unidentified object is what it is.

The forgery will have to be shown and proved, just as with any other crime.


I'm a Doctor of Brainology and I have a degree in Education.

In my professional opinion, you cannot prosecute someone for making a claim or making footage, still or moving and saying it is something it is not, unless they profit from it.

If they are selling DVD's or Books, Yes - Fraudulent transactions.

If they put it on youtube and people squeal in glee only to be heartbroken when it's revealed it was a hubcap suspended in the air, nothing should be done.

Unlike the balloon boy, who caused services to waste countless time and money on a stupid stunt, youtube and the internet in general don't cause anyone any cost apart from ego.

I shall now go back to my electronical motor devices, because one of them is broken in the moving part. I know, I'm also thing scientist.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aircow
Well, setting aside the question of whether or not they should be prosecuted for perpetrating a UFO hoax, it has happened, just recently, in New Jersey.

www.msnbc.msn.com...


No, they weren't.



Authorities say the pair triggered a flurry of 911 calls when they lit road flares tied to helium balloons and released them in central New Jersey in January and February.

The prosecutor charged them with disorderly conduct, saying the balloons could have interfered with air traffic and posed a potential fire hazard.


That they were hoaxing a UFO sighting wasn't significant to the judgment beyond establishing it as a premeditated willful act. What they actually were charged for was for tying up emergency lines and attaching lit flares to balloons and releasing them into the atmosphere. That's not exactly a safe behavior we should be encouraging.

Really, that's more or less what the judgment was about. It's a slap on the wrist and some public shame to discourage the promotion of similarly grievously stupid and risky behavior. If nobody had made a fuss about it, and the picture showed up on the internet with a few testimonies... nobody in the legal system would have given a damn what they did.


It's the same as that one family who staged the abduction of their baby by a hot air balloon for media attention. They were hoaxing America. What is the intrinsic difference between their hoax for attention, and the UFO hoaxers doing community service?



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 


Thats easily fixed by slapping a heft fine on hoaxters. At least to people like David Wilcocks who give a date and nothing happens. If people cant find that justifiable.. I'd have to say they're delusional. Not much resources are needed to slap a fine. For false UFO's, I would say leave that one alone because whats a UFO; its an unidentified flying object meaning most don't claim it to be a spacecraft but rather something that cannot be explained or identified.
Nuts like David Wilcock who prophesize when a certain disclosure of UFO is gonna land and doesn't should in my opinion get fined. That to me, should include religious nut like Ronald Wienland who is wrong all the time. People who make false prophesies should be fined. Tell me why they should not be ?

[edit on 28-11-2009 by disfugured]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join