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.

 

For the sake of Ufology, is a high res genuine video or photo in the next 10 years a necessity?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
With the recent confirmation of the infamous Belgium triangle photograph being a hoax, and the popularity of digital cameras, how damaging would it be if in 10 years we were still looking at blurry photographs or videos showing dots of lights in the sky? Do we need a high resolution clear photo/video to inject some credibility to this in eyes of the mass media/public? Or, better put, if by 2011 we still have nothing we can show to provoke a global focus on the subject, will UFology be relegated even further down?




posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
This has always been my big gripe about the UFO subject. I have yet to see a credible photo or video of an alien craft. I have no doubt there is life other than here, but are they visiting us? I have seen zero proof.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
If people in Ufology feel that they need a high-res picture or video of a ufo to keep the faith alive, then they will probably create one.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
do people not realise how crap mobile cameras are at night to record things... what do you want to do expect everyone to carry a 30 megapixel DLSR with 100000x optical zoom incase a UFO shows up?? i couldnt even get a shot a night taking pictures of buildings with plenty of lights without it being blurry never mind a a few lights in the pitch black in the sky at night! its hard to record things using whatever you have to record its far up in the sky when you zoom in the camera recording shakes like mad because of zoom, its alright for us to watch with our eyes focussed on the subject but unless you have all that equipment oh and throw in a tripod then yeah videos would have more credibility.. at the moment i doubt it, you either believe it or not, everyone seems to label everything a hoax anyway these days.. going into so much detail to debunk everything. fair point you need to split the BS from the real stuff. have you ever seen the pictures that look photoshopped but are genuinely real??? that's why i think all this debunk business is down to personal opinion backed up by simple logic.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stovokor
This has always been my big gripe about the UFO subject. I have yet to see a credible photo or video of an alien craft. I have no doubt there is life other than here, but are they visiting us? I have seen zero proof.


Well others would disagree and this is the problem, so far what we have is largely subjective but not conclusive. We need something on footage to get people like Stanton Friedman being interviewed primetime on national media, something that would be on the front page of every newspaper in the world because nothing else will do



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
There is no way to 100% prove that a photo or video is genuine, so no matter how good it is, it won't change anything as far as Joe Sixpack is concerned. Additionally, even if it were possible to prove that the footage was genuine, there will always be dispute over what was shown. If all else fails, such as with a picture of a craft so clear that it could be used in an advertisement for the latest "flying saucer" model to come out of Alientown, the "classified military technology" or "false flag" card can always be played.

Even sightings that should change things, don't (like the 2006 Chicago O'Hare sighting, which made the existence of "flying saucers" a done deal as far as I'm concerned, even without photos or video).

The only thing that will ever change anything is official disclosure, or an event so big that officials can't simply ignore it or offer a "weather phenomenon", "swamp gas", "Chinese lantern", "bird", "plane", "ball lightning", "mass delusion", etc., explanation (such as the proverbial landing on the White House lawn).



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
C'mon, the CARET drone pictures were crystal clear and they were instantly dispatched to the hoax bin by the all knowing ATS 'experts'.
No matter how clear the picture is, with today's CGI technology no one will be able to definitely state if the picture is real or not.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shino
With the recent confirmation of the infamous Belgium triangle photograph being a hoax, and the popularity of digital cameras, how damaging would it be if in 10 years we were still looking at blurry photographs or videos showing dots of lights in the sky? Do we need a high resolution clear photo/video to inject some credibility to this in eyes of the mass media/public? Or, better put, if by 2011 we still have nothing we can show to provoke a global focus on the subject, will UFology be relegated even further down?


I feel your pain. Ive seen alot of UFO videos, Some of those I think are real deal. I agree with what the other guy's post about no way to 100% verify the video.... My question is what in terms of video evidence, would people accept for proof?
The reason is because if people are caught of gaurd by a UFO sigting there using with what ever they got or have accsess to. That may explain the messed up footage. Now what if you had a few hi quality video camera's tripod, everything you need, then win you see a UFO you set up your gear. Hell I would even have a telescope handy. But the averge aint going to do that, so it would be for the UFO hunters.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Shino
 


A high quality photo would just be dismissed as a fake by hardcore skeptics. As imaging tech advances, the quality and resolution becomes better, as does the ability to create very 'real' fakes. It is the modern UFO 'paradox'.

People always ask 'where's the good stuff?' I answer 'in the hands of those that don't want you to see it'.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Well in 5 years maybe cell phones cameras will be much more advanced then they are now, and we will get higher quality footage from the passers by.

But yeah I don't know how much longer I can take just looking at dots of light and cgi bull.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
I've had this question on my mind as well but with a twist.

I invite everyone to carry a camera around with you for the next 1 week. When you see/hear an airplane or a helicopter, try to take a picture of it while doing whatever it is you were doing. (Driving basically, the rest you can stop and take a pic being steady) THen we'll upload them and mix/match/compare to how good they look or how bad they look. I have taken quite a few photographs of airplanes flying over my house and they are not as clear cut as I thought they would be.




posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
What is the point?

I have said it on here before and I will say it again. A real alien from space could take photos of its self and its craft and post them on here or any where on the net and no one would believe them. They would be called fake and CGI and be labeled a hoax 5 seconds after they were posted. So if a real alien posting pictures of its self and its craft will not be believed then what chance do us humans have of getting pictures that be believed are real?

So in short you will NEVER see a "REAL" photo of a "REAL" alien or spaceship on the net even if a "REAL" alien is the one that posts it in the first place.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
It is Needed.

Because you can't jump into conclusions these are aliens before having anything real. Only after declassification of some information regarding some deep underground work, would one know what is going on.




top topics



 
1

log in

join