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.

 

Is One Video Enough to Change Anything In Regards to the UFOlogy Scene?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Whilst doing my usual trawling through the countless and latest UFO videos, I started thinking to myself, is a video, which could possibly be fake anyway, be enough? Basically, even a great new video still leaves questions, once your passed the "is it CGI" phase, and if you decide it isn't, then your still left wondering what exactly you're looking at. So then, you reach the "is it man-made" phase and then once, if you decide it doesn't look man-made, you're still left with what is it?

Personally, I don't think a video is enough, to add anything to the scene apart from debate and even then, if the video survives the debunking process, it merely falls away into the massive box of maybe videos.

I believe a lot of stories, most notably from pilots, ATC personnel, police officers and military people, who have said they have had incidents and encounters with UFOs, however is a video of "something" going to change anything in regards to the whole picture?

Additionally, if anybody has any as close to concrete, certain videos that they think are interesting, please post here and discuss your reasoning.




posted on May, 22 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 


I think any video to be credible enough must come from some kind of major news outlet. Meaning, like say they are taping a live event and suddenly a UFO comes into picture clear and descends to the ground. Then we must be lucky enough to have anyone DVR it and then post it up till it goes viral. Even then, the skeptics and other means will always find a way to debunk it.


Truth is, I have grown tired of waiting for any pics videos or anything to that sort. I am just waiting till something mayor happens such as a massive ships land and the whole world cannot deny it, not even the hard core skeptics.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I agree OP, a video alone will never change anything.

The only thing that could change the scene ( which will never happen) is if you've got greys coming out to the public all over the world at the same time.

So basically, ufology will still just be a means for entertainment, to take it further than that is dillusionnal IMO.
Peace brother one blood



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
If it were clear enough with enough credible witnesses, sure.
Lotsa luck with that.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
It would have to be accidentally perfect, the chances of which are slim. I think several things would need to be present:

1. The photographer would have to be a neophyte with regards to UFOs, or at least a near-neophyte. For example, I would not be a good candidate simply because of the 250 UFO books I have in my house and my presence on ATS. Both are disqualifiers.

2. The video would have to be crystal clear. It could not be a "light in the sky" or a blurred encounter, like so many of them are. It would need to be a "We can see through the windows" kind of clarity, something substantive and obviously manufactured. There are way too many mylar baloons and diving seagulls out there to put up with such a hoaky pic.

3. The encounter would have to be completely accidental. (No "stalking" of UFOs intentionally.) Examples include pilots, a clear open field, etc.

4. The video would have to have multiple corroborating witnesses of integrity. You would have to have witnesses saying, in effect, "Yeah, I saw it from over there and it did exactly what the vid says, and I saw this guy next to me with the camera taking the shots."

5. There would have to be a documented trail that went from the "camera to YouTube." By that I mean multiple witnesses who did not let the camera out of their sight from the moment it was taking the pics until the moment it was transferred to a viewing medium for others to see. The point is to rule out any alteration of the contents.

I think the chances of all these things happening together are probably pretty remote. Yeah, everyone has a camera on their cell phones, but they are pretty poor cameras to begin with and people really don't know how to use them. My wife, for example, recently announced to me that she wanted a new cell phone that had a camera on it. She was enamored with our new granddaughter. I had to point out to her that the little lens on her phone was a camera and that one pushed the button with a camera icon on it to activate it. She didn't even know her phone had a camera!



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 


I think it would depend on the videos quality and source , it would also be nice if it was daytime footage , if nothing else it would spark some life back into this subject and give us something new to focus on .

I guess in that regard it would change the scene




Additionally, if anybody has any as close to concrete, certain videos that they think are interesting, please post here and discuss your reasoning.

I wouldn't say it was close to concrete but I've always found the 1994 Nellis AFB UFO video very interesting .



edit on 22-5-2012 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Even if a video is not CGI allot of people will believe it is fake. A big game changer is 2 or more videos of the same ufo. Like the phoenix lights, after that happened allot of people wear interested in UFO's.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
If it looks legit and was shot in the U.S., then someone, not necessarily someone who was there, should file an FOIA request ASAP for the local FAA radar data, as well as ask the U.S. Weather Burreau for whatever they have. That would have made all the difference in the Phoenix Lights case. Someone in the governor's office should have suggested it.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
No single image of any kind, including video, is enough to be a game changer in the UFO field. As I've said many times in the past, the different levels of proof that I require are:

* Multiple clear videos or photos of the same thing, taken by different people, NONE OF THEM ANONYMOUS
* Some kind of tangible physical object or artifact associated with the thing through a chain of evidence
* That object proven by multiple, neutral experts to be "alien" (from another planet or time/reality construct)
* Verification by government authorities of the experts findings
* Ongoing access to the object or its source for continued study (it just can't "vanish")

I don't think this is too much to ask for something that could have a profound impact on the entire world's concept of reality.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by gortex
I wouldn't say it was close to concrete but I've always found the 1994 Nellis AFB UFO video very interesting.

Absolutely. Always worth a return look. Unfortunately, what more have we learned about it in the nearly 20 years since it was "leaked?" Nothing. Such is the problem with anonymity, whether it's a result of governmental regulation or personal choice. Maybe someday the technician who squirreled the thing out will step forward. Maybe there's some information he can add that isn't in the video itself. But until then, it's just a curiosity.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Do we really need a video or photos to prove the exist of aliens? I mean, isn't it obvious that there has to be something out there? Not only because space is so huge and maybe even endless but also all the people all over the world can't imagine all this just to get attention, can they? Think of all the experiences you read about.
I think humans are like this: If I can't see it with my own eyes it's not true.
But why shouldn't it be true? It's like this quote "If a tree falls in a forest but nobody is around to hear it, did the tree make a noise?" I don't quiete remember this quote but do you get what I mean? Just because nobody has a video doesn't mean nothing is there. Just listen and have an open mind. You don't need any photos or videos to know the truth.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
This isn't a video but it is a very clear image, from nasa...

spaceflight1.nasa.gov...

But I don't think any video/image would be able to satisfy most peoples expectations, regardless of quality.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Coward
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 


I think any video to be credible enough must come from some kind of major news outlet. Meaning, like say they are taping a live event and suddenly a UFO comes into picture clear and descends to the ground.


That would be one of the LEAST credible sources imo.

All major news outlets are controlled by puppeteers and if something like a UFO landing was shown by them my first reaction would be "hoax" or "setup" or "false flag"......just like 9/11

Video will never be conclusive proof for everyone. SEEING is believing and TOUCHING is as real as it might get.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
As I’ve already mentioned elsewhere, my camera-control software is still under development, but it’s designed to detect a hovering target in broad daylight, train and zoom three cameras on it, and capture video with time and camera data stamped on every frame, automatically, meaning it will probably capture quite a few balloons and helicopters before it snags a UFO, each time issuing an alert on the project’s Web site so that local people may look up and try to spot what the software detected. But when and if it does capture a UFO, that footage, the openness of the methodology, plus local data from the U.S. Weather Bureau and FAA should be enough to make a difference. If it does show close-ups of what looks like a spacecraft, one still might think it's human-made, interdimensional, or piloted by dolphins, but it should still be a game-changer.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by gortex
 
Yeah, that video is a head-scratcher. Totally unique in appearance, obscure in content and devoid of checkable origin. At least it *looks* like some sort of craft. Other good UFO videos seem to show various phenomena that aren't obviously craft. Lights etc.

The Nellis vid shows us that something definitively exotic is needed to gain any real traction.

How major the evidence would need to be is anyone's guess. That tape recording of UFO incidents above and nearby Edwards AFB is a good example. There we have what sounds like several radars (3 iirc), ground and airborne observers and two jets scrambled. Still, it isn't good enough to raise eyebrows and can be explained away by several methods.

Likewise Tulien's Minot AFB investigation should have caught the attention but it was maybe too long ago for MSM to give it 15 seconds of fame.

There's not much more to add that Schuyler hasn't considered already. We'd be talking of something epic in scale and preferably from multiple witnesses recording it from different locations with no connection to each other. Throw in a news crew or two as well.

@ Zcus - I guess the answer is probably not.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 



Whilst doing my usual trawling through the countless and latest UFO videos, I started thinking to myself, is a video, which could possibly be fake anyway, be enough?


As Blue Shift pointed out, no single video would do the trick. On the other hand, videos taken by multiple witnesses who do not know each other would be a good start. Ideally, they should be taken from radically different perspectives to allow parallax calculations to be made.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
This ones slightly closer to concrete in my opinion , its the 1950 montana & 1952 Utah UFO Film shown to the Robertson Panel .


On day one, two classic UFO films were shown: one, the 1950 Montana film, and second, the 1952 Delbert Newhouse film, which was taken in Utah. Two Navy film and photograph experts presented their conclusions: both films depicted objects unidentifiable by any conventional means.
ufos.about.com...



edit on 22-5-2012 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SecondSunrise
Do we really need a video or photos to prove the exist of aliens? I mean, isn't it obvious that there has to be something out there?

Nope. And just because the universe is big doesn't automatically mean we're not the only ones in it. It may be unlikely, but unlikely things happen (or don't happen) all the time. But if you're satisfied with just believing in something rather than knowing for sure, then you're right, you don't need any proof.


edit on 22-5-2012 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by zacroyce
This isn't a video but it is a very clear image, from nasa...
spaceflight1.nasa.gov...
But I don't think any video/image would be able to satisfy most peoples expectations, regardless of quality.

It looks like a problem with the film developing, to me. The blobs are actually sharper than the film grain would indicate. Plasma critters!



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
It would have to be accidentally perfect, the chances of which are slim. I think several things would need to be present:

1. The photographer would have to be a neophyte with regards to UFOs, or at least a near-neophyte. For example, I would not be a good candidate simply because of the 250 UFO books I have in my house and my presence on ATS. Both are disqualifiers.

2. The video would have to be crystal clear. It could not be a "light in the sky" or a blurred encounter, like so many of them are. It would need to be a "We can see through the windows" kind of clarity, something substantive and obviously manufactured. There are way too many mylar baloons and diving seagulls out there to put up with such a hoaky pic.

3. The encounter would have to be completely accidental. (No "stalking" of UFOs intentionally.) Examples include pilots, a clear open field, etc.

4. The video would have to have multiple corroborating witnesses of integrity. You would have to have witnesses saying, in effect, "Yeah, I saw it from over there and it did exactly what the vid says, and I saw this guy next to me with the camera taking the shots."

5. There would have to be a documented trail that went from the "camera to YouTube." By that I mean multiple witnesses who did not let the camera out of their sight from the moment it was taking the pics until the moment it was transferred to a viewing medium for others to see. The point is to rule out any alteration of the contents.

I think the chances of all these things happening together are probably pretty remote. Yeah, everyone has a camera on their cell phones, but they are pretty poor cameras to begin with and people really don't know how to use them. My wife, for example, recently announced to me that she wanted a new cell phone that had a camera on it. She was enamored with our new granddaughter. I had to point out to her that the little lens on her phone was a camera and that one pushed the button with a camera icon on it to activate it. She didn't even know her phone had a camera!


All of that is not remotely enough.

Here's what it could take: multiple independent astrophysical observatories see something in the solar system across multiple bands (e.g. radar, infrared, x-ray with spectography, of course) and show that it moves with substantial non-gravitational influence.

It would have to be replicable across nations, observatories and satellites for weeks.
edit on 22-5-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join