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.

 

Multiple witness UFO cases: the hoaxes?

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I'm trying to find some UFO cases that turned out to be fakes where multiple witnesses were involved. It fascinates me that two or more people would agree to conspire to tell an amazing story, and I'm also interested in their motivations.

The best case that I can think of that was proven false involving multiple witnesses is the one involving George Adamski. It was later revealed that his additional witnesses did not see all the things he said they did, and they revealed details showing preparation for the staged ET contact.

I'm sure there are many more, or at least other cases strongly suspected to be hoaxes by more than one person. I'd sure appreciate any help you could give in tracking them down.
edit on 7-12-2012 by Springer because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by CardDown
 


Temple mount.......or just look at crazybreakingnews on youtube. All allegedly witnessed by multiple people, but all CGI.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 


Look at any and every ThirdPhaseof Moon Video.
Every ThirdPhaseof Moon video is a CGI fake

Here's a video of Sheilaaliens a UFO blogger confronting Blake Cousins about all the fake videos Thridphaseofmoon produces.
Sheilaalie ns vs Blake Cousins

Additionally there are some old reported cases that have been reinvestigated and found to have been mass hysteria or misreported to include what the investigator thought was the most compelling data as opposed to objective reporting.
Some of these are the result of sympathetic collusion where witnesses are around each other long enough to talk about the incident where by they unwittingly cross contaminate each other and sympathetically adjust their own stories.

I'm currently looking for a historical case that was posted here on ATS a few months ago where witnesses reported close encounters with a huge craft that in reality was just a missile test.
If I can find the link, I post here in an edit.

edit on 12-7-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CardDown
I'm trying to find some UFO cases that turned out to be fakes where multiple witnesses were involved. It fascinates me that two or more people would agree to conspire to tell an amazing story, and I'm also interested in their motivations.

The best case that I can think of that was proven false involving multiple witnesses is the one involving George Adamski. It was later revealed that his additional witnesses did not see all the things he said they did, and they revealed details showing preparation for the staged ET contact.

I'm sure there are many more, or at least other cases strongly suspected to be hoaxes by more than one person. I'd sure appreciate any help you could give in tracking them down.


Would the "Chad eggbeater drones" qualify? Linda Moulton Howe claimed that all sorts of people were anonymously submitting sighting reports. But I'm not sure if there ever was more than one actual source for the hoax.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
Some of these are the result of sympathetic collusion where witnesses are around each other long enough to talk about the incident where by they unwittingly cross contaminate each other and sympathetically adjust their own stories.

That's interesting, and I'd like to hear more about this if you can think of some specific examples. I've seen staged experiments where subjects witnessed an event, but were manipulated into remembering and describing it inaccurately. But getting back to deliberate liars...

Most of the known fakers of long ago were solo acts. It seems that most of them stuck to their story, even if exposed. (Scully, Newton, Gebauer, Adamski, Walters, Meier...) Some may have just stopped talking about their claims, but it is difficult to tell if the media just lost interest in them and there's just not any coverage of their later activities.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by CardDown
 


Actually, here's one that just happened.
Hollywood UFOs

We've an incident involving Chinese Lanterns or Flares suspended by balloons, combined with a balcony full of people and one very vocal guy talking about military helicopters and other vocal exclamations of wild imagination.

Consider were this a case from 1970, or some time before everyone had cell phone video cameras, and what the witness testimony might sound like especially in regard to the vocal contamination of the one most out spoken character.

Consider how the story would grow and by the time it got onto paper in a report (minus the benefit of our modern video that shows obvious Chinese lanterns) the report could very well contain close up drawings of a saucer craft with portals and figures inside as well as many details that in reality were not there.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by CardDown
 


Actually, here's one that just happened.
Hollywood UFOs

We've an incident involving Chinese Lanterns or Flares suspended by balloons, combined with a balcony full of people and one very vocal guy talking about military helicopters and other vocal exclamations of wild imagination.

Consider were this a case from 1970, or some time before everyone had cell phone video cameras, and what the witness testimony might sound like especially in regard to the vocal contamination of the one most out spoken character.

Consider how the story would grow and by the time it got onto paper in a report (minus the benefit of our modern video that shows obvious Chinese lanterns) the report could very well contain close up drawings of a saucer craft with portals and figures inside as well as many details that in reality were not there.



How is this a hoax?
Its just a bunch of drunk guys getting excited about some Chinese lanterns. There is no indication that these guys actually were involved in staging a hoax themselves.

And no indication that they have submitted drawings showing saucer craft with portals and figures inside as well as many details that in reality weren't there. So aside from the fact that you are just inferring that all UFO witnesses are idiots and liars, how does this relate to the topic of multiple witness hoaxes?



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


I was framing it as a matter of speculation to consider.
Hoax, possibly not, but, misidentification, yes.

Just following a path of multiple witness sighting of mistaken phenomenon resulting in false positive where some would consider false positive to equal hoax.

It's a matter of consideration.
The Hollywood video is video, thus, no need for drawings and such, yet it gives us a window into how events could play out as an exercise of conjecture.
Consider, however, were the incident to occur in 1970 or some earlier time, as I previously postulated, and the witnesses were then interviewed absent video, and requested to draw pictures, make statements, etc.

The strong personality making loud statements in the video could act as a catalyst for sympathetic collusion and cross contamination where the final report circa 1970 or some earlier time could then be the result of embroidery and exaggeration due the influences of such.

Most of the older cases are nothing but witness testimony. Many of the multiple witness cases have key personalities where secondary and tertiary witnesses seem to reflect and support the primary witnesses with little discrepancy, consistent with patterns of sympathetic collusion.

Sympathetic collusion by no means is active deception, but more a product of subconscious social programming where real events get distorted by unwitting social collaboration and re-filtered as retelling and hearing the event from a different perspective alters the first person perspective into social consensus.

In such a way, Chinese lanterns, a missile test, or the natural occurrence of a bright fireball bolide, could easily turn into what is now considered 'historical' event of an alien mother ship.

The investigator filing a sighting report could also unwittingly be effected into contributing their own bit of sympathetic collusion through leading questions, like; "did the craft look metallic?", "was it saucer shaped?", "did you see any windows or occupants through windows or portholes?"
Leading questions can influence witnesses such that witnesses get contaminated with 'remembering' things that they never saw.



edit on 12-7-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by bluestreak53
 

She was citing that as an example of a tangent- witness cross-contamination, leading them to believe they saw more than they did.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by CardDown
 
Hiya CD.

S&F for posting an OP that's really worth thinking about. They cost nothing and members could sprinkle a few decorative stars once in a while for the hell of it.

The first that springs to mind is Gulf Breeze that generated a stack of sightings seemingly based on Walters' hoax.

Roswell has had its share of hoax witnesses too. A few of the 'scareship' reports from the late 19th Century qualify as 'multiple-witness' incidents as there was collaboration. Billy Meier could be a classic example although the number of witnesses tend to support his claims rather than saying they saw his beamships.

I have to admit to being stumped to think of other examples but there's sure to be a few others out there. If I can think of any more, I'll post them.

ETA - I agree with Bluestreak's 'Drone' suggestion because Whitley Strieber went on to claim he saw the same object out of his bedroom window before they proven to be fakes.
edit on 12-7-2012 by Kandinsky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


I was framing it as a matter of speculation to consider.
Hoax, possibly not, but, misidentification, yes.

Just following a path of multiple witness sighting of mistaken phenomenon resulting in false positive where some would consider false positive to equal hoax.

It's a matter of consideration.
The Hollywood video is video, thus, no need for drawings and such, yet it gives us a window into how events could play out as an exercise of conjecture.
Consider, however, were the incident to occur in 1970 or some earlier time, as I previously postulated, and the witnesses were then interviewed absent video, and requested to draw pictures, make statements, etc.

The strong personality making loud statements in the video could act as a catalyst for sympathetic collusion and cross contamination where the final report circa 1970 or some earlier time could then be the result of embroidery and exaggeration due the influences of such.

Most of the older cases are nothing but witness testimony. Many of the multiple witness cases have key personalities where secondary and tertiary witnesses seem to reflect and support the primary witnesses with little discrepancy, consistent with patterns of sympathetic collusion.

Sympathetic collusion by no means is active deception, but more a product of subconscious social programming where real events get distorted by unwitting social collaboration and re-filtered as retelling and hearing the event from a different perspective alters the first person perspective into social consensus.



I fully agree with all you say there. But I think its important to distinguish between "deliberate hoaxes" and the other sorts of confabulation which can enter into UFO cases. I do see your point that people may subconsciously "add in" more elaborate details after listening to what other persons who witnessed the same event might report.

It is partly the nature of a genuine "UFO observation". If the witness was confused by what they observed, they are going to try and "fit" the observation into something recognizable - possibly adding in erroneous details as a result.

You also have to wonder the degree to which people might subconsciously embellish their recalls in order to impress the investigator with the emotional impact they felt from the event.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


I'm going to go a little off topic here and say that I had never heard of "Thirdphaseofmoon" on Youtube before your post, and wow are you right. Totally bogus CGI editing, I can't believe anyone actually thinks those are genuine.

Kudos to "Sheilaliens" for confronting the guy.


Any videos from "thirdphaseofmoon" embedded on ATS will enjoy a permanent spot in the dread ATS HOAX Forum.

If anyone sees any of that drek on this site please let a Moderator know so we can move it to the HOAX forum.

To the topic, SERPO might be a good one for you to look at OP, if you don't know about it, while it was 100% online, it was a collaborative effort of a handful of people trying to sell a book. Google it here on ATS, but get ready you'll be reading for days.


Springer...



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I think you're on to something interesting here, OP. S&F.

Sorry, I don't have any specific cases to add at this time, but I do have a couple of compatible (I think) points about ufology and Ufologists (Both pro and armchair variety) that are pertinent.

How many who "study" ufology are aware of the intelligence agencies use of the phenomena for their own purposes? (CIA especially but including the likes of AFOSI)

The Pentacle Memo might be a good starting point as well as the CIA infiltration of orgs such as NICAP and MUFON. Adamski seems to have been rather well-connected too ahem.

The UFO mythos is another interesting and revealing study.

Lastly, why do so-called Ufologists of dubious stature--Friedman for example--choose to leave out the high-strangeness factors reported in many cases?

It seems that many of the "high-profile" cases are just candy for the gullible. One needs, methinks, to dig deeper for anything of value.

Oh well, sorry for the rambling. Good topic, I hope it picks up speed.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CardDown
I'm trying to find some UFO cases that turned out to be fakes where multiple witnesses were involved. It fascinates me that two or more people would agree to conspire to tell an amazing story, and I'm also interested in their motivations..


CardDown, there are some UFO hoax cases listed in this post but when it comes to multiple witnesses purposefully conspiring to deceive people, ATS member Firemoon made a great post below about the Pembrokeshire Humanoid sightings from April, 1977 (have never been able to track down the Channel Five documentary though).


Post


Cheers.
edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
It's not necessarily a multiple witness sighting, but, could be in the same vein as muliple person collaboration of a hoax.
You may or may not be familiar with Alternative 3 and the broadcast regarding missing scientists that eventually led up to a video about a Mars landing.

ATS thread on Alernative 3

The above link is a wonderfully well documented and put together on Alternative 3, and what may, or may have not just been a poorly timed April's Fool prank.

In reply to Springer; thank you you adding Thirdphasepfmoon to the automatic hoax bin watch list.
There's a number of Youtube video producers that specialize in fabricating videos, Thirdphaseofmoon one of the more prolific ones.


edit on 12-7-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by CardDown
 


A lot of the actual hoaxes, may have "multiple alleged witnesses" but no "actual witnesses".
Because there never was a UFO (hoaxed or real).

How about the recent movie: "The Fourth Kind"?
The movie created the illusion of being a documentary using a lot of techniques, like showing in split screen "documentary footage" and "dramatic re-enactments". They also fabricated fake news stories and used them to promote their movie. (They actually had to pay damages to an Alaskan newspaper for this) A LOT of people were totally lead to believe it was based on a real story.

It certainly is interesting how there is now such an explosion of "hoax videos" on the Internet.
I think we are at the point where there is so much "fake" video that any real video just simply becomes meaningless as far as evidence.

I think we are living in a time where it is becoming almost impossible to differentiate "fake" from "truth".
If you think back to that "Jeruselum UFO" video, a lot of people thought it was real, and I'm quite sure it was actually shown on major media outlets. And I do think it has gotten to the point that news broadcasters are more concerned with "attracting viewers" than "reporting facts" so I don't think they put a lot of effort into investigating sensationalized material to see if it is authentic.





edit on 12-7-2012 by bluestreak53 because: real story?



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
One might speculate that the Ruwa, Zimbabwe case is a hoax perpetrated by bullies among the 62 students or confabulation, or that the real cause was an egg-shaped concrete playground toy intentionally designed to represent a UFO being lowered by a crane in the area adjacent the playground when a member of the delivery crew suddenly realized they were at the wrong school, hoisted the item, then departed. If there were proof of any such thing, we would have heard about it loudly by now. And even if cases of bought witnesses to hoaxes perpetrated by hardcore charletans can be proved, is that really relevant when we have cases such as the one in Peru in which 1,800 soldiers were standing in formation in full view of a UFO in broad daylight and watched as a fighter jet was scrambled and engaged the phenomenon, or in Ohio in which police officers of multiple jurisdictions coordinated by radio were the case's multiple credible witnesses, who had over years of experience become aware of the need to pay close attention to details, knowing there would be reports to fill out. The list goes on and on, and if even one such group is telling the truth, don’t any hoaxes become relevant? We have airline cases with crew and passengers having cited clear sightings. You can’t call them all conspirators.

Aside from that, against the inanity of most of these threads, this one stands out as viable and even interesting, considering the success of some charletans. S&F.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I didn't quite realized how hard it would be to find examples, as very few cases are ever conclusively proven hoaxes. Adding the "multiple" element makes the job even harder. I appreciate the input and even the "misses" are good, as I am interested in hoaxes in general.

I think most solo hoaxers are just pranksters that enjoy watching the stir they cause. They don't necessarily want the attention directed towards themselves, thats the goal of the fraud or charlatan. I think the prankster will come clean pretty soon, but the charlatan continues to insist it was true.

Jim Moseley has a lifetime of encounters with UFO witnesses. I asked him what the difference between the real and the phony was. He told me that in the genuine cases, the experience seemed to be a transformative, life-changing event for them. But in the phonies, this was not the case. He cited Ed Walters in particular of Gulf Breeze fame, and said that when the interest and dollars dried up, Walters went on with his life like nothing ever happened.

The team hoaxers are a lot more complicated, but I'd guess that usually a charismatic person is leading the others. So far, I've been able to find more examples of team hoaxes in old paranormal cases, but I'm sure there are many buried in UFO history as well.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
very intersting topic



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla

Additionally there are some old reported cases that have been reinvestigated and found to have been mass hysteria


Really? Wow, that's interesting. Can you link us up to an example or two of old cases that were later found to be a result of "mass hysteria"?




top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join