posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 06:11 PM
If the phenomenon is real, it should still be possible to create *convincing* evidence, regardless whether someone shot a picture or did rather shaky
The problem is that the *existing* ones are mostly OBVIOUS fakes.
The rule is is very simple: Can, what you see, have a conventional explanation?
Not an UFO example, but a TYPICAL example here would be an old thread here on ATS where someone claimed that a Ghost would have rocked a kid's
The "evidence" given was a video of a horse rocking where the most plausible explanation is that a string was used. (There was other evidence in
that particular video which clearly prove to me it was a hoax with a string).
AS LONG as "what you see" has one or better even, *multiple* plausible explanations there is no reason to assume an exotic explanation.
A "light in the sky" has multiple potential plausible explanations. An "orb" has a plausible explanation. A contrail is just a contrail, UNLESS
someone can make a convincing case it is not. (Haven't come across a single one so far) And so on, and so on.
Give ONE convincing footage where CGI is unlikely (there are ways to evaluate footage)..and where there is no apparent plausible explanation...and
it's "good" footage legitimating further investigation.
But: 99% of videos, particular Youtube etc. doesn't even fit this criterion...they are not even worth investigating further since you can throw them
away before you even give them a second thought.
And..I agree that THOSE types of images/videos are ultra-rare, not to say they don't exist.
And...concluding that the entire phenomenon is maybe not even real is actually justified seeing that the proof, very real, doesn't exist. It's
ironic that some of the "best cases" are often based PURELY on witness accounts without ANY hard evidence whatsoever. Belgian wave, phoenix