Thread: Question to skeptics regarding ufo footage

O'nus i thank you for that reply. Xei what the hell are you talking about? I have not once claimed in this thread that i have footage, so where are you coming from? I haven't mentioned aliens either, thats why i say ufo, i dont say alien spacecraft.

Congratulations, doublethinking douchebag classification has been confirmed.

This

You says it's an obvious fake if it's a bright shiny clear image or film, you say it's fake when the camera man can't keep still or the image isnt crystal clear! So how the heck do we film what appeares to us as a UFO to suit the skeptics? How?

implies that there is some material which skeptics are ignoring even though it does not simply look like a blurry photo of a street lamp. That was obviously the whole point of your thread.

But when challenged to present said material, it turned out that actually there isn't any, and your only response now is to go into incredulous denial (see above). This thread has now been stripped of any meaning or purpose whatsoever and I deem it closed.

to answer the question there has to be a reference to the ground in the picture

too many fakes just capture the sky where its easy to insert any old image

the reference to the ground will help give scale, the more references to the surrounding area the better. if its at night, you need reference to the skyline even more. such as when people record 'marfa lights' or other hot spots. just a black background is no good

a higher definition camera. . . a camera that uses film is probably even better

your hand shouldn't shake so much that it would be completely and utterly unstable

and don't bother anyones time if its just a white dot in the sky. there are many stories of UFOs being much closer to the ground, in full detail. I want to see that film!

recording peoples reactions is also a plus! if there is something strange in the sky, other people would notice and look at the same spot!

and if you have a buddy in town, call him up and get him on his camera at the same time where ever he's at. two cameras going off from different angles viewing the same thing is a bonus

is it evidence? no. but it makes it that much harder to hoax

Well picture your self standing under a UFO, outstandingly u have a camera with you, so as a naive human you decide to Film that UFO. Everything goes well, until u realize that u were shaking all over the film. With wonder and fear, you decide to publish the video, which eventually will get confiscated by a CIA or FBI agent, as a Home Land Security measure. Or, you will get lucky and get away with the film, which means, they will let you have the video published, so they just send a skeptic on you, who has a reputable seat in the community, and grands you a title of Fake. In either way you loose, because no one in the government will ever acknowledge an extraterrestrial existence beyond their control. You don't want your sheep's run all over you do you?

There's no point on debating skeptics, there's no point of debating believers, because both sides live under the same roof and control.

Its obvious, We cannot have evidence, without us putting our nose into it. Until we smell it, and see it, we start to realize how stupid we actually are.

I hate to nitpick, but sometimes I just can't help myself...

Originally Posted by juroara

is it evidence? no. but it makes it that much harder to hoax

Well, it would be evidence, but what it would not be is proof.

Which is, I'm sure, what you meant.

Originally Posted by juroara

to answer the question there has to be a reference to the ground in the picture

too many fakes just capture the sky where its easy to insert any old image

the reference to the ground will help give scale, the more references to the surrounding area the better. if its at night, you need reference to the skyline even more. such as when people record 'marfa lights' or other hot spots. just a black background is no good

a higher definition camera. . . a camera that uses film is probably even better

your hand shouldn't shake so much that it would be completely and utterly unstable

and don't bother anyones time if its just a white dot in the sky. there are many stories of UFOs being much closer to the ground, in full detail. I want to see that film!

recording peoples reactions is also a plus! if there is something strange in the sky, other people would notice and look at the same spot!

and if you have a buddy in town, call him up and get him on his camera at the same time where ever he's at. two cameras going off from different angles viewing the same thing is a bonus

is it evidence? no. but it makes it that much harder to hoax

Even with all that though, all you have good evidence for is a real, physical object. You've ruled out CGI hoaxes, but you still haven't provided a single shred of evidence suggesting "aliens".

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Even with all that though, all you have good evidence for is a real, physical object. You've ruled out CGI hoaxes, but you still haven't provided a single shred of evidence suggesting "aliens".

even if someone recorded ALIENS coming out of the space craft, walking around in daylight, its still doesn't mean aliens! evidence proof, excuse my horrible grammar

even if the aliens walking out the spacecraft, talked, opening their mouths, or blinked - thanks to hollywood you can have super awesome costumes that do that!

it would remain an enigmatic mystery not unlike the famous bigfoot video

and hell, things are even stranger in the UFO community, where they claim - if you do see an alien being its probably not an alien but a life form grown in a lab made to make you think its an alien, but really its still humanity pulling the strings

thanks the UFO enthusiasts, they just made it that much harder. we wouldn't only have to prod the poor visitor to check if its alive and not human, but now we would have to look at its dna and ask if it looks like a bunch of earth animals lumped together to create the biggest hoax the world has ever seen. bluebeam?

Originally Posted by juroara

even if someone recorded ALIENS coming out of the space craft, walking around in daylight, its still doesn't mean aliens! evidence proof, excuse my horrible grammar

even if the aliens walking out the spacecraft, talked, opening their mouths, or blinked - thanks to hollywood you can have super awesome costumes that do that!

it would remain an enigmatic mystery not unlike the famous bigfoot video

and hell, things are even stranger in the UFO community, where they claim - if you do see an alien being its probably not an alien but a life form grown in a lab made to make you think its an alien, but really its still humanity pulling the strings

thanks the UFO enthusiasts, they just made it that much harder. we wouldn't only have to prod the poor visitor to check if its alive and not human, but now we would have to look at its dna and ask if it looks like a bunch of earth animals lumped together to create the biggest hoax the world has ever seen. bluebeam?

What is it with you people that you're so fucking dense you can't understand the difference between UFO and aliens?

UFO =/= aliens.
UFO =/= aliens.
UFO =/= aliens.
UFO =/= aliens.
UFO =/= aliens.
UFO =/= aliens.
UFO =/= aliens.
UFO =/= aliens.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

What is it with you people that you're so fucking dense you can't understand the difference between UFO and aliens?

UFO =/= aliens.
UFO =/= aliens.
UFO =/= aliens.
UFO =/= aliens.
UFO =/= aliens.
UFO =/= aliens.
UFO =/= aliens.
UFO =/= aliens.

who is dense now? when I was agreeing?

Originally Posted by Dreamhope11

O'nus i thank you for that reply. Xei what the hell are you talking about? I have not once claimed in this thread that i have footage, so where are you coming from? I haven't mentioned aliens either, thats why i say ufo, i dont say alien spacecraft.

This is true in fact, that you were seemingly asking about pictures/videos, but I really didn't buy it. If that was your original intention, not to imply that these things are somehow special, then why did you bring up the subject of UFO skeptics at all? Why not simply ask about Onus's friend Bob?

There is also the fact that if a picture could be verified by others, there would be no need for a picture, and you are obviously annoyed in your first post by "skeptics" who constantly find flaws with these photos and the UFOs depicted in them (for those who want to believe in aliens), therefore I was answering your explicit as well as your implicit question. Obviously I failed miserably.