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?
Printable View
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?
The idea is to identify the unidentified object; therefore we try to do just that as best we can. What are you trying to convince people of? Aliens? (not being an ass, just asking). While this is very remotely possible, it would require an immense amount of evidence supported by many. Even a video that is labeled as a UFO, that is in the strict definition, that in itself does not suggest aliens, just that we have not figured out what it is.
Nobody is being skeptical over the idea that the object is unidentified; that is, until it is identified. You have to be more specific.
I do know what a UFO is jeeez, re-read the question and answer it.
I did smartass.
Agree 100%. No one argues that the object is unidentified, but rather that the object is aliens. There is nothing in any video presented thus far that rules out alternative explanations and preserves the "aliens did it" explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Never
You still haven't answered "how" we can film or take pics of a UFO without it being crystal clear and being called a fake or being too crap and being called a fake. I dont need a lecture on whether they are aliens or not.
A lot of the time, nobody questions that the unidentified objects are real. However, all of the time, people will question your lunatic theory that a blob of light is in fact a plasma based space cruiser taking a race of bovine creatures on a tour of our solar system, and not in fact a distant ferry on the horizon or some other vastly more plausible idea; if you don't offer any proof, that is.
Have you got any proof or any convincing footage? Please show it to us if you do. In your next post.
Be warned that failing to do so will classify you as a doublethinking douchebag. The choice is yours. ;)
How about footage of a UFO from a few feet away, clearly showing that it's not just a mockup, and not being CG?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamhope11
A fake what? A UFO? An Alien spacecraft? A flying hotdog stand? I assumed you were talking about either A: UFOs, or B: Alien Spacecraft. I have answered this question. Proof of a UFO is self evident; photos of UFOs do not prove aliens. No need to get all pissy because you don't understand or refuse to understand the answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamhope11
Edit: To put it simply, a photo can be manipulated as can a video, but even were this not so, it makes the entire thing irrelevant.
Film it in a way that clearly identifies the unidentified flying object.
I could randomly flash my camera out the window and likely get a blur of a person and say, "See, that's my friend Bob" but you wouldn't know for certain. I am merely being presumptuous. You would need a clear and identifiable picture of Bob before you knew it was Bob.
What's left after that is questioning editing of the footage. In this case, you would need to film it in a place in which we could also go to and see this object. Or, you could film it in such a way to remove possible editing possibilities (eg. with another skeptic, robot controlled camera, etc.)
Of course, these are far too difficult for people to do for UFO's which is exactly why they live on..
~
I think the proof that UFOs exist lies not within flawed video and photo evidence, but within the fact that thousands upon thousands of people have reported UFO sightings both in our present days, and years passed. There's also the fact that there are the testimonials of people on the inside of the government who have come forward to share their stories. Also...in ancient times there were various depictions of UFOs which makes it evident that ancient people also experienced these sightings.
Now, I have no idea what UFOs are, but something is going on here.
Also, there are millions of people who have attested to the existance of Thor and Zeus. In fact, there are papyrus letters in Egypt and Italy of people saying they were raped by Zeus himself. Furthermore, have you heard of the great Temple of Pergamum? It has depictions of all these Gods! None of this means that these Gods existed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Eagle
The same applies to UFO's.
~
You do know what UFO stands for, right? Unidentified Flying Object. It's an object...that's in the air...that you can't identify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Eagle
The skeptics are not skeptical that there have been objects in the air that weren't identified. That probably happens thousands of times a day. Hell, it happens to me every time I see a plane at night. I don't know it's a plane. It might not be a plane. I can't really see too well in the dark. But I still conclude that it's a plane because aliens have no reason to conform to Canadian aircraft running light standards.
You 'believers' seem to have a LOT of trouble understanding this very simple concept. The unidentified part is obvious. If you say you can't identify it, it's unidentified. But you then skip to aliens for some reason. But that's the hard part of the proof, that they're aliens, not that they're unidentified. If you say you can't identify it, then I believe you can't identify it. But you still have to prove that it's aliens and not one of the millions of other things it could be.
We're not skeptical of UFO's, everyone knows UFO's exist obviously. We just don't believe they're green-skinned, bug-eyed aliens in the aircrafts. Most of the time the videos and pictures are blurry and shitty, and it could be anything. Sort of like the video of the lights in Nevada, or wherever the hell it was, people were like "ZOMG ALEEANZ!!!11" when in fact it was balloons with road flares attached to them. If we can't tell what it is, it's unidentifiable, but we're not going to jump to the conclusion that it must be a flock of E.T.s coming to take our bags of M&Ms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamhope11
WIN.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
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
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.Quote:
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?
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.:banana::bowdown:
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... :lol:
Well, it would be evidence, but what it would not be is proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
Which is, I'm sure, what you meant. :)
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".Quote:
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 grammarQuote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
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 :D 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?Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
UFO =/= aliens.
UFO =/= aliens.
UFO =/= aliens.
UFO =/= aliens.
UFO =/= aliens.
UFO =/= aliens.
UFO =/= aliens.
UFO =/= aliens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
who is dense now? when I was agreeing?
You missed my point. Proof that there's a shiny metal object in the sky is just proof that there is a shiny metal object in the sky. That does not get you any closer to proving any crazy nut job theory, including aliens.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
On the other hand people really do just ignore the fact that there is something in the air that cannot be identified as a plane. It's something that isn't paid much attention by the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
Cannot be identified as a plane by the people with the camera does not imply it's not a plane. And that doesn't imply it's aliens even if it isn't a plane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Eagle
OMG ALL FLYING SAUCER LIKE AIRCRAFTS OR OTHER UFOS MUST BE ALIENS.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avrocar
1a. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_V-173
1b. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_XF5U
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117_NighthawkQuote:
In 1934, at Miami University (of Ohio), an aircraft called the Nemeth Umberallaplane (aka Roundwing) was tested. (Nemeth was sometimes spelled Nuneth). This aircraft had a circular wing on top of the rectangle fuselage, a propellor in front, wheels underneath the fuselage and a rudder with tailfins. There were no wings extending from the middle of the fuselage. The aircraft looked like AWACS plane, execpt for the missing middle wings. The aircraft is named in the 1976 reference book "Airplanes of the World" as the "Flying Saucer" plane, (the book also mentions the Avro Avrocar, the Vought V-173, and the Vought XF5U.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CypherQuote:
During the 1980s, reports of triangular shaped UFOs revealed the existence of the F-117 Nighthawk—another black project—which became public in November 1988.
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_flying_saucersQuote:
The Sikorsky Cypher is a doughnut-shaped, experimental, prototype unmanned vertical takeoff and landing aerial vehicle. The Sikorsky Cypher II, (a.k.a. Sikorsky Mariner), followup aircraft has wings extending from the left and right sides of the aircraft
Quote:
In 1943, the Boeing Aircraft built 3 scale model aircraft designs that had saucer-shaped wings with a propellor in the front and a tail rudder in the back. The cockpit, (where the pilot sat), was to be in front of the wings. There was no actual fuselage in the center. The aircraft model numbers were 390, 391, and 396. They were to powered by a Pratt & Whitney R-4360-3 Wasp Major radial engine and capable of reaching speeds of 414mph and intended to be fighter planes, armed with 4 20mm cannons and underwing hardpoints that could carry 2 500 lb. bombs or external fuel tanks. Boeing submitted the proposals to the US Navy. The wing design had excellent Short TakeOff and Landing charteristics, and STOL is preferred for fixed-wing aircraft carrier planes. The Navy rejected the Boeing designs in favor of the similar-shaped Chance-Vought V-173/XF5U-1 aircraft.
In the US, a number of experimental saucer shaped craft were apparently developed as black projects by Lockheed Corporation for the USAF, and by Convair for the CIA. The saucer had the advantages of being a Vertical take-off and landing design (so avoiding the need for easily damaged runways), while the shape was well suited to diffusing radar and so making the craft stealthy. These early designs were apparently powered by turbojets, which powered a horizontal rotor to provide lift using the Coanda effect.
That whole crap of October 14th drove me mad, i now say everything is fake. It wasn't so much the date, but from the 24th to the 27th people recorded stars, and planes, and shit like that and kept going "ZOMG ALIENZZZZZ", thankfullly i have told those people to f off, and i was and AM not going down the path where you start becoming paranoid when you see simple things. Sofar all the UFO's i have seen are all either shiney lights in the sky, stars, planes, balloons...
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamhope11
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.
It's funny how 'ufo' became synonymous to 'alien spacecraft' in some circles. All the photos alien-believers show are either unidentified objects that might be seagulls, things like a piece of dust on the camera. or photo-shopped.
A picture in which you could actually see a certain craft, clear enough to see some details, might be a bit convincing. If it was taken by NASA, that is, because it isn't as if there aren't thousand of photoshopped 'alien spacecraft' photographs out there.
Really, the question is why nothing but blurry photos are convincing evidence of alien civilizations that travel to our planet, to some. Or the question why not a single half-decent photo has been taken. I would say that last thing was a mystery. But it would only be a mystery if aliens actually came visit us every now and then. Under the current circumstances, there is nothing mysterious about a truckload of vague photos and video images, and not a single clear shot. Since every clear shot turns out to be a seagull, and every blurry shot goes into the 'alien', 'bigfoot' or 'loch ness' basket.
There have been reported sightings by pilots of strange lights in the sky that pull in their air planes and fly off. The control on the ground confirms that no planes were in the area at that time.Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
Oh damn. I guess it must be aliens and not a technical error or a flash in the windshield or turbulence or one of the other 1,317,771 explanations other than aliens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Eagle
Hey, speaking of UFO footage has anyone seen the footage regarding the "Tether Incident"? It was when NASA sent up this satellite thingy that would be connected to a space station by this really long tether (about 10 miles or something big like that). Anyway, the tether snapped and floated out into space and then these wierd things started appearing - like huge discs with holes in the middle of them. There was hundreds, and I mean hundreds of them.
The entire thing was filmed by astronauts. You can find the footage on youtube and other websites - it's quite cool.
Yeah that was debris from the tether itself; smaller particles close to the camera, and the light was so bright from the tether that it made it appear as though the debris were passing behind the tether.
I saw a video of a guy once who spent an hour explaining how they were aliens from another dimension (fish people) here to fix our ozone layer. "How could it possibly be debris?!" he cried. Well at least he came up with a more logical conclusion.
Good post production. Final Cut Studios and an expertise in photorealistic rendering.
But how do you guys know they weren't ufos?
See, this is the stupidity we have to deal with here. They were UFOs if the cameraman can't identify them. That's it. That's the definition of UFO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subaru
Did I say "aliens"? NO
Jeeze! Sorree! Pardon me for breathing. Sheesh! No need to be rude.
Your right, that was the definition of UFO. However all languages evolve over time and the word UFO actually became linked to the strange spacecraft extraterrestrials are able to fly ... or whatever.
Ok, fine, you want to use the term "UFO" to mean alien space ship, that's alright. But you still need to be consistent. It doesn't matter whether you call them aliens, UFOs, or pink bunnies, you need the same rigor of proof. What so-called "UFOlogists" do is, on the one hand, use the term "UFO" in place of "alien ship", and then on the other require only that a UFO be literally an unidentified flying object. So you see, they use two entirely definitions to suit the situation. How is that rigor?Quote:
Originally Posted by Subaru
Well one day I was camping and it was at night, I was walking back to my tent after a potentially dangerous incident with a wolf (turned out to be a hedgehog or something) anyway, I was gazing at the stars, and I saw a star, that suddenly started to move! It moved randomly, and moved so that it never intersected another star! (Which was very peculiar, since the alien vessel, or whatever it might be, would not need to "avoid" such stars (since it navigates in 3d space!)))
This UFO was not like another satelite, because it did not follow a linear path of any kind. The path it followed was random and curved. I do not object to the possibility of it being a secret technological project from Earth, however, it seems to me quite clear that it was an alien vessel from a Flat, 2 dimensional, Universe.
Yeah, languages evolve, sure. UFO still means unidentified flying object though, not alien aircrafts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subaru
If I were to go outside one day and look into the sky and see something I couldn't identify flying, it'd be a UFO. If I were to go down the street and talk to a friend about it and he shows me a tape and it turns out it's a balloon, it's a balloon, not an alien. Just because something is a UFO doesn't mean it's an alien. The people that started linking UFO's definition to aliens are retarded.
You do know stars are light years away from us?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cryptic
Here's a list of the 10 closest stars, with their distance in light-years:
Proxima Centauri - 4.22
Alpha Centauri A - 4.37
Alpha Centauri B - 4.37
Barnard's Star - 5.96
Wolf 359 - 7.78
Sirius A - 8.58
Sirius B- 8.58
Luyten-8 A - 8.73
Luyten-8 B - 8.73
Ross 154 - 9.68
I don't know about the size of stars, but I'm pretty sure they have to be fairly massive for us to see the light from them when they're that far away, even though it takes a long time for their light to reach us. Do you believe that was a ship that massive out there flying around dodging a star that's anywhere from 4.22 light years away or further?
EDIT: Here's a picture you can compare the size of the stars to:
http://www.universetoday.com/wp-cont...4/centauri.png
So, the closest star is Proxima, which you can see in the image, the next closest which is .15 light years away from Proxima is both Centauri A, and B, and you can clearly tell that A is bigger than the sun, and B is almost the same size, just a little smaller. So do you think there was a ship the size of the sun, or near it, out there flying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Never
LMAO ROFL!!!! :lol::lol::lol::lol:
I think it was bigger than the sun, I hypothesize it was a celestial body of infinite size (Infinte for one side.) Also, I believe that its path was calculated based on probability (as you say, the speed of light isn't very fast. So, if we were to travel at high speeds, we would need to project our path towards the point which has the highest level of safety (since we do not have real-time data mapping the stars.) This path would have to be updated constantly as well.)