I'm not firing up the old flame thrower but it just seems to me that for every hobby or idea there is, we have a forum for it that dissects it to the point where no matter what we are looking at or doing, its reached the point of overanalysis and you lose all meaning in it. That or it gets stuck on the flipside and gets called a hoax because it isn't complex enough to consider. Half the time you get the guy who calls anything and everything a hoax because thats what he does, not that he needs to substantiate his statements. Why should he, since nothing is real to him.

Just browsing around at UFO footage and pictures makes you realize that ever since we've been able to take pictures and videos we've seen the evolution of our own technology hoaxing us. I'm not saying that every UFO picture is a fraud though. Just look at any of the pictures from the 70's and earlier and you'll see the simplicity of our analysis and our minds as well as the simplicity of the pictures of video in question. Every picture is simple, cigar shaped, hat shaped, saucer shaped and so forth. Just plain and basic and that's what society bought into. Getting into the 80's we see more and more flashing lights and a slightly more complex visual of what is considered a UFO, because we needed more than just the flying disk to believe. Then bring into the equation the 90's and we have the ability to get more stable shots and slightly more compeling pictures and even video, now we can really pick apart the complexities of good footage. Yes the footage is good because again, its all we are willing to buy into. We also have a very limited amout of people that are capable of producing believable work since the technology to produce compeling visuals just isn't quite available to the thrifty public.

Welcome 2K. Then we get into the good stuff. Society as a whole is now internet, computer, software and image savvy and can't be fooled into believing anything in a picture or video because we live in a shopped world of people dying to get their ideas onto the web so people can see that they too have created errr seen and photographed the unexplained. We have more and more complex videos and photos, with far more attention to detail, in the more talked about phenomenons. Leading to more questions and even less answers. I would say most to all of the pictures and video we are seeing are far more creative than what we've seen in the past because thats what it takes to get people interested. Another photo of a cigar shaped disk just isn't cutting it anymore. We need detailed images like the CARET stuff to even consider it as possibly hoax free.

Guess what? In ten years we'll have even more complex, compeling and interesting images to gauk at because this CARET stuff and the stuff like it will be laughed at as not buyable because the next great thing will have cropped up. Remember the great debates over the alien autopsy. Laughable now but highly debated back in its time.

I guess what I'm getting at is that no matter whats real and whats hoaxed, we'll never know because we're willing to entertain just about anything thats even remotely questionable, or simply dispell all of it. So were stuck in a time where everything is watered down and even the very best of the best would never be substantiated by any relevant authority because just like any interweb fad, it will pass. Not once has anything ever been proven, not once, and why should anyone of any power come in and lend credibility to the more researched and scrutinized findings if it too will pass.

Its impossible but we just need to look at things from a much more intelligent stance. Don't ask me how to go about this but if there is ever any hope of us forcing answers from those who know something/anything we need to find a better way.

I haven't been overly excited by UFO images and footage for the last ten years at least. I've also been an Adobe Premiere Pro and Photoshop practitioner for that long too though, so probably has something to do with it. Virtually everything I see on TV in terms of crafts and light phenomena I can either duplicate or best it. That's why I place far more importance on whistleblowers and high level testimony.

I think movies & television have not helped. Ideas that once seem silly are now sci fi shows(which I love). I think it is very likely that some people take the leap that just because its in a show it is or could be real. I mean there are people that think the middle earth(from Tolkien) is real. Others that think that the force from star wars is real.

interesting outlook

this ties in with cnufos little 'social experiment' where he posted a very believable clip and then waited a while before taking credit and explaining they were faked. When technology in the hands of a skilled few can be manipulated this way it degrades other lesser examples very much. I have some concerns with the human factor of this topic, it always comes down to he said she said which is not good for those who are not savvy enough to seperate the meat from the drose. And is an easy out for skeptics. But there is always a nagging feeling about the whistle blowers. Im sure some are making money but it seems most are not. There are other problems too like what it costs people who have spent their lives being respected and counted on to have people look at them like they are crazy when they come forward with their experiences. There is hardly any upside to doing it so why?

BishopRyan

Although i can appreciate your comments, please also consider that people have an innate need to believe in things. It doesn't matter if its Hard Science, Christianity or UFOlogy, we all need to form opinions on the world around us and our place in that world.

I personally enjoy this forum, not for the flame wars or (IMHO) wildly speculative theories, but that it opens my own perspective by having an insight into other people's.

In the end however, until some bug eyed monster lands at the bottom of my road and shoots the satellite dish off the side of the house, i will treat each report with a respectful scepticism.

very few 'proofs' nowadays can be considered as real with the tech we have now .

but before the seventies proof still exists. you can't disregard it with a sweeping motion.

We may have been able to overcome the problems of travel at high rates of speed and stopping on a dime or right angle turns ( the things craft and people were not capable of withstanding previously and still may not be able to do ) . But you can't regard the fact that at least pre 60's we were unable too yet around the world these crafts have been seen and taped doing so while good tech for video and the average person didn't exist yet .( remember it wasn't until I Love Lucy that they even got around to multiple angles for television ! In the 60's video tape was used and those tapes were huge ! remember how the Twilight Zone looked ? then how it's look changed during the 60's with the use of the different format ?) Heck look at the difference between analog and digital.

footage would have gotten better as tech advanced. that is rational. with better clarity in optics and even night vision.

computers can generate cgi - and many have been fooled. but then again to someone who is trained debunking them isn't too hard. the only difference now is the tech.

I fully agree with you on that: prior to the seventies, most "genuine" UFO footage may indeed be just that - as opposed to what's available today. The only exceptions I can think of are notable and mass witnessed sightings such as the Phoenix lights and other events.

With CGI available on home computers and lots of wizards out there with great imaginations, I find it very difficult to believe any pictures or video anymore. Seems the sky is the limit when it comes to hoaxing these days. It is sad that there are hoaxers, as they only muddy up the waters and give ammunition to the skeptics out there. All it takes is an incident like the Haiti UFO footage, and all of the skeptics just cheer about how everyone is duped. I suppose that I have seen enough to know that it is a real phenomenon, but I am just finding it hard to believe any photos or videos any longer. It's too bad, that even if someone puts a genuine video or photo out, I will still have to look at all of them as hoaxes. It's just getting too hard to tell the real from the faked ones and so it surely doesn't help serious research into the phenomenon with so many hoaxers out there these days.

This is why I, personally, think that it's going to take some type of 'hard' evidence surfacing before we can really answer whether or not the ETH is the definitive hypothesis for UFOs. What we need is for some ET to drop the alien version of a 'flashlight', or some other kind of technological device that is conclusively of alien manufacture. Naturally, open/public disclosure by the ETs themselves would be best...don't think any attempt at covering things up would work in that particular scenario.

Exactly. It is sad indeed.



With today's ultra-high tech that is often kept fifty years ahead of what people are aware of, I fail to see how finding anything of a material nature would prove anything. Anybody would simply declare it as being homegrown military hardware.

...Not if the device is made out of materials not available on Earth, or under conditions we're unable to reproduce on Earth. Something like this would be pretty definitive evidence for the ETH. Naturally, open/public contact is the best case scenario.

I agree, but according to who? Anyone presenting such evidence would be seen as a disinformation agent. The object in question would have to be released to the world in order for many independent and non government funded bodies to examine and research and come up with the same conclusion. If just one body made such a statement - even if it was the States or NASA, there would STILL be skeptics and non believers.

Exactly. You see so much argument along the lines of "they can do these kind of things, which nothing made on earth can, therefore they must be extraterrestrial", but it's all deducing one thing from another, and the it's all unverifiable.
Like the currently fashionable variety of UFO are these triangular ones: obviously they must be something, but can we say with certainty from just the reports of people who've seen them, and from the photos that people have managed to take of them (which, apart form maybe one famous one, all seem to be as distant and indistinct as UFO photos always ever seem to be), that they must be extraterrestrial spacecraft? But if you do question the assumption that "they must be", well, you are of course a Debunker.

As for the argument that the government has known about it but has kept it secret for decades: does anyone really think that any government is that competent to keep such a big secret secret for so long?, and as for the "secret government" theories, that heads off into a whole new realm of unproveable theories. There's no end of theories, but so far it's all - unproveable.

Absolutely not, since despite the heavy compartmentalization information still leaks out. There are mounds of evidence for the existence of extraterrestrials, and little hard proof. But for me, evidence and high level whistleblowers are sufficient for me to believe. Plus, to me it just makes sense.

That hits the nail on the head. That is the primary reason I don't buy a bit of the Isaac and CARET stuff. If I had such complete and amazing proof the last thing I would do is drop the information on the internet to be scrutinized and debunked to no end. You have to start with a reputable media outlet. Then any professional video or photo analyst that would listen. It not only has to be believable and real it has to be presented properly.

I'll tell you why. For future generations to learn from our mistakes. New people are visiting this forum every day and if they can learn immediately what we teach them then we can move forward that much faster. Where forward is is anyone's guess but it's all about teaching what we've learned.

How arrogant is it to think that you're "teaching" anyone anything with your "hoaxed" videos?

Don't confuse 'Attention seeker' with 'Teacher', the two are NOT synonymous!

He does have a point you know. Whether something is genuine or faked, someone is definitely learning.

At first I thought this was yet another "Bash Bush Thread"

I just happened across a video that I never heard about.. it was taken during a Peace Vigil in Cleveland, Ohio.
Description: Wierd light spotted by peace activist over key bank building in downtown Cleveland. Sam Phillips, Liberation Brew TV.

UFO comes to Peace Vigil March 10 2007

At the end of this shaky video, the guy who is filming all this says some really "funny" GW "imitation" things... (hilarious!)

I haven't a clue what that strange thing was up there but at least these folks took the sighting all in stride.

Let's just call a Spade a Spade. Intentionally tricking people or hoaxing something because you like the attention doesn't make a person a 'Teacher' thats just 'teaching' people something. It's no different than a 'Bank robber' telling people that he is a 'Teacher' of Bank security and was only 'teaching' Bank security to the community!

What if someone walks up to you and punches you right in the eye! Then they will tell you "Hey pal, I just wanted to 'teach' you something about having a 'Black Eye'." Are you going to say to yourself, "Well that guys right you know I do have something to learn about having a 'Black Eye'!" I can't speak for anyone else BUT that's not the way I would see it!

No doubt considering they seemed to realize the 'Balloon' must be tied to the top of the building.

Ask this question... Would a refereed Scientific Journal accept papers from a known and self-acknowledged 'Hoaxer'? Of course NOT! There is no difference here!

Actually no, they've verified it was NOT a balloon up there.. nor was it a helicopter.

Here is a CBS NEWS VIDEO Report on this sighting

I still like the longer version of the video on Google (posted earlier). I love how he say's things at the end.. *cracks me up!*

They are looking for answers to what it was (like we have been on something we saw back in 1992) but I doubt they will ever find out. They will always wonder.. like we do.

Who "verified" what where?

I watched the video and its clearly something attached to the building.

Dude - I don't know if you realize it, but you just quoted yourself.

Yeah, I did that to add to what I was saying in the prior post.

its a interesting hypothesis ,but you can't lose sight of the fact that blinking light ufos and even the black triangles have been seen way before the 80s even before the 70 as there are several reports of the black triangles from 66 and 67. i do belive that because we have some much sophistication in cameras and video that better pics are expected from more people now than before. the thing is the ufos haven't been changing by leaps and bounds (the Cavet deal is def diff) as we would think. their not fords and chevys i would reckon that they are bases on pretty standerized platforms. plus if (and thats a big if!) their propulsion system is magnetic in design wouldn't that naturally screw with cameras and video?

these are some valid questions that i wish skeptics would answer when they just up and say ummm its been verified to be fake!!
don't get me wrong but the skeptics who are "helping" our groups to grow and move foward are holding us back as bad a hoaxers and fakers by not giving evidence and proof as to "who" (if anyone) verifies all of this fake information we seem to have gotten the last oh what? 50 , 60 years? if its been "proven" than show proof!

'fraid I'm with the skeptics when it comes to video and pictures. With about two weeks notice and roughly two to three hours a night dedicated to it, I could literally fool experts with the end results on paper, in pixels, or on footage - easy. That media holds virtually no validity any more. The only exception is if it is from a mass sighting.

So now it comes down to physical evidence (aka a real live flying saucer), and the window for acceptable evidence becomes a lot smaller, and the skeptics become a lot smugger.

What!???

I thought I heard my name....




Seriously,to me it has always been about REAL physical evidence. And so far I havent seen any.

and thats to the good, but it does marginalize real people who think they had real experiences, and thats never good.
Would you consider radar returns records as hard proof debunker?

LOL - I wouldn't anyone with a name like Debunker to actually believe something even if it were proved to be real.

For the record, I still firmly believe, but it's gong to take a real Earth shaking event in order to wake the masses. I'm personally hoping and wishing for worldwide simultaneous mass sightings, but I won't hold my breath for that either of course.

i have noticed that there is something different in the air, something seems like its about to break maybe.

yet there are hundreds of mass sightings from all over the us and mexico as well as all over the world!!

Don't get me wrong. I still know there's something to all this and that other intelligences are indeed visiting us, but I'm afraid that given today's high tech computer graphic and animation programs existing right inside people's homes, it's going to take a LOT more than mere pics and video footage to convince your typical skeptic or debunker. Short of official US public disclosure - or else internationally broadcast simultaneous worldwide sightings, I just don't see anything that can convince them otherwise. Nothing.

I don't think its entirely a coincidence that there are a greater number of sightings, videos, pictures and reportings mirroring a greater number of people with the technology to either A. Put the information up on forums like this B. Have the ability to make fraudulant pic, videos and claims.

Right now even solid proof isn't enough to leverage anyone of any real authority to authenticate or confirm a finding since its just as easy to ignore and dismiss our watered down society in this era. We need answers too quickly and when we don't get them we all move on to the next great thing.

Its going to take something of sizable proportions that can't be missed by anyone. If 35 or more 6 mile long aircrafts come down over major cities across the world and say hi to us, people will call it a hoax.....right now some groups are even saying that airplanes didn't hit the trade towers it was missles and we were all duped and to an average moron its actually believable....see this http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservi...lues-part1.aspx

We have officially reached media overload.

Sadly, I agree.

The science and study of UAP is making leaps and bounds right now. It's only a matter of time IMO that the "skeptics" and "Naysayers" of the phenomena simply become the fringe. Similar to the "skeptics" and "naysayers" that say Man never went to the Moon. No one takes them seriously they are even referred to as Conspiracy theorists.

I'd like to speed time up just a bit sometimes. I know the world is changing, but sometimes I lack just a little patience in this area. I'm tired of presenting case evidence to skeptics and debunkers.

in 52 we had a ufo wave over the us capital complete with verified radar signals and us airforce pilots reporting seeing these things. in the 80 there was a lady who was abducted and there were several witnesses who saw it including a visiting official and two of his body guards. in 82 you had bentwaters . in the 90 there was the huge black triangle flap in the uk. these things are out there it does not take a whole lot of thought to come up with the clear fact that there are craft in the air today that no one knows where they come from or who they are. the only question that there really is is if they are earth based or are they from some other solar system. every single day pilots in the air report seeing ufos thats a simple fact.

I regard those things as true events rather than facts. Facts are scientifically verifiable, whereas such mass events are merely credible. Big difference.

Again, I'm a bigtime believer, but I want the smoking gun - not for myself, but for the debunkers just so they'll finally shut up.

As sson as I read to OP, I thought of the Adamski pic.

Click to view attachment

This 60's pic fits in well,

Click to view attachment

And this pic. Looks alot like a drigible.

Click to view attachment

These examples sure seem to offer much to that theory.

Even when people come forward and say, I was fooling you LOL, so many say, who made you cover up. The desperation to have alien contact a reality tempts some to take short cuts so the rest of the population can share the vision. Modern day version of the boy who cried Wolf. Shame if we do, or are experiencing Alien contact as it will take quite some convincing to the general public.

with the second pic being a billy meir pic and the third pic a computer generated image or a game still these do not convey much

Clearly? Care to point out the string/wire attaching it, and care to explain how it moves as it does. The wind normally only blows in one direction at a time.

Quit making unsupported claims.

then simply show us your evidence to back your claims that it is supported by the building.
can you blow the picture up to show more detail? unsupported claims do little to move this field of study farther. either from the devout skeptic or the devout beliver.

If you watch the video it clearly, IMO, appears to be blowing in the wind. At one point the person in the background comments after the 'object' seemed to move towards the front face of the building, "The wind shifted", then another person says "The wind is blowing this way though".

The whole conversation from the people watching the 'object' centered around the 'object' being tied to the building. Some people said that they could see the string tied to the building!

The News story said the 'object' was seen for two days!

Now none of that is characteristic of UAP, it is consistent with something tied to the Building. UAP don't blow in the wind, UAP are able to hold completely stationary for minutes or hours at a time. UAP characteristically exhibit motions that can not be matched by prosaic objects or our best technology, again we see nothing like that on this video. Take the Nov. 7, 2006 observations at O'Hare for example, the 'object' hung motionless below the cloud layer for 15 -20 minutes until it shot off through the clouds at a blistering speed leaving a hole in the cloud layer. That observation was consistent with UAP, now compare that to what we see on this video... An 'object' that seriously appears to be being blown around by the wind while being illuminated by the Crown lights on top of the building.

For those reasons the video is completely unimpressive and appears to be a prosaic object. At no time does the video show the 'object' make any movement or exhibit any characteristic of UAP.

That's my opinion of the video Zero and I'm glad to share my opinion with you. I'm sorry you seem to be so upset by what you call "unsupported claims" that you think I've made. One eyewitness on the video stated that he saw the string "tied to the building", so I'm only pointing out my opinion that the 'object' was consistent with the eyewitness who stated that he saw "the string" so that's not a claim on my part at ALL. As such my opinion isn't "unsupported" nor is it a 'claim', it's a supporting opinion to eyewitness accounts.

I know that true UAP/UFOs are out there to be observed and that they are being openly studied as we speak. These are truly a scientific mystery and DO NOT typically appear prosaic in any way to people who witness them. That doesn't mean an actual UAP can't appear prosaic at times, however in most instances worth recording UAP/UFOs convince the observers that they are not observing something prosaic. You can't say that about the video in question, people were debating whether or not it was a "balloon" or a "kite" tied to the building. As such it's likely not possible to physically or scientifically "show" that every video that is likely prosaic is actually prosaic.

That being said, and truly mysterious objects existing in the atmosphere, why should we even fret over any video that even remotely looks to be prosaic like the 'object' in the video in question?

If the 'object' exhibited ANY behavior at ALL that I thought was consistent with other UAP I'd like to think I'd be the first person to say so.