With all the ufo videos out there, would you recognize a real one if you saw it?

I ask myself that question and I don't think I would. A random enounter with a ufo would most likely be captured by amature photographers. The video would be captured with whatever the witness or witnesses had at hand, maybe their cellphone or small digital camara. Under those circumstances, the video would likely be blurry, out of focus, and shakey to say the least.

Show me a blurry, out of focus and shakey ufo video and I will call shenanigans everyday and twice on Sunday. Anyways, that is just a thought.

I don't know what you mena with that there are many UFO videos aout there. There was one made in maya or 3d studio where all the palm trees looked the same. There are the Gulf Breeze pictures that are far from real. When people (or experts) look at UFO photos or videos I don't know what they look for. I looked before Photoshop for double exposures. The double exposures in Gulf Breeze were very bad, since you see the sky through the rather transparent UFO. Nobody knows whether a UFo is real or not, but if someone says that a UFO is real that to me looks like a double exposure, then I would say OK, a UFO looks like a double exposure then, perhaps to make you, the observer look like a fool.

Some fakes are pretty convincing, but I think I'd know instantly.

I'd like to think I would know instantly and I probably would make a snap judgement. At the same time, given the situation in which a real "ufo" encounter might be documented by photo or video, if there is ever one that is validated, I would not be surprised if I called "bs" on it when I first saw it.

I think it goes deeper than that though.

The question is would you recognise a real Alien craft if you saw one? I am sure that many videos out there are genuine, but are they alien vessels? Most are so blurry it could be a balloon or a bird, or a plane, anything really, and its even worse with lights in the sky.

So what would an alien craft look like? A saucer? Doubtful, there's no real advantage to a saucer shape, its not aerodynamic to maneuvre in an atmosphere, and in a vacuum its shape would have no real bearing on its travel, given that anti gavity is theoretically impossible, it would need wings of some description and rudders etc.

You should assume that it would have thick armour given that even the smallest impact at relativistic speeds would be disasterous. It would need a propulsion system to travel between stars, and an enourmous amount of energy to tap into to power that system. You would assume there would be some sort of artificial gravity, centrifugal maybe?

It doesn't paint a very pretty picture really, but this is why I am not convinced any videos I have ever seen really show an alien craft. Worse still is that if I am right, an alien craft from a distance would look and behave very much like a terrestrial aircraft.

Isn't it a bit of an oxymoron?

If you can IDENTIFY a UFO, then is it really Unidentified any more?

But unless a sighting is confirmed by credible sources, there's no way I'm going to believe anything I see on the internet.

I work with professional level editing software everyday and I cannot tell the difference between a well executed hoax and the real deal on video. I still can't. Two bit fakes are easy to tell, but once a hoaxer decides he or she is really going to put effort into a vid and they take their sweet time in making it, and the props/CGI are well executed, the objectivity takes a severe nose dive and I get stumped. That goes for Raw and Jpegs too.

So...

It was a bit easier to tell before the computer era - when images were recorded on film. For example, one could examine a film strip or series of negatives to see if there had been any tampering or irregularities in the frame sequences. Also, it was way more difficult to hide suspension lines and other means of trickery. With digital, it has become child's play and - judging from YouTube content - it seems like just about everyone with editing software tries his hand at doing his own version of a UFO clip.

I think good video "evidence" would be one that is corroborated with actual multiple witness testimony or multiple video recordings from various angles of the same phenomenon. Furthermore, there is a difference between the low definition stuff one sees on YouTube and an original HD recording...

I don't see why you would need wings and rudders if your craft was propelled by some sort of anit-gravity. The craft would be omni-directional and a saucer shape would lend itself to that. As far as the size of the "armour", with our current technology it would require, as you suggest something thick. However, if you assume an advanced technology I don't see that placing limits on how much armor would be required based on our current technology is valid.

That would be my requirement as well for good evidence. Multiple witnesses, multiple images/viedoes from different sources taken from different angles.

I recognize it when its smoldering on my front lawn with a baseball through its windshield and its occupants tied up in my garage while I wait outside for the press and all the very impressed ladies...


EDIT: To guys above me, why is that in all those mass sightings (Montreal, Mexico) that only 1 or 2 people think to tape it...

Lol, funny. If you don't understand it, hit it with a baseball bat! Priceless!

zing!

I already said 'given Anti Gravity is theoretically impossible'. Are we talking shield technology of some kind here? How would you be able to, and realistically define an effect that acts like a wall, solid as a metal or alloy but with no apparrant mass or thickness? Shields, other than magnetic or some sort of static effects are a fabrication from star trek. As for armour, well, they may well have an advanced knowledge of metalurgy but the elements are the elements.

I think you are falling into the trap of assuming alien technology would be similar to our own technology of the day. You could step back just a few hundred years in our own history and you would find the technology we have today would have been assumed impossible by the standards of the time. Even today, You could take $50 and go to walmart and purchase things that would make you seem like a God to even the best "scientists" of the day just a few hundred years ago. To think the next few hundred years of advancement would not prove the same for us is to have the same mindset of those in our past that thought we had already achieved the zenith of technology.

In answer to the OP's original question (which is a good one)
The answer is no especially now days, CGI/Photo Shopping killed it.

Even if i saw one in real life, say landing on the farm, i'd still have my doubts...
I'd want further proof, like a test drive or something.

Reb, I couldn't agree more - you, as usual, cut to the bone of it!

Cheers,
Badeskov

I hear what you are saying I do.

I think the major advances would be in fields like computer technology and biology.

There is certainly no reason to believe that they would have access to elements that are different to those that we have. They may have advanced knowledge and techniques for the production of alloys and plastics. But just because we have guns, does not mean a bow and arrow would not be able to kill a man, so an impact, even the tiniest impact at reletivistic speeds would be cataclysmic, even if a hull were composed of pure diamond.

You are assuming that technology would be available to them that defy the laws of physics, and yes maybe they have made advancements compared to our scientific knowledge but there is no reason to believe the base of our knowledge is wrong. We do still use the majority of base materials now that we did 300 years ago.

But then the easiest thing in the world is to make a claim and then backup it up with a simple, oh well their technology would be so advanced we could not possibly imagine it.

Boy, ain't that the truth, Bady!

Gotta love that Rebel!