Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Can a picture/video prove ETs exist?


Fila

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

It's a pretty safe assumption, and one that does not need to be proven scientifically. The rise in mobile, high quality cameras should have led to a similar rise in visual UFO reporting. And it hasn't.

Mmm yes it has. You could spend the next 6 months watching these videos. There are at least 20 new ones a month.

Ive seen at least 50 that looked an awful lot like the one I saw. 

I feel more then comfortable saying a good hunk of those are real

Edited by preacherman76
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2017 at 10:36 PM, Emma_Acid said:

It's a pretty safe assumption, and one that does not need to be proven scientifically. The rise in mobile, high quality cameras should have led to a similar rise in visual UFO reporting. And it hasn't.

Sorry, I missed this reply. i posted a rebuttal, but to another member on page 1. Please let me know if you want me to repost it.

Basically there are many factors to consider before forming a conclusion.

"Because there are more cameras these days.., means that we should have more photographs of an event" does initially seem like a reasonable statement.

However every single event in the universe has its own schedule, not determined by how many cameras are around. Frequency, volumes, locations and variables can change irregardless of the measuring devices availability and accuracy.

I'm guilty of making assumptions too. It's hard not to. I think everyone has. But this seems like a great place for us all to learn from each others. We all have our strong points, and can work together. I'm sure you will pull me up on something next week :)

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A video only proves what's in the video. For instance, it proves that there's something flying/floating in the sky. What is the object is subjective. If I ask my mom she probably will say "I have no idea" but maybe someone with more knowledge would say "that's X plane doing X thing" or "that's a natural phenomena called...". So basically video only proves the image that it's on the film but can't prove ets, ufos or anything of the sort. It only proves that there was something in the sky. It needs extra data, witnesses, opinions from experts, other videos of the same phenomena from different angle/distance/equipment. 

So, to answer your question, nope. A video can be a kickstart to something, but without the raw data + extra effort you can't build a case.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Mmm yes it has. You could spend the next 6 months watching these videos. There are at least 20 new ones a month.

Ive seen at least 50 that looked an awful lot like the one I saw. 

I feel more then comfortable saying a good hunk of those are real

My usual request - the one being studiously ignored by the OP and supporters - just post the best one out of those 50.

If you are unwilling to do so, then that rather clearly suggests they are ambiguous or obvious fakery.

And may i say this - I'd be willing to get interested in a video if just two things applied, and frankly I don't think these are unreasonable 'wants'....

1. The footage needs to be of reasonable quality, include equipment info and settings, and a time and location, and of course it must show something clearly non-terrestrial.  That one is pretty obvious...

and..

2. The videographer must offer the ORIGINAL media to a recognised scientist/investigative organisation, or at least make the original media file available for scrutiny.  (There are some quite simple and close to foolproof ways to check for editing, IF we can get access to the original video file.  As soon as a video gets uploaded somewhere, eg to Fooltube, it is compressed and compromised.)  But in 99% of cases, the video author is not identifiable and vanishes - maybe because they get paid to do so by the media outlet that buys the footage- which in itself tells you that the original file doesn't support the claims being made......

 

That second request is hardly unreasonable, would you not agree?  And yet, we've only ever seen it a very few times, and those videos did not meet item 1 - in other words, they were identifiable/explainable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know these people Chrlzs. I'm not gonna demand people get me all that. Besides you missed my point entirely. And that is I have personally witnessed something very similar to what I have seen in many of these video's. How am I going to dismiss them as easily as folks here, when, if I had a video recorder that night, I'd have the same type of video they shared. And I'd be called a hoaxer same as they have been.

I know you aren't going to believe any of this no matter what you are provided. And don't get me wrong, that's cool. I understand. But none the less, you are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From time to time, I have thought of posting video's I have found impressive. Then I think, whats the point? Most people here get instantly offended, and demand all kinds of ridiculous requests, as though the person who posted the video is the one who took it. And act like the person who posted it is saying this is 100% proof. Cant even just have a interesting conversation, and discuss possibilities. Honestly I don't even see a point in this section being here. Every thread is the same thing.

We should have a skeptics UFO section, so people who actually want to talk about this subject could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

From time to time, I have thought of posting video's I have found impressive. Then I think, whats the point? Most people here get instantly offended, and demand all kinds of ridiculous requests, as though the person who posted the video is the one who took it. And act like the person who posted it is saying this is 100% proof. Cant even just have a interesting conversation, and discuss possibilities. Honestly I don't even see a point in this section being here. Every thread is the same thing.

We should have a skeptics UFO section, so people who actually want to talk about this subject could.

As far as I know many videos were discussed in this forum and were debunked stating what it was. I love ufos videos because the "honest" ones are things that I didn't know or couldn't think of but yeah, man-made, natural-stuff. Hoaxer is a word deserved for those who intentionally fake a video and put it online. If you happen to film something that you saw and put it here I highly doubt someone would call you hoaxer because you're putting a video saying that you don't know what's on the screen but maybe someone else does. Now, if you put a video claiming "this is alienz" of course people will ask for more data because that's a claim that you need to back up with facts.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/12/2017 at 9:11 AM, ChrLzs said:

My usual request - the one being studiously ignored by the OP and supporters - just post the best one out of those 50.

Again with the accusations? Such pent up rage... 

Buddy. I am not ignoring your request. I just have many posts I am replying to, and I have my own priorities with this thread.

I have also asked you for some data which you ignored. But we should not get so emotional about it. Perhaps I should start accusing you of lying about your webcam's abilities seeing as you refuse to show me an image of a plane or helicopter as an example to clarify my point.

 

Then I guess I ignore your response and accuse you of lying/stalling again? Is that how this works?

 

On 13/12/2017 at 9:11 AM, ChrLzs said:

And may i say this - I'd be willing to get interested in a video if just two things applied, and frankly I don't think these are unreasonable 'wants'....

1. The footage needs to be of reasonable quality, include equipment info and settings, and a time and location, and of course it must show something clearly non-terrestrial.  That one is pretty obvious...

and..

2. The videographer must offer the ORIGINAL media to a recognised scientist/investigative organisation, or at least make the original media file available for scrutiny.  (There are some quite simple and close to foolproof ways to check for editing, IF we can get access to the original video file.  As soon as a video gets uploaded somewhere, eg to Fooltube, it is compressed and compromised.)  But in 99% of cases, the video author is not identifiable and vanishes - maybe because they get paid to do so by the media outlet that buys the footage- which in itself tells you that the original file doesn't support the claims being made......

That second request is hardly unreasonable, would you not agree?  And yet, we've only ever seen it a very few times, and those videos did not meet item 1 - in other words, they were identifiable/explainable.

 

The point of this thread is that you will not find a definitive answer simply from video footage.

I suggest starting a new thread asking people to post UFO footage.., if that's the way you prefer to tackle the UFO phenomenon. I wanted to keep this conversation about videos NOT being able to prove anything.., as opposed to falling back into the trap of reviewing videos all day. (As I personally see this as a waste of time)

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way FILA I'm also interested in seeing which is the most spectacular UFO video you've seen. Because I've seen tons and I wonder which one you believe it's the best example of an UFO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/12/2017 at 9:50 AM, MrBene said:

By the way FILA I'm also interested in seeing which is the most spectacular UFO video you've seen. Because I've seen tons and I wonder which one you believe it's the best example of an UFO. 

I might just start a new thread.

I don't really base anything off videos.
My opinions are derived from researching military and government documents, police reports and other reputable sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Fila said:

I might just start a new thread.

I don't really base anything off videos.
My opinions are derived from researching military and government documents, police reports and other reputable sources.

Might as well keep the conversation here. It’s gonna turn out exactly the same, with the exact same people 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My answer to the OPs question is: yes, a picture/video could prove the existence of ETs. But until today I have not seen any picture/video that would match my requirements for an authentic visual recording of an artificial object of extraterrestrial origin. I`m tired about images/vids showing tiny bright dots in the sky and I would never count a "withess testimonial" as to be important to the subject, never ever.

The main source that keep the ET/UFO hype running is hearsay, mostly spread by people with a very low knowledge on relevant disciplines like spaceflight, technology in general, astronomy, photography and a lot of others. Furthermore, its very often "reported" about objects which follow a zig-zag flight pattern. But nobody of this community has ever taken a bulb exposure image showing such pattern. Why not? I tell ya!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/12/2017 at 10:13 AM, toast said:

My answer to the OPs question is: yes, a picture/video could prove the existence of ETs. But until today I have not seen any picture/video that would match my requirements for an authentic visual recording of an artificial object of extraterrestrial origin.

What requirements would be needed for an image to be proof of ET?

On 13/12/2017 at 10:13 AM, toast said:

I`m tired about images/vids showing tiny bright dots in the sky and I would never count a "withess testimonial" as to be important to the subject, never ever.

Yeesh, aren't we all. The reason UFO vidoes are poor quality can be answered by taking any camera and walking outside.

What you can see with your naked eye at a distance (100m or more).., will not appear on film. Tr it for yourself and see how large a helicopter/plane in the sky really is.., and how much detail you can see with your eyes. Then take a photo and look how tiny the dot is.

 

I take this into consideration when looking at any UFO image.

On 13/12/2017 at 10:13 AM, toast said:

I would never count a "withess testimonial" as to be important to the subject, never ever

Witness testimonies are not proof either. Video is not. Radar data is not. A combination of all 3 is also not proof..

They are however.., form of evidence that can be used to form a hypothesis that UFOs are a real event.., and deserves further study.(As claims and videos will NEVER produce a conclusion)

To dismiss UFO reports and accuse many high ranking, reputable professionals and servicemen of lying is kinda rude, dismissive and simply not a correct way to handle the situation.

I also think its wrong to overlook reputable UFO reports in favour of (civilian) hoaxers, and people who mis-ID a star.

Because X amount of reports were mis-IDs or hoaxes.., therfore; ALL UFO reports are hoaxes/mis-IDs..is false logic.

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/12/2017 at 10:11 AM, preacherman76 said:

Might as well keep the conversation here. It’s gonna turn out exactly the same, with the exact same people 

I just made a new thread anyway. I feel like if I posted here, it will lead to exactly the opposite of what this thread is trying to achieve.., and also muddy the waters with off-topic posts.

A link is provided below for people to view and discuss the project there.., not here.

 

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Might as well keep the conversation here. It’s gonna turn out exactly the same, with the exact same people 

Just to clarify, I've seen things in the sky at night, things that I don't know what it were. I live in a small city with a tiny airport and pretty much all the flights have the same route and the same schedule. We've a small air base with just helicopters. Now, everything else in the sky outside the city baffles me but I'm too ignorant to actually assure something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Fila said:

...What you can see with you naked eye 10kilometers away.., will not appear on film. Tr it for yourself and see how large a helicopter/plane in the sky really is.., and how much detail you can see with your eyes. Then take a photo and look how tiny the dot is....

Look at this video, start at 3:50, commit to the music and watch this ufo teleport from one location to the next :o

Okay, now go back to 3:20 and then go back even further. ^_^

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Fila said:

What requirements would be needed for an image to be proof of ET?

A main requirement is a clear and sharp image that would show something in this fashion (sorry for the big image size):

8lz5TMJ.jpg

Quote

Yeesh, aren't we all. The reason UFO vidoes are poor quality can be answered by taking any camera and walking outside.What you can see with you naked eye 10kilometers away.., will not appear on film. Tr it for yourself and see how large a helicopter/plane in the sky really is.., and how much detail you can see with your eyes. Then take a photo and look how tiny the dot is

Thats a very lame argument. How can these people judge, and claim, that an object in the sky at a distance of 10km to be of extraterrestrial origin? Their claims are based on opinions only and not on visual identification. And, judged by the number of claims, why has there never been such an object of a supposed extraterrestrial origin been such near to the videographer to get a clear and sharp vid that would allow to think about a craft of extraterrestrial origin?

Quote

Witness testimonies are not proof either. Video is not. Radar data is not. A combination of all 3 is also not proof..

An authentic vid of extraterrestrial technology is a valid proof for extraterrestrial technology in the same way as an authentic vid of a dog is a valid proof for the existence of a dog.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/12/2017 at 10:53 AM, dirtierdragoon4 said:

Look at this video, start at 3:50, commit to the music and watch this ufo teleport from one location to the next :o

Okay, now go back to 3:20 and then go back even further. ^_^

 

Ok done. Now what?

Even with this professional film camera with a large telephoto lens on a tripod still cannot pick up details from a distance.

Skip to 3:46 and notice the zoom come back to Zero. Even with a huge lens this professional camera still cannot see anything.
Mobile phones and webcams have no telephoto lenses, smaller IRIS, lens, maybe1 CCD, bad compression ratios and file types.
This is why UFO videos are always dots or blurry.

 

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, dirtierdragoon4 said:

Okay, now go back to 3:20 and then go back even further.

Okay, now go to 00:26: "We also received a report from the son of a truck driver who supposedly delivers to Area 51"

(An additional one like that one and I have to pee my pants)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/12/2017 at 10:57 AM, toast said:

Thats a very lame argument. How can these people judge, and claim, that an object in the sky at a distance of 10km to be of extraterrestrial origin?

From all my reports read.., you were the only person who said they were extraterrestrial. Remember, UFO dun not mean alienz - Seeder

 

On 13/12/2017 at 10:57 AM, toast said:

 Their claims are based on opinions only and not on visual identification

No.., "their" professional observation is based on training and knowledge.

I'm not sure who "they" are.., but I am referring to credible trained observers. Which reports are you referring to? Is it the obviously debunkable one's? If so, that is a biased approach.., and an assumption I must ignore.

On 13/12/2017 at 10:57 AM, toast said:

why has there never been such an object of a supposed extraterrestrial origin been such near to the videographer to get a clear and sharp vid that would allow to think about a craft of extraterrestrial origin?

Why? I don't know if anyone could answer that definitely.., we could have a go at guessing what an alleged advanced ET race would/wouldn't do and why.

 

On 13/12/2017 at 10:57 AM, toast said:

An authentic vid of extraterrestrial technology is a valid proof for extraterrestrial technology in the same way as an authentic vid of a dog is a valid proof for the existence of a dog.

 

 If it could be proven authentic.., the picture (at best) would show an image of an unknown object.

You just said yourself.., how can these people make such a jump to assuming the object was extraterrestrial. The same logic applies both ways.

 

 

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Fila said:

Ok done. Now what?

Even with this professional film camera with a large telephoto lens on a tripod still cannot pick up details from a distance.

Skip to 3:46 and notice the zoom come back to Zero. Even with a huge lens this professional camera still cannot see anything.
Mobile phones and webcams have no telephoto lenses, smaller IRIS, lens, maybe1 CCD, bad compression ratios and file types.
This is why UFO videos are always dots or blurry.

Now nothing. You have done it! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, dirtierdragoon4 said:

and watch this ufo teleport from one location to the next

So extraterrestrial crafts use plume emitting chemical propellants for teleportation manoeuvres? I wasnt aware of.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/12/2017 at 11:07 AM, toast said:

Okay, now go to 00:26: "We also received a report from the son of a truck driver who supposedly delivers to Area 51"

(An additional one like that one and I have to pee my pants)

Ok done. I feel like I'm missing the point. you're gonna have to be very blunt with me.., I do not take hints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/12/2017 at 11:15 AM, dirtierdragoon4 said:

Now nothing. You have done it! :)

What was the point? I really don't like posting unnecessarily because it just makes threads harder to read for others just joining in. 

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.