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

I still disagree that images will be accepted as 100% PROOF positive.., but we'll get back to that.

On 14/12/2017 at 11:05 AM, ChrLzs said:

From the point of view of detecting editing, there are several techniques that will reveal fake/edited content, ranging from simple content errors (eg something missed from one frame to the next, lighting/shadow inconsistencies, etc), through to data 'signature' problems, like discontinuities, differing noise levels, jpeg quantisation effects and quite a few others (some of which I keep up my sleeve...:ph34r:)

I have seen professionals study UFO footage in a media lab. Bit more complicated...

So Toast and yourself say we all should;

1) Contact UFO witnesses, and ask for original footage (In the mail I expect). So,, just one at a time right?

2) Run through a list of things we think may show a fake. Everyone has their own skill level here. (I.e. the professional I saw were more rigorous and had all types of analysing equipment. Most people here I assume would have 0 experience with film analysis.

But anyway.., what's next? Do we put your findings up for peer-review? So Toast can confirm its authenticity with his skillset?

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2017 at 9:52 AM, Fila said:

The last generation wasted decades on this fruitless investigation.., lets not continue the cycle for another 70 years

It's not fruitless for those who write books etc about this enigma! It's people like this that keep the enigma alive-- with or without youtube.

These people need to be questioned! How's that for a new way to move forward?

IMO you wont find something that aint there= as 80+ years of nothing has proved

Edited by Dejarma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/12/2017 at 11:58 AM, Dejarma said:

It's not fruitless for those who write books etc about this enigma! It's people like this that keep the enigma alive-- with or without youtube.

I disagree. Its the sightings that keep it alive.

On 14/12/2017 at 11:58 AM, Dejarma said:

These people need to be questioned! How's that for a new way to move forward?

Not sure how it will help, please elaborate.

On 14/12/2017 at 11:58 AM, Dejarma said:

IMO you wont find something that aint there= as 80+ years of nothing has proved

That's ok. I don't mind opinions, expressed as opinion. Thank you.

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fila said:

I have seen professionals study UFO footage in a media lab. Bit more complicated...

??  Do elaborate on the 'more complicated' bit..  Are you talking film again? - if so, yes, there might be scanning and microscopy equipment... but aren't we talking about potential new footage?  In which case the chances of it being on film are virtually zero - it will just be a digital file. - What equipment is required? 

2 hours ago, Fila said:

So Toast and yourself say we all should;

1) Contact UFO witnesses, and ask for original footage (In the mail I expect). So,, just one at a time right?

You've not heard of Dropbox or the hundreds of other file sharing services, where you can simply post the file and make it available?  It's pretty easy to determine if a file is an original recording from the equipment being claimed.  No fancy stuff required.

2 hours ago, Fila said:

2) Run through a list of things we think may show a fake. Everyone has their own skill level here. (I.e. the professional I saw were more rigorous and had all types of analysing equipment. Most people here I assume would have 0 experience with film analysis.

All types of analysing equipment?  Are you sure this was examination of digital media files.. or is this film again?   Again, I'm intrigued, so do tell.  What were these alleged devices actually for?  If one is checking for authenticity/fakery of a media file, we are normally just talking about closely examining the content of a digital file - a fairly simple string of bytes..  It is generally *software* that helps with the analysis, which may involve statistical and pattern matching/analysis, along with examining and checking the validity of exif data and so on.  To a lesser extent it may involve using image 'enhancement', but such enhancement is *nothing* like that portrayed on NCIS-type shows, and certainly does not usually include playing with the photoshop sliders until you get what you want...  It does not generally require specialised equipment, other than maybe a big/fast screen, and a fairly fast processor with a reasonable amount of memory.

Are you perhaps confusing this with photogrammetry, or lens- and sensor- testing?

Quote

Most people here I assume would have 0 experience with film analysis.

While that's true, I have some experience (you may be surprised..), there are at least two others in my ballpark, and then there's one who I bow down to...  If anyone comes up with something worthy of deeper analysis than I can provide, I'll give him a shout or contact a couple of guys I know in the USA.

Quote

But anyway.., what's next? Do we put your findings up for peer-review? So Toast can confirm its authenticity with his skillset?

Yes, that's correct. :D Because if I do analyse something I provide a step by step rundown on exactly what I did and why, and I'll even provide links to any software required - there is free software available for most of the basic stuff..  And nothing to date has gone beyond that... although here's an example of me beginning the process of doing just that on another forum - you might want to click here for a bit of a laugh (although it is a very long and painful thread):

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?99976-Jose-Escamilla&p=1675518#post1675518

..yes that's me over at what used to be the 'Bad Astronomy' forum, way back in 2009 and we are discussing the "How NOT to.." of enhancement techniques, and it then goes on to looking at a professional, if fairly simple, forensic analysis by a genuine forensic image analyst.  Problem for the claimant (some here will know him - Jose Escamilla) was that his claim and 'evidence' was of very poor quality, and he was desperately trying to prove there was a city or huge alien on the Moon.. that NASA had put a 'smudge' over in an obscure image he found.....  Yes, I'm serious.  Needless to say, the professional analysis did not support Mr Escamilla's claims.  That forensic analysis was more in the data analysis domain, whereas I prefer to focus (heheh) on the visual domain and how to use appropriate enhancement techniques that do not result in false detail - it's a black, and little understood, art...

Anyway, I'm not trying to be a pain here, I am genuinely interested in these 'analysing equipment' items - what were they, do you know or recall?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/12/2017 at 4:56 PM, ChrLzs said:

??  Do elaborate on the 'more complicated' bit..  Are you talking film again? - if so, yes, there might be scanning and microscopy equipment... but aren't we talking about potential new footage?  In which case the chances of it being on film are virtually zero - it will just be a digital file. - What equipment is required? 

They had an expensive media lab with gear well beyond what we would have.(a PC and Tracker Video Analysis). Physics was used to determine size, flight path, and speed of objects. Comparative shots were taken of suggested objects (balloons, birds etc) with the same camera, settings and compression to check variables. They can make really good conclusions on reflections compared to illumination. They even check weather reports, wind direction compared to persistence of motion, cloud cover.

I think they did have microscope stuff to check whatever. Focus or something. It was just more than checking for special effects.

The most important part was they conducted test unbiased. I would not trust someone who ONLY posts negative things about UFOs to analyse a UFO clip because there is already an underlying inherit bias.

On 14/12/2017 at 4:56 PM, ChrLzs said:

You've not heard of Dropbox or the hundreds of other file sharing services, where you can simply post the file and make it available?  It's pretty easy to determine if a file is an original recording from the equipment being claimed.  No fancy stuff required.

What? How do you know I haven't? Why do you keep accusing me constantly?

Yes.., I have. I was thinking film again. I have not even viewed modern day UFO footage.., the older ones are easier to spot fakes imo.

On 14/12/2017 at 4:56 PM, ChrLzs said:

All types of analysing equipment?  Are you sure this was examination of digital media files.. or is this film again?   Again, I'm intrigued, so do tell.  What were these alleged devices actually for?  If one is checking for authenticity/fakery of a media file, we are normally just talking about closely examining the content of a digital file - a fairly simple string of bytes..  It is generally *software* that helps with the analysis, which may involve statistical and pattern matching/analysis, along with examining and checking the validity of exif data and so on.  To a lesser extent it may involve using image 'enhancement', but such enhancement is *nothing* like that portrayed on NCIS-type shows, and certainly does not usually include playing with the photoshop sliders until you get what you want...  It does not generally require specialised equipment, other than maybe a big/fast screen, and a fairly fast processor with a reasonable amount of memory.

I am only 1st year media student. But the room was full of equipment.., stuff we would not have. Its possible some was used for film.., but its also possible that they had equipment we wouldn't even know about. Professional laboratory versus amateur computer rig.

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fila said:

They had an expensive media lab with gear well beyond what we would have.(a PC and Tracker Video Analysis). Physics was used to determine size, flight path, and speed of objects. Comparative shots were taken of suggested objects (balloons, birds etc) with the same camera, settings and compression to check variables. They can make really good conclusions on reflections compared to illumination. They even check weather reports, wind direction compared to persistence of motion, cloud cover. 

The most important part was they conducted test unbiased. I would not trust someone who ONLY posts negative things about UFOs to analyse a UFO clip because there is already an underlying inherit bias.

What? How do you know I haven't? Why do you keep accusing me constantly?

Yes.., I have. I was thinking film again. I have not even viewed modern day UFO footage.., the older ones are easier to spot fakes imo.

I am only 1st year media student. But the room was full of equipment.., stuff we would not have. Its possible some was used for film.., but its also possible that they had equipment we wouldn't even know about. Professional laboratory versus amateur computer rig.

My bold,

You ‘have not even viewed modern day UFO footage’? Can you please elaborate?

I’ve been waiting to add my opinion to this thread and will soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/12/2017 at 6:33 PM, Timonthy said:

My bold,

You ‘have not even viewed modern day UFO footage’? Can you please elaborate?

I’ve been waiting to add my opinion to this thread and will soon.

I saw the Phoenix Lights footage.., but nothing really beyond that. Mostly 1940's 50's 60's 70's 80's 90's and early 2000's.

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fila said:

I saw the Pheonix Lights footage.., but nothing really beyond that. Mostly 1940's 50's 60's 70's 80's 90's and early 2000's.

IMO, you should watch as much as you can of the ‘modern day’ footage too.

Why have you only watched up to the early 2000’s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/12/2017 at 6:38 PM, Timonthy said:

IMO, you should watch as much as you can of the ‘modern day’ footage too.

Why have you only watched up to the early 2000’s?

I am only just getting back into it all now. been busy with work,

I'm not sure if I have the time and aptience to trawl through modern UFO footage.., as I'm sure the hoax ratio has increased and quality is better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Fila said:

I am only just getting back into it all now. been busy with work,

I'm not sure if I have the time and aptience to trawl through modern UFO footage.., as I'm sure the hoax ratio has increased and quality is better.

The mean quality has probably worsened, as anyone can post blurry video of anything that they don’t understand. There are far more sincere people posting their subjectively viewed inconclusive videos than people trying to pass off hoaxes as the real thing.

I think it’s definitely worth having a look at modern day stuff. There are some cool fakes, but a multitude more disappointing-yet-real amateur footage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Fila said:

How would you determine the footage is authentic?

The determination should include various points. The footage should show the object sharp and detailed, filmed/shooted by >1 person and from various angles. Ideally filmed/shooted by CCTV cams as well. Footages to be analysed by a number of professionals like commercial movie special effects experts. ATC/military and space agency operated satellites radar data records should show the object and its trajectory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/12/2017 at 8:27 PM, toast said:

The determination should include various points. The footage should show the object sharp and detailed, filmed/shooted by >1 person and from various angles. Ideally filmed/shooted by CCTV cams as well. Footages to be analysed by a number of professionals like commercial movie special effects experts.

 

I dunno.., even with multiple angles, and such.., it could still be a fake. I could organise a flash mob?

On 14/12/2017 at 8:27 PM, toast said:

ATC/military and space agency operated satellites radar data records should show the object and its trajectory.

Well then how come we couldn't find MH-370?

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Fila said:

I dunno.., even with multiple angles, and such.., it could still be a fake. I could organise a flash mob?

Well then how come we couldn't find MH-370?

Did you read and understood my post? I dont think so.

Quote

The determination should include various points. (...)

 

Edited by toast
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/12/2017 at 9:16 PM, toast said:

Did you read and understood my post? I dont think so.

I think I did. I'll add more sorry, I should go to bed.

- I wanted to show the example of multiple angles.

- I owned a business downtown, which had street security camera's. Police would sometimes ask for footage. I could easily be in on the future hoax.

- I asked if "ATC/military and space agency operated satellites radar data records" definitely can see unidentified flying objects.., how come they cannot see identified flying objects such as MH-370?

- All that's left is getting the perfect clear image (phone's and CCTV for 2ndary film, and I could organise some industry standard camera's hired from the uni storeroom.., and hand them out)

- And special effects. (Which may always be the hoaxers weakest point)

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fila said:

I think I did.

Obviously you dont.

Quote

I wanted to show the example of multiple angles.

As I`ve said already: The determination should include various points. So, only vids from multiple angles do not match my requirements.

Quote

- I asked if "ATC/military and space agency operated satellites radar data records" definitely can see unidentified flying objects.., how come they cannot see identified flying objects such as MH-370?

As I`ve said already: The determination should include various points. The MH370 issue isnt of relevance here because its only one case out of billions of tracked movements of flying objects every year.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/12/2017 at 9:54 PM, toast said:

Obviously you dont.

I do.., sorry man. I just got sidetracked with some things...

On 14/12/2017 at 9:54 PM, toast said:

As I`ve said already: The determination should include various points. So, only vids from multiple angles do not match my requirements.

I thought I understood what "various points" means.., but I don't. Can you help explain it to me?

On 14/12/2017 at 9:54 PM, toast said:

The MH370 issue isnt of relevance here because its only one case out of billions of tracked movements of flying objects every year.

I did not know. Satellites track planes? Visually? Or with GPS tracking units onboard?

 I also assumed there wasn't 100% radar coverage for planes.

 

"The inability of 26 nations to find a 250-tonne Boeing 777 has shocked an increasingly connected world and exposed flaws in the use of radar, which fades over oceans and deserts.

"It's not very accurate. The world's moved a bit further along," said Don Thoma, president of Aireon, a venture launched by US-based mobile satellite communications company Iridium and the Canadian air traffic control authority in 2012 to offer space-based tracking of planes.

We track our cars, we track our kids' cell phones, but we can't track airplanes when they are over oceans or other remote areas."

SOURCE: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-22/malaysia-jet-saga-highlights-radar-deficiencies/5338720

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FTR, the Jerusalem footage was busted (quite brutally, plus I think it was also admitted by the hoaxers) ages ago..  It didn't even pass initial observations - no real in depth analysis required...

https://www.livescience.com/12826-jerusalem-ufo-hoax.html

Edited by ChrLzs
forgot link
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never been able to prove my picture of a purported, helmeted ET alien, that possibly posed for me and my Brownie Box Bullet camera (127 film); on the Western Shore of the Chesapeake Bay at Calvert Cliffs, Maryland (summer of 1972). C'est la vie...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/12/2017 at 9:07 AM, Erno86 said:

I've never been able to prove my picture of a purported, helmeted ET alien, that possibly posed for me and my Brownie Box Bullet camera (127 film); on the Western Shore of the Chesapeake Bay at Calvert Cliffs, Maryland (summer of 1972). C'est la vie...

i'd like to see the pic. I don't know anywhere you can send your image for professional analysis. Its kinda left up to us to sort it out.

I love your bio quote btw. i would add "patience" to Benny's wise words.

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Fila said:

They had an expensive media lab with gear well beyond what we would have.(a PC and Tracker Video Analysis)

My emphasis.  In this entire post, all you mentioned were PC's and a microscope.  The microscope is useless for modern (digital) media.  Video tracking is done via software, and it will work on reasonably modest PC's, if slowly.

17 hours ago, Fila said:

Physics was used to determine size, flight path, and speed of objects.

That's photogrammetry.  Has little to do with 'authenticity' and is more about identifying possible ranges of values after assuming the footage is actually authentic...  Again, it requires no special equipment, just done via brainpower and maybe a little help from software..

17 hours ago, Fila said:

 Comparative shots were taken of suggested objects (balloons, birds etc) with the same camera, settings and compression to check variables.

That's pretty rare - you should ask them to post their work publicly, or if they have, cite it.  But again, no special equipment...? 

17 hours ago, Fila said:

They can make really good conclusions on reflections compared to illumination. They even check weather reports, wind direction compared to persistence of motion, cloud cover.

So they were doing ufo-investigation in this media studies lab?  I find that 'surprising'...  But again, you've not mentioned any special equipment...

17 hours ago, Fila said:

I think they did have microscope stuff to check whatever. Focus or something. It was just more than checking for special effects.

Uhuh.  So all they had was a PC running software and a nice monitor, plus a microscope which is of no use whatsoever for modern digital media.  I give up.

17 hours ago, Fila said:

The most important part was they conducted test unbiased.

Oh really?  Did they explain how that worked, or just tell you that they were unbiased?

Or would you agree that research can ONLY be shown as unbiased if they show you every step, and explain and justify every step?  That is usually done by showing how they have used these techniques before on known objects/scenarios.  You know, using sciency-type methodology.

17 hours ago, Fila said:

I would not trust someone who ONLY posts negative things about UFOs to analyse a UFO clip because there is already an underlying inherit bias.

I shall choose not to take that comment too personally ... Actually, as above, the most important part (and what forensic analysis MEANS..) is that they are completely public and their analyses are open to scrutiny and critique.  They must justify what they do and show how it was done in suitable language so it can be understood, verified and repeated by others. In forensic analysis of imagery in the legal system, judges and juries are not trained in these topics, so they will (and should) ask hard questions, as will defenders/prosecutors, to ensure that the content/conclusions are not biased.

17 hours ago, Fila said:

What? How do you know I haven't? Why do you keep accusing me constantly?

I guessed you haven't because you didn't mention it yet it's the very obvious answer to the question you posed.  Posed rather sarcastically, I might add...  Why didn't you mention it, rather than ask a silly question?  The reason I keep 'accusing' you of stuff, is that you do the stuff I'm accusing you of... 

17 hours ago, Fila said:

I am only 1st year media student. But the room was full of equipment.., stuff we would not have. Its possible some was used for film.., but its also possible that they had equipment we wouldn't even know about. Professional laboratory versus amateur computer rig.

Well, maybe as you get more experienced you might re-visit and be able to identify it....  But so far you've not named anything beyond a decent PC or two and the (useless-for-digital-media) microscope.  Me, if I had a genuine interest in this stuff, I would have asked what at least some of the equipment was.  You do keep saying this is a university, and a media lab in a uni should be filled with people who are eager to talk about/explain/demonstrate what they are using.  I used to manage a research centre owned by a University, so this is not a topic I am unfamiliar with.

 

Anyway, getting back on topic., your suggestion that I or anyone here has a bias either way is IRRELEVANT, IF we can produce a valid analysis.

If I get a request to help analyse an image for a genuine enquiry, I'll be happy to do my stuff and do what I described above - namely explain why and how I came to whatever conclusions I make, and also go through how anyone else can make the same checks, plus also cite how the techniques have been verified and/or give examples of it being used on known imagery.

It is always up to the investigator/analyst to be able to *prove* that they have used unbiased methodology.  To do so they need to describe what they've done and why, in a form that a reasonably intelligent person can understand and verify.  And state any assumptions, error ranges, etc - you (should) know the drift..

Indeed, that's what I try to do here.  I'l let others decide if I do that successfully.. but I can tell you I get asked quite frequently....

So instead of poisoning-the-well and spouting ad-hominems, maybe you should check the mirror before telling others they are biased.  Feel free to look up any of my analyses and criticise them...  

  

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/12/2017 at 5:39 PM, ChrLzs said:

My emphasis.  In this entire post, all you mentioned were PC's and a microscope.  The microscope is useless for modern (digital) media.  Video tracking is done via software, and it will work on reasonably modest PC's, if slowly.

That's photogrammetry.  Has little to do with 'authenticity' and is more about identifying possible ranges of values after assuming the footage is actually authentic...  Again, it requires no special equipment, just done via brainpower and maybe a little help from software..

Yes, I know. That's why I brought it up because you didn't mention this in your repertoire. Looking for fakes is fine.., but that's all you will ever find and you won't be able to determine anything else except for CGI.  These professionals take it further. But.., you will probably say they are all fakes.., and must be fakes. So you would never even get to that level.., just basic skill to detect bad CGI

On 15/12/2017 at 5:39 PM, ChrLzs said:

Oh really?  Did they explain how that worked, or just tell you that they were unbiased?

Or would you agree that research can ONLY be shown as unbiased if they show you every step, and explain and justify every step?  That is usually done by showing how they have used these techniques before on known objects/scenarios.  You know, using sciency-type methodology. 

They were not dismissive, or quick to label the object. There was never a "Its most likely" conclusion. And yes, I agree.

On 15/12/2017 at 5:39 PM, ChrLzs said:

I guessed you haven't because you didn't mention it yet it's the very obvious answer to the question you posed.  Posed rather sarcastically, I might add...  Why didn't you mention it, rather than ask a silly question?  The reason I keep 'accusing' you of stuff, is that you do the stuff I'm accusing you of... 

Well that guess in incorrect. Its kinda a weird way to talk to someone.., by guessing everything.

"Oh.., so you never heard of Dropbox before?" Instead of saying "I would use Dropbox" is way different. It makes it very difficult for me to actually want to discuss things with you. Can you please try and word things a bit more neutral. Cheers.

On 15/12/2017 at 5:39 PM, ChrLzs said:

 Well, maybe as you get more experienced you might re-visit and be able to identify it....  But so far you've not named anything beyond a decent PC or two and the (useless-for-digital-media) microscope.  Me, if I had a genuine interest in this stuff, I would have asked what at least some of the equipment was.  You do keep saying this is a university, and a media lab in a uni should be filled with people who are eager to talk about/explain/demonstrate what they are using.  I used to manage a research centre owned by a University, so this is not a topic I am unfamiliar with.

It was not at my local media lab. I will have to find the video I saw (NICAP or MUFON). You would find it very interesting. Maybe I will now too.

On 15/12/2017 at 5:39 PM, ChrLzs said:

Anyway, getting back on topic., your suggestion that I or anyone here has a bias either way is IRRELEVANT, IF we can produce a valid analysis

I agree that if you can produce a valid analysis, then name calling is irrelevant.

On 15/12/2017 at 5:39 PM, ChrLzs said:

If I get a request to help analyse an image for a genuine enquiry, I'll be happy to do my stuff and do what I described above - namely explain why and how I came to whatever conclusions I make, and also go through how anyone else can make the same checks, plus also cite how the techniques have been verified and/or give examples of it being used on known imagery.

On page 1 you argued that UFOs are all fake based on an assumption that everyone must have good cameras these days.., so there shouldn't be any bad pics, but there are so UFOs are all fake. With 100% conviction. If I didn't question it.., you would have basically been lying to people.., convincing them not to look into the subject.

You have lost all credibility from my POV as a professional after acting this way.

On 15/12/2017 at 5:39 PM, ChrLzs said:

It is always up to the investigator/analyst to be able to *prove* that they have used unbiased methodology.  To do so they need to describe what they've done and why, in a form that a reasonably intelligent person can understand and verify.  And state any assumptions, error ranges, etc - you (should) know the drift..

Indeed, that's what I try to do here.  I'l let others decide if I do that successfully.. but I can tell you I get asked quite frequently....

You talk with authority on the subject.., and have some skills. But you make out like you are the bees knees and will find the best answer. You are basically infallible.., and others seeking your advice obviously know little to nothing about film, so whatever you tell them, they will not be able to question.

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2017 at 8:08 PM, Fila said:

On page 1 you argued that UFOs are all fake based on an assumption that everyone must have good cameras these days..

In future, when you wish to argue a point I make, QUOTE THE WORDS I USED IN CONTEXT.  I did NOT say that.  If you claim any footage is real and worthy, post the dam footage and stop wasting our time.

Otherwise - 

On 12/15/2017 at 8:08 PM, Fila said:

You have lost all credibility....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Need repetitive outcomes from use of scientific method. If one of the ufologist can capture or invite intelligently guided ufos using same methods, and someone else can do the same, I'd say that is proof. The fact that they won't come down and land, (this is pure speculation) may imply they don't have need or part of their particular protocols. But main point is repetition as part of scientific method. 

We can just solve this mystery easy but unlocking the super secret military bases and their content but that's never going to happen.

Tricky question: If we showed video of someone breaking into your house and robbing your house using security camera, would you say that's proof the guy is guilty of the crime? Or would you stick with video evidence is not adequate?

Deep thought: What if mummies were guys with full body casts from freak accidents? @kmt_sesh

 

Edited by Area201
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.