Interesting UFO footage

[Moontanman]

Another issue is how we can determine if the film is either real or if it is just CGI effects.

 

That is the main issue with credibility of UFO sightings. If there is no image or photography then your not considered credible. If you do get photography, there have been so many ploys that they aren't believable anymore.

 

 

I agree, that does pertain to modern films and photos, but there are both taken well before the time of photoshop that have considerable credibility to suggest that something extraordinary flew close to people of impeccable character. Then you have sightings by multiple witnesses, multiple radars, that interacted with aircraft both civilian and military at the same time, one of them was over Washington, DC two weekends in a row, and they were predicted to arrive days or weeks ahead of time due to reports that were getting closer and closer to DC. Many people go with the military who say it was false radar returns but that doesn't explain even a small part of the sightings... the Air force's reaction was not believable and didn't account for the majority of the sightings...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington,_D.C._UFO_incident

 

[Acme]

I agree, that does pertain to modern films and photos, but there are both taken well before the time of photoshop ...

People were faking photographs almost from the time they started taking photographs. It is literally child's play. To whit:

 

Cottingley fairies

 

The Cottingley Fairies appear in a series of five photographs taken by Elsie Wright (190088) and Frances Griffiths (190786), two young cousins who lived in Cottingley, near Bradford in England. In 1917, when the first two photographs were taken, Elsie was 16 years old and Frances was 9. The pictures came to the attention of writer Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who used them to illustrate an article on fairies he had been commissioned to write for the Christmas 1920 edition of The Strand Magazine. Doyle, as a spiritualist, was enthusiastic about the photographs, and interpreted them as clear and visible evidence of psychic phenomena. Public reaction was mixed; some accepted the images as genuine, but others believed they had been faked.

 

Interest in the Cottingley Fairies gradually declined after 1921. Both girls married and lived abroad for a time after they grew up, yet the photographs continued to hold the public imagination; in 1966 a reporter from the Daily Express newspaper traced Elsie, who had by then returned to the UK. Elsie left open the possibility that she believed she had photographed her thoughts, and the media once again became interested in the story.

 

In the early 1980s Elsie and Frances admitted that the photographs were faked, using cardboard cutouts of fairies copied from a popular children's book of the time, but Frances maintained that the fifth and final photograph was genuine. The photographs and two of the cameras used are on display in the National Media Museum in Bradford.

...

[Moontanman]

People were faking photographs almost from the time they started taking photographs. It is literally child's play. To whit:

 

Cottingley fairies

I do understand that but those pic of fairies were quite crude and easily shown as false with modern equipment. There are UFO photos that have withstood the Test of time" ... The Trent UFO pics are an example of something extraordinary flying in sight of two people and being photographed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMinnville_UFO_photographs

 

Phillip J. Klass one of the main debunkers is known for his single mined efforts to debunk UFOs at any cost, he suggested the explanation of some sightings as slow moving meteors or comets...

[Acme]

I do understand that but those pic of fairies were quite crude and easily shown as false with modern equipment. ...

I was simply pointing out that faking photographs predates digital photography and digital editing, contrary to your implication. The whole UFO photo thing is not evidence of anything except peoples' credulity. (In my humble opinion of course.)

[Moontanman]

I was simply pointing out that faking photographs predates digital photography and digital editing, contrary to your implication. The whole UFO photo thing is not evidence of anything except peoples' credulity. (In my humble opinion of course.)

 

 

So I guess multiple independent eyewitnesses, multiple independent radar contact, interaction with commercial airliners and military jets over four days over our nations capital is just dismissed as incredulity... Keep in mind I am not claiming it must be aliens but some extraordinary objects have been seen and dismissing them out of hand is as silly as as couple hundred years ago saying that meteors were hoaxes or mistaken identity because everyone knew stones could not fall from the sky...

 

There are some few really inexplicable sightings and not because of a lack of data, dismissing them by asserting silly shit like comets and slow meteors is intellectually vapid...

 

It could be many things but simply ignoring this phenomena because it can't be explained easily seems dishonest to me... Claiming pelicanism is simply not right..

Edited May 10, 2014 by Moontanman

[Acme]

So I guess multiple independent eyewitnesses, multiple independent radar contact, interaction with commercial airliners and military jets over four days over our nations capital is just dismissed as incredulity...

In that context/grammatical-structure,I think the word should be 'credulity', not 'incredulity'. In any case, I didn't comment on any of those things.

 

Keep in mind I am not claiming it must be aliens but some extraordinary objects have been seen and dismissing them out of hand is as silly as as couple hundred years ago saying that meteors were hoaxes or mistaken identity because everyone knew stones could not fall from the sky...

 

There are some few really inexplicable sightings and not because of a lack of data, dismissing them by asserting silly shit like comets and slow meteors is intellectually vapid...

 

It could be many things but simply ignoring this phenomena because it can't be explained easily seems dishonest to me... Claiming pelicanism is simply not right..

Easy big fella. All I commented on was photographs. They can and have been faked for a century; they can be and are subject to unintentional optical aberrations, smudges, camera leaks, dust or debris on optics, atmospheric phenomena, etcetera; and they can be and are misinterpreted.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Acme

[Moontanman]

In that context the word should be 'credulity', not incredulity'.

 

 

Easy big fella. All I commented on was photographs. They can and have been faked for a century; they can be and are subject to unintentional optical aberrations, smudges, camera leaks, dust or debris on optics, atmospheric phenomena, etcetera; and they can be and are misinterpreted.

 

 

I apologize, you are of course correct, many people seem to think that one fake means all are fake when in fact if all were fake but one...

[Acme]

I apologize, you are of course correct, many people seem to think that one fake means all are fake when in fact if all were fake but one...

No worries. I agree that unidentified means just that; unidentified. It can be fun trying to work puzzles out.

[Moontanman]

No worries. I agree that unidentified means just that; unidentified. It can be fun trying to work puzzles out.

 

 

It is fun, and i think not a useless exercise, at the very least i think this phenomena gives a unique look into the human psyche...

[Moontanman]

This could be an important development in the UFO phenomena. I can't read the entire article but it looks interesting..

 

These lights have been both filmed and photographed.

[`hýsøŕ]

this has probably been noted a bajillion (10^58) times before but if you see the 'UFO' is always side on to the camera and never gets further away, so it's moving in a circle around the camera, and to me it seems way more likely that this is some fake instead of the UFO basing it's path around a camera somebody on the ground was using.