What's the best UFO footage you have seen?

[sto vo kor]

I have just been browsing youtube looking fome good UFO footage some ofit seems OK, but a lot not so much. So I was wondering what is the best UFO foorage you have seen?

(please don't hijack the thread with comic deliberately faked "footage")

 

[Bill Morris]

As I mentioned in a previous thread, the only acceptable UFO footage today is from live TV, and the only way to get that is to attend the launch of the Space Shuttle or whatever, stand near the TV news crew, and alert them if you spot some Unidentified Flying Observers.

 

[sojourner]

I thought "Independence Day" had pretty good UFO footage.

 

[Zachary Smith]

The problem with UFO footage is that with today's technology any chuckle-head can come up with astonishing stuff. Footage proves nothing and, however compelling it may seem, the only thing you can get from it is when something is recognizably FAKE.

 

[ThankQ]

The problem with UFO footage is that with today's technology any chuckle-head can come up with astonishing stuff. Footage proves nothing and, however compelling it may seem, the only thing you can get from it is when something is recognizably FAKE.

This creates and interesting question.

What, then, can we accept as proof?

Will any one artifact be enough?

 

[Jetfire]

An alien space craft landing infront of the White House should do nicely.

 

[Shazam!]

(please don't hijack the thread with comic deliberately faked "footage")

As opposed to footage of real alien spaceships?

 

[Zachary Smith]

The problem with UFO footage is that with today's technology any chuckle-head can come up with astonishing stuff. Footage proves nothing and, however compelling it may seem, the only thing you can get from it is when something is recognizably FAKE.

This creates and interesting question.

What, then, can we accept as proof?

Will any one artifact be enough?

If responsible authorities were to announce aliens as "fact", I'd accept it as proof. An artifact which has been open and repeatedly examined and determined by multiple qualified experts to be of extraterrestrial origin would be "proof".

I'd even find video footage of a widely-seen public sighting from multiple cameras showing the same object(s) in clarity and detail to be compelling--though not conclusive such objects WERE alien in origin, they COULD still have come from some terrestrial black-ops project. An example of this sort is the Mexico City footage taken during a solar eclipse some years back. Thousands of people reported seeing several unusual objects above the city and multiple videos were taken showing the objects from many angles. None, however, showed the objects with any particular clarity and, even if they HAD, it wouldn't prove them as "alien" in nature. I find the Mexico City footage interesting becaue it pretty conclusively demonstrates some odd objects WERE, in fact, above Mexico City on that day. What they were and who they belonged to remains unknown though.

 

[Lookingglassman]

All the footage I have seen either looks blurry or could be faked. The only time I will believe UFOS are real is if one lands in my front yard.

 

[JustAFriend]

The problem with UFO footage is that with today's technology any chuckle-head can come up with astonishing stuff. Footage proves nothing and, however compelling it may seem, the only thing you can get from it is when something is recognizably FAKE.

Used to be that you had to at least pony up a few thousand bucks for a decent video compositing system.

Now you can download Blender for free, even set up entire render farms like Industrial Light & Magic and put out studio-quality stuff if you put the time into it.

And if you don't want to do that you can call up the local R/C club and get someone to fly a radio-controlled saucer with LED lights anywhere you want....

 

[23skidoo]

This creates and interesting question.

What, then, can we accept as proof?

Unfortunately, in terms of any sort of third-party source, as in videotape, photographs, and audio, nothing can be accepted anymore. I'm afraid the acceptability of photo and video evidence in court cases is not long for this world either. Artifacts don't mean anything, not when you have hobbyists who make so-called artifacts for a living.

Technology and the ability to make cool home movies is a double-edged sword. Today anyone with a Mac or PC and a piece of software can create footage that is so genuine-looking that were it shown even a decade ago it would have been physically impossible to debunk on its own merits. And that's homemade stuff. Add a budget to it and it's even more real - people still think the Sci-Fi channel's "UFO over the World Trade Center" commercial (from a year or 2 before 9/11) is genuine and I've seen people abjectly refuse to believe otherwise. Even though you'd think a UFO buzzing downtown NYC would have been seen and captured on other cameras if it were real.

The Death Star in San Francisco footage is amazing, and it's ancient in the context of technology. It also shows how footage of other events - in this case a protest rally - can be manipulated quite easily to refer to something else:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfqDVP_0O0c

It is a shame because it's going to hurt people who might legitimately catch something of interest. And yes I know you can run tests to prove whether certain footage is real, even with digital enhancements. But as far as "proving UFOs exist," the public will never be able to buy it unless a massively public event - such as that depicted in V and Independence Day - were to occur.

PS. I know the thread-starter asked for faked footage to not be posted, but in the context of answer the "what can be used as proof" question, I feel an example needs to be given.

Alex

 

[ThankQ]

Even a massively public event presents problems.

History, RECENT history, is replete with examples of massive religious delusion, the VM appearing in the desert or on the wall of an overpass, statues bleeding and whatnot.

The fact that 500 people might testify to witnessing the same event makes it no more likely to be true.