• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! FLASH! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. Long-term susbcribers will receive a free coupon code for the James Fox UFO documentary "The Phenomenon" while supplies last. It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Faked or Too Good to be True

Are clear sharp realistic looking UFO videos too good to be true?


  • Total voters
    28

RU_Insane

Skilled Investigator
Russian Antigravity Claims



Any translators in the house?
I asked a native Russian speaker, and even he was confused. It's some guy's theory about how the UFOs people see are holograms...but context is needed since the clip is abruptly taken from a larger documentary. Basically History Channel type stuff. Not much on anti-gravity.
 

boomerang

Paranormal Adept
Some very cool stuff here. But a crucial question is still unanswered in my mind.

Is it possible for anyone, at any level of expertise, to differentiate between real video footage and CG? I get the impression that verification experts during the old film emulsion days could determine with at high degree of certainty, and we used to hear a lot about that. But I don't hear much discussion about the finer points of validating the digital stuff. Although most of us would wind up having to defer to expert opinion anyway.
 

stonehart

Paranormal Adept
Some very cool stuff here. But a crucial question is still unanswered in my mind.

Is it possible for anyone, at any level of expertise, to differentiate between real video footage and CG? I get the impression that verification experts during the old film emulsion days could determine with at high degree of certainty, and we used to hear a lot about that. But I don't hear much discussion about the finer points of validating the digital stuff. Although most of us would wind up having to defer to expert opinion anyway.
All true boomerang I am on the same page as your good self.
However I do for a fact know some of these are fake and were made for viral "creepypaster" threads and video challenges.

Think of how Slenderman was created and for example out of the videos there the one where the guy sees a creature on his roof was a "creepypaster" video made just to scare people.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Setting aside the New Agey Galactic Ambassadorial nonsense that comes out of Greer.
What are the lights in this video?


Hint. they're not UFOs because vague lights off in
the distance do not fit the definition
of UFO as used in ufology.
 
Last edited:

marduk

quelling chaos since 2352BC
Some very cool stuff here. But a crucial question is still unanswered in my mind.

Is it possible for anyone, at any level of expertise, to differentiate between real video footage and CG? I get the impression that verification experts during the old film emulsion days could determine with at high degree of certainty, and we used to hear a lot about that. But I don't hear much discussion about the finer points of validating the digital stuff. Although most of us would wind up having to defer to expert opinion anyway.
I think it's possible to prove some videos are faked, but unfortunately it's impossible to prove any video is real.
I think you'd need to rely on compelling circumstantial evidence to do so - multiple videos, different angles, eyewitnesses, sensor data, etc.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
I think it's possible to prove some videos are faked, but unfortunately it's impossible to prove any video is real.
I think you'd need to rely on compelling circumstantial evidence to do so - multiple videos, different angles, eyewitnesses, sensor data, etc.
True. The video does have some different scenes over time that show multiple winesses. But they're all at the same location. My best guess for something mundane is aircraft approaching head on with their anti collision lights on. I see that a lot here off to the west. They're very bright and a long ways off. Then for some reason they turn them off for a period and it's as if they just disappear, but a close look through binoculars reveals they're still there.
 
Last edited:

marduk

quelling chaos since 2352BC
True. The video does have some different scenes over time that show multiple winesses. But they're all at the same location. My best guess for something mundane is aircraft approaching head on with their anti collision lights on. I see that a lot here off to the west. They're very bright and a long ways off. Then for some reason they turn them off for a period and it's as if they just disappear, but a close look through binoculars reveals they're still there.
Honestly, unless we have something fly down into the stadium during superbowl, videoed by hundreds of people and professional camera crews, during a flyover of military aircraft doing the same... I don't think anyone in academia would find any video compelling nowadays.

Maybe not even then.

Hate to say it, but like with Bigfoot - I think someone's gonna have to bring in a body (or wreckage).

Stuff like Chris' distributed imaging/sensor packages is hopefully going to provide fruitful data for citizen scientists, but I think even then academics aren't going to pay attention unless the data can be replicated fairly easily.
 

stonehart

Paranormal Adept
academics aren't going to pay attention unless the data can be replicated fairly easily.
I don't think it will be taken seriously even then sorry to say, I work in academia (teach engineering) and to be honest the old saying that progress happens one funeral at a time is so often the case.

And wow it has been ages since I posted on this forum :-P
 


Top