Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
I Find these Google Earth Videos Fun. Here is a UFO on camera from South Africa. Most of the time when I check my Google Earth, these UFOs aren't actually there ... this time it is. Interesting excercise. It helps to have a dual monitor setup. Or just enter the coodinates:
You keep trying to sneak these in to this thread and I don't know why.
So as this is the critical thinking thread, perhaps you could explain how critical thinking could help you to find out if this is genuine?
That isn't relevant to the original point I was making. But thanks for the info anyway. I looked at the Image stabilized version, but I'm no FX expert, so maybe it's more obvious to them exactly why it's fake. It's just not as obvious to me, and the reasons they give aren't detailed enough. It "shakes differently" ... so what? I don't really see much difference. Maybe the "different shake" is due to some glitch in the algorithm of the stabilization software.
So you are no expert in FX but you can still think of an excuse why an expert in FX could be wrong... OK.
I'll try explain it really clearly.
As the footage on the camera is shaking, it makes the job slightly harder because you have to do what is called 'motion tracking'. So you get the raw footage and you match a constant pixel (it doesn't have to be the same one through the whole footage) and you place your white dot (UFO) a set distance from that pixel. Then the 'motion tracking' software measures each frame so that the dot is in the correct place in relation to that pixel. You look at the finished result and it looks good enough.
So someone can take your footage and back engineer it by removing the camera shake (usually done manually not using software) by once again taking a constant pixel and having it in the exactly the same place within the frame for ever frame. This has the effect of removing the camera shake (though various bits at the edges of the original footage will go off screen as it compensates). So you have a fairly stable image, if anything on that footage is moving differently from the camera shake, it can only have been added later.
Now like I already said, people who make hoaxes don't bother with little details like this (another one often overlooked is interlaced frames), so they won't go to the trouble of image stabilising their own hoaxed footage to check because they know it won't be critically analysed by it's intended audience. ETA: As proven by the 2 million plus hits it's had (and the revenue which that can potentially generate on WooTube)
Plus it's yet another layer of processing removed from the direct observation ( if there was one ). Neither video in my opinion has any value without being put into context by a proper on scene investigation.
The pheonix lights video for example, usually dismissed as flares, shows what are most probably flares. But there is a lot more to the case than that clip.
Not when you research it properly. It was two separate events, usually (but specifically originating from Kitei) deliberately confused as a single event where the mundane explanation for one is used by UFOlogists to claim it doesn't fit for the other. You'll find the most knowledgeable person around here on that particular subject is Astrophotographer, who wrote a well researched article on it in SUNlite (SUNlite Phoenix Lights issue can be found here
Which also has a very nice accompanying illustration by a very talented designer.
Again the Washington myth is several different incidents, The real lens flare photo is really lens flare, but usually the still shot from the TV mock up interpretation video footage is shown to disprove the lens flare, it's another classic strawman.
Have you seen this alledged crash video. It looks like a missile maybe but it's really bright and survives the initial impact. Do you think this is a real object or that maybe the real object was somehow taken out frame by frame?
No I wouldn't, I'm too honest and I answer people's requests.
However, intended flattery is no substitute for a real reply to my post:
I'm sure I've asked you this already, but as you never answered my request, I'll try again; Please could you provide just one example of a UFO sighting investigated by a UFOlogist that doesn't contain the implication of or the blatant use of science?
The "null hypothesis" as a scientific principle doesn't apply to ufology because of the the lack of controlled and measurable conditions. Skeptics just use it to befuddle and convolute the discussion.
Ufology on the whole is neither science nor pseudoscience. Ufology includes as a major component the study of UFO history and the composition of articles through investigative journalism. Neither of these things are "sceince". Neither are they pseudoscience. The pseudoscience debate is just more bait tauntingly dangled by the skeptics to draw you into an argument.
They'll also hit you up with Occam's Razor, which doesn't even pretend to offer scientific proof. If you have a genuine interest in UFOs and decide to hang around here, you gotta have a thick skin and a good sense of humor.
Good point. But culture is not associated with eyesight or the visual cortex. The context of the post to which you responded is that in a direct visual sighting there is no "apparatus" so to speak between the object and the observer that can malfunction and introduce bad data into the observation. Culture can introduce prejudice into any observation, but it's always after the fact.
This point was made to address the issue of "video proof". It reinforces the idea that a good first person sighting report is better than most generated data such as Youtube videos or photos or whatever, especially when they have no credits. For example, I would be more inclined to believe a sighting actually happened if I could interview several random witnesses on the street who all saw the same thing, than just the video, or even the videographer himself, especially if he or she were looking through the camera display at the time.
We have a number of cases from the old Gulf Breeze sightings where the UFO turned out to be the way the lens motor assembly for the zoom worked at high zoom levels. In another case infrared signatures were mistaken for UFOs. In other cases we've had false radar echoes. In other cases we've had camera flares. All this so called "proof" is in my view less reliable that first person eyewitness testimony from reliable sources.
There is one factor you forget with direct person oberservation : the brain can be fooled in many many many ways with optical illusion, ways which cannot fool a camera. We even have in built filter to recognize specifically some shapes :
Code:
XXXX
X X
X ^ ^ X
X | X
X X
X \__/ X
XXXXXXX
No matter the culture this will be recognized as a smiling face. But there is *no* face.
A demonstration of that is how many people sees bigfoot or animals in a mass of foliage and branch !
A human direct observation will always be of lower quality , because of all those in built filter !
And do not get me started on replaying the recording : human change their memory all the time, even while they report it the initial time.
Oh sure, if that is what this little segment had been about, I would agree. Here's an example video that is much like the problem I described. There's no police officer, but for the sake of illustration we could imagine there were, and since we have the date and place it would be easy if he or she were there to track them down, get there story and possibly some leads. Actually ... this would be a good one for you Stray, since you have some image manipulation experience and found some good stuff in the past. What's your take on this one?
That video was posted by a guy working for a special effect firm, if I recall correctly. the thread might even still be in the first 2 or 3 pages of the forum.
ETA. nice stabilized video Stray Cat. I fear it will be come harder and harder to make such analyze as the software to do it get better and more widespread...
No I wouldn't, I'm too honest and I answer people's requests.
However, intended flattery is no substitute for a real reply to my post:
I'm sure I've asked you this already, but as you never answered my request, I'll try again; Please could you provide just one example of a UFO sighting investigated by a UFOlogist that doesn't contain the implication of or the blatant use of science?
I predict a continued demonstration of ignorance. I also predict that if the honest answer is, "I don't know of any," the honesty to provide that answer isn't there. Yep, "ufology" is pseudoscience.
You're confusing the concept of ufology on the whole as being a pseudoscience ( which is what we're talking about ) with individuals who may or may not be practicing pseudoscience within the field. I think that maybe it would be a good idea to have a separate thread titled "Which Ufologists are Practicing Pseudoscience". In such a thread individual cases could be discussed and some good might come of it. This would be similar to discussing "Which Medical Practitioners are Quacks". Not all medicine is Quackery. Not all ufology is pseudoscience. It isn't rationally possible to paint everyone and every facet of ufology with the same brush. Therefore it isn't rational to label ufology as a whole to be pseudoscience.
Yes, it's that willful ignorance thing again. More evidence of the typical lack of critical thinking involved when people start their search for the truth with a preconceived notion. We've seen this many times now with ufology's arguments trying to support his admitted belief in aliens. Regardless of the complete and continued failure of those arguments, the agenda is simply to hang on to the belief.
There's a whole big field out there about how to detect fakery in images. It became a very important issue for legal purposes, for example.
Of course the images must have a minimum quality (sharpness, detail level, exposure, etc.), but above everything, image provenance stands. No one with a sane mind would question the veracity of an image acquired by the Hubble telescope or by one of the Mars rovers, for example. This alone proves the complaint from UFO proponents that skeptics and science would never accept imagery as UFO evidence is baseless, built on ignorance if not on lack of honesty. It is pseudoscience. Of course, anonymous wootubbies and images with no reliable provenance presented at some UFO site would not make it, even if clear, sharp, detailed, etc. Present such pieces of evidence is nothing but pseudoscience. Making questionable analysis over images which, despite having a good provenance are of inferior quality is also pseudoscience.
If you have images with the proper quality and provenance, they will be accepted and will be considered good evidence. Sighting reports? No. Why? Before I answer you, do this- present an unbiased protocol for evaluating them. One that different people will arrive at similar conclusions when fed with the same data.
The "null hypothesis" as a scientific principle doesn't apply to ufology because of the the lack of controlled and measurable conditions. Skeptics just use it to befuddle and convolute the discussion.
Ufology on the whole is neither science nor pseudoscience. Ufology includes as a major component the study of UFO history and the composition of articles through investigative journalism. Neither of these things are "sceince". Neither are they pseudoscience. The pseudoscience debate is just more bait tauntingly dangled by the skeptics to draw you into an argument.
They'll also hit you up with Occam's Razor, which doesn't even pretend to offer scientific proof. If you have a genuine interest in UFOs and decide to hang around here, you gotta have a thick skin and a good sense of humor.
There's a whole big field out there about how to detect fakery in images. It became a very important issue for legal purposes, for example.
Of course the images must have a minimum quality (sharpness, detail level, exposure, etc.), but above everything, image provenance stands. No one with a sane mind would question the veracity of an image acquired by the Hubble telescope or by one of the Mars rovers, for example.
Lets use this as an exercise on critical thinking.
First, lets check the source of the evidence, its reliabilty. In a QA/QC, we will be in the QA part.
1. Is the source questionable?
2. Is it suspected of being a hoax?
If the answers to the above questions are "no", as they seem to be (unless there's something I am not aware of), then we can move to the next step, which would be to ponder about the image's qualit (QC).
3. Could it be an image artifact?
Seems NASA folks ruled that out. So, we can move on to the next step and ask... Unless, of course, there are reasons I am not aware of.
4. Has the image enough details for us to identify what's there?
Barely. This allows us, however, to at last try to figure out what was imaged. Now we ask...
5. What are the possible and plausible explanations for that image?
NASA guys already did that and came out with two plausible and possible explanations (you can find them a bit more detailed at BBC's article if you read it, or at its original sources)- a meteor or an old orbiter. Yes, one could say its an UFO since we don't know exactly what it was, but this UFO has plausible mundane explanations available.
Now, if one claims it its (or could be) something from "beyond the borders of what we call nature", this person is making a baseless claim wich can be readilly dismissed as so; this person is making pseudoscience.
See? Critical thinking is not that hard. UFOlogists should try it more often.
Considering a fireball became a Nazi time-machine for some top UFOlogists...
Seems critical thinking in UFOlogy is very rare. Maybe its because as soon as you use it, their case vanishes like darkness in the presence of light. Critical thinking scares aways demons, cryptids, gods, aliens, ghosts... And also those promoting these beliefs.
Oh, please, Great Australian Pharaoh, you know its not that simple. The anwser is:
[theremin sound]"From beyond the borders of what we call nature"[/theremin sound]
Intraterrestrials, crafts piloted by aliens from other planets (from other star systems and also from this one) and other universes, space-dwelling lifeforms, atmosphere-dwelling lifeforms, lifeforms from other universes, mental projections (tulpas, archetypes, etc.), secret weapons from the Nazi Luftwaffe, USA, URSS and NWO, sentient races from the oceans, Atlanteans, time-travellers [add pseudoscience here].
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
