Merged UFO @ Jerusalem, 2011. Call Captain-D

[kageki]

No, science says that these thing do not happen. So far no one has provided any proof that would be compelling enough for science to change it's mind.
Therefore, the default position is that anything that defies science needs proving. It is not science's responsibility to disprove every crack pot idea that someone on the internet comes along with.


That might be part of the problem then.

What things exactly and that's not what I asked.

 

[kageki]

You really need to get up to speed on this subject. The link you posted is not the video he is describing. Of course, if a video is shown to be a hoax, then the voices have to be either stolen from another clip that was not hoaxed or people pretending (i.e. acting) they were seeing something.

Well I have been asking about that clip since I posted it a couple times now.

 

[kageki]

You don't get it? The images of the video are fake. Hence, the people are acting.

Why is that hard to understand?




So because you have people in the video reacting (with dialogue, even!) to what they're supposed to be seeing, this means it's real?

You are easily fooled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0lEqR1Oy3I

These images are fake?

I think those people are interesting for the reason I stated. Why bother adding actors for a fake ufo video? That seems rather unusual since there are many ufo videos out there and it's usually devoid of any talking.

 

[AdMan]

I think those people are interesting for the reason I stated. Why bother adding actors for a fake ufo video? That seems rather unusual since there are many ufo videos out there and it's usually devoid of any talking.

Why add actors to a hoax video? Precisely because it makes it more believable, which is the primary intent of the hoaxer.

ETA: Having actors does add another element to the scenario, and it means that more than one person was probably involved. So it makes the hoax more complex. It doesn't mean that it is any less a hoax.

 

[Stray Cat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0lEqR1Oy3I&feature=player_embedded

There is no reason to keep posting the link, it's starting to look like spamming.

Wasn't it your contention that these people are acting? Your logic is that since you believe this video to be fake that these people then must be acting. That doesn't follow to me.

Yes, real people can act... watch telly, you'll see a lot of it on there... but the stories they are acting out are fake.

If these people are acting then they or someone had to come up with the dialogue. It was simple, but still appropriate to the video. I find it a bit hard to believe that these people would go so far as acting to make this fake video. Acting and dialogue isn't needed to make a fake ufo video after all. So far you haven't made a case that these people really are acting.

This is just argument from incredulity.
Hoaxes are made to fool people, that some of them work on some people are testament to their effectiveness.

 

[Stray Cat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0lEqR1Oy3I

These images are fake?

Yes, quite clearly they are fake.

I think those people are interesting for the reason I stated. Why bother adding actors for a fake ufo video? That seems rather unusual since there are many ufo videos out there and it's usually devoid of any talking.

Maybe that's why these ones are 'grabbing the imagination' of the believers with such enthusiasm.

But, I've seen many UFO videos with talking in them and it's no surprise to me that when humans make hoaxes, there are always humans around to add a bit of talking.

 

[kageki]

There is no reason to keep posting the link, it's starting to look like spamming.


Yes, real people can act... watch telly, you'll see a lot of it on there... but the stories they are acting out are fake.


This is just argument from incredulity.
Hoaxes are made to fool people, that some of them work on some people are testament to their effectiveness.

I'm posting the link to make sure we know which video we are talking about since another poster was already confused since there are multiple videos in question.

I wasn't asking if there was a possibility of acting. I was asking you to prove those people in the video really are acting. I'm not really sure if that's possible, but you haven't made much of an argument that they are acting anyways.

 

[I Ratant]

The "Whoa, did you see that?" starts -before- the thingy moves.
And there is no moving traffic for the entire length of the video anywhere in it.

 

[kageki]

Why add actors to a hoax video? Precisely because it makes it more believable, which is the primary intent of the hoaxer.

ETA: Having actors does add another element to the scenario, and it means that more than one person was probably involved. So it makes the hoax more complex. It doesn't mean that it is any less a hoax.

So now you are claiming there was a conspiracy to create this hoax? What is the proof for this?

 

[AdMan]

I was asking you to prove those people in the video really are acting.

There's no way you can do that by itself.

You can show the video has irregularities which point to hoax. If it's a hoax, then the people are acting.

 

[AdMan]

So now you are claiming there was a conspiracy to create this hoax? What is the proof for this?

Conspiracy? I never said that. I just said that because of the people and the voices in the videos, it looks like there is more than one person involved in creating the hoax.

That doesn't make it a "conspiracy."

ETA: I'm defining conspiracy as it's popularly done (e.g., as in large "conspiracy theories"). If you just mean a conspiracy as in two or more people conspiring together to fool others, then yes, by that definition it's a conspiracy. Simply based on the fact that more than one person appears to be involved in the hoax.

 

[Stray Cat]

I'm posting the link to make sure we know which video we are talking about since another poster was already confused since there are multiple videos in question.

Then refer to it as video 1 (videos 1 and 2 were taken at the same time from the same place by two friends right next to each other).

I wasn't asking if there was a possibility of acting. I was asking you to prove those people in the video really are acting. I'm not really sure if that's possible, but you haven't made much of an argument that they are acting anyways.

It is not necessary to prove they were acting. It can be shown that the UFO in the video is faked. This alone proves the people reacting to it are acting.
However, as my analysis in this thread hasn't really included much about the first two videos (because other people in other places on the web were already on it), I haven't made much a case for anything in connection with them here.
I first got involved when video 3 came out and I found the background photo on Wikimedia, this video has sound bite clips from various people added to it from various sources, who may or may not have been acting when they were recorded, but those sound clips could have come from anything from a fireworks display to the opening of a new Pizza shop ("we see a lot of them in Mississippi, but not like that").

 

[Stray Cat]

So now you are claiming there was a conspiracy to create this hoax? What is the proof for this?

Videos 1 and 2 were made by 2 friends standing next to each other. If they can be shown to be hoaxed, then technically it would class as a conspiracy yes.
Video 3 was hastily knocked together from a photograph and some sound clips within 12 hours of the original going viral, to jump on the bandwaggon and video 4 (so far the 'best' produced) was made by three film students in Jerusalem who had at least three days to make their effort once they realised that they could get in on the attention too.

 

[RoboTimbo]

So now you are claiming there was a conspiracy to create this hoax? What is the proof for this?

Did you see the post where Stray Cat showed that one of the videos is actually of a still photo?

Do you believe that still photo had an audio track?

 

[kageki]

Did you see the post where Stray Cat showed that one of the videos is actually of a still photo?

Do you believe that still photo had an audio track?

Do you see that I'm not referring to that video?

 

[kageki]

Then refer to it as video 1 (videos 1 and 2 were taken at the same time from the same place by two friends right next to each other).


It is not necessary to prove they were acting. It can be shown that the UFO in the video is faked. This alone proves the people reacting to it are acting.
However, as my analysis in this thread hasn't really included much about the first two videos (because other people in other places on the web were already on it), I haven't made much a case for anything in connection with them here.
I first got involved when video 3 came out and I found the background photo on Wikimedia, this video has sound bite clips from various people added to it from various sources, who may or may not have been acting when they were recorded, but those sound clips could have come from anything from a fireworks display to the opening of a new Pizza shop ("we see a lot of them in Mississippi, but not like that").

Well that doesn't necessarily mean they are acting. The responses could still be genuine yet it was just not a real ufo. That's a logical fallacy.

Video 3 had someone asking about a ufo specifically (we see a lot of them) which clearly is not something you say during an opening of a new pizza shop (not like you hear of people gathering around an opening of a new pizza shop).

So now my understanding is that after all this you have no opinions about video 1 which is what I have been asking about. You should've just said that instead of claiming without any proof that the people in the video 1 are acting.

 

[Mike!]

Do you ever use the phrase, 'I know you are but what am I', in an argument?
Just wondering.

 

[kageki]

Do you ever use the phrase, 'I know you are but what am I', in an argument?
Just wondering.

No, but you seem to be using it.

Let's refrain from making useless posts. I expect more from here, but maybe that's just my fault for expecting too much.

 

[Stray Cat]

Well that doesn't necessarily mean they are acting. The responses could still be genuine yet it was just not a real ufo. That's a logical fallacy.

I really don't know how anyone could come to that conclusion.

Video 3 had someone asking about a ufo specifically (we see a lot of them) which clearly is not something you say during an opening of a new pizza shop (not like you hear of people gathering around an opening of a new pizza shop).

The "we see a lot of them in Mississippi" woman was not the same person who asks "is that a UFO". There are at least 5 individually separate voices.
I'm sure that they see a lot of Pizza shops in Mississippi (but not like that new one that's just opened).

So now my understanding is that after all this you have no opinions about video 1 which is what I have been asking about.

Yes, I have opinions about video 1 and 2. My point was that I hadn't written anything up about them on this thread.

You should've just said that instead of claiming without any proof that the people in the video 1 are acting.

It's this burden of proof again isn't it?
You keep trying to shift it.
Let the believers prove how the footage can possibly be genuine when it shows so many artifacts that point towards it being a fake.
And if the footage is fake, then what were the reactions all about if not acting.

 

[Stray Cat]

Let's refrain from making useless posts.

So far, you've talked round in circles, shown you're not familiar with the whole case (or even a small bit of it) and that you don't understand 'burden of proof'... I look forward to your new approach.