RSB's guide to know a fake ufo

If you have seen tons of ufo pics and vids, like me, and are frustrated with the abundance of kiddy photoshopped masterpieces, 1 pixel wide balloons, slow shutter bugs and birds etc etc and want to save your precious time, just remember the following simple rules --

Totally useless stuff, move on as soon as you see one of these :

1.1-tiny dot of light moving in a jet black background
1.2-a clip that lasts for 10 secs, with the 'ufo' buzzing by for 1.5 secs.
1.3-a pic with a jpeg compression of >1000000, so that it looks like a pic made of bricks.
1.4-a random shape taken in a bright flash
1.5-anything that is older than 1990
1.6-anything that remotely resembles an "orb" (out of focus dust, snow etc) or a "rod" (bugs) or a "energy beam" (camera strap) or simply "angelic energy" (smoke, fog)

Good for a laugh :

2.1-rocks and shadows on moon or mars
2.2-chemtrails or cloudy stuff
2.3-precious pics of space junk taken by nasa
2.4-ray guns
2.5-levitating animals
2.6-ufo's shooting laser beams

Not very serious :

3.1-just a single pic of the thing, even though his cam is empty.
3.2-too shaky or taken from a moving car
3.3-anonymously released
3.4-taken from a single point of view
3.5-taken by a single person
3.6-looking like a news footage which never appeared on tv but only on youtube
3.7-where the object goes out of the frame just before coming back and doing a stunt (like disappearing)
3.8-anything that moves randomly or stays at one spot for hours and resembles balloons or blimps or kites (especially kites with lights)
3.9-anything which is very believable, and watched by many (as claimed by the photographer), but you never heard of it from anyone other than him.
3.10-pics released by (or leaked from) gov or mil (they don't do such mistakes)
3.11-anything from cheap sensationalist idiotic sites like pravada or indiadaily.
3.12-anything by anyone who asks you to buy his book or dvd.
3.13-anything propagated by wannabe politicians/people seeking fame.
3.14-originating from documentary makers, tv show producers, game producers etc

Now if you are confused that the above covers just above 99% of the stuff you've ever seen and don't know what can be worth considering, let me give you my free opinion on the matter:
Worth considering if and only if:

4.1-the object was shot by many from different point of views and is clearing nothing like everyday objects seen in the sky (or elsewhere)
4.2-backed by someone brave and honest, not afraid of revealing his identity and has nothing to gain from it.
4.3-widely reported on tv, newspapers and websites of neutral nature.
4.4-reported by people in responsible jobs, like pilots, cops and journalists.
4.5-the same objects appears again and again with above supporting qualities.
4.6-a clear pic straight out of a camera (or still inside it preferably)
4.7-anything which remains a mystery even after rigorous scientific analysis.
4.8-anything which is clearly impossible to fake using current technology or computers


This should help in sorting wheat from the chaff....your contribution to the list are most welcome.

Regards
RSB

Hello,

"1.5-anything that is older than 1990"


With all respect...wouldn't it be more difficult to fake/superimpose content on film (which was the medium before 1990) than the modern video?

Hi RSB,
Do you have any examples that you believe meet any of the 4.x criteria?

Hi TMFAP,

No, its surprisingly easy to fake anything with a traditional camera, especially the still photos. It was called "Trick photography" in those days. Billy Meier is a good example. Some more examples:
www.photographymuseum.com...

There are special attachments and equipments which help:
www.camera-depot.com...

People use scale models, double exposures, superimposing (also called just 'super'), even mirrors..to show off their artistic talents.

But the reason I ask to ignore old stuff is something else. Mostly, people behind those stories are lost, all evidence is lost and everything is misty. There is no way to prove their genuineness even if one tries to.

[edit on 14/6/2007 by rocksolidbrain]

www.youtube.com...

BEST EXAMPLE EVER

Originally posted by tommyknockers
Hi RSB,
Do you have any examples that you believe meet any of the 4.x criteria?

Yes !
The phoenix lights, O'Hare event, Channel island event, the recent French ufo triple sighting, some crop circles etc closely satisfy the criteria.

Originally posted by Cydonian Priest
www.youtube.com...

BEST EXAMPLE EVER

That's great! Thanks Cydonian. Did you read through the comments on that YouTube page. There were still people arguing over whether it was an ET craft or an airplane. Obviously they didn't watch the entire video through to the end -- or they did watch it all, and they're just stupid.

RSB - for your #4 section I would also add "Exhibits non ballistic behavior" as well.

Even with the already excellent examples of rigorous testing you have shown, if it moves around like anything terrestrial, that would still be reason enough to doubt what is being observed.

I would also add the JAL sightings to the bag of bonafides as well....

[edit on 15-6-2007 by Lost_Mind]

a lot of stuff to look for

next time can you list just the general things

Hello all,

true, a hubcap looks like a hubcap even on film and if it is just the film with nothing to add to it...yes, harder to be convincing.

I was just thinking of some other Super-8 films I have seen of distant objects flying in apparently high speed or that thing filmed outside an airplane from inside by a passenger.

You are right, faking knows no medium limitations. Always question. And deny ignorance.


regs, TMFAP

I would add...

If someone shows you a photo of a Flying Saucer in flight... and the photo is clear... its definitely a fake... it has to appear fuzzy at least

I do believe in UFOs but I also believe that faking a UFO would be relatively easy nowadays with all this new technology. Is it just me who has never seen one?
i've always wanted to see one!

i support this thread to the fullest (and i flag it,i encourage everybody to do so)

How can you know that ufo's dont shoot lasers? How you know that they dont levitate animals? Just to name few examples. You're jumping into conclusion that you cannot back up. You can laugh all you want but that proves nothing too so it works both ways

This one is a good case....



And this one is a prototype... basically a Coanda effect craft.

Also, in the case of a digital photo, the raw image should be included. Photoshopped images can be included as well, but should not be the only images.

True you can always read the camera data in the original image so at least you know that the thing you are looking at was physical.

I don't think you can alter that data, but I could be wrong

You can actually and very easily too. The only way to make sure an image is straight from the camera is to usa a data verification kit. That requires a camera that supports that feature and the software that does the verification.

Definitely worthy of a flag! Far too many people (myself included) have demonstrated on past occasions that they clearly needed this advice.

I would be tempted to add any and all videos posted on youtube to the list of things to immediately disregard as well, but maybe thats just my cynical nature

Here is the definitive "dismiss this video" rule:

If you see it on Youtube, Disclose TV, or any of the usual sites it is PLAIN BUNK. Unless it is attached to a major worldwide news story it simply is bull crap.

I get so sick of "youtube" ufo's. Nothing like 20 seconds of blurry lights or nice clean cgi to make people act like complete fools.