Time has come for "Anti-Hoaxing" Measures

As we are all aware, the power of "The Pixel" has reached it's day and age of power. I was telling people 20 years ago that one day there would be no TV or Movie Actors, and that the sky would be the limit regarding CGI. Welcome to now.

I'm frankly tired of all the pic submissions, questionable stories, and the "no contact info" submissions etc, that lead to a big waste of time and energy on all our parts. There is only ONE way that we will survive as a community in our quest for truth, and that is to flush out the would be hoaxers. How do we do this? We ignore them. We ignore anything that comes in without contact info, raw untouched photo or video files, and any story that we cannot verify or follow up on to PROVE that the reporting party is real.

I'm sorry, but if I, like you, witnessed a UFO and took some pictures, I would have no problem...

A) Finding a place/person to submit them to in the UFO community via a simple Google search on UFO's.
B) Asking the party I submitted the pics to not to use my name, etc, that is if I wished to remain anonymous.
C) Providing FULL follow up and answering any questions that needed to be answered to verify I was REAL.

The ONLY people out there that would have ANY issue with those three things are the people we DON'T want to pay ANY attention to anyway. Every time I start reading one of these long, multi-page threads on some pictures or video, and find out they were simply posted on some picture hosting site and there is no one to contact or follow up with, they all end in the same exact way. Hoax and waste of time.

I know the very thought of "editing" or "screening" information may scare some people here, maybe even incite riot behavior. But honestly, how many times do you want to get taken for a ride from these idiot hoaxers? I for one don't have that much time in my life to waste on hoaxers. If we bite the bullet, the future will be much brighter. Or, maybe we all really don't want to "nip the hoaxer" so to speak. I hate to say it, but if we really did require information before it was splattered all over ATS, there really wouldn't be that much to talk about. I mean honestly, we spend almost 100% of our time debunking anonymous submissions, with nothing to go on but some crappy exif data that was modified anyway.

I for one would rather have quality over quantity. I really appreciate what the Three Amigos have done with this great site, but I think it may be time for us, as a community, to tighten our own security and stop making it so darn easy for any 13 year old with a computer to witness all of us go into debunking mode on a submission that we have no means to follow up on.

Who knows, maybe, just maybe, all the other UFO sites will take the same stance, and the life of the hoaxer as we know it will become a thing of the past. If no one will give them the time of day without REAL information to verify and follow up on, they won't get any of the much needed attention they crave because their mothers never breast fed them ;-)

knows_but_doesnt, you are so correct and "spot-on" with your posting.
I get so angry and frustrated with the damn hoaxers myself. They are not funny or even clever. They are just confusing and misleading the whole UFO/Alien subject. How the hell is anyone really going to get to the bottom of what is going on if these "morons" persist in their infantile actions?
I agree that quality not quantity should be the guideline. Something should seriously be done about(and to) the hoaxers. Maybe the powers that be at ATS could initiate something, that is if they really cared about the content of their site.

I agree with you 110%. I no longer use photos or video as a tool for deciding what any particular sighting is or isnt. Nowadays its a joke to depend on any kind of visual media as any kind of "evidence" or "proof" of what it is being seen in our skies. Once it was shown that any kind of possible evidence can be manipulated or otherwise tampered with it is no longer useful as a tool to prove anything. It forces me to assume that ANY photos or videos could be tainted and rendered useless.

From here on out I will depend on nothing but very credible witness testimony (i.e. trained observers) that could be construed as no less than ironclad or my own eyes. Anything else is lint.

This isnt to say that ferreting out the hoaxes is a waste of time because I think it needs to be done, but there sure is a LOT of energy being spent on unadulterated crap and obvious fakery or at minimum very mispercieved imagery these days. Toss that in with a smattering of pure ingnorance and a touch of mental illness and voila! You have the modern day UFO show.

While I agree with this sentiment I think it's going to take some time happen. People are curious by nature and some actually need to believe.

I have said many, many times I don't want to "believe" anything, I want to know.

I also feel there is much that the average person can learn through exercises like the "C2C drone" thread. There is content in that thread that is very educational and very interesting.

All that being said, it's very simple for me if there is no corroborating information, no contact info on the presenter, etc... I don't give it any credence.

After all this is a discussion forum and as long as people keep getting duped by these hoaxes I am happy ATS is here for them to discuss them and come to realize they are hoaxes.

I am pretty sure that once the cat is out of the proverbial bag on the C2C drone images (there is a rumor that the IP addresses of the two "witnesses/photographers" are the same ) it will greatly reduce the weight and credence given to any future images presented as evidence without back up.

Springer...

A couple of weeks ago I started a thread that dealt with these issues called "Where to turn with UFO pics" and got very little response. It seems that people would rather not have a valid way to evaluate these things. The hodge podge approach is in fashion I guess.

its no big deal, almost anyone with limited knowledge can create a good hoax UFO. So I dunno how these punks still get erect in making new ones..but Im just surprised at people like Art Bell and Linda Howe falling for it, hook line & Sinker.
When the tell-tale signs are so obvious and not to mention the weak story sent along with it.

Originally posted by NGC2736
A couple of weeks ago I started a thread that dealt with these issues called "Where to turn with UFO pics" and got very little response. It seems that people would rather not have a valid way to evaluate these things. The hodge podge approach is in fashion I guess.

That is just the problem though. I think that we are waaaayy beyond having a valid (key word here) way to evaluate imagery to the extent that most people would lay down their crusaders swords and humbly admit that they are in error and the photo/video is a less than desirable means to prove anything. I think that I can count on my hands and toes (or look in my friends list) the posters here that I think can do just that, that do not have some sort of screwed up belief system or misconceptions wrapped up in their decision making processes when deciding what could be valid or not.

I agree with Springer in that I dont give a rats buttocks fretting over whether or not I can fit any of this into some kind of belief system, common or not - I want to know. Knowing doesnt involve belief at all, it requires evidence, damn good evidence and copious amounts of it and as much corraboration as you can bear to stand.

It seems to me that a lot of people will quickly compromise or sell out short the process of evaluation on what constitutes good evidence for the sake of believing or that it is what they want so damn badly to think is true.

I dont do it that way in my head. Never have.

[edit on 30-5-2007 by Lost_Mind]

Lost, I agree. That was just what I was trying to do. I wanted to start teaching the common observer, through a downloadable page, what would be required WITH any photo to give it a snowball's chance of even being talked about here at ATS.

I was trying to move away from the faith, "because it just feels right and good" approach to something that would at the least generate better quality postings that had some valid and useful data for evaluation.

I was soliciting ideas for what that data could be. I had thought that the people here would be interested in doing more than bemoaning the lack of good evidence, and would generate some measures that could help.

I was wrong. I wish you more luck.

As long as our community hosts an avenue for their fun and games nothing will change. There is no "punishment" for hoaxers. How can there be, and more importantly, who would really care? What, would we start a thread bashing a certain individual for posting fake photos, only to find out before we got to page two there were three more hoaxers that popped up with new stunning daylight UFO pics?

I can't tell anyone how to run their business, I can only make suggestions. Every UFO site I've been to seems to take the stance of knowingly providing the hoaxers with a more than ample feeding ground.

As long as we are willing to tolerate the hoaxers through anonymous submissions etc, they will continue to play their games, all on our time and effort expenses.

I'd like to reflect on the motto of this site. "Deny Ignorance"

To me, giving one second of time and/or energy to someone or something that cannot be verified or followed up on is the opposite of “Deny Ignorance”.

Please don't flog me! I'm on our side!

I have often wondered if it was even possible to install a minimum standard for the submission of imagery evidence and still be able to maintain the air of openness and freedom here at ATS?

I think that most people with an inkling of rational thought and common sense could come to a general agreement of some kind as to what constitutes a "minimum" in regards to imagery submissions, or am I wrong? I think that a standard like this would be something to be proud of and would help us as a community stand out from the crowds in the UFO community even more than we do now.

Orrr, it could drown ATS in the depths of banality. I have to admit that as whack as some of this stuff I see here is, I really do enjoy the entertainment side of it at times. John Lear makes me laugh so hard my side hurts sometimes. He really is very funny....

I thought that the Skunkworks would help to draw some of the more ridiculous claims away from ones that would benefit from some good solid analysis. Analysis without the "Springer" factor in it - and I dont mean our Springer, I'm talking about his brother in name only, Jerry Springer.

I guess thats always going to be there though. Nothing can really be done about that without the Amigos and the mods coming across like dictators here and I certainly know they arent like that, at all. They all do a great job here considering the load there is.

Done brown nosing, carry on

I am in agreement that the theory of creating "standards" for UFO/ET sightings/reports would be wonderful. With that being said I do not think it is feasable. I agree with Springer that the C2C threads were informative even though that the "experts" have determined it's a hoax. As an interested party who has zero experience with CGI (and who has never seen a UFO/ET) and the like it was very helpful for me to read the entire thread and learn about the discrepancies.

I know it is taxing to weed through a bunch of Hoax threads but I think creating standards at ATS will not be successful (or reasonable). Even though hoaxes are continually coming in, and probably will endlessly, I think they serve to educate the people here on the subject. I do not think that all people would be inclined to put in their personal information even with a guarantee that they can remain anonymous. We can then pass on the information we learn with each hoax and in turn it makes us (members) more educated and more inclined to "Deny Ignorance".

Also, I have seen more than one post that says if an image is not in a certain format (e.x. .gif file) then it is most likely fake. My camera automatically creates .jpg files and I think that this was one of the kinds of files that was likely to be a hoax (because it was .jpg). Obviously this needs addressed.

From here on out I will depend on nothing but very credible witness testimony (i.e. trained observers) that could be construed as no less than ironclad or my own eyes. Anything else is lint.

Unfortunately, I doubt you will get hardly any reliable reports then as I know exactly zero "trained observers" besides myself (I read about this topic so I hope I qualify). Also, how can you verify that someone is a "trained observer" if they say that they are? IMO this idea promotes "Ignorance" rather than "Deny(ing) Ignorance". This is not meant as an insult and I definitely know why you feel this way but this idea is effectively choosing to censor what could be credible reports based on frustration (IMHO). By all means do as you wish but I believe you are doing yourself a disservice.

knows_, what about someone like me? I'm old, not really up on cameras and what they can or cannot do, how to even send the data you would want, or who would be best to send it to.

Let's just say that an average old geezer like me walks out one morning with his cup of java and bowl of Post Toasties to eat breakfast on the deck. And there, 50 yards away in the pasture sits a UFO. I'm excited. Dropping my breakfast, I race in the house, scramble through drawers till I find a camera, and go for a picture.

Back on the deck, I find that the UFO has risen to above treetop level, but is still close enough to fire off a couple of shots before it vacates my area. Now what? Breathless, (I did mention I'm old), I stand there thinking of what to do besides show these to my brother-in-law who has always called me a kook.

Do I put them on the computer to see how they turned out? Do I take them to the local paper and be called a nut by everybody in town? And since I don't know how to save whatever data might be needed, and might not do that right even if I knew what to save, should I just mail the whole damn camera to Springer and let him handle it? (Btw, Springer, I need your address just in case, because I don't know how to handle this if it ever does happen.)

So, I started a thread to try and find a way to get information for dummies like me. And it fell flat. So where were all you people and your flags when I was trying to get some info out in the world? Why did I not get an answer from a U2U from Springer about this? (As a matter of fact, I've had anther message in the suggestion box for a few days and no replies on it either, so maybe the suggestion box is broken.)

The only conclusion I could draw from my efforts were that ATS and the community as a whole wanted things not to improve in this area, so I moved on. Unless you're willing to find solutions, to make an effort greater than whining and crying, it seems obvious that this is the way it is.

Originally posted by Moserious
Unfortunately, I doubt you will get hardly any reliable reports then as I know exactly zero "trained observers" besides myself (I read about this topic so I hope I qualify). Also, how can you verify that someone is a "trained observer" if they say that they are? IMO this idea promotes "Ignorance" rather than "Deny(ing) Ignorance". This is not meant as an insult and I definitely know why you feel this way but this idea is effectively choosing to censor what could be credible reports based on frustration (IMHO). By all means do as you wish but I believe you are doing yourself a disservice.

Heh, I dont take very much personally. Especially on a forum. I think some constructive censorship could be used in this field. By "trained observers" I mean any person(s) who either by passive or active means have recieved training in the methods of observation and the collection and retention of accurate data from said observations and are willing to relay those observations truthfully to those who wish to analyse them. Cops, firemen, airline pilots, military personel from certain venues, ATC personel, those who would possibly benefit the least from expressing experiences, etc. And this doesnt necessarily leave out those from the general public, it simply requires more process to eliminate the lies, misperceptions and ignorance. There are plenty of reports out there that fit these parameters.

It is possible that I may do myself some disservice by taking this angle on it, but as it stands right now, I am paying way to much attention to ALL of the junk. I've got to stop doing the "Well, maaayybbeee" thing. I have to get off the fence. Cant see the forest for the trees, ya know? I dont think that it will promote ignorance personally, I wont be turning a blind eye to it simply not be using it to prove anything of consequence - for me, it will help me bring into focus the quality evidence that is so sorely needed in this field.

Originally posted by NGC2736
So, I started a thread to try and find a way to get information for dummies like me. And it fell flat. So where were all you people and your flags when I was trying to get some info out in the world? Why did I not get an answer from a U2U from Springer about this?

Did you actually do this, or are you just asking a theoretical question? If it's a "what do I do if" question it has to compete with "Look at these pics NOW" types of threads. If it's "I took these pics, now what do I do" it might be more interesting. I don't think you can expect personal attention on a board this busy; and the attention you receive certainly isn't based on how old you are.

Threads take on a life of their own sometimes. Somehow they have to spark interest. Look at sleeper's thread now: over 2,000 posts on something that appears to be 'very strange,' to put it mildly. I don't think it's worth flagging or participaing in it myself, but there's no accounting for tastes. Eh, you get some points, you lose some points.

I just think you are rude and closed minded.
I do not agree with you at all.

This horrible attitude of 'if I did not make the video myself, I will seek out and destroy with my negative minions here on ats to push my I don't believe a damn thing attitude. Is going to destroy ats eventually.

People can only take so much miserable negative feed back!

Some of you here on ats act more like an elite wanna be group of dissidents from sites where most have probably been kicked off of.

You always (you know who you are) bring up "The tres Amigo's" to attempt to pull them into your plight of turning on your fellow forum members.

This may make you feel wanted and apart of something bigger than your self, but I have NEVER seen any of them jump in and say "Yeah, lets devours all the newbies and the hoaxers!"

You need to put down the firkin pitch forks and quit attempting to intimidate everyone with your steamy display of unexceptance and intolerance.

Do you realize just how many potential people come to this site looking for exactly what they can find here like no place else, and once they begin to read the pure egoistic meanness, they never return again?

I have read so many posts where people claim to have been reading articles for a long time but never wanted to join in.

You can stand up and take responsibility for that!

Now what you had to say has merit, however a witch hunt for hoaxers will only cause people to LEAVE this site when considering where to place their pictures and video.

Anyone who has ever captured video or pictures will tell you they NEVER look anything like what they saw!

One explanation is that you are not looking at our physical world of third dimensional physics.

I always question any video or picture, but that does not mean that I want to quit looking. If you were able to classify all the photos coming here, we would loose that whole section!

schuyler, actually, I did send a U2U asking some specific type questions. And the part about being old has to do with the fact that not everyone here cut their teeth on a keyboard and digital cameras.

The point in my original thread was how to educate those who wanted to be educated, and to also provide some general guidelines to what the 'experts' here at ATS would like to have arrive with the pictures.

I am not upset that the thread died, and I am aware that threads die for no reason. I am frustrated somewhat at hearing people bemoan the state of things when they make no effort to fix the problems. I was just tried to find a way to fix a problem, to no avail, and then two weeks or so later, here it is being brought up as such a big problem.

Kind of ironic, don't you think?

NGC2736, You sound like a rational sweet person, and now that I have calmed down I understand it can be frustrating to move through baseless fakes, but I love when the professionals get involved and disprove , it only makes me understand more of what to look for when checking out videos and pictures on other sites that may not have the same dignity.

If you will post a question of "what to send/do with video/image evidence" in Jeff Ritzmann's Conspiracy Master Forum I bet you will get a very concise list of what we need.

Springer...

Originally posted by NGC2736
I was just tried to find a way to fix a problem, to no avail, and then two weeks or so later, here it is being brought up as such a big problem.

Kind of ironic, don't you think?

And that, my friend, is the nature of a forum like this. Nothing ever gets settled. No one can ever come to a conclusion, and further, the threads repeat themselves in round robin fashion forevermore. Just wait. Next week I guarantee someone will post:

1. Wow! Have you guys ever heard of the Disclosure Project?
2. This YouTube Video shows one of those drones in England!
3. What do you all think of the Billy Meier photographs? Real?
4. Bob Lazar/Daniel Burisch is one cool dude!
5. UFO pics over the Great Lakes.

Okay. I'm sorry. I'll stop now.

PS: Why do I stay? I still have faith a glimmer of light will appear.....and for the entertainment value.

I don't care if people try to hoax me or not. I have a few simple rules about any new UFO material that shows up, and it works pretty good to eliminate any time or effort wasted on hoaxes.

1) If it's anonymous, it's junk until proven otherwise.

2) If it's only one photo or video from one source, it's useless no matter how clear it may be. Multiple photos from different sources, please.

3) If there is nothing else to back up the photo or video, like radar tracks from a real source, ground traces, or artifacts, then it doesn't prove anything. Habeas corpus. An alien corpus would be best.

4) If the above is not presented on a valid news source, then forget it.

5) Without confirmation of the above by legitimate, neutral experts or government sources, then why should I trust it?

6) Lastly, I want to be able to experience it personally some way myself. I'd like to see it and touch it, if possible.

These are pretty simple tests for determining the validity of something. I find that most hoaxes fail at Step #1. A few more ambitious hoaxers, those who really put some effort into it, can sometimes make it past Step #2. Nothing I know of has gone past Step #4.

Don't want to be hoaxed? Stop being a sucker.