Video & Photographic "Evidence" Is Useless Now

Personally I do not put stock in any video or photographic evidence unless it comes from a trusted source.

Hoaxing photos and films has always been possible. But these days, with the computer tech that's available to a large proportion of the world, faking UFO footage to a very high standard is childs play.

From subtle effects to sci-fi film level CG, the power of computers has made digital image evidence so unreliable that, for all intents and purposes, it is useless.

What say you?

The only source we can ever rely on is our own eye's and experiences. Even then that could be faulty.

Swing away....swing away....

Totally agree. This perplexing problem has bothered me since, well, since I saw the first UFO photograph. It was right after I saw the ecoplasm and garden faery fake photos from the late 19th/early 20th century.

All of our perceptions and senses are hopelessly easy to spoof.

Originally posted by Nusku
Personally I do not put stock in any video or photographic evidence unless it comes from a trusted source.

Hoaxing photos and films has always been possible. But these days, with the computer tech that's available to a large proportion of the world, faking UFO footage to a very high standard is childs play.

From subtle effects to sci-fi film level CG, the power of computers has made digital image evidence so unreliable that, for all intents and purposes, it is useless.

What say you?

You know saying Every single evidence of Alien life is fake is also unhealthy

Understand what you mean, however I don't think it completely renders all photo/video evidence unreliable: There's the human factor, which can play a part in the veracity (or not) of a video..... video or photographic evidence with several witnessess still would be considered good evidence for the most part.

I'm not 100% convinced that the overlays and layers of editing programs are 100% seamless also. Clearly, they're beyond my current ability to analyze, but I wonder if a skilled person can detect measurable anomalies still.

Photographic evidence has always been suspicious since it's invention.

Back in the 1800's people would make hoaxed photos of ghosts, fairies, and other such non-sense.

Total fakes, but they conned millions of people into believing rubbish.

That is why photographic evidence has Always been suspicious for well over one hundred years. It can be faked or manipulated. Optical illusions, perspective tricks, etc etc.

The only way to know something, is to see it yourself. And even then keep your wits about you.

so true i trust what i have seen and experienced. the fast moving stars, the flat saucer shaped clouds and the pulsating orbs. video can be easily faked.......i can only believe what i have seen with my own eyes....

reply to post by Nusku


It use to be, Dont always believe what you read....
But now its also. Dont always believe what you see....


Just imagine not to long from now, life as we know it will be so advanced... We wont be able to tell whats real, from whats fake or created anymore....

I totally agree with the OP. My mom will often express amazement at what she sees on television and I have to tell her that the video or image is likely computer generated or processed.

You really can't believe anything you see anymore. SAD im my opinion. Maybe you never could.

Originally posted by AidanK

You really can't believe anything you see anymore. SAD im my opinion. Maybe you never could.

You never could believe photographs even in 1890. lol

But when you see things with your own naked eyeballs. It's a whole different ball game.

And if other people claim to have seen it too, well that is correspondence and confirmation right there.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that video and pictures are useless, because that would be omitting the photographs taken by honest people. There are ways to tell a fake from the real thing.

One way I use to determine fakery is too much detail. Many hoaxers I find are so concerned with adding many little details that which prove to be impossible to be captured by their camera. This is why I find close-ups to be fake many times. Real UFO pictures are blurry, and for the most part these UFOs have no identifiable features other than the light they emit. Too much detail is usually an indication of an object thrown in the air before the camera.

As well if a picture or video is too good to be true, then it probably is. Real footage would show evidence of motion or blur. As well the frame rates may be off between the object and the background in a hoaxed video.

Another method is the focus of the object versus the background. If these do not correspond, then the object was likely inserted via digital means. Also if the background moves independent of the object as well that could have been artificially added after the filming.

Lighting is key as well. There are simple courses that are available I'm sure, but for those who haven't studied photography just use common sense. Illumination has to have a source, and likewise there would be a shadow if the object is low enough.

Pictures have binary data which would be overwritten if the video underwent alterations. As well keep in mind any natural phenomena which could be taken advantage of and called a UFO such as lens flare.

I've seen plenty of real and fake footage, and honestly it would be pretty hard to make a good fake video. I do know though that it is very hard to capture these crafts on camera.

Don't rule out all footage. There are many people who just happen to have a camera and film these objects. I have tried and failed to get them on camera though. It's pretty hard to get a good picture of them these days.