Real stuff or hoax?

Well as im kind of new to ATS i wanted to know this. How do you sort hoax from the real thing? Any particular things should be taken looking at the photo? This is basically a post for me, because, for example, Billy Meiers photos on steelmark look real to me, how can we know if they are not? IMO we can't trust some ufo pros that are telling a particular pic is a hoax, right? He could easily be a disinformant agent. The internet is full of ufo pics, videos. How to see the real thing? Well i found one picture that is an obvious hoax, but i cannot prove that it is a hoax by only saying that. It doesnt look real, but maybe it is real? What do you think on all of this?



It's a hoax just because it is looking strange? Not real? I mean, it must look strange, it is a ufo, after all..

You will learn very quickly around here that it is all about what you are willing to beleive as truth. You can take any picture on the net no matter how legitimate it seems and there will be a dozen photoshop experts that can and will disect that picture to death, until it is no longer deemed credible. But, in the end, it all comes down to what you will allow yourself to beleive. You can beleive that the photo is not a fake and dismiss the naysayers who have picked that photo apart, or you can accept the findings of the photo experts and continue looking for that perfectly authentic picture. I thikn you'll find that no matter what picture or video is produced, it will all come down to what you are willing to accept. Even those who have witnessed first hadn accounts are subject to extreme scrutiny. Take a look at all the once credible scientist and military officials who come out about what they "know" about ufo's and aliens. I'm sure that all of them at one time in the professional life were not considered to be crazy or irrational, but once they start revealing what they "know" they are dismissed with extreme prejudice by those who have the power to do so. Those people who are truly interested in this stuff should not rely heavily on pictures or videos alone.

I judge a hoax on the evidence presented. If there are photos, does it "look" staged. The photo Partykid has above is a hoax because it looks "perfect." It's nicely framed, clear, composed. Some of the best photos I've seen look good, but there is some imperfection to them, Object blurred by motion of the object or camera person, and the pic won't have a composed look to it. You just have to take each case and dissect it from the physical evidence, if any, to the first hand accounts of those involved. It's a tough line to follow, but alot of stuff does eventually wash out.

[edit on 14-9-2004 by Der Kapitan]

Originally posted by mpeake
You will learn very quickly around here that it is all about what you are willing to beleive as truth. You can take any picture on the net no matter how legitimate it seems and there will be a dozen photoshop experts that can and will disect that picture to death, until it is no longer deemed credible. But, in the end, it all comes down to what you will allow yourself to beleive. You can beleive that the photo is not a fake and dismiss the naysayers who have picked that photo apart, or you can accept the findings of the photo experts and continue looking for that perfectly authentic picture. I thikn you'll find that no matter what picture or video is produced, it will all come down to what you are willing to accept. Even those who have witnessed first hadn accounts are subject to extreme scrutiny. Take a look at all the once credible scientist and military officials who come out about what they "know" about ufo's and aliens. I'm sure that all of them at one time in the professional life were not considered to be crazy or irrational, but once they start revealing what they "know" they are dismissed with extreme prejudice by those who have the power to do so. Those people who are truly interested in this stuff should not rely heavily on pictures or videos alone.

Thanks, mpeake, i thought there was some default structure on how to sort the real thing from a hoax, but with all of our thecnology i think you can just make a professional picture in photoshop and it will look real to someone.

looking at that photo, one question popped in my head. why is the photographer laying on the ground taking that pic or am i to believe that the photographer is a midget?

plus, looking at the girl on the right, it appears that she isnt even looking up but at the guy in the photo.

Btw, don't make the mistake many make, of calling everything a hoax after a while, with no supportive reason other then "cause you said so".

Theres alot of that around too. Debunking has become a sport where people don't care if something is real or not, they just want to debunk it, no matter what.

plus, looking at the girl on the right, it appears that she isnt even looking up but at the guy in the photo.

Maybe it was the cam of some guy trying to capture upskirt shots Theres enough of those going around :p

But yeah, I agree on this pic, its to perfect, if it was so low above a populated area, more people would have seen it for sure.

[edit on 14-9-2004 by thematrix]

Originally posted by enrage
looking at that photo, one question popped in my head. why is the photographer laying on the ground taking that pic or am i to believe that the photographer is a midget?

plus, looking at the girl on the right, it appears that she isnt even looking up but at the guy in the photo.

Well, the photographer, actually, was so afraid that he fell on the ground and couldnt stand up, so he took the photo from the ground. The girl, basically, is in love with this guy since highschool, and now she met him again, and she does not care about UFO's. Hmm. Apart from that, it is a hoax.

The reason that people are skeptical about digital images is that there's good reason to be. It's pretty easy for even a novice to hack together a picture that can withstand cursory examination in 30 minutes or so.

That's not to say that we automatically disbelieve any images of purported "flying saucers" shown here, just that we're wisely skeptical. We look for corroborating proof before we jump on the "It's the long-missing proof of aliens, someone call CBS!" bandwagon.

The image below took about 10 minutes to create, including the time spent on Google Images looking for the picture of an island and a picture of a ufo that looked decent enough when reduced.



As you can see, there's some artifacting around the "ufo" in the clouds. With an hour's work, I could have made that dissappear more effectively than it is currently.