UFO Filter

I'll keep this sweet and short. I've been very bothered lately by horrible UFO video submissions. I would like to share a very sweet and simple way for you to filter out videos that are unworthy of attention (even if they were legit!).

Here is the filter:



1- The top of the pyramid: Absolutely necessary. If the video doesn't come from an official entity like NASA or the government, or, if you hate the government, any decent trusted entity, and was in fact taken by some wandering dude with his phone or point and shoot camera, then it must have at least more than one source, i.e taken from at least two different cameras. Otherwise, you shouldn't even consider examining it even if it's in reality a legit UFO video. It sounds like a very harsh rule, but, the level that we reached in video compositing and visual effects today is SUPERB you can actually make an exact real-life replica of a UFO sighting. Even then, multiple eye-witness won't completely rule out that the video is fake, but, it will make it at least more considerable.

2- The bottom of the pyramid which is split by half: Detail and Speed. They are equally important. If the UFO is so slow, then the importance of detail and shape becomes so high. If the object is flying very slow or stopped completely, then why would you assume it's a UFO unless you SEE that it is one? The dominant nature of the flying-speck-ufo-sighting videos is just disgusting. Can we point at any flying speck and say it's a UFO? Of course not. Unless, it's moving so fast that it makes the requirement of shape unnecessary. As the speed reaches astounding levels, the shape and detail become completely useless. Speed and detail. Take some from one of them, put the same amount in the other.

Example what a good slow but well detailed UFO sighting would be like (doesn't require fast flying UFO):

Detail

Example of when a very fast object makes shape useless:

Speed

Those videos, despite being fake, but they're what I expect when someone says UFO sighting. Actually, the first one didn't even meet the first requirement. It should be immediately dismissed. The second one is perfect for examination. It claims to have multiple witness and is so fast it doesn't require a shape.

Remember: this is not a criteria to decide if the video is legit. It decides if the video is worth CONSIDERING.

Please, ATS, consider this way of filtering videos because it's getting ridiculous lately.

reply to post by TheAlmo

If the video doesn't have at least more than one source, i.e taken from at least two different cameras, then you shouldn't even consider examining it even if it's in reality a legit UFO video.

The number of sources doesn't really make a difference to whether a sighting is fake or not as has been shown on several occasions .

The two examples you posted are known fakes , the Jerusalem UFO video is an example of alleged multiple witnesses sightings that are faked .
If ET isn't here anymore than we can't film them , when or if they return then we will

reply to post by TheAlmo
I guess it is what it is when it comes to UFO footage. I usually watch on the expectation that it'll be in this order of outcome:

1 - Hoax (wilful intent to deceive for trolling or profit)
2 - Misidentified/misunderstood known object or phenomenon (parachute teams, camera artifacts, internal lens reflections etc)
3 - Spoof (guys having fun with CGI)
4 - Unidentified/inconclusive

Those coming in at #4 number (for me) happen 2 to 5 times a year and don't really make a difference to my thinking. Saying that, one a couple of years ago had an unusual light effect within a cloud and that one should be looked at by atmospheric scientists as a potentially unidentified phenomenon like sprites once were.

A guide like yours could be helpful, but folk tend to prefer going off gut instinct and loading their dice in favour of their beliefs. S&F for taking the time to post something thoughtful.

If the video doesn't have at least more than one source, i.e taken from at least two different cameras, then you shouldn't even consider examining it even if it's in reality a legit UFO video.

How inconsiderate of the aliens to not post on facebook or tweet where or when they are going to appear.
Aliens are just downright rude.

reply to post by gortex

The number of sources doesn't really make a difference to whether a sighting is fake or not as has been shown on several occasions .

That's why I said in my OP:

Even then, multiple eye-witness won't completely rule out that the video is fake, but, it will make it at least considerable.

The two examples you posted are known fakes , the Jerusalem UFO video is an example of alleged multiple witnesses sightings that are faked .

That's why I said in my OP:

Those videos, despite being fake, but they're what I expect when someone says UFO sighting.

Cheers

I would add to what Gortex and Kandinsky said above that any serious investigation should only be done on original document (in this sense, Youtube have zero credibility...).

It true for any UFO photo as well.

It's what I do in my work with IPACO (see in my signature) BTW.

S&F for this idea!

All UFO's are Fake/hoaxes...misidents..

None are alien.but keep searching if you want.

If aliens ever come to town you will know it , and it won't be a secret.

reply to post by rigel4


Even then some people like yourself will deny it unless the aliens came with verifiable birth certificates.

thankyou for information

Originally posted by TheAlmo
I'll keep this sweet and short.

...I'd hate to see crass and long.

Are these standards sanctioned by some type of official UFO governing body comprised of experts? Your higher-order pyramid seems to negate the whole "pics or it didn't happen" thing. That's a real relief because a lot of my crazy friends (esp. ex-military) will qualify as multiple witnesses & my photoshop skills are weak. Thanks for letting us off the hook. I hope to be reporting back soon with some exciting new 'actual' citings.