Ivan Seeking said:
The question was, do you know of a way to get videographic evidence that could not have been faked. It seems to me that with digital electronics there is no way to judge. At least with film, the film could be analysed.
Digital video can be analyzed too. That's why I said real video doesn't just materialize on the ether. I think I said in another thread that if I shot a video like that, I'd give the actual camera to a lab for analysis.
Regardless, the point is that while a few jackasses on YouTube may be easy to fool, we are still a long way from the day when a forensics lab won't be able to tell the difference between a real one and a fake.
The news usually only covers stories that involve a fairly large number of witnesses.
Journalistic ethics isn't completely dead yet...
If the video in the OP were real, how many people should have seen the event?
Sure they do, there is just no way to determine the authenticity.
You're pretty good about posting likely candidates here - you've never posted anything with anywhere near the quality of the video clip in this thread.
You can buy all of the videos that you want from Billy Meyers and the like. They are clear, daylight, and in some cases close-up videos, and they have never been discredited or duplicated. I don't believe the guy's story but the evidence does exist. The last time that I checked, there was a ten year old challenge to all debunkers, and no one has been able to duplicate the video evidence.
I don't think I've ever heard of him. [5 minutes later...] I found a few still pics on YouTube, but nothing that comes anywhere close to the quality of the video posted in this thread. He also says he hears voices in his head.
Because they aren't moving, it is still as easy as it has always been to fake a still picture. You can toss a pie plate in the air and get a decent still pic. That's also part of my point: the video and camera technology available to the masses is orders of magnitude better than it was just 10 years ago. And more people have them. 9/11 was filmed by dozens (hundreds?) of people. And yet, the quality of UFO videos is not improving. Better cameras and better ability to share information has just multiplied the amount of crap out there. It hasn't created any good evidence. The hypothetical example I always use is of a flying saucer landing on the White House lawn. Besides the interface with the government, the public exposure of such an event would be such that it would be irrefutable. Like 9/11, dozens, if not hundreds of videos and stills would exist, shot at different angles, simultaneously. This is the quality of evidence that is
required for such a claim to be proven true to a reasonable level of certainty. Not grainy, blurry stills shot by a nutjob.
Another thing - I look at the photos people say are "good" evidence and shake my head. If the photos were real, the people who shoot them must be the worst photographers on the face of the earth. Nothing I've seen comes anywhere close to the quality of what was shown in the OP.
The signal (showing nothing) keeps getting stronger and stronger - flying saucers still, as always, reside in the noise.
And your point in the OP is still premature - this video, good as it was, was pretty easy to debunk. There hasn't yet been a video that both had compelling quality of what was shot and was difficult to prove a fake. No need yet to go beyond YouTube to look at the source. If we ever get something that good, I sure hope you'll be looking through Youtube to see if there is any background on the video and the shooter. A YouTube video, regardless of what it shows, cannot stand on it's own.
