• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Faked or Too Good to be True

Forums New posts

Are clear sharp realistic looking UFO videos too good to be true?

  • Yes. They are a waste of time and I write them off almost immediately.

    Votes: 4 14.3%

  • Probably. More evidence besides a video alone is required.

    Votes: 23 82.1%

  • No. They are probably real because high quality realistic UFO videos are just too hard to fake.

    Votes: 1 3.6%
  • Total voters
    28

Free episodes:

ufology said:
Russian Antigravity Claims



Any translators in the house?​
Click to expand...
I asked a native Russian speaker, and even he was confused. It's some guy's theory about how the UFOs people see are holograms...but context is needed since the clip is abruptly taken from a larger documentary. Basically History Channel type stuff. Not much on anti-gravity.
 
black-circle-over-leamington-spa.jpg
Mysterious Black Circle Sighted in the Sky Over Leamington Spa
Mysterious Black Circle Sighted in the Sky Over Leamington Spa
 
Some very cool stuff here. But a crucial question is still unanswered in my mind.

Is it possible for anyone, at any level of expertise, to differentiate between real video footage and CG? I get the impression that verification experts during the old film emulsion days could determine with at high degree of certainty, and we used to hear a lot about that. But I don't hear much discussion about the finer points of validating the digital stuff. Although most of us would wind up having to defer to expert opinion anyway.
 
boomerang said:
Some very cool stuff here. But a crucial question is still unanswered in my mind.

Is it possible for anyone, at any level of expertise, to differentiate between real video footage and CG? I get the impression that verification experts during the old film emulsion days could determine with at high degree of certainty, and we used to hear a lot about that. But I don't hear much discussion about the finer points of validating the digital stuff. Although most of us would wind up having to defer to expert opinion anyway.
Click to expand...

All true boomerang I am on the same page as your good self.
However I do for a fact know some of these are fake and were made for viral "creepypaster" threads and video challenges.

Think of how Slenderman was created and for example out of the videos there the one where the guy sees a creature on his roof was a "creepypaster" video made just to scare people.
 
well the jet pack guys are real enough but were they in the sky with the jet at the same time? I suspect so... either way that was cool.
 
Setting aside the New Agey Galactic Ambassadorial nonsense that comes out of Greer.
What are the lights in this video? ​


Hint. they're not UFOs because vague lights off in
the distance do not fit the definition
of UFO as used in ufology.​
 
Last edited:
boomerang said:
Some very cool stuff here. But a crucial question is still unanswered in my mind.

Is it possible for anyone, at any level of expertise, to differentiate between real video footage and CG? I get the impression that verification experts during the old film emulsion days could determine with at high degree of certainty, and we used to hear a lot about that. But I don't hear much discussion about the finer points of validating the digital stuff. Although most of us would wind up having to defer to expert opinion anyway.
Click to expand...
I think it's possible to prove some videos are faked, but unfortunately it's impossible to prove any video is real.
I think you'd need to rely on compelling circumstantial evidence to do so - multiple videos, different angles, eyewitnesses, sensor data, etc.
 
marduk said:
I think it's possible to prove some videos are faked, but unfortunately it's impossible to prove any video is real.
I think you'd need to rely on compelling circumstantial evidence to do so - multiple videos, different angles, eyewitnesses, sensor data, etc.
Click to expand...
True. The video does have some different scenes over time that show multiple winesses. But they're all at the same location. My best guess for something mundane is aircraft approaching head on with their anti collision lights on. I see that a lot here off to the west. They're very bright and a long ways off. Then for some reason they turn them off for a period and it's as if they just disappear, but a close look through binoculars reveals they're still there.
 
Last edited:
USI Calgary said:
True. The video does have some different scenes over time that show multiple winesses. But they're all at the same location. My best guess for something mundane is aircraft approaching head on with their anti collision lights on. I see that a lot here off to the west. They're very bright and a long ways off. Then for some reason they turn them off for a period and it's as if they just disappear, but a close look through binoculars reveals they're still there.
Click to expand...
Honestly, unless we have something fly down into the stadium during superbowl, videoed by hundreds of people and professional camera crews, during a flyover of military aircraft doing the same... I don't think anyone in academia would find any video compelling nowadays.

Maybe not even then.

Hate to say it, but like with Bigfoot - I think someone's gonna have to bring in a body (or wreckage).

Stuff like Chris' distributed imaging/sensor packages is hopefully going to provide fruitful data for citizen scientists, but I think even then academics aren't going to pay attention unless the data can be replicated fairly easily.
 
Back
Top