Castle-Yankee54
Celestial
I agree I'd believe a friend if they produced such a picture.....and I also doubt all images of UFOs on the net. No doubt they are UFOs to some people......but its best to look at them with an open mind and not assume anything.
Assuming that the alleged nazi craft did exist then they would require a more advanced technology. However, I've yet to see any verifiable evidence they actually existed......there are far to many excuses used to explain them and appear to be nothing more than the german vertical take off & landing (VTOL) programs.
CasualBystander
Celestial
35 mm SLR.
3FEL9
Islander
1963
Noble
Hi Fila, hope you are well my friend. ... As usual, I agree with your general sentiment of 'pictures and video' not being absolute proof of the ETH.... No!..not by a long chalk, because ,as you say... there are just too many ways to be led down the wrong path when claiming that such 'evidence' is irrefutable proof that 'we are and have been' visited by intelligent beings 'Not Of This Terrene'! for the obvious reasons that you mentioned.... the chief culprit being 'Hoax' of course, and then there is the inconclusive factor that you pointed out, ... but personally I find this aspect of "the futility of looking to these pictures to prove anything" a much less persuasive argument, as real misidentification [as opposed to wilful misidentification] is far less likely with plethora of professional people with the correct objective eye than the cleverly mocked-up pictures and vids.
As you know, I personally do believe that there are a number of 'genuine examples' out there in books, collections and on the net etc that are available to be considered 'authentic'... but of course that is just my objective opinion, which we all have. It will always come down to personal verisimilitude no matter how we dress our conclusion as being impartial and sound of mind. [one mans medicine... and all that] ... for instance, for me a good candidate not only has to look the part... but also has not got to exceed the expected boundaries of expectation ie, if it looks too good to be true... etc.
And another prime factor for me is the provenance. "Who?, Where? and How?" ... a decent, respectable and preferably virginal-to-the-genre camera operative always adds great weight to the authenticity of the picture for me. Especially if the photographer's reputation stood the test of time for near enough seventy years, and the protagonists sought to make [and indeed refused to make] money and celebrity out of the whole affair. As was the case with the Trents of the famed McMinnville photos of 1950 that I use for example. And why not use this case? after all , even though sixty eight years have past with many different top class analyses and uncountable attempts at debunking this couple of iconic photographs have contrary to over-zealous sceptical [cynical] claims, defied a more prosaic explanation than they're being a genuine photo of a 'Flying Saucer'!
..... But then as I mentioned previously that ... "No it does not prove the ETH emphatically " it is merely my opinion. I am well aware that it only reaches my own personal threshold of believability and that is compatible only to others with similar plausibility affinities. And I am also too aware that I probably have no more super human power of percipience than anyone else.... [except perhaps the wilfully ignorant that abound this field of study .... you know the type of 'hard line sceptic' that insist that facts cease to exist if ignored]
And yes again my friend, I agree that photographic [and video] evidence is no more potent than anecdotal evidence in proving the ETH, indeed because of the 'easy way out' given by the multitude of charlatans that flood the genre with their iniquitous fakery, this form of evidence can rightly be viewed as being damn near worthless and a waste of time .. because we can never really be one hundred percent sure of complete probity... but still, there are a few among the multitudinous dross that tick the box for me. Just as there are a relatively few in number of authentic anecdotal testimonies that stand out among the countless volumes of not so believable claims of UFO sightings and encounters, and unless we ourselves happen to be the actual witness to any case or encounter, then all we have to go on is our own wit and personal verisimilitude.
Other than that, what is there? ....because without wit and personal perceptibility then in my honest opinion there is simply no point to even going through the pretence of trying to study this subject at all! .... And so while I agree that ninety nine percent [possibly more] of all the pictures and video that you can find anywhere is probably bunkum, dross and downright BS, there is very likely a tiny portion of gold to be found among the tons of 'fame and dollar-driven-shite' that can be easily found out there. The problem is though, that once you have found your little nugget of gold, and have found your candidate,...cogitated, mulled over and finally convinced yourself that you might just have glimpsed the holy grail of your field of interest... you remember that you could never present it as the 'smoking gun', or even be totally certain yourself that you weren't being taken in by some clever shyster. So yes it is not an ideal mode of investigation into such an insufferably hard and infuriating conundrum as the UFO/ETH , but is as valid as any other means of armchair investigation when not lucky enough to have been the actual witness. And that's just my opinion Fila, so if we move on from 'the old ways of investigation' as you intimated ....what else did you have in mind my friend?
Cheers Buddy.
Sheltie
Fratty and out of touch.
Unfortunately, I think ufology is a field that requires us to take some things on faith. I quite agree with 1963's assertion that, despite the multitude of convincing photographs available, there is still no smoking gun that proves without the shadow of a doubt that ET not only exists but is regularly visiting us. However, with the ever increasing rate of technological advances as they are, we may in our lifetimes see the desired true evidence.
Sheltie
Fratty and out of touch.
I'm also glad 1963 brought up the issue of the many photographs introduced over the years reputed to be of genuine UFOs that have never been debunked, despite countless efforts to do so. There certainly seems to be a consensus among many that the burden of proof at all times rests with the ET believers. Simply put, it's not enough to produce dynamic, convincing photographs that cannot be disproved, one must also thoroughly convince the naysayers or it's all completely irrelevant.
Sheltie
Fratty and out of touch.
Yes, this is the argument believers use to justify the inability to photograph ghosts and spirits. It is claimed they are only seen through the viewer's mind's eye and, therefore, cannot be captured by cameras. ET visitors could also be coming from such a plane of existence.
Sheltie
Fratty and out of touch.
Despite the many advancements in the field of medicine, science has still not proven that human beings have a soul yet we assume people are alive. We do everything we can to save people's lives and in the eyes of the law murder is the most severe crime one can commit.
Ab30s
Novice
CasualBystander
Celestial
I believe there is a possibility you may be right.
That is why we should concentrate on improving weaponry so we can either gain evidence (through debris analysis or autopsy) or rule out conclusively that they are physical objects.
Wraith Sheppard
Honorable
. . . soon we will begin doubting our eyes.
Kchoo
At Peace.
They say it is not supernatural, but a high level of advancement.
In the example of instant hyper hops and portals:
It is impossible for us to relate, because we do not have the vocabulary for it.
The best way Brunette could describe it is that they ask the power of the universe to accept them and provide them the means to achieve something... that the universe is tempermental and may not always cooperate... and she appologized because she knew this was a very primitive description, but it involves both technology and a desire.
I called BS on that... so she changed the subject to technology for more traditional travels which we can relate to.
I think our M Drive is a precursor to their tech. The engine she showed me looked similar.
In the example of instant hyper hops and portals:
It is impossible for us to relate, because we do not have the vocabulary for it.
The best way Brunette could describe it is that they ask the power of the universe to accept them and provide them the means to achieve something... that the universe is tempermental and may not always cooperate... and she appologized because she knew this was a very primitive description, but it involves both technology and a desire.
I called BS on that... so she changed the subject to technology for more traditional travels which we can relate to.
I think our M Drive is a precursor to their tech. The engine she showed me looked similar.
Last edited:
CasualBystander
Celestial
You mean the EMDrive? (Shawyer calls it EMDrive because it is an electro-magnetic drive system).
This is more properly called a radio frequency (RF) resonant cavity thruster.
Nobody with technical training says "radio frequency". You just say "RF".
Kchoo
At Peace.
Yeah sorry... got lazy... EM drive
Area201
cold fusion
I was just listening to Richard Dolan interviewed by Dark Journalist, and he mentions that it is possible to use pictures to prove conclusively, however it would involve at least 3 separate parties documenting the same thing at the same time. This combination would/should be enough to overcome, only the head in the sand irrational skeptics would be left behind.
He thinks one day a big enough event will occur that will be caught by many people like this, and will be irrefutable. Less than this, yes everything else you wrote here applies. Nice wrapup.
His interview: Dark Journalist - Go for truth! The truth is never easy
CerealK
Adept
A supernatural entity would not need a space ship so I think they are physical like us.
Gambeir
Celestial
I think it can be both because what is a supernatural being? Isn't it more likely that Supernatural being is really just one who has greater technological savvy?
Many of the qualities humans have always assigned to the Supernatural are now explainable, at least in theory, so now there appears to be plausible explanations for phenomena.