I just wanted to show out how pointless it is arguing over whether or not a video/image contains an extraterrestrial.
In fact., it actually does more harm due to the fact that fake UFO footage can be proven fake.., but a legit photograph will never be considered proof.
Constantly searching for proof in a video means that we will only ever find
1) Fake images
2) Inconclusive images
After hours of research and debate.., at best a UFO video/pic will be inconclusive.., which just adds to the feeling that its all BS.
We will never be able to prove ETs exist just from looking at YouTube videos and listening to stories.
I believe we have enough credible UFO video footage, images and eye witness testimonies to move past this form of "research" and focus on solving the problem once and for all.
We've been relying on these 'investigative techniques" for 70+ years now, with no avail.
Perhaps its time to realise the futility in these attempts and start thinking of new ways to move forward.
78 years of looking at pictures and listening to stories has achieved nothing.
Another 80 years of looking at pics, and listening to stories will not prove anything.
The last generation wasted decades on this fruitless investigation.., lets not continue the cycle for another 80 years
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.