Top 5 UFO Video Hoax Tips

[Steve]

Short clip that you may find interesting.

Top 5 UFO Video Hoax Tips (Runtime: 02:44)

news.discovery.com/videos/space-top-5-ufo-video-hoax-tips.html

This video confirms some of the subtle techniques I already knew from common sense and from being taught by friend Marc D' Antonio. I re-introduced Marc back into Mufon years ago after helping me with the 'Drone hoax cases' which were being blindly promoted by Linda Moulton Howe that were surfacing in my state - Northern California. I told James Carrion about him, and suddenly Marc was his new best friend.

I have a little more respect for LMH now at least after her more recent new follow up fresh research with Jim Penniston / John Burroughs about Rendlesham Forest, Bentwaters, Woodbridge.

These videos in the news broadcast I confess are disturbing in their convincing nature. Interesting as in many comments here in this forum.... as the video states...such objects are purposely never that clear in focus with all the latest digital devices.

There are some impressive still photos of objects reported also shot through tree branches too some time back I recall.

www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo416.htm

Makes me wish to perhaps reevaluate these photos now too?

Steve


January, 2007 - Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
(refering to this photo in my comment above).

www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo416.htm

[skywalker]

I still don't understand why people create hoaxes. Why would somebody go through all of the time, effort and expense of creating some elaborate hoax and then spend the rest of their lives denying that they did it? What's the point?

If I ever catch somebody creating a hoax I think I will ask them why they did it...then I will stomp the snot out of them.

[paulette]

I totally understand why people hoax. They didn't and still don't get attention for what they do and who they are (and as adults are bitter about that). So they do something that both gets attention and proves that the others who are taken in are stupid and not worth knowing anyway. Two birds with one faked film. IMO.

[Deleted]

Its too bad these "attention seekers" are clogging up the truth causing researchers to have to filter out whats legit and what isnt. These people who "cry wolf" may inevitably regret this in the near future when they come face to face with reality and then who will believe them ? I feel that the subject of ufos and the true existence of other races visiting this planet is a serious one and it shouldnt be played with for dishonest gain,what a shame and waste of time !!

[Steve]

I did about 360 plus cases in Mufon, and managed overseeing more I assigned to field investigators I was responsible for.

I have to say.... hoaxes were really not too prevalent as some might think - perhaps 5%?

I would say we had about 5% on one end - 'unexplained'. What constituted 'Unexplained' is arguable. Sure the more magnification of details under the microscope, the numbers of 'Unexplained' would diminish further. To continue refining and still come up 'Unexplained'.... was in a way....very cool. Investigators seem to ironically love being stumped with a problem they have looked at from every angle. It doesn't necessarily mean extraterrestrial either...just 'unexplained'.

At the other end were about 5% hoax cases. They were usually not real hard to spot either. Photo trickery we were trained to spot, elaborate false stories...which in time one of the culprits will spill the truth collapsing the whole deck of cards. Most are just reports by stupid kids, and they are very easy to spot having read most of them unfortunately. Basically the kid will describe the events of the entire 2.5 hour Close Encounters of the third kind in one very short poorly written paragraph. Such a profound event in one paragraph? One important consideration I asked myself gaging a story was how really scared the witness was. That witness you just interviewed was really scared....

You further just don't wrap up such a report from a witness after just one interview either. You follow up.... look for consistency.... I have remained in contact with a number of witnesses over years even. You could tell the difference. The last cruel weapon if necessary (only had to once, and only because they probably deserved it too) is having the witness describe what happened back-wards! If they are lying, they bog down and get stuck keeping their lies in order. Old police interrogation thing.

The vast majority...the other 85 to 90% tend to be misidentified conventional objects or naturally occurring phenomenon.

For a good investigator with much experience reading reports as I and others have...with some invaluable 'institutional memory' hopefully....keeps everyone sharp, which is a good thing.

The real annoying ones, are not so much the hoaxers, but the vocal few - the 'true & blind believers', who argue with little or any supportable facts an obvious hoax is real. Perpetuating the distraction....and confusion of the obvious. The 'Drone' CGI hoax, was one good example. The digital data proved it was a hoax, even to laypersons. Yet ' LMH' would constantly describe a new witness had just surfaced with the latest new report who just happened always to be anonymous and always unavailable. When a witness name did appear..and was checked out....it was always bogus. LMH has hindered and distracted for personal promotion of her website, as much as she has also brought out certain truths too....like her early cattle mutilation work and the recent new Rendalsham information. As daring as she portends to be, and is too at times...like anyone, sometimes you strike out, other times a home run.

I think it is important for us here - each in our own way to have our own litheness test to gage by. We are very lucky here at this web site...we have had people that have seen entities with their own eyes...face to face....others have seen UFO craft too, some in combination .... they possess that invaluable base which themselves can gage when something seems just too fake or all too real. Because each of our thresholds for that credibility 'line' is different, it makes for some friendly, fun and insightful comments for us to reevaluate.

Steve

[skywalker]

I think it is important for us here - each in our own way to have our own litheness test to gage by. We are very lucky here at this web site...we have had people that have seen entities with their own eyes...face to face....others have seen UFO craft too, some in combination .... they possess that invaluable base which themselves can gage when something seems just too fake or all too real. Because each of our thresholds for that credibility 'line' is different, it makes for some friendly, fun and insightful comments for us to reevaluate.

I agree with that last paragraph completely. Having that personal experience gives people a huge edge when it comes to judging other people's experiences. If for no other reason than because they know beyond a shadow of doubt that something is going on. I was a skeptic for so long that my first reaction any time I see anything is to think "what if it's a hoax?" But then I start thinking about my own experiences, and the next question that pops in my head is "what if it's real?" Being able to compare things to my own experiences makes a huge difference.

[bodleyfludes]

Sometimes it must be possible to confidently identify a hoaxer, but sometimes the truth will ever be in doubt. My own view is that hoaxers are there, possibly more so now the Internet makes dissemination of false information so much easier, and applications like Photoshop make it easy for those with the skill, and evil intent. But I think hoaxers are of a kind with vandals and people devoid of empathy - the violent criminals, rapists, child molesters, etc. who command so much of the horror-hungry news media, and get a lot of publicity, but who represent in fact a very small proportion of the population.
It may be that misinterpretation of insufficient evidence produces the great majority of reports of UFOs, ghosts, anomalous creatures and strangeness in general. The few likely genuine cases of anomalous happenings tend to get hidden among all the rest of it.
But there seems to me a huge swell of opinion chooses to believe ALL strange phenomena is bunk. Maybe the unknown makes them uncomfortable, or maybe they prefer to move with the crowd. And as for ourselves, we, the rational minority (ahem), it seems we don't want to believe that deliberate falsehood, distorted truth and illogic, is a key element in human behaviour. I know that people who have believed something since childhood, and late in life suddenly had it brought home to them with unequivocal evidence that, whatever the belief, it was total nonsense - they were wrong all along. Even in possession of the truth, the individual insists on continuing to believe their nonsense, for reason of habit and comfort, despite having proof to the contrary. In essence, people believe what they want to believe: what they are comfortable believing. Just one opinion.