UFO Conjecture(s)

Thursday, March 01, 2012

How UFO photos are hoaxed and why UFO aficionados accept them


This is a short (truncated) clip from a NOVA presentation (early 1980s) about hoaxed UFO photos, with attention on the British Warminster sighting(s).

How easily UFO "experts" are fooled and why UFO mavens believe hoaxed photos are authentic:

Click HERE for edification...

16 Comments:

  • Well, this excellent clip offers many lessons that will fail on piously deaf ears.

    The contention made in the clip that most photos of UFOs are accepted is no longer true, I think.

    Technology has made even the most gullible enthusiast as least somewhat cautious about photos.

    Every other problem noted here with UFO "experts" remains in place as these self-appointed, clueless ministers of misinformation ply their trade, blind, grasping, superfluous and wrong.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Thursday, March 01, 2012  

  • "The contention made in the clip that most photos of UFOs are accepted is no longer true, I think."

    I agree. Few people would now accept photos and videos of UFOs as genuine as they did in the Warminster days or before.

    Look at all the techniques available today with computer animation software enabling you to fake almost anything under the sun. The modern films showing prehistoric creatures look very real indeed, yet we all know they are modern computer-generated imagery.

    The few old UFO films, on the other hand, would have needed far more elaborate care to be faked.

    The old photos are still dug up as good evidence for the very reason that hardly anyone would give a moment's thought to the modern ones.

    In fact any UFO film or even photo produced today would most likely be ignored as evidence. The risk is that a perfectly authentic modern one might be rejected now as rapidly as the early ones were so eagerly accepted.

    I do believe the Great Falls and Tremonton films are genuine, but unfortunately they prove nothing, and never did. But for Maccabee or anyone else to endorse the Gulf Breeze photos as genuine simply defies belief.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, March 01, 2012  

  • What I found interesting was the setup. Apparently, no "believers" took photos. We have no statements from them about it. All we have is the usual academic cribbing from the skeptics' atheist playbook and going on about "religious" belief.

    Was the group at the scene "believers"? If so, where was the control group?

    I think the clip demonstrates that academics and skeptics are sloppy, too.

    One reason I focus on the summer of 47 is that there was no time for "belief" to develop; there is no language to express it, yet. In this "first time" era, belief is expressed in other terms and is easy to spot (apocalyptic Christians and occultists, for example). Even the hoaxes are obvious because this is a "first time". Hoaxers and believers must refer to something that is not the "ufo myth" we know because it didn't exist then.

    As far as I've been able to determine, the few photos from this "first time" were not taken by anyone like today's "ufo maven".

    Screw it. More dismal ET/Anti-ET rhetoric suitable for the frosh debating society.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger don, at Thursday, March 01, 2012  

  • Just like Socorro, Rich illustrates in highlighting this clip how young scientists are often behind such hoaxes.

    Just like Socorro, Dave Simpson in this video was a budding physicist behind the hoax.

    Just like Socorro, this shows how aspiring engineers like to challenge "experts" by fooling them.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Thursday, March 01, 2012  

  • "Just like Socorro"?

    Where are the Socorro photos then?

    I mean of the UFO not the landing ground.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, March 01, 2012  

  • Here is a vote for agnostics as far as the obvious anti-intellectual trap of falling into the trap of hard core belief versus hard boiled dismissal of the whole affair. Yes, the value of photographic evidence is nil in terms of hard core evidence, in terms of hoaxing from the general public. However, gun camera footage to my knowledge is not faked, nor is the video footage from various space platforms..That being said, those can be largely parsed as to their "reality" such as optical errors, mistaken bits of ice crystals, sun dogs etc as far as the culling of images is concerned. However as far as all sources being suspect, I think that's a bridge too far for common sense. Even though the boy cries wolf that does not mean a wolf may not be lurking around, albeit it may not be a wolf after all is said and dome.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, March 01, 2012  

  • Tony,

    I don't think anyone doubts the existence of pranks and hoaxes.

    What I doubt is that you can get Zamora to the scene for such a hoax.

    Since it is not difficult to identify and locate the speeding motorist, I have to wonder why you haven't posted about it.

    If the motorist supports your thesis, then you are at least halfway to proving it. But if not, then where does it leave it?


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger don, at Thursday, March 01, 2012  

  • Hi Don-

    You are astute. But at this time that is all I can say on that because of just how right you are, that is, how close you are to the next phase of my Socorro investigation.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Thursday, March 01, 2012  

  • "How UFO photos are hoaxed and why UFO aficionados accept them"

    There is nothing at all about UFO aficionados accepting anything.

    Maybe I missed it, but the hoaxer was not inclined to tell us what the people of the "ufo watch" had to say, even though they were obviously the target of his prank. Instead, it appears they had to 'repurpose' the prank and had to shop the hoax around for a couple years to get a response...well, two responses.

    One is in an article written by someone whose name I don't know, but the other we are informed is a real, live scientist.

    So, what if anything could be considered "proved" by this farce? That scientists are gullible saucer zealots who don't want to know the truth because it threatens their religous beliefs?

    Maybe there's more to this than what was summarized in the clip, but the clip is what you show us.

    My guess what happened is the "ufo watchers" snickered when one of the pranksters pretended to take a night time photo with that Chrome Age camera.

    Thanks for the laugh.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger don, at Friday, March 02, 2012  

  • Another example of a 'hoaxed' photo is the two Fort Worth photos shown in THE ROSWELL INCIDENT. The photos themselves are quite genuine, but the way they were presented to readers was deceitful.

    Both were severely cropped in order to prove the authors' thesis that one showed the 'real thing', i.e. the actual debris, while the other showed the so-called substituted debris. Readers were then told of the 'switch', whereby the real debris went on to Wright Field while the substituted balloon was shown to the press at Ft. Worth.

    This is all old hat now, but the genesis of this tale is embodied in these two, in effect, doctored or fake photos. Had the full uncut photos been shown in the book and had it been obvious that both showed exactly the same debris, the 'switch' story would never have got going.

    Thanks to Kevin Randle, eventually (ten years later) the full uncut photos were found and printed. But that in turn led to another fiction, which we need not go into again.

    A hoax with a difference.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, March 02, 2012  

  • "What I doubt is that you can get Zamora to the scene for such a hoax.

    Since it is not difficult to identify and locate the speeding motorist, I have to wonder why you haven't posted about it.

    If the motorist supports your thesis, then you are at least halfway to proving it. But if not, then where does it leave it?"

    The driver was described as a very young male by Zamora. I have to think he was part of the plan.

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Friday, March 02, 2012  

  • Frank: "The driver was described as a very young male by Zamora. I have to think he was part of the plan."

    Frank, The web page you have referred us to since 2009 is not a primary document. It is redacted and contains transcription errors.

    A key to doing good research is to vet your documentation.

    May I suggest Blue Book?

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger don, at Friday, March 02, 2012  

  • "Frank, The web page you have referred us to since 2009 is not a primary document. It is redacted and contains transcription errors.

    A key to doing good research is to vet your documentation."

    What do you have that refutes that Zamora saw a "boy about 17" speeding in a Chevrolet."? What are you offering? That it MIGHT have been Floyd Reynolds' boy?

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Saturday, March 03, 2012  

  • Frank: "What are you offering? That it MIGHT have been Floyd Reynolds' boy?"

    No. That it might not have been.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger don, at Saturday, March 03, 2012  

  • Frank: "What do you have that refutes that Zamora saw a "boy about 17" speeding in a Chevrolet."?"

    The Zamora statement you have quoted or directed readers to since 2009.

    ***

    I've a problem with continuing with this exchange. One reason is Tony seems to think I'm on a similar course as his investigation. I'm not an investigator (I do research and analysis from the armchair), and I respect Tony for his field work. I don't want to step into his domain in a public forum while he is investigating.

    The other is, I'm suspicious of Frank because of how he has (mis)informed his readers (and probably himself) about this story for years. So, I do not feel charitable towards him.

    I'm going to end my part in the discussion and refer Frank and anyone who is interested to read the paragraph in question and see if you agree with me that not only does it not support Frank's contention that Zamora said he saw a ""boy about 17" speeding in a Chevrolet", but that Zamora's statement makes it impossible for him to have identified anything about the driver visually.

    And let me point to a 'trivial' datapoint of importance: Zamora couldn't get the license number, either.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger don, at Sunday, March 04, 2012  

  • I've a problem with continuing with this exchange. I'm suspicious of Frank because of how he has (mis)informed his readers (and probably himself) about this story for years. So, I do not feel charitable towards him."

    You've got nothing, not even a token argument.

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Saturday, March 10, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home