Wednesday, June 22, 2005
UFO Fleet Project - Phase 1 results
Phase 1 is over, and I'm releasing the clips for your viewing pleasure. Keeping in mind that these clips are made with me holding the camera in one hand and the glass in the other, I am unable to zoom in and out or focus in or out of the frame. Even so, I think the technique is suggesting itself in a few of these clips, and with refinement in Phase 2, we should see some major improvements.
Click here to go to the Phase 1 site. (Once there, text links can be clicked to "open", or right-clicked to "save as..."
This still frame shows a spot on the glass, and my reflection,
which needs not to be there. Still too much sun!
What people consitently fail to realise that it is relatively easy today to fake UFO video footage - and not just for a guy like me in the film and television industry. This doesn't mean that all such footage is fake, of course - but rather than argue over whether they are really aliens, or birds, or balloons, or whatever, the question should be asked - "who took the pictures?" This should then be followed with, "did he have the knowledge and equipment that would have allowed him to create the video?" If the answer to the latter question is "yes," then one should proceed with extreme caution.
This isn't pelicanism or debunkery, by the way - it's just simple common sense, a commodity that seems to be in short supply in ufology these days.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks for the comments. I agree completely with your logic here. Brian Bessent for one has foisted hoaxes before.
A search of his name in Google pulls up an older clip on rense.com (a dubious place to begin with). The clip shows a very obvious light reflection tracing up and out of frame.
Likewise, Arturo Robles Gil of "UFO fleet" fame was also a perpetrator of a hoax involving office lighting, and an infamous episode involving a toy saucer.
"Consider the source", a common-sense suggestion, is the "caveat emptor" of Ufology.
That Bessent is a fim-maker and Robles Gil is a professional photographer should at the very least provide a necessary "filter" for assessing their creative works.
And I will never understand how trying to separate the wheat from the chaff so as to focus on the real anomalies, can be so cavalierly called "debunking". If taken as its own definition, I would think thst Ufology itself is the process of debunking...removing the "bunk" from the landscape, so that debate can be focused on the cases truly worthy thereof.
Is separating the wheat from the chaff makes one a "debunker" (and in my case, the chaff is, at the moment, Wilbert Smith and MJ-12), then I guess that's a label I'll just wear proudly - even as I consider the sources of the accusations, who are either (a) true believers (hard to get too made at them), or (b) people who have a vested interest in seeing the chaff harvested and sold as wheat (to stretch the analogy to its limit).