Recycled hoaxes

[nablator]

Hoaxers are a lazy bunch.

When I started looking into digital photographs of UFOs five years ago I expected to find a few really good ones, that could pass at least basic tests. I'm still looking for one. The "best" UFO photos (meaning most saucer-like) are paraded on countless websites, for the enjoyment of the gullible. They are supposedly real by virtue of not being debunked yet.

Here are a few that have something in common.

May 27, 2004, Big Bear Mountain, Californie, USA
http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/ ... oto417.htm

January 31, 2008, Indiana, USA
http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/ ... oto427.htm

May 2006, Bagdad, Irak
http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/ ... oto424.htm

[nablator]

The Big Bear mountain photo displays one of Billy Meier's pleiadian beamship (#639) cut, pasted and colorized :


My reconstitution :


The one in the center is the one from the Big Bear Mountain photo, the four others around it are resized copies of Billy Meier's work, experiments with different selection and fusion parameters in Photoshop. They don't match perfectly but a few pixel sized details match on the rim of the saucer, which is strong evidence IMHO.

Second photo. The dark UFO with lights all around it is nearly the same as the one in the "chinese" video of 2006:

UFO Videotaped in China, August, 2006
(In this video there is a tracking error just before the final disparition BTW.)

Third photo. The disk comes from Finland:

September 23, 2004, Kustavi (Finland), an anonymous hoaxed picture

These hoaxes are ecological, they are recycled.

[chrLz]

Nicely done..

There's another type I've noticed too, and that's the type of ufo sighter who is just incredibly lucky, and keeps seeing amazing ufo's! They often recycle their existences, turning up on forums under different names while recycling the same/similar sightings for a new audience.

They are also invariably equipped with the ideal camera gear for capturing every useful nuance of detail in their ufo, namely a $39 camera phone, so they are ensuring that their carbon footprint is much smaller than someone carrying, say, a DSLR. Bravo, I say!

(and they usually live near airports.. therefore proving that ufos are interested in our technology!)

[RICH-ENGLAND]

nice work nab.

and yes chrlz, its amazing how many of these believers manage to have multiple sightings and manage to capture them on video (badly may i add).

almost all of the you tube ufo posters have many (crappy) videos on their channels.

thanks

rich

[Access Denied]

This thread could become a good resource. I've moved it here to the Famous Hoaxes forum for easy reference.

My contribution…

McMinnville, Oregon - May 1950
http://www.debunker.com/trent.html

Rouen, France - March 1954 (1957)
http://www.nicap.org/france57rep.htm

Cleary this isn't a new phenomenon.

[I crack myself up sometimes]

[chrLz]

Perilously close to off-topic, but I thought this one was a good example of *why* hoaxes and completely ridiculous misidentifications get recycled..

There is this page at a supposed ufo 'investigation' site:
UFOSNW.COM
Note in particular the 'investigation' maps and notes (which rather remind me of Bruce Maccabee - lots of tiny details and calculations, while completely ignoring the huge elephant in the room...)

As you can probably see without too much difficulty, it is very obviously a motion-blurred picture of a streetlamp. Umm, it's just possibly *not* a 'Funnel Cloud With Strange Light on Top'. (Forgive my mirth...)

When this idiocy was raised at a CT forum, I sent a quite detailed email to the site owner and 'alleged' ufo investigator, William Puckett. My email was polite, included a full explanation, and even included a picture and a Google Earth link showing the EXACT streetlamps, with the perfect matching profile, at exactly the location supplied by the hoaxer (er misidentifier..). I made a point of noting the FALSIFICATION in the page, that 'these photos "do not show any light poles" along the highway'...

I got an equally polite reply - he was going to look into it....


That was many months ago. It's still there, with no comment, and the LIE remains. Well, done, William...

[nablator]

As you can probably see without too much difficulty, it is very obviously a motion-blurred picture of a streetlamp. Umm, it's just possibly *not* a 'Funnel Cloud With Strange Light on Top'. (Forgive my mirth...)

Yes, possibly...
But this is not a hoax. Only an extreme example of the "I want to believe" syndrome.

[IsaacKoi]

Hoaxers are a lazy bunch.

Not all of them. Some are rather skilled and willing to put a lot of time and effort into their hoaxes/artwork (e.g. some of the crop circle hoaxers).

The really lazy hoaxers are almost as much of an insult to harder working hoaxers as they are to ufologists.

In terms of recycling of hoaxes, more basic than the examples given above are occasions where a hoaxer has ONLY changed the title and date of an existing video and then gets publicity for a "new" video.

Newly uploaded videos with a very recent date can get publicity as "new" videos, even if the same video has been online for YEARS with a different title and date.

Because I find such lazy hoaxing rather, well, offensive, I've spent a bit of time over the years finding and exposing such examples.

I thought it worth adding a couple of examples to this thread.

For example, on the thread at the link below in 2009, I pointed out that a video associated with local media reports in England of a video accompanied by text such as this on newspaper websites: "Jamie Gardner, from Wolverhampton, said he captured a video recording of a triangular-shaped UFO floating over the Black Country shopping centre while he was walking to a friend’s house near Netherton hill" had in fact been online for YEARS as a video filmed over Paris:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread512535/pg1


Similarly, press reports in 2010 of a video showing a UFO travelling at "mind-boggling speed near the River Liffey in Dublin" were in fact of a video that had previously been online with a completely different story attached to it (stating it was filmed above Fremont, California in 2008):
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread537284/pg1