3 ms·
> The problem with the UFO evidence is, it's shitty every single time. Of course it is. The greater the clarity of the footage, the lower the probability that
by runeks 9y ago
> The problem with the UFO evidence is, it's shitty every single time.
Of course it is. The greater the clarity of the footage, the lower the probability that the filmed object will remain unidentified (as in Unidentified Flying Object).
If you’re on the look for unidentified things, how could anything but unclear evidence be useful?
- Houshalter 9y agoEven when people do get clear video, people just accuse it of being a drone or CGI. Video evidence means shit in 2017.
- bufferoverflow 9y agoThat's not entirely true. Cameras are starting to introduce video signing. At least there's a chance to prove the source was filmed with camera X, if its public key is known. It would be cool if camera manufacturers had a public API for that too. Example: http://www.urbanalarm.com/knowledge-base/2016/digital-chain-of-custody-for-mobotix-video-cameras http://www.urbanalarm.com/knowledge-base/2016/digital-chain-...
- nerflad 9y agoWhat a great idea.
- runeks 9y ago> At least there's a chance to prove the source was filmed with camera X, if its public key is known. To be fair, the only thing that can be proven is that it was either filmed with that camera, or someone has extracted the private key from the device (or just tricked the signing chip to sign a custom data packet).