To Those Who Do Not Understand 'CGI-deaology'
by Kris Avery
|Source: UFODigest.Com||URL: http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0608/CGI-deaology.html|
To Those Who Do Not Understand
by Kris Avery
(Copyright 2008, Kris Avery - all Rights Reserved)
Posted: 15:00 June 28, 2008
This is a response to Vince Whites article::
Some months ago, Vince and I exchanged 2 emails. Vince refers to these in his open letter. He mentions "Great sport", and "all great fun," as though this was my response to the email that he sent me. I find this highly strange, since his initial email when contacting me contained the following…
Is this Vince's answer to everything?
I mean, a person would be extremely lucky to capture a video of a UFO in any detail as it is, let alone sitting around with two HD video cameras on the off chance that something might turn up!
Does anyone have the spare time in their lives to do this? Has Vince tried this himself?
My response to this bizarre email was the following…
Vince returned an email with a similar rant...
Now do you see how many times Vince refers to "FUN" in this email? Did I ever mention the word fun? Did I even mention anything to the effect of having a fun time?
Now, just how many questions in the above rant are actually questions that can be answered from the information we have?
If Mr White had actually invested any time in actual truth seeking or investigation in regard to the drones, he would know all about the research that has gone on, he would also know about my own personal involvement in the research.
What he doesn't seem to appreciate is that it is pointless trying to ascertain whether the drones use "Biefeld Brown effects", tap into power lines, store energy, or the pattern of their deployment because on the evidence and information we have, it is impossible to determine! It would be total conjecture!
Before any time is wasted postulating as to their power source, origin, functionality or use, it needs to be concluded that they are in fact real in the first place!
I wrote back to Mr White with the following, and never received a reply...
I have witnessed a true UFO, it was one of the greatest days of my life, and is etched into my mind for all time. I for one KNOW that there is something visiting this planet. What I saw moved so fast that I do not believe we are even remotely capable of achieving such speeds with total silence.
So when it comes to the study of UFOs, all I seek is the truth. No other study exists in this world that is abused so heavily by hoaxers, jokers and money making leeches. I am none of these, and all I ever set out to do was to find the truth and share my knowledge. We all have an angle of attack when trying to solve a problem. We are all unique.
Myself, being the acclaimed "CG-Idiot" approached the drone case having seen the initial wave of photos that were put anonymously onto the internet. This first batch of images looked rendered (from a CG package). But can I prove it? What counts as proof? How many people's opinions count as validation? Proof was not my goal. I merely wanted to show that a CG model was a distinct possibility.
What seemed to be missed over and over again by every man and his dog, is that I didn't set out to prove the Drones were fake/ CG. All I wanted was to even the playing field. There were some very vocal individuals who made ridiculous claims that it was impossible for the drones to be created using CG and that they were totally real. They could no more prove they were real than I could prove them fake. And yet, it was these same individuals who would keep laying down the gauntlet, challenging me to recreate the drones perfectly. No matter what I did however, they would always come back saying that the work I did was no where even close to the original drone images. But it is easy to say something is fake when you know this fact before hand, is it not?
Some would see me crucified for questioning the reality of the drones. They believe in them so blindly, but with zero evidence. A CG guy is a focus of hate because perhaps they bring into question all photographic and video evidence. However, this isn't the fault of a person who creates CG images; it is the inevitable outcome of the advancement in digital photography and 3D imaging software. Inevitable.
In this modern world, we no longer have photographic negatives, and we have the internet, which allows for totally anonymous submission of images. The drone case plays directly into the hands of this modern technology, it exploits it.
So who should be the focus of hate? (if anyone?) Let us just say for a moment that I am right, and the drone case is a total hoax… what of the hoaxer? Should it not be the creators of a hoax that should be hanged? Is it not they that should be roasted for making a mockery of this subject we hold most dear? Is it really so wrong for someone with a background in Computer imaging to stand up and use his or her skills to try and expose these hoaxers? Is that not a noble cause? Is that not an attempt to clear the muddy waters of UFOlogy?
If there is a hoax, then I want to make sure that they are found out. There are too many people out there poking fingers at those who study UFOs. In my mind, finding the truth on this subject is extremely important. But the ridicule that I am sure everyone has faced at some point or another is made even worse by those that believe without any validated evidence. When they do that, they are sinking into the realm of faith, and are turning it all into a religion, not a scientific and logical pursuit! They don't see just how damaging this approach can be to the wider study of this unique phenomenon.
There is a distasteful core to the study of UFOs that openly invites ridicule. Whether it is the 'out there' would-be figure heads (they know who they are), or the ones who follow them, and believe everything they are told as fact, they bring shame on this important pursuit.
A hoax is created to ridicule these very people! Does no one question how all of the drones witnesses ended up at the door of 2 of these figure heads? Figure heads who will put any story out there without any investigation. Withholding evidence from a wider community. Making all of us laughing stocks. Is the study of UFOs about making money? Or is it about sharing information, ideas and seeking the truth?
If my crime is one of questioning what is real and what is not, then I gladly hold my hands up.
In my mind, the drones are a clever concoction, but ultimately a hoax. This is my opinion. Everyone is welcome to theirs. But I will not be deemed an idiot for trying to share knowledge of what tricks can be played in this modern world.Once upon a time a hubcap would have been thrown into the sky, and a photo taken of it might have been claimed as a UFO. These days, the hubcap is a series of polygons and points, with described surfaces in a virtual world. But the effect is the same, just more complex. Digital photography allows the creator to place the objects into the scenery of an image. Reflect off the water, sit behind a tree, cast a shadow on the ground. All of this can be done without detection. So true evidence comes down to (at best) physical evidence (a physical artefact, or traces of a physical artefact) or verifiable witnesses who can be deemed as trustworthy without ulterior motives.
The drone case has none of these. It doesn't guarantee it to be fake, but it does make it impossible to claim as real. The evasive nature of the drone photo witnesses also adds strength to the hoax theory.
"Isaac" is the name of the person who presented the documents that came as a finale to the series of drone witnesses. Did you know that Isaac means "He will laugh" in Hebrew? Does that not say anything at all? The project he worked on was called CARET, a dangling carrot? Stringing the UFO community along? This person, who ever he is, is laughing at US! Making a mockery of a subject we all hold dear. If the accusation of "CGI-diot" needs to be thrust in anyone's direction, then let it be the perpetrator of this elaborate hoax, not those that have worked hard to try and uncover the truth. There is no "Fun" in being crucified for standing up and having a voice.
Personally, I stand up in the face of this hostility, and hold my head high.
Vince may have deemed me "a threat" to his own world, because I bring into question what is real. But I would rather keep an open mind than be led down a garden path by those that would laugh at us.
Editor's Note: I would like to apologize to Kris Avery and all honest CGI artists for applying the term "CGO-diot" (which I, not Vince White coined) to label "hoaxers."
Being a serious UFO researcher, I take issue with "hoaxers" and exploiters of this field for "fun or profit" as it has led in the past to unnecessary contention, disputes and distraction from the serious work at hand.
The difference between a CGI artist like Kris Avery and a "CGI-diot" performs his art/profession for entertainment value and not to dupe his audience. A "CGI-diot" exploits the audience by foisting falsehoods portrayed as real on those who are seriously interested in a subject for their own titillation and/or profit.
I have had my time and research efforts wasted in the past, either by being misled or in having to debunk faked photos or videos. For me, one of the worst examples of malicious hoaxes is to be found in the actions of Kenjiro Mori, who (by his own admission) intentionally faked a purported photo of the Roswell Crash, combining imagery from a Twilight Zone episode with an image of an EBE from Ray Santilli's "Alien Autopsy."
Ken Mori claims to have conducted his hoax (as Vince White says) "for fun," to determine how quickly false information could be disseminated via Internet, a foolish experiment, to say the least, as everyone knows that Internet information is propagated almost instantaneously in the online communities of common interests.
Other miscreants conduct hoaxes simply out of greed for profit and others to discredit UFOlogy.
There is another class of "UFO art" which involves intentional fakery, such as the work of Jeff Ritzmann in regard to the Billy Meier photos.
However, the difference between Mr. Ritzmann and Mori's moronic prank is that Ritzmann produced his fakes openly, labelling them so, in order to show how the Meier photos could have been faked (but with little success).
There is a great difference between motivations in the 2 efforts. The first, Mori's hoax, is patently dishonest (he took many months to admit the hoax) while the second, Mr. Ritzmann's work, can be viewed as a valid instrument that can be useful in an investigation in exposing hoaxes. But with the sophistication of modern CGI software, this is becoming more difficult (as in the CARAT/Drone hoaxed photos).
Here is a link to the Billy Meier photos on Michael Horn's official website:
And here is a link to Jeff Ritzman's fakes, which he hoped would debunk the Meier photos.
However, the contention, dispute and debate between Michael Horn and Jeff Ritzmann continue to this day unabated. This kind of argument and dispute is valid and can be good for UFOlogy. "Mori the Moron's" hoax (his personal practical joke) is not and is a discredit and impediment to the advancement of serious UFOlogy.
With thanks to Kris Avery and Vince White for their views and contributions on this important topic.
Robert D. Morningstar
Editor, UFO Digest
New York City
June 28th, 2008
© 1998-2008. «UFODigest.Com». When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to UFODigest.Com should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of UFODigest.Com's editors.