You missed my point. What makes someone an official is that they've been authorised to give the official stance of their organisation.
Look at your source material. They don't refer to these people as officials because they are not officials.

Like I said. It doesn't matter what I show you. Your mind is already made up. If I showed you a video of an alien craft, you'd say it was CGI. If I show you a video of an alien body, you'd say it's a plastic dummy. If I show you one moving and breathing, you say it's a puppet.

This video wasn't made to prove to anyone that it's real. It was part of the protocol when interviewing these beings to have video recordings made of the interviews. According to the story behind this video, this interview was cut short when the being had some sort of physical fit. It's like it was choking on something, but without any real medical basis for understanding it's physiology, the medical team could do very little but check for obstructions in it's breathing passages. It's dark because apparently they are sensitive to bright lights, what with them big almond eyes. The video was apparently leaked when the original analog tapes were transfered to new digital media. I don't know anything else about it, and none of this has any evidence, it's merely the story being passed around with the video.

I love how you take video commentators statements as more valid than your own lying eyes.

DarkView wrote:

You missed my point. What makes someone an official is that they've been authorised to give the official stance of their organisation.
Look at your source material. They don't refer to these people as officials because they are not officials.

Tomato Tomahto. You missed my point that these are people granted the highest levels of trust and confidence in our military and government facilities. Their credentials speak for themselves. The fact that they were charged and trusted to keep the highest of our security complexes secure, to man our nuclear weapons and to monitor our military airspace should be more than enough to grant them a certain level of believability when they claim to have witnessed extraordinary events. If there's a group of people you should have no issue with hearing out, it's this group. Otherwise, you might as well admit you're a radical anti-government nutjob who has more faith in your television than your own governing body.

Keeth wrote:

So you're saying you think that's a real alien?
And those are real doctors?

That's not what I said at all. Personally? Yeah, I do. I think that it's more likely to be authentic than hoaxed. I can't be certain, however, so I don't claim to know. It is, in either case, the closest you'll probably ever get to one. There are other videos of live aliens, but none of them have the same creepy feeling this one does. If this is a hoax, it's the most convincing hoax I've ever seen. I don't think it is, though.

The commentors make a good points.
So yeah, I did use them.

They're pointless drivel with no context. Prove you didn't just make it up. You don't even quote them, just use quotes.

I'm not going to bother reading the comments for myself, since they're obviously very long and don't contain the words you quoted. Even if they did, I would laugh at your use of them as any sort of retort for your own inquiry. As if your only intention for asking for the link was to make it seem as false and unfounded as possible, no matter how convincing it might be, through the use of other people's words. It's almost like you want to be shown wrong. No other reason you'd make it so blatant.

So, how about you give. Pony up some excuse. Do tell, oh sage of the youtube commentators. lulz

Keeth wrote:

If this is a hoax, it's the most convincing hoax I've ever seen.

Why?
The alien does nothing but bob it's head around.
It doesn't speak, it doesn't do anything but sit there.
And then the doctors come in grabbing it and shining lights in its face.

Actually, yes. It's because it's not actually a good video for proving it's an alien or not. If someone was hoaxing this, it would look more definitive.

It would have arms, as you said (which it does, they seem to be strapped down), or a better angle. Or more lighting than it did. If it was a hoax, it wouldn't need a puppet at all, just some skinny naked guy with a fake head and hands. It could more clearly be defined than it is, which leads me to suspect it wasn't created to prove the alien is real or not.

It was most likely produced to record the interview process for later review by people who were already there and had first-hand information on it's validity. It looks like it was made for someone who didn't care if it showed well or not, just that it showed it. That's what makes me think it's real.

The video in no way says anything.

Also, if they wanted to actually show this was an alien, and they had to keep the room dark "for the comfort of the alien" (convenient excuse?), why don't they use night vision?

See above.

I mean the point of the video is to show this is a real alien, and this is the government, right?
They have the tools.

That's not the point of the original video at all. They had nothing to prove.

I'm really not even going to bother...

Good. You were starting to bore me anyways. Next.

I don't know where you get 1980 from...

Garthor wrote:

Also, I remember an interview with (or perhaps an anecdote about) some guy who claimed to hack into the government's computer system and find evidence of UFOs being airbrushed out of satellite photos. Spot where this might not be physically possible. This will compose 15% of your final grade.

D.) I don't care.

Your basing your whole argument on a false assumption, namely that they want to document it's existence. You don't have any basis to judge it's comfort, and you smell funny.

Your basing your whole argument on a false assumption, namely that they want to document it's existence.

"1980 is gotten from the points stated earlier that the supposed time of the recording of the video does not match other facets of the video, such as the format of the timestamp or the format of the video itself."

That itself is enough to say the video is fake.

Xooxer wrote:

Your basing your whole argument on a false assumption, namely that they want to document it's existence.

Real or fake the reason this clip is out there is to prove it's existence. You're putting your balls on the line to leak proof and you go for the dark room interview between a psychic and a deathbed alien.
It's safe to assume you aren't just slipping the original into your bag on the way out. You'd have to create a copy or something, which would be a long and complicated enough process that the extra time taken to select a particular tape would make no difference.
The way he's explaining it means that unless he's the janitor and he's talking crap he had previous experience with the footage. He knew what was on the tape and at least some of the others he had to choose from. The only reason he'd choose this one is if it was better than the rest, and I find it pretty hard to believe that there wouldn't be anything better (ie, an interview that went right).

One thing that strikes me as odd is that a creature with giant eyes that experiences discomfort in the light has no eyelids. Heck, it has no facial muscle at all. It's head is flipping around like crazy because it's dying and yet it's not even twitching. It's drooling, something that happens when you don't control your mouth and swallowing, yet it's mouth stays either perfectly open or perfectly closed even when it's head is waving around like a toy.

The medical staff are flashing torches in it's face. At that point it's already uncomfortable so you turn the lights on. If they're not allowed to turn the lights on, they already know that. If they know they can't turn the lights on, they would go in there with something better than a handheld light (ie, a headset).
Not that the medical team are doing anything. They're just poking it and shining the light on it. Also, they go out of their way to avoid getting between the camera and the 'alien'.

I forget what it's called, but the type of lighting on his face isn't natural. You shine a light on a foil-like surface and use that to reflect light on the target. It puts a soft light on the target while still being subtle enough that it looks like what your eyes would adjust to if you were actually there.
Natural reflected light (which is meant to be from the desk lamp) wouldn't show up that way on film. Likewise you wouldn't use artificial lighting to light his face because for the target it would be worse than just having the lights on.

I also get the impression the guy who stands up was added later on to cover up the doctors entrance. Again he doesn't get in the way. He doesn't do anything. He also seems to be a much sharper than anything else and out of proportion with the rest.

The light stuff has to be the kicker. Turn the lights off in a highly secret military installation? No way. Even back in the 80's they had tinted eye-wear. I could improvise a thousand and one solutions that don't involve blinding everyone else.

What friggen points? You never made any points.

"They didn't have video back then and even if it was digitally re-mastered it would still be grainy. Also, that time code doesn't correspond with military time code for that time. Its much different."