Whenever there's something like a photograph, or even video, of some very extraordinary event or thing, such as a purported unidentified flying object, an alien, an impossible creature, a ghost, or anything of the sort, or even if it's just someone's (usually written) testimony about having witnessed such an event, there's one telltale sign to look for in order to spot made-up stories.
And that's the amount of superfluous prefacing "background story" attached to the photo, video or claim (usually in textual form).
As an archetypal example, if what's being presented is eg. a photograph or video, the background story of how the person got the camera is completely irrelevant. Yet, oftentimes, the person who purportedly took the photograph will go to completely unnecessary lengths to describe why he or she was at that place, such as for example by describing how she got the camera, or any other lengthy and completely superfluous stories about the the person's grandfather, the shop owners second cousin, or whatever. A typical example is the person explaining how she got the camera as a birthday present, for instance, and was outside testing it, but often with an even lengthier and more elaborate background story full of unnecessary irrelevant detail.
Such needlessly lengthy and superfluous background stories, which don't contribute anything to the contents of the photograph, video or claim, should always be thought as adding suspicion to the veracity of the event.
The main reason why people faking such events and such photographs oftentimes make up elaborate lengthy background stories is that they are, more or less subconsciously, trying to make the claim more believable by telling a relatable story about it. They semi-subconsciously think that the photograph (or whatever is being presented) is more believable when "the story behind it" is believable and relatable.
However, you'll notice that legit photographs of extraordinary rare events (such as ones catching something rarely caught on camera, such as an accident, a rare meteorological phenomenon, etc) very rarely have any sort of lengthy superfluous "background story" attached to them. That's because they are superfluous, don't contribute anything and, most importantly, the person distributing the photo or footage doesn't have a subconscious need to make it sound more believable because he knows it's a legit photo or video. He doesn't subconsciously think "nobody is going to believe this unless I preface this with a background story about how I got there".
Thus, whenever you see such a superfluous unnecessary background story attached to a photo or testimony, that should immediately raise suspicion.
(This, of course, doesn't mean that it's automatically a forgery, nor does it mean that a lack of a lengthy background story gives more credibility to the photo or claim. But its presence should raise suspicion nevertheless.)
Comments
Post a Comment