THE VAULT DOCUMENT
Video Evidence
Video evidence refers to moving image recordings presented as documentation of an event, object, location, person, phenomenon or claimed anomaly.
Within The Vault, video evidence is an important source of information for documenting:
- Paranormal reports.
- UFO and UAP sightings.
- Cryptid encounters.
- Historical events.
- Investigations.
- Unexplained phenomena.
Video recordings can provide valuable information about an event, but a recording alone does not automatically confirm the interpretation attached to it.
A video demonstrates that something was recorded. Determining what the recording represents requires further evaluation.
Role of video evidence
Video evidence may be used to document:
- A reported event as it occurs.
- The behaviour or movement of an object.
- Environmental conditions.
- Investigation activity.
- Interviews and witness accounts.
- Historical footage.
Examples include:
- Alleged UFO footage.
- Paranormal investigation recordings.
- Cryptid encounter videos.
- Security camera footage.
- Documentary recordings.
Video evidence should always be considered alongside the circumstances in which it was created.
Evaluating video evidence
Video recordings should be assessed using several factors.
Original source
The origin of a video is important.
Consider:
- Who recorded the footage?
- When was it recorded?
- Where was it recorded?
- Is the original file available?
- Has the footage been edited or re-uploaded?
Original footage provides more information than compressed copies or clips removed from their original context.
Authenticity
Videos should be examined for:
- Editing.
- Cuts or missing sections.
- Digital manipulation.
- Added effects.
- Misleading presentation.
- Incorrect dates or locations.
The absence of obvious editing does not automatically prove the interpretation of the footage.
Context
A video should be considered alongside:
- Witness accounts.
- Location information.
- Environmental conditions.
- Weather.
- Other recordings.
- Available documentation.
A short clip without context may be difficult to interpret accurately.
Technical analysis
Where possible, analysis may consider:
- Camera equipment.
- Resolution.
- Frame rate.
- Lighting.
- Camera movement.
- Audio quality.
- Metadata.
- Compression artefacts.
- Editing history.
Technical analysis can help identify possible explanations.
Types of video evidence
Historical footage
Historical recordings may document:
- Events.
- Locations.
- People.
- Objects.
- Investigations.
Historical footage can be valuable evidence, although interpretation may still require additional sources.
Anomalous footage
Anomalous footage refers to recordings claimed to show unusual phenomena.
Examples include:
- Apparitions.
- Unidentified objects.
- Unusual creatures.
- Unexplained movements.
- Strange sounds or events.
Such recordings require careful analysis before conclusions are drawn.
Investigation footage
Investigators may record:
- Experiments.
- Site visits.
- Equipment readings.
- Interviews.
- Alleged phenomena.
The recording confirms that an investigation or observation occurred, but does not automatically confirm the explanation proposed.
Common explanations for video evidence
Many alleged anomalies may have conventional explanations.
These can include:
- Camera artefacts.
- Lighting effects.
- Reflections.
- Shadows.
- Weather conditions.
- Animals or known objects.
- Perspective errors.
- Digital compression.
- Editing.
- Misidentification.
Alternative explanations should be considered before reaching conclusions.
Famous video cases
Some recordings have become significant within mystery research.
Examples include:
- Patterson–Gimlin Film — footage claimed to show Bigfoot.
- Gimbal UFO Video — military footage showing an unidentified aerial object.
- Phoenix Lights — video recordings connected to a major UFO report.
- Surveillance Footage Cases — recordings associated with alleged paranormal activity.
Each case requires examination of:
- Original footage.
- Recording circumstances.
- Analysis performed.
- Alternative explanations.
Limitations of video evidence
Video recordings have limitations.
These include:
- A camera records only what is within its field of view.
- Distance and scale may be difficult to determine.
- Digital files may lose information through compression.
- Editing can alter context.
- Interpretation can be influenced by expectation.
A genuine video may still have multiple possible explanations.
Video evidence and investigations
When documenting investigation footage, The Vault should distinguish between:
Recorded event
What appears within the recording.
Investigator interpretation
The explanation proposed by those analysing the recording.
Example:
Recorded:
"A video captured an unexplained object moving across the sky."
Interpretation:
"Investigators suggested the object may represent an unidentified aerial phenomenon."
Video evidence and evidence ratings
Within The Vault, video evidence is assessed alongside other available information.
Factors include:
- Original source.
- Authenticity.
- Technical analysis.
- Independent verification.
- Context.
- Alternative explanations.
- Supporting evidence.
A video may contribute to an evidence assessment but is rarely considered conclusive on its own.
See:
Writing guidelines
When describing video evidence, articles should separate what is visible from what is claimed.
Preferred:
"The footage has been interpreted by some researchers as showing an unidentified object."
Avoid:
"The footage proves an unidentified object was present."
Preferred:
"The recording remains disputed, with several possible explanations proposed."
Avoid:
"The video confirms the phenomenon."
unless supported by strong evidence.