|
Post by MCDemuth on Feb 22, 2017 4:48:41 GMT
UFOs of course stand for "unidentified flying objects". (That does not mean that Aliens are visiting us...)
People all over the world constantly capture "Odd Things" flying in the sky. Assuming for a moment, these "Odd Things" are real objects, and not just some speck of dust... or fakes... (You can't always use those kinds of excuses...)
Even If new spy planes, were flying around... or heck, even if it is a 747 flying at high altitude...
It seem extremely unlikely that our camera technology is so poor that everyone is always getting blurry pictures of these objects. (Or Is It?)
It's the year 2017... with so many people these days with cameras everywhere, shouldn't there be cameras that can take a clear picture of a plane flying at 30,000 feet? And if so, why can't someone somewhere be able to get clear photographs of these "top secret aircraft"?
Or, half-jokingly, does the government (or aliens) having cloaking devices on military aircraft (or starships), or are there Camera jamming devices?
Like I tried to imply, I am not specifically trying to imply that Aliens are flying in our skies, but there are too many pictures being taken for them all to be blurry. There must be a reason.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 22, 2017 12:10:11 GMT
It could be an oxymoron since something which is clear is usually identifiable.
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Feb 22, 2017 19:22:29 GMT
Let's try this again...
Why are there so many "UFO" pictures? Shouldn't more cameras be taking clear pictures so these objects can be identified?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 17:54:27 GMT
I'm sure the government has very clear photographs of them.
|
|
Flynn
Sophomore
@flynn
Posts: 515
Likes: 270
|
Post by Flynn on Feb 25, 2017 5:52:48 GMT
I'm not up on the latest UFO pictures, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't UFOs usually high in the sky? Basic phone cameras and point-and-shoot cameras don't have lenses designed for the level of zoom needed to get a nice, close, sharp image. Only a professional photographer is going to have a lens capable of rendering a small object that high in the sky with clarity. Also, that lens would probably need to be on the camera already if time is a pressing matter.
Digital zooms are blurry, so that doesn't help,
Lastly, the sight of a UFO I'm sure is exciting. If you move a camera around a lot, it's going to appear blurry. So, maybe the answer to your question is simply excitement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 5:54:36 GMT
someone should ask Mulder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2017 13:02:50 GMT
As XKCD put it : In the last few years, with very little fanfare, we've conclusively settled the questions of flying saucers, lake monsters, ghosts, and bigfoot.
The number of cameras in the world has absolutely exploded in the last decade or so. There are BILLIONS of the things around by now. If any of the above existed, we would have clear close-up images of them. Not just a handful of dubious, fuzzy or obviously faked images, either.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 1, 2017 23:58:55 GMT
Well that would ruin the 'mystery' I presume.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 2, 2017 18:21:22 GMT
Because, aliumz
|
|
|
Post by Ass_E9 on Mar 11, 2017 7:14:14 GMT
They're Un-Focusable Objects.
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Mar 11, 2017 7:36:42 GMT
LOL!
Saw this comment the other day, which sums up my original question even better...
"With our space telescopes, we can see other planets in solar systems light years away, and galaxies billions of miles away... But we can't get a clear picture of a "spy plane" at 30,000 FT. from a camera on the ground?"
Something's wrong with that!
WHY?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2017 8:33:35 GMT
"Honey, there's an alien spaceship above our back garden... quick, fetch the camera, you know, the one with the broken focusing ring, and knackered exposure meter."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 12:28:47 GMT
Next time you see a bird flying at an altitude 2000 feet, try and capture it mid flight with a zoom lens (without a hard core amazing camera that does a burst mode of ten or more shots per second). Its really really hard. The "ufo" would have to be within a couple hundred feet to be easily photographed. If its so hard to capture a bird in flight, that flies no where near as fast as a plane/ufo, it isnt that surprising.
|
|
cineastewest
Sophomore
Support the internet's most active film discussion forum - Preserve the IMDb forums here at IMDB v2
@cineastewest
Posts: 229
Likes: 69
|
Post by cineastewest on Apr 8, 2017 2:32:56 GMT
I'm sure the government has very clear photographs of them. This was declassified by the CIA in 2013. I've never seen it before and I can't find any discussion of it on the web. Anyone seen this before or know anything about it? It was in one of the pdfs the CIA put up on their new website of declassified stuff, but there was no fucking caption! www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79B00752A000300130001-1.pdf
|
|
cineastewest
Sophomore
Support the internet's most active film discussion forum - Preserve the IMDb forums here at IMDB v2
@cineastewest
Posts: 229
Likes: 69
|
Post by cineastewest on Apr 8, 2017 2:51:33 GMT
Oops. Debunked. I found it!
The Travelers Insurance Tower in Hartford, Connecticut seemingly surrounded by flying saucers. Viewed upside down, the UFOs are actually rivets on a bridge girder covered with water. Photographed by Einar Chindmark, 1960.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2017 16:02:24 GMT
cineastewest, look up 'Corey Goode' on YouTube. Dude is either a sociopath or the government really did a job on him. All those beings he's come in contact with and no photos.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 27, 2017 19:52:40 GMT
For the most part, those photos are taken in a hurry under less than ideal circumstances. The reason photographs have great looking photos is because they come prepared with expensive, clean lenses and under the right conditions. And then they take many, many photos to ensure they get a few good ones.
The average person does not have the photographic equipment nor experience to capture an object floating in the sky, either in day or night.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 0:18:38 GMT
For the most part, those photos are taken in a hurry under less than ideal circumstances. The reason photographs have great looking photos is because they come prepared with expensive, clean lenses and under the right conditions. And then they take many, many photos to ensure they get a few good ones. The average person does not have the photographic equipment nor experience to capture an object floating in the sky, either in day or night. You could say that of a lot of things. I was watching Close Encounters the other day and a guy made the point that with millions of cameras, nobody ever got a good photo of a UFO. A reporter pointed out that neither did they have a picture of an plane crash as it happened, or an automobile accident in time to get it on the six o'clock news. Well, forty years on and live footage of car crashes is common as dirt. There's dozens of clips of plane crashes on youtube and the news both. There's pictures taken in combat, and in accidents, and there's even pictures of fricken meteorites falling out of the sky. But there's still not a single good picture of a UFO.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on May 1, 2017 12:56:29 GMT
To be fair, that's why it's a UFO. Because it was unidentified. As soon as someone has a clear picture of it, it's been identified. As a plane, meteor, or something else.
So of course the blurry pictures will always be UFO pictures. But those are the minority out of the hundreds of thousands if not millions of pictures and videos of planes and other identified objects.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 1, 2017 12:59:38 GMT
Two reasons (using "UFO" as indicative of something like an alien craft below):
(1) If the phenomenon in question were clear, it would be obvious that it's not a UFO.
(2) It's much harder to fake a clear UFO photo.
|
|