HUGE Drop Off In Reported UFO Sightings...What's The Reason?

originally posted by: Nostranova
Possibly our technology has advanced to the point UFO's cant get near us undetected anymore. In the 50's, 60's, 70's etc there seemed to be a lot of sightings and our technology is way more advanced now than then.

Now we have satellites/radar everywhere and likely technology we are unaware of.

Either that or they've had enough of us and their off exploring other planets where the occupants are friendly.

But even though digital imaging technology has gone from the stone age and into the 21st century in the last 25 years or so,why even with all this fantastic tech can we still not get an in-focus and blue free photo of a UFO? Canon's dual pixel auto focus is the best there is,so why is the best we can come up with reflections of car interior lights on the car's windscreen?

UFOs have stopped being reported because they're too common.

They worked out the metamaterial kinks and upgraded the entire fleet.

Too bad for all of us that never got a good sighting.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

For every story about huge drop-offs, there are stories
about big increases:

Rebutting a common perception that U.F.O. sightings are on the wane, the Costas’ book shows that sightings have risen in waves, to 11,868 nationwide in 2015 from 3,479 in 2001. Only a small fraction of sightings are actually reported to Mufon or Nuforc.
www.nytimes.com...

Other links:

vizthis.wordpress.com...

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Actually he said an aircraft he thought was a BBT chased away what looked like a satellite , until it turned around, anyway, witnessed while walking a dog , tho the dog was likely more into sniffing butt... to be fair.

But the new snarky you is appreciated, regardless!

I STILL guess the phenomena is comprised of both local nuts n bolts in addition to local (or nearly local) entities (of an energetic make-up and a tricky disposition).

a reply to: Baddogma

the important thing is to keep researching.

It's fine to voice strong feelings about a particular THEORY.

but all we have are theories at this time.

I still find the notion of looking into orbit with eyeballs
and proclaiming advanced meaning of life stuff based
upon little bits of blurry light to be rather lacking.

Almost as bad as astrology.

That eyeballs can detect this.. but none of the world's
telescopes or full-time astronomers (who number
in the millions) ever notice these fantastic space
battles is quite the thing.

As for information, energy or matter..

it all winds up being the same thing.

Getting into religious battles over which completely
equivalent thing is more important is not the
brightest thing to do.

All that aside,

we are all being deceived on multiple levels,

and the people deceiving us are being deceived

in the end, hardly anyone wants to actually research anything..

they want their biases confirmed,

so that they can feel more comfortable,

in a world that is not very comfortable for anyone to live
in.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

The deception is obviously a major component of this ...phenomenon. I tend to think the idea that the pro aviary 'obfuscators' have been bamboozled by a far trickier base phenomena could be a truth in all the lies and half-truths , but how to know?

Add in the current assault on cultural/institutional truths and what does one get?

A big fat "?" !

I fear we are all going to drift into indeterminacy as no collapse of the wave will be possible, as nobody will be sure enough to form an observation capable of any collapsing... at all... at all.

But I digress from my initial response , which was 'how does one approach gathering information on the unapproachable?'

I'd respond by attempting to find out what it is not... but aside from educated guessing and pet theories, what's the guy in the armchair got?

?

Perhaps they are afraid the president would deport them for lacking green cards for illegal probing?😀Sorry everyone but I had to put that out there.I feel much better now!

[I meant to post this short essay earlier...]

Perceptive observers of the UFO scene over the last two thirds of a century have noted a tell-tale feature of the evolution of reports – their nature has been changing, keeping uncanny pace with the progress in human observation and detection technologies. As with dragons and sea serpents of half a millennium ago, they always seem to lurk just at or beyond the limits of clear human vision, with ‘Here be dragons’ on the maps obediently retreating in synchronization to the inexorable advance of human knowledge.

These new ‘UFO reports’, still fragmentary and inadequately documented, nicely fit this time-tested pattern – some anomaly is detected at the limits of sight [that by all means needs to be understood] but isn’t clear enough to unambiguously establish its non-explainability. If the reports truly represent an authentic autonomous phenomenon, they would have been invisible to human observers until recently, just as the UFOs of the 1940s and 1950s, if they really were caused by actual phenomena, would today be exhaustively documented by the vastly improved observation capabilities of humankind.

But. They. Aren’t. Instead, year by year, the ‘old UFOs’ fade away just before the advent of new technologies [that would have unambiguously documented them] come on line, to be replaced by a new flavor of ‘anomalies’ that precisely match the limits of vision of new technologies.

This is a powerful indication that the phenomenon derives its existence NOT from some stand-alone phenomenon, but directly FROM being at the limits of human detection and recognition. As an observer-based rather than reality-based phenomenon, its apparent existence derives from the range – and limits – of human perception. That perception and its limits are real, but the apparent stand-alone stimulus does not have to be, and never did. Such a postulated stimulus [ETI technology] could well exist and be responsible, but may not be mandatory.

originally posted by: dothedew
Here's my answer to the question posed: Smartphones.

People now spend more time looking *down* at the phones instead of looking *up* into the sky.

Really there are plenty of people who look up I dont know if you have seen this thread

Calling all Astrophotographers, all skill levels. Post your work.

Now the members on that thread have good to professional equipment and know how to use it and know the night sky well, yet they dont spot ufo's unlike some youtube channels with some idiot and an iphone.

If anything we should see more evidence but whats strange Mog from Zog can travel billions of miles but needs lights that always gives me a good

In my opinion people will still see a few UFOs during their life time if they are outdoor type people going places and doing things. I think people don't report their sightings due to the effort involved, the redicule, the lack of faith in the organized community institutions. No one will ever have a resolved idea of what it was they saw. There is no point to reporting things. When the final real truth comes out, people will start to emerge with their stories. Most people know they are in this life to deal and cope with reality alone. Believe your own mind and realizations. Ignoring and avoidance are where society lives together.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: dothedew

That's part of it. The bigger part is the old, "I didn't have a camera with me" excuse is no longer valid for anyone over the age of nine and getting dragged on Twitter and YouTube for posting known BS videos and stories is now relatively common.

In other words, most of the sightings before smartphones were probably BS, perpetrated by trolls and hoaxers who can't get away with it anymore.

Lets be honest a smart phone at night is as much use as a chocolate teapot don't belive the hype they either take a few shots and combine them to produce a shot the sensors are small so create more noise.

Smart phones will use auto exposure at night not the best here 2 shots with my DSLR first exposure settings unchanged from earlier in the day, the second manual exposure & focus.





Now considering we have professional UFO hunters on the net/youtube why don't they get one of these a bargin at around £5000



Or one of thes Sony A7S II for half that.



I think we can work out why they wouldn't use one.

Because humans are too aggressive?
According to the disclosure project we actively shoot them down to reverse engineer the technology.

It's not very friendly or civilised behaviour.

originally posted by: dothedew
Here's my answer to the question posed: Smartphones.

People now spend more time looking *down* at the phones instead of looking *up* into the sky.

I completely agree.

I have a smart phone, but I'm from a different generation. I don't have mine out in public and walk with my head held high. Usually bumping into the 'Smart phone' generation looking down.

You would think that with the improved cameras on phones you would get more videos and photos. Sadly people are only interested in facebook, Twitter and whatever other distraction they have.
They SHOULD be looking at their surroundings, but they don't

Unfortunately it's only going to get worse. A UFO could hover over The Houses of Parliament for twenty minutes and people wouldn't notice it.

Amazing thread. Well presented and thought through.

a reply to: JimOberg

I'm going to think about your essay there. Maybe comment, maybe not.

But I'd like to tap your expertise on something.

We all do far too much proclaiming, and not enough asking
from SME. I'd say that you count as a SME on things in orbit
if anyone is.

So if someone posts that they were walking the dog, and
watched a spaceship in orbit chase off a satellite..

now here's my questions:

1) Does naked eyeball sightings of such a scenario make
sense to you? I mean, I suppose, if the spaceship was the
size of new york state that might make sense.. but then
the satellite would have to be too... and we have one
of those.. it's called the moon.

But "snark aside" could you speak to such a scenario..
both especially radiant at night and not especially
radiant.. as I presume if a lot of manmade light
were involved you might see blobs of light alright..
but no detail.

2) Could you please speak to what a regular hobby
astronomer might see 'in orbit' with a decent
commercial telescope? I've often wondered about
this..

The international space station for example.. how
clearly can that be resolved with hobby gear?

Now larger, more professional ground-based
telescopes.. if one of those were pointed near
earth.. if there were these supposed fleets
of star trek ships in orbit.. what would be seen?

Lets take the 'cloaking fantasy' out of the picture.

When I was responding earlier, and when I've
responded other times on this topic, I haven't
fully done my homework..

So i'm asking for your expertise.

Thanks!

a reply to: Baddogma

I'd rather be kind than snarky.

The only time I'm snarky, is if by being 'snarky' I can get
someone to wake up to how ridiculous their claim is,
that even they can't take it seriously.

But by the time someone is willing to 'tell all' on ATS,
they tend to be so indoctrinated into their point of
view that it's pointless.

Now as to the "is it real or is it energy" type discussion..
that's the exact sort of thing that most puzzled JV
when he visited me. We talked about it for hours.

Now... 'energy' can become 'solid' if it becomes
influenced by the Higgs Field, via the mediating
force, the higgs particle.

All of us would be pure 'energy beings' if it weren't
for the Higgs Boson..

So let's call it a 'native energy being' .. if it could
manipulate the higgs boson.. could become solid
or insubstantial at will.

That may be all that's involved.

In a similar vein.. let's say that it turns out we
are all 'in a simulation'. A 'higgs boson' may just
be the computer code to indicate whether
something should present as 'insubstantial'
or 'substantial'.

On a related note, it certainly appears that we
are living in a naturally evolved quantum computer
called the Universe.. and the difference between
a natural evolved simulation and an artificially
evolved simulation is so minor.. any way you
look at it..

But finally... if you've read my analog/digital
post, you can see that i'm increasingly open
to a more physical 'digital' presence here
on EARTH.. in fact it may have wiped out
most organic life in the universe and
colonized the entire Universe billions
of years ago.

Of course it may have 'uploaded' various
organic life before killing it off.. so that
leads us back to simulation.

So really.. it's *possible* that we are at
3 levels of inception.

I don't like the whole simulation thing..
but it's impossible not to give it a close
look.

The blimps are interesting.

How many times do you hear ufo witnesses say it was huge, metallic looking, silent, stood still before zooming off.....

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

There are folks around the world doing exactly what you ask about, writing how other people can do it too. Check out www.satobs.org.

The bottom line: naked eye sky observations have, can, and will continue to provide very valuable information on what's flying around up there, when properly assessed based on demonstrated accuracy.

See 2015 Trident SLBM launch off California
satobs.org...

originally posted by: Bloodworth
The blimps are interesting.

How many times do you hear ufo witnesses say it was huge, metallic looking, silent, stood still before zooming off.....

But experience shows they ALSO give the same impression of near-horizontal fireball swarms that can be caused by numerous prosaic stimuli.

The perception of a structured object with a sharp silhouette and glowing windows turns out to be repeatable, common witness reaction to a night-time fireball swarm moving horizontally, like a shallow meteor disintegrating or several aircraft with landing lights. The compelling existence proof of this possible non-ET explanation has been provided by satellite reentries that serendipitously create the same visual stimulus -- and the same witness misinterpretation -- all around the world, as shown here: www.jamesoberg.com...

originally posted by: Dr X
Because humans are too aggressive?
According to the disclosure project we actively shoot them down to reverse engineer the technology.

It's not very friendly or civilised behaviour.

Neither is sneaking around our airspace and messing with our atomic weapons or killing our cattle.