It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This is Why You Can't Photograph a UFO Properly

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2019 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: mazzroth
I don't know if this has been posted yet but here goes...my understanding of gravity is that it is an attractive force and not a repulsive force, so when Bob said the gravity generator pushed his hand away then either he is making it up or something else is at play and not gravity. Either anti gravity or anti matter perhaps?


Isn't the slingshot force from gravity a repulsive force?

No.

That was refraction , not bending

I just watched a video where a scientist used water and sugar to bend light.


Everyone is using the word 'bending' light when performing this experiment.

Yes , which is a false use of the term


The Science Learning Hub has this to report:



If light travels enters into a substance with a lower refractive index (such as from water into air) it speeds up. The light bends away from the normal line. A higher refractive index shows that light will slow down and change direction more as it enters the substance.


www.sciencelearn.org.nz...

The term is bending by refraction!




posted on Jun, 24 2019 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: mazzroth
I don't know if this has been posted yet but here goes...my understanding of gravity is that it is an attractive force and not a repulsive force, so when Bob said the gravity generator pushed his hand away then either he is making it up or something else is at play and not gravity. Either anti gravity or anti matter perhaps?


Isn't the slingshot force from gravity a repulsive force?

No.

That was refraction , not bending

I just watched a video where a scientist used water and sugar to bend light.


Everyone is using the word 'bending' light when performing this experiment.

Yes , which is a false use of the term


The Science Learning Hub has this to report:



If light travels enters into a substance with a lower refractive index (such as from water into air) it speeds up. The light bends away from the normal line. A higher refractive index shows that light will slow down and change direction more as it enters the substance.


www.sciencelearn.org.nz...

The term is bending by refraction!

Yeah , amazing click bait , isnt it ?
Please learn entry level physics

Refraction of light

The physics term "bending" is used for the time/space effect of gravity on light (in the Einstein sense)
They are somewhat interchangeable .
Yet the OP is about in the "Einstein" sense of the term
Everything , to a point , refracts light.



posted on Jun, 24 2019 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: mazzroth
I don't know if this has been posted yet but here goes...my understanding of gravity is that it is an attractive force and not a repulsive force, so when Bob said the gravity generator pushed his hand away then either he is making it up or something else is at play and not gravity. Either anti gravity or anti matter perhaps?


Isn't the slingshot force from gravity a repulsive force?

No.

That was refraction , not bending

I just watched a video where a scientist used water and sugar to bend light.


Everyone is using the word 'bending' light when performing this experiment.

Yes , which is a false use of the term


The Science Learning Hub has this to report:



If light travels enters into a substance with a lower refractive index (such as from water into air) it speeds up. The light bends away from the normal line. A higher refractive index shows that light will slow down and change direction more as it enters the substance.


www.sciencelearn.org.nz...

The term is bending by refraction!

Yeah , amazing click bait , isnt it ?
Please learn entry level physics

Refraction of light

The physics term "bending" is used for the time/space effect of gravity on light (in the Einstein sense)
They are somewhat interchangeable .
Yet the OP is about in the "Einstein" sense of the term
Everything , to a point , refracts light.


We are going around in refractory circles, just like a UFO.



posted on Jun, 24 2019 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Yeah, refraction bends light. But gravity doesn't.

Light always travels in a straight line through spacetime (in lieu of refraction). Thing is, because gravity is a distortion of spacetime, a straight line is not always straight. But, as far as the light itself is concerned, it's going straight.
edit on 6/24/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2019 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: InTheLight

Yeah, refraction bends light. But gravity doesn't.

Light always travels in a straight line through spacetime (in lieu of refraction). Thing is, because gravity is a distortion of spacetime, a straight line is not always straight. But, as far as the light itself is concerned, it's going straight.


So the question now is, are the fuzzy pics of UFOs due to a distortion of spacetime because of gravity?



posted on Jun, 24 2019 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

No. It's just hard to take a picture of a light in the sky that looks like anything but a light in the sky (or a mylar balloon).

But it works the other way too. Even when trying to make a video of a planet things can get weird.
An experiment I conducted a few years ago...


Autofocus and digital zoom...bad.

edit on 6/24/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2019 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Most of these fuzzy dots of light are also dots of light to the viewer.

We don't hear lots of people claiming they saw a clear UFO disk or whatever and took a picture which showed a fuzzy dot of light.

If this is true at least we know all of the clear photographs are fake.



posted on Jun, 24 2019 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: InTheLight

Yeah, refraction bends light. But gravity doesn't.

Light always travels in a straight line through spacetime (in lieu of refraction). Thing is, because gravity is a distortion of spacetime, a straight line is not always straight. But, as far as the light itself is concerned, it's going straight.

That was better.
No , the bending of light is a direct effect of the depression caused by mass in the space/time fabric.
Refraction is any "deflection" of light


edit on 6/24/19 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2019 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: InTheLight

No. It's just hard to take a picture of a light in the sky that looks like anything but a light in the sky (or a mylar balloon).

But it works the other way too. Even when trying to make a video of a planet things can get weird.
An experiment I conducted a few years ago...


Autofocus and digital zoom...bad.


I think it's our cameras, they just aren't used properly or they are not technologically advanced enough.



posted on Jun, 24 2019 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Nothin



You're free to believe whatever you want.

I believe in the Laws of Physics
I dont believe in science fiction

Yea a mind should remain open. But , not to the point stuff falls out.


I would say if explaining technology we have today to someone 100 years ago, they would have said something similar. What we have today would have appeared to be magic 100 years ago. Imagine what something say a million years from now would appear to be to us even now. I bet we would call it "science fiction".



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: RandomPerson

Seen all mine perfectly clear with my naked eyes... lol

A few of us reported it on some website... don't remember right now which one it was.



You saw something so rare and amazing yet you forget the details of a website, or is it because you have seen so many you have become quite blase? I envy your experience.


There was like 20 or so people there at the intersection... all 4 lanes stopped and people got out to look.

I forgot the details of the website because it was something I looked up in 2009 to report UFO sightings on and at least I had some crappy pictures, so put a report in later that day.

This was the least remarkable of my sightings.

It was metallic spheres in a diamond formation... 9 of them in a 1 2 3 2 1 formation.

It appeared that they were rotating, but I could not tell which direction they were rotating... just that they seemed silver and were rotating because they reflected the clouds.

I also could not tell how big they were... they were in the sky above a road that stretched probably 50 miles and you could see most of the road... I had no reference point.

We all were taking pictures and talking about it but we were also blocking a major intersection... so we said our goodbyes and got back in our cars and left after the spheres all shot upwards and were gone.

So what was there really to report?

Shiny things in a formation, no idea on the size or anything and they left.

The whole thing probably from start to finish was maybe 4 minutes.

I chalked it up to yet another thing I can't explain and won't know the answer to and went to work.

~shrug~



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit

originally posted by: Lumenari

Video looked nothing like what we all saw... just blurry crap.



Do you still have the video?

Even if blurry, at least it's a visual representation of what you saw, rather than a hoax.

Some of us here may read something more into the images. Worth a shot?


I'll go find it... I did save it on a CD because it was different.

I think it was just blurry because cell phone cameras were crap at the time for focusing... not because of anything odd.

The camera really didn't have anything to focus on but clouds..



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 03:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: keenmachine

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Nothin



You're free to believe whatever you want.

I believe in the Laws of Physics
I dont believe in science fiction

Yea a mind should remain open. But , not to the point stuff falls out.


I would say if explaining technology we have today to someone 100 years ago, they would have said something similar. What we have today would have appeared to be magic 100 years ago. Imagine what something say a million years from now would appear to be to us even now. I bet we would call it "science fiction".

Yet , they broke no laws of Physics in that tecnhology
Period



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: IMSAM

Why dont you post that picture of the Moon with the exif details mobile phones or not as good at night/low light as manufacturers want you to think.



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 05:09 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight


The number of pixels doesn't count if the subject is not correctly exposed or out of focus now consumer digital cameras can have a shutter speed of 1/32,00 of a second to hours long your eye can't do that.

For example


Fuji X-T2. Max Shutter Speed: 1/8000sec - extendable to 1/32,000sec with the electronic shutter


Some cameras have a bulb mode to keep the shutter open until you close it.

You and also boost the signal from the sensor ie change the iso your eye cant do that.

Pictures can also be stacked to show even more detail.

Or if you have the funding you can build this The 3.2 Gigapixel Camera to Photograph the night sky.



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: mazzroth

This interview is one of the most disingenuous things I've ever seen. CIA disinfo campaign is in full swing. We're seeing it big time on this site. If they can't get Trump to wage war against Iran... then what's left? I love the part where Joe Rogan, compares UFO footage to a laser pointer on a white wall, eluding to project blue beam.

Obvious Mossad/CIA agent with the SJW beard in the interview. He uses a lot of buzzwords and is the only one to look into camera, there's a lot of the "believe me" face. Classic mossad tricks.



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 11:20 AM
link   
There's a number of reasonable explanations. For one the most likely video device people have access to are the camera integrated into their cellphone. These cellphones ate notoriously difficult to use at a distance as they are being held in your hand presumably and this inevitably causes a great amount of camera shake, people also always tend to hold the camera upright as opposed to holding it sideways and allowing got s greater field of view. The majority of the time where people these days would happen upon a sighting would be in transit travelling in a vehicle moving at high speeds, are unable to stop and make a proper video.
Besides these general photography issues you could also go into speculation about the craft that people are attempting to photo and how they would theoretically effect the immediate environment. If we assume that some sort of advanced interstellar vehicle would have to harness an advanced form of propulsion such as antigravity in one form or another than we would have to assume that this would cause a generalized distortion around the craft itself and thus cause unusual visual effects when one attempts to document it. It could have all kinds of effects on the light travelling around the craft causing a incredible amount of possible effects from generating light, masking the craft in a foggy haze, and while it may not effect our ability to see the craft physically with our own eyes but the devices we use to capture these events don't always necessarily utilize the same waves as we do and thus you could see different effects.
Honest one could go on and on with speculation but the reality is we don't know how they operate and thus we can't make any concrete assumptions on why this occurs only that it does seem to be a prominent factor in this area. On a side note it honestly seems to only become a bigger problem in the process of humanity switching from an analog device to digital.



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: InTheLight

Yeah, refraction bends light. But gravity doesn't.

Light always travels in a straight line through spacetime (in lieu of refraction). Thing is, because gravity is a distortion of spacetime, a straight line is not always straight. But, as far as the light itself is concerned, it's going straight.


Phage is the man! LOL.

Have you seen this series - this is one of 8 talking about how the speed of light may have initially varied, by more of a topological measurement, so the 'speed' didn't change but the topology did. I think the label it varying in the early days for convenience:




posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
I think it's our cameras, they just aren't used properly or they are not technologically advanced enough.

That was the first thing I said, bad operators are the most common source of bad images, people do not know how to use a camera because they do not know how it works, even the most basic things, or do not know their limitations.



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 03:05 PM
link   
The premise of this topic is flawed to begin with. We have plenty of perfectly good still photos and videos of UFOs. We just don't know what they are.




top topics



 
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join