This is Why You Can't Photograph a UFO Properly

we root the answer of how these alternate theories “don’t work” by quoting currently adhered to scientific principles to state something isn’t possible. However, there have been a few posts with the caveat of “probably” or something along those lines - which I appreciate!

Think beyond convention. If you explained to someone that we could move hundreds of people around in the Sky at 500+ mph, thousands of times a day 250 years ago you’d have been called a nut job. Same can be said about a person describing a microwave oven if it was 1920!

Since we can’t explain gravity with “conventional” knowledge - even advanced conventional knowledge - it tells me it’s wrong. The models and theories are too rooted in knowledge we had 80+ years ago and beyond. Perhaps we should think of gravity as an energy source, a living entity, a function of fluid dynamics, a byproduct of heat, “the force”, an artificial construct from ancient times because it’s annoying if stuff floats around - who knows!

My long point here is that those who are thinking like everyone else will arrive at the same conclusions as everyone else. You have to think differently - not crazily - and look at subjects from a different perspective.

Have you found many people with advanced education in science/math/any subject who openly state “all of my schooling may have been BS, narrow minded and I’m wrong - I have to do this differently”? No. It would destroy their identity. That goes for all fields of study.

That isn’t to say it’s All wring - perhaps just some of it or its limiting. Perhaps a blend of the scientific/McKinsey method and imagination is the key - who knows.

I say this as we still can’t explain gravity conclusively but also say these other points about “gravity modulation/anti-gravity” are BS. That doesn’t hold water for me. To me, that means gravity is something that’s probably explainable but we’re doing it wrong - and that much more is possible than most can imagine regarding the subject.

Now I wish I hadn’t have bowed out of physics at the 300 level in college all those years ago...

/rant

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

Indeed, you could have changed the world.

a reply to: Phage

Redundant perhaps, but antimatter is quite different from matter except that it has mass. For example, if you manage to merge to protons you get helium. If you merge a proton with an antiproton you don't. To say the least.

So what are you trying to say Phage. That anti matter is even more redundant then I thought? Well if you would want to make helium, what we have learned there is thats not the way to do it. We may not even get any anti helium from two anti protons. Which leaves the final quest of making an anti spoon even farther away from our grasp.

How about dark matter? Is that redundant too?

Well if antimater is redundant. Then I suppose we could ask does dark matter even matter? Its kind of like the stuff that just there, always been there, and we just like to dub it space.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

We may not even get any anti helium from two anti protons.

Any reason to think that?

Any reason to think that blurry photographic images have something to do with gravity manipulation?

a reply to: Phage
I already said all that at some other post pages back.

That if there was something that can repel mater which is what anti gravity would be really.

Then yes, even the earths atmospheric field of ionized or repealed gasses and other heavy elements including radio waves would make a mess of seeing clearly what is beyond, simply because visible light would have a hard time not being refracted by all that, bouncing around all over the place.

Hence blurry light blobs in the sky. Unless ofcourse they solved that issue that is with there ships. The aliens that is.

And blurry photographic images, are just that, blurry photographic images. Even if there somehow real images of blurry UFOs, and this may just shock you. But it could just mean that there photos of blurry UFOs taken on blurry crappy cameras, in crappy situations, in crappy lighting on crappy occasions, on a crappy nondescript days.

Not to mention that photographs suck, especially at night, or even in low light there useless, and especially if its the cellphone cameras.

As for anti helium. Thats like a duh!

a reply to: mazzroth

i recommend reading this..

www.otherhand.org...

The reason why you can't photograph a UFO properly is because the UFO Phenomenon does not want to be photographed,at least not up close.We have hundreds if not thousands of cases of very,very close encounters so one would expect that we would have by now at least a few dozen excellent photos and videos of craft and occupants,but we don't and we won't.The Phenomenon is a master of space time.It is too powerful and has too much control over how events unfold to be caught off guard with a camera.NIDS tried this at Skinwalker and failed miserably.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Yes, I agree with that physicist about turning on a gravity wave device emitter and wave guide and inertial reducing propulsion. Very risky to turn it on.

For example say you turn it on to 'test' fly the craft. HOW do you know you can turn it OFF? How would the scientists out there know how to 'pilot it' as in rise up and got left and right a few feet? No steering mechanisms. Maybe there figured out a little of it.

But the first time you'd worry that if you made it go sideways after lift off it would just start going at high speed and star plowing through mountains and buildings and never stop. Too risky. Could a person from 1800 start up a modern Jet and even get the engine on? Maybe after about 10 years of monkeying with all the switches. How would they stop it if it got going. A running jet on the ground is one thing. Starting to fly it is another.

Here was kind of an opposite problem. Total lack of switches and control surfaces. Super-tuned to Alien biology or alien clone 'internal impulses'.

How did they get a radio frequency wave through the field to 'communicate' with the test pilot the time he said they flew it a few feet? That would bounce off the gravity field.

Anyway good post!

originally posted by: kalima444
a reply to: mazzroth

i recommend reading this..

www.otherhand.org...

Even if the alien craft used particle acceleration propulsion and comparing it to CERN's particle acceleration collider - the fact is that CERN can photograph the particle trails. Again, if this is the case, then we do not have the right technology to photograph this phenomenon.

Guided by mechanical engineer and filmmaker Neal Hartman of Berkeley Lab, US, Ou uses antique photographic equipment to capture black and white images of the ATLAS detector. Hartman works on the ATLAS pixel detector – apparatus 1.5 metres long that takes 40 million pictures per second of particles created in collisions at the heart of ATLAS. “The detector is like a digital camera […] trying to take a picture of the birth of the universe,” says Hartman. “A different technology, but more or less the same concept.”

home.cern...

a reply to: InTheLight

The shape of an overexposed object is down to the number of blades in the aperture design and focus

Aperture Blades



Thats why youtube has shape shifting ufo's.

Ufo's are debunked because they are birds,insects, aircraft etc

Used this before pictures taken by me

a lght in the sky wrong settings



What it is



I can even make white



look black



Most people take pictures with poor equipment / don't know how to use it or both.

Hello everyone,

This is my first post but I have been an avid ATS lurker for a few years now. This topic got me thinking about a photo I took on the 18th of January 2019 between 22:00 and 22:30 on my Cannon powershot sx430 is, it's not a professional camera by any stretch of the imagination and I got it to take family photos and such.

Anyway I was taking photos of the moon as it was a really clear night and my partner pointed this object out. I had the camera on max zoom and whatever it was was moving at a fair speed. I took a few photos but only have this one saved to the SD card on my phone I can upload and the rest are on my camera still. I have no idea what it was but I've not seen anything like it before or since.

We live about 19 miles away from RAF Valley but never really see anything other than commercial flights travelling overhead towards Liverpool and Manchester airport (to the east) and the occasional RAF jet. This object was heading south east until it faded out of view. If any of you have even the faintest clue as to what it could be then let me know.

I apologise for having to link the pictures externally, the uploader is just showing me a small black box I can't do anything with. If you click on the more exif data it gives you a breakdown of the camera, Exposure Time, Aperture etc.

The first link is a picture of the moon to give you an idea of the shots the camera can take and the second is the object.

Thanks, Frank.

ibb.co...

ibb.co...

a reply to: FranksHog
Its hard to say that a light in the sky is not just a light in the sky. If it was moving I suppose it can be something. But if you ask what a light in the sky that you took a picture of is? Well just wait around for the responses, probably heard them all by now.

Anything from swamp gas, to flys in the foreground, to the aurora borialis, to your just a troll with fake picture, or its cgi, to people who would what the exif data, as if that means anything, to its a UFO bro, to its a lighted drone, to its the galactic light federation yo, to the good old blurry image and dead pixels.

To anything and everything. Including my favorite, its a quite obviously a Chinese lantern. Now your thinking its to high to be a chinese lantern right? Not true I have seen pictures of Chinese lanterns higher then that, including one on the moon. It was not as bright as that, in fact did look more like a balloon lantern then anything, and must have been pretty huge as far as chinese lanterns go.

But yup there was one even on the moon on this site before.

But its quite obvious that Chinese lantern technology has come a long way, so it can be.

And that is usually my default answer to what a light in the sky in a picture can be.

But really a picture of a light in the sky is usually a picture of a light in the sky, no matter what it actually is. Its still just a picture of a light in the sky. Even the most interesting of said pictures is nothing if not evidence that pictures of lights in the sky exist. Pictures and video can never prove anything more then that.

There are a lot of things that don’t photograph worth a #. Try taking picture of black mold sometimes. Also, almost anything really bright or at night will not photograph worth a damn. Try taking pictures of a flashing street light, anything moving at night. They all suck a reply to: galadofwarthethird

a reply to: FranksHog

Here is the exif of that picture

Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 1/8 second ===> 0.125 second
Lens F-Number / F-Stop = 68/10 ===> ƒ/6.8
ISO Speed Ratings = 800
Sensitivity Type = SOS and REI (4)
EXIF Version = 0230
Original Date/Time = 2019:01:18 22:09:36
Digitization Date/Time = 2019:01:18 22:09:36
Components Configuration = 0x01,0x02,0x03,0x00 / YCbCr
Compressed Bits per Pixel = 3/1 ===> 3
Shutter Speed Value (APEX) = 96/32
Shutter Speed (Exposure Time) = 1/8 second
Aperture Value (APEX) = 177/32
Aperture = ƒ/6.8
Exposure Bias (EV) = 0/3 ===> 0
Max Aperture Value (APEX) = 177/32 ===> 5.53
Max Aperture = ƒ/6.8
Metering Mode = pattern / multi-segment (5)
Flash = n/a (16)
Focal Length = 193500/1000 mm ===> 193.5 mm

1/8th sec iso 800 f6.8 and 35mm focal length almost of a 200mm telephoto.

At that time and direction Sirius the brightest star was in the sky here is a video.



Going by your camera settings etc that is what it was.

One of mine of the Moon

a reply to: wmd_2008

Excellent post.

a reply to: mazzroth

Why is it that Astronomers use "Stacking Software" to clarify all of their blurry, fuzzy and out of focus images of Planets, Moon, Galaxies etc., yet in the UFO arena its never ever mentioned? So it cant be used on a UFO? Hmmm.

Stacking Software

Astrophotography: Stacking Up Your Signal By: Richard S. Wright Jr. | May 22, 2018 The secret to stacking images is increasing signal rather than just increasing the number of exposures. Last month we laid the groundwork for further discussions of noise in our astrophotos. One of the most significant sources of noise is shot noise, a type of noise inherent in all digital images. Our deep-sky images contain shot noise; calibration frames do, too. So how do we deal with it?

a reply to: FranksHog


Well here's your pic of the object with some minor removal of noise and zoomed in 300%. Your will see some architecture but what bothers me is that the aura around the object looks like it was "dubbed" in as the pixels do not appear behind it nor adjacent to it. Is it a model?

a reply to: wmd_2008

Any thoughts on this? The green is hand drawn lines by an Investigator to delineate that they are seeing a "triangle" Your thoughts?

a reply to: Waterglass

Stacking software works because of the control of the position of the camera pointing at the objects and can be many seconds to hours of exposure detail.

Or the ufo guys could use this

a reply to: Waterglass


Poor quality work on a poor quality image