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.

 

Better Cameras: More Distant UFOS and Very Sloppy Footage

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
We have digital cameras in cell phones and very sophisticated hand held video cameras with still cam, zoom, infinite focus, and low lux light features.

So Why are UFO's so far away and blurry?

1950-60-70's that helped whole generations believe were based on nice sized photos with identifiable metalic shapes with windows even. Now with all our advancements we see distant specs of lights or blurry metalic dots in the daylight hours.

What happened to the Classic UFO shots that launced the craze?

Is this a conspiracy of a different type?




posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   
My opinion is that most of the UFOs out there are using optic camouflage, that works better during the day since there's more light to go around. I've conducted a theory on it, just search my old posts and you'll find it (feel like I've been plastering it in every thread I get the chance to).

Also, I think you overestimate the power of technology. The imaging technology hasn't gotten Drastically better, only normally better over the years, and you could imagine that the overall technology of the human race still is somewhat old. A lot of people still own ooold cameras and equipment and simply hasn't cought on to the hype that is technology today. There's always something better out there, but if you have your old super-8 camera (or whatever) that still works and is doing just fine, why bother changing it?

Also, there are Millions of poeple living in NY, but the only camera wich cought the first 9/11 plane was one of a soccer practice, of Total accident. So even though the population of NY had probably a long time to react, noone actually took footage of the first plane. Gives you a little insight in what you're trying to believe.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Drexon - My post should have included the proliferation of cameras. I only eluded to this in my cell phone statement. I recently busted my cell phone and virtually every budget cell phone comes equiped with a minimum 1.3 Megapixel camera built in. So I have a budget LG phone with a camera now. So It's camera proliferation.

In the 1950's cameras where still expensive and enjoyed more by serious hobbiests than average people. But that didn't keep people from snapping up some very nice images of UFO's. The ones I call the Classic UFO shots. The photos that helped propelled the whole UFO phenomenon straight though the 1960-70's. These photos are at the bedrock in support the UFO following.
I want to be clear and keep things in perspective. Remember this was before the National Enquirer re-introduced the story on Roswell in the late 80's. That's another subject.

The bottom line is The Classic UFO's have all but dissapeared. The glistening metal hulls with identifiable windows.
My belief is it has less to do with shy aliens or even new UFO stealth technology. It's more to do with it being harder to fake a photo or video. This is why people release fuzzy dots in daylight videos or blurry still photographs as UFOs. Just look at any of the recent UFO video posts.

Wouldn't it be cool to have a classic UFO big frame on video? That would be the much needed shot in the arm. Well, it's not going to happen.


Well us CG types still like the oldies type...so we have to make our own.













[edit on 18-10-2005 by nullster]



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   
The whole reason why the only pictures of ufos today are blurry because when they happen, most people don't think about "oooO Get my $400 Camera" they are more like "oh a plane" and forget about it.
And also not everyone carrys a good $400 video camera with them everywhere they go.
So they are stuck with their old 8 and 9mm cameras of yesterday.
And ufo's aren't really pretictibale.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Null.. those are fakes right??



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   
This is why I avoid older UFO files, like the Roswell incident and 'classic' UFO photos, they raise too many questions, also I'd think that UFO pictures were faked in a much wider array back then. Today you can find tons of useful and interesting UFO information, and it is after all that information that is propelling the UFO phenomenon today. The old pictures, in my opinion, doesn't fit in with the UFO mystery. They're too 'human', and seem more lika a pranksters dream, or even a small yellow brick road to glory, as it probably could be pulled off back in the day. Afterall, there Were fakes, no? The older the equipment the grainier the photos the easier to fake, in my opinion of course.

So instead of, for whatever reason, wanting to see the 'classic' UFO captured on film again, focus on present day UFOs and try to tickle your brain in trying to figure out what's going on, as I'm trying to do.
I mean, don't you find it interesting that UFOs today seem to have some sorts of cloaking device?

[edit on 18-10-2005 by Drexon]



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   
It is also speculated that since cameras pick up more than just "human visible" spectrum waves, other waves given off by propulsion drives in these crafts distort final images.

In other words, some believe, the clearer the image the more likely it's a fake.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
inspiringyouth - Everything I post is fake. Those images were part of a CG competition with some pretty strict rules. No post effect work or touch ups allowed.

redmage - Speaking of visable/invisable spectrums You'll love this link.

www.indiadaily.com...

----

This was one of my entries







[edit on 18-10-2005 by nullster]



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by nullster
We have digital cameras in cell phones and very sophisticated hand held video cameras with still cam, zoom, infinite focus, and low lux light features.

So Why are UFO's so far away and blurry?




How about %99 of people dont know how to use a camera properly ? No matter how advance cameras get there still just a tool that need to be operated by a competent photographer. Do you think the guy who snaps a UFO on a family outing knows about aperture and shutter speed ? Why are there so burry ? Maybe becasue UFO fly at like 3000 MPH and your average camera high speed settings are designed to capture your son on his bike push bike going 6 MPH. If you want to capture UFO you will need a very very high speed hasselblad which most governments have cause there are very $$$$$$$$$$



Helium3

[edit on 18-10-2005 by helium3]



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   
IMO this is real as in NOT superimposed, whether or not is a UFO who knows . The blur on the left side indercates speed and movement consistent with the backround.





posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by nullster

redmage - Speaking of visable/invisable spectrums You'll love this link.

www.indiadaily.com...



Interesting link


Makes me wonder what their definition of "tiny" is.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   
helium3 - The photos from the 1950-60-70 aren't flying 3000 mph. Many are also nice framed shots. These photos are the bedrock lining the UFO cause for the past 40 years. Those pictures are the basis for the perpetuation of the UFO movement durring very key years. If we are to discount these photos, a good part of the foundation the whole phenomenon is based on becomes flawed and less merrited.

99% of users don't know how to use cameras? So average civilian that take pictures at airshows, race tracks, and sports events know how to use cameras. I'll accept 99% of people trying to pass off current UFO pictures are questionably/conveniently inept. Cameras couldn't be easier to use these days for all the reasons/features I described.

More importantly is the Switch from large UFO's to accepting tiny metalic blurs and out of focus distant tiny lights. Include the proliferation of cameras of various size and there really appears to be a dearth of qualified photos to showcase.

I subscribe to the theory of a different kind of UFO conspiracy....




[edit on 18-10-2005 by nullster]



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Nullster: when did i discredit The photos from the 1950-60-70 ?. I merely answered your question. I dont know your level of photography skill but there is a MASSIVE difference between photographing sports events and Extremely pased objects. Here a clue try shooting a pic of a baseball just after its been hit with a normal camera. In the very remote chance you capture this, the ball will just look like white fuzz.

[edit on 18-10-2005 by helium3]



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 12:30 AM
link   
I think the Ufology movement is shooting itself in the foot by publishing the vast majority of digital photos of UFO's, especially static images. The exception is if the incident is backed up by multiple, independant, witness affidavits. An ambiguous, amorphous blob, photographed several miles away does not contribute in my opinion, to furthering the study of UFOs.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 12:30 AM
link   
(If Speed didn't matter then...doesn't matter now)

Observation/questions restated for simplicity

We have digital cameras in cell phones and very sophisticated hand held video cameras with still cam, zoom, infinite focus, and low lux light features.

So Why are UFO's so far away and blurry?

1950-60-70's that helped whole generations believe were based on nice sized photos with identifiable metalic shapes with windows even. Now with all our advancements we see distant specs of lights or blurry metalic dots in the daylight hours.

What happened to the Classic UFO shots that launced the craze?

Is this a conspiracy of a different type?



[edit on 19-10-2005 by nullster]



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   
maybe all modern UFO photos are fake ? mabye all the 1950-70's shots are fake, will any of us ever know the truth ? Who knows maybe they where told not to fly so low by the government.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   
If it makes a difference Ive seen a UFO before... I believe theyre real we chased it on our bikes in like 6th grade It was pretty big and it was hovering above the ground like 40 ft, my friend Jamie glimpsed it and said look over there and I was like come on. We chased it for like 3 blocks it just kinda hovered pretty slowly. Then it dissapeared around the backyard of some house.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by helium3


This picture is just too cool! I've never seen it before. Is this the UFO that Gordon Cooper allegedly saw land? I think it's real.

BTW, the allegedly fake picture of the two UFOs being seen out of the plane window is a damn good fake if it's a fake at all.

Peace



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Every Image I post is fake. There are allot of CG artists like myself that are intrigued by UFO's. All are CG composite work. I have some cool animations in the works. Better than the poor blipping lights and out of focus metalic ballons people want to pass off as real.

The point is that most of the compelling UFO images that started the phenomenon are very very old. Clear example is that purported Edwards AF Base image dated 1957-58. Hmmm its clear no one here wants to know anything about the thousands of experiments that led up to the "lifting bodies" program and prototypes. Lifting bodies concepts that were theorized and developed since the 1930's in Germany. But that's another story.

Point is, we are getting BS images and footage when we used to get an abundance of very cool photos like the ones I posted. There would be a smaller much less significant UFO community if all we had was blinking lights and blurry orbs in the 1940-50-60's. You would never call one of these examples a Flying Saucer for sure because you can't even make out their shapes now. There isn't even enough information there to make a Science Fiction movie. What would we call the movie.."Blurry Orbs Attack" or Lights" or "Distant Blinking Lights at Night from Mars"? I think that more than drives the point home.


[edit on 20-10-2005 by nullster]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join