It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Why are all the UFO images handicapped?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:08 PM
I deliberately wrote handicapped because it is a general disability, meaning the images are all shaking, they are blurry, taken from very far away and/or taken by amateurs or captured on a low-tech equipment.

For example, if this UFO Battleship was stationary for 6 hours (!!!), why hasn’t it been captured on high quality recording equipment, like a HD camcorder or a digital camera with high Megapixel rate? If the guy who made the movie was a bit smarter, he would call a news crew or someone else to take the picture, use magnifying lenses / scopes. Well all in all, he could have at least driven on the other side of that thing and record it from underneath or from different observation points.

Or there was this guy from England that was lucky enough to record UFOs on many occasions, was even deliberately waiting for them on his roof – and he woudn't buy a better camera?

It’s like people stop thinking as soon as they encounter something like this. On the other hand I totally agree that the person doesn’t want to loose the object and/or miss some of its activity. It’s a dilemma, but everybody should realize that there are already thousands of crappy UFO shots or films. Make it more believable, make it UNIQUE.

I have seen something myself, but also to defend my incompetence to take a picture or whatever, I was about 12 years old and in the middle of the night, alone on a bike, returning home. In one moment I looked up at the night sky and seen two dots coming from opposite directions to meet/intersect at one point. But they didn’t continue onwards as I predicted for satellites on different orbital heights, instead they merged and after a few seconds divided into three objects and continued in different directions. - This is where my interest in UFOs originates from.

But to return to the original idea, I suggest everybody who is interested in these objects and might aswell be living in a location where UFOs are known to appear, have a HD camcorder or a high-resolution camera always ready.

Take some classes, know how to operate your camera, learn how to stabilize it by leaning on your car or a house or even a person who is with you – improvise and most importantly FOCUS.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:47 PM

Originally posted by iohen
For example, if this UFO Battleship was stationary for 6 hours (!!!),

And this is the main reason for my doubts regarding that video. It's just standing there so, I believe (although its been allegedly disputed) that it has something to do with a mountain or a natural/human made stationary object.

Why are those UFO footages blurred? Because if its not blurred, it's most likely a fake made by a Haiti UFO maker.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:54 PM
I think the main problem, still is technology, or lack thereof. Never mind how cheap or technically advanced cameras are these days, if an object -- any object -- in the air is distant and moving it will prove difficult to photograph. I have a Nikon D70s, which is OK for regular use, but if an aircraft at 30,000+ feet flys over, finally laying my hands on the $700, 200mm lens I can't afford at the moment... is not going to help me too much.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:08 PM
Most people are using cameras that cant even capture things in motion let alone the factor of seeing something amazing that only lasts a few seconds, most probably in less than ideal light conditions..its a recipe for blur.

I dont think the title of this thread is appropriate Btw and seems intended to generate controversy.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:31 PM
There are several reasons why videos are sub par. One has to do with people not willing to even fork out $18 for cheap tripod, so almost all UFO footage is shaky and annoying to look at. Even the "UFO Road Trip" guys who have dedicated themselves to taping UFOs won't go through that simple improvement.

Another is that video is a crappy medium and even more so at night when most of the larger UFOs seem to show up. It's low res compared to photos with even lower res color info with color bleeding, flaring, over exposing the CCD chip with its low dynamic range, noise, chroma crawl, and so on. Digital cameras are also not very good at night except with longer exposures and that would mean a complete mess of the image if it's hand held.

Another is that some UFOs are much smaller than you'd think. I got a good sense of scale with many of the Mexican UFOs when one flew past some helicopters. We're talking small Foo Fighter size like maybe 4 feet in diameter. That means even after zooming in they're still small. So then on TV they digitally zoom in and it looks really low res and pixelated.

As for the particular video you referred to, it's not as bad as most night time videos I've seen. However you'd think if the thing were there for over 6 hours we'd have other video from people, or that the guy would make some attempt to get closer and take some more video. It's things like that that get me suspicious, though the guest vouches for the cameraman's credibility.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by Elhardt]

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 01:42 PM
The ships move very quickly as no G forces are felt by the crew.
A good example is the Bill Meier clam shell film when the saucer
moved in and out of frame.
Weather to bring out a dis info point or fake by Meier during
night black shy videos there are many squiggly lights in the
night sky that are evidence of quick movement and
not some bogus inter dimensional travel just quick aircraft

So nothing is handicapped except for the explanations.

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 05:01 PM
my thought is why Aliens are being so difficult!
why can't they just come a little closer and be stationary for a happy camper picture!

Why are they covering up their visitations by making the governments cover up for them?

All they have to do is just show up in NY City, stick around for a few minutes and then go.

I think it's the Alien Blurr effect they use and rhat effect we reverse engineered to get blur in photoshop.

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 05:34 PM

Originally posted by iohen

For example, if this UFO Battleship was stationary for 6 hours (!!!),


Unfortunately, that "UFO Battleship" was a fire on a hill.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 11:55 AM
Perhaps people are seeing a cold fire.
One that does not burn and is just a light of airborne agitation
associated with the works of Tesla.
Due to that possibility the links have gone by action of anti
Tesla agents.

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 12:28 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Alienslayer
because the sheeple of society will look at a perfect photo and say it's too perfect therfore fake

I think the agents take the photos to make sure the craft operates
correctly or records any faulty ones and publishes the photos
just to have more agents complain about them especially after
doctoring them or otherwise putting up bogus objects to create
work when other assignments are slowing down.

Mod Edit: Removed profanity from quote.

Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2010/8/16 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 01:34 PM
Who walks around with serious camera equipment 24/7? Virtually nobody carries it. Maybe some who've had a previous sighting carry a camera. The vast majority of people who see some ufos have nothing on them other than a mobile phone with a basic camera facility. Try using this phone device when you are experiencing some ufos in the distance, it's not easy, it can be very tricky to even capture the ufo in frame, never mind make a quality recording.

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 01:57 PM
reply to post by ufoorbhunter

Thats why I think agents take most to the photos, some real
and most fake because the operations are most likely monitored.
Plus the veil of confusion must be kept over the entire subject.
The random photo op does seem a bit too strained.
Thus the agent theory.
I had no camera nearby for the closest I ever saw of an unknown.

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 02:04 PM
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
Yep most people until very recently with the arrival of the phone cam had no way of recording their sighting.

Not sure where you're coming from with the agents stuff, can you elaborate please?

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 11:25 AM
So you think we have mostly random videos on youtube.
Quite possible.
I think two or three youtube posters are in a UFO zone.
I think one photographer that posed on ATS was in a place
frequented by Tesla craft, UFOs to the rest of us eh.

I think that many of the past 50 years of photos that were
published in magazines, if real were taken by agents working
for the organization holding the craft. Of course agents would
make hoaxes as well to confuse the issue. The think Bill Lyne
mentions somewhere in his many writings that the CIA hired
a lot of writers to provide bogus UFO stories.

So perhaps many of today's sightings are manufactured.
So what can we go by.
I'd say some of the witnessed sightings like Lonnie Zamora,
Rex Heflin, Hudson Valley, Belgian Triangle and even Travis
Walton when we says he saw three types of craft at a base.
Definite unknown craft.

Mostly we see what appears to be stranded craft or craft in
hover. If posted to be sure the comments of chaos will appear.
From regular folks or from an agenda of fear and mind control.
However if a craft position is known and a test photo or video
is taken by agents to see the result and we see black dots or
a purple blur there is not much harm in releasing such evidence.
Unless there is a explanation why a craft would appear in such
a way. Perhaps the Tesla craft might exhibit what we say are

Mod Edit: Removed quote of the entire post directly above.

Quote the post immediately before yours: This makes no sense, and quoting the entire previous post above yours will result in a slight warning.

[edit on 2010/8/16 by GradyPhilpott]

top topics


log in