'i noticed the other day i abstractly answered why they are demonic but not why they are blury'

Did you? Perhaps I missed it.

''b/c of that the demonic ones- i mean the like how in the world ones - are blury b/c of this if you were a demon and your whole purpose was to lead the world away from God'

Kind state here your evidence for such a conclusion. Have naughty saucers been bombing churches of all persuasions?

'then would you let people see the ufos or make them kindof blurry first instinct is let them see it then they have to believe in it bu t if you actaullly think about that theres aot more lying and sin when its a mystery'

The technology of the phenomena is a mystery. The rest is your own belief system.

'and buy the way to answer the whole religious people see ufos not christians who are #1not involved in the occult #2 have friends that if you ask them if they knew you are a christian they wouldnt be suprised"

I became a Christian more than 40 years ago, although I don't visit churches etc to worship.
While I have felt like crawling under my car some nights while shooting stuff, the ultimate aim, to gather data for Scientific research, has been relatively successful and for that I thank my Guardian Angel and my Faith.....chris

you really can't take any pictures. they're hyperspace based.

Should the settings be different for B&W and Color?

No. I often use a DSLR as a lightmeter when I'm shooting B&W. As long as the ISO speeds are the same, it's all good.

Is B&W just a waste of time when shooting UFOs.

No. B&W is just as good as colour most of the time, especially if you are able to pull great contrast out of it.

Personally, I think if you were to just sit there and wait for a UFO, it's never gonna happen. So it always helps to have as much knowledge as you can and have a camera on you all the time.

is that camera in the first post is to old and it doesnt look like it uses digital media like flash.

utter crap this post should be flagged!

cant take pictures of ufos let alone someones wedding with that antique. If a guy showed up at my school with that camera e would smash it into a thousand peices!

As scowl pointed out, it is indeed quite hard to smash these cameras. It just so happens that the one I talk about, the T-90, got the nickname of 'The Tank' because it was built so solid. I own two DSLRs, including Canons latest model, but if I had to trek the Sahara they'd be staying at home because in comparison they are very flimsy and plasticky and prone to breakage. The T-90, while not having AEB, does have spot metering.

Film is still used by many professional photographers who need the robustness and quality, and pretty much all fine art photographers use it as well.
Also, all the movies you see at the cinema are recorded on film, and then scanned in frame-by-frame.
Digital has less dynamic range than most films, which basically means there is less variance between the pure blacks and the pure whites, which is vital in pulling detail out of a photograph.

The estimated number of equivalent megapixels film contains varies a lot, but good films are generally accepted to have about 16 or more. To get a digital SLR that has that sort of resolution, you're looking at $5000+, when you can just grab a roll of Velvia and an old T-70 or something for $60.

Digital has huge huge advantages over film in terms of having instant results and being able to adjust things such as ISO, but it would be quite silly to presume that analog media has become redundant.

I tell you what. I'll take my D-80 out to Stephenville, and see what I get, but I don't think they want me taking their pics, any more than my wife wants me to take pics of other girls.