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 UFO pictures worse?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 10:09 AM
One possibility is that UFO's are more often a product of the human brain than anything else.

I've had friends from the country (where I grew up) visit me and see UFO's where I only saw plain just because I live under the flight path for an International Airport. I'm used to seeing plains in different light (time of day), atmospheric conditions, and angles. So when I see a brilliant glowing orange rod sitting in the sky, I see a plane landing in the evening sun and moving toward me while one friend thought it was some mother ship. He couldn't tell it wasn't hovering, but moving toward us, nor did he know that a plane could light up like that in the sun. I've seen is many times and watched as they approach.

Likewise, if I see a blurry photo, I see a blur. Other people see more. I see rocks on mars, other people see faces.

With the advancement of cameras we have to look at super zoomed or poor quality camera phone pics before things become blurry enough that the human mind is a bigger factor that the picture itself.

And there is the difference between those that claim "smoking guns" and those that laugh at the smoking guns... it is about the observers far more than the pictures.

Neither is a liar nor in denial... but at a certain point of vagueness... you can actually see what you want.

And you are correct, with the quality and even more importantly the number of cameras... then UFO picture of quality should be abundant. I'm not dismissing the possibility, just the likelihood.

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 02:01 PM

Originally posted by earth2
Here is a cool one I havent seen before...found it on image shack

This is one of the landmarks of Bratislava, known as the UFO bridge because of the flying-saucer-shaped restaurant located on top of its main tower.

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 02:38 PM
reply to post by internos

ROFL great find it seemed like fake but this puts the nail in the coffin
You guys are right internos is a human search engine!

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 03:34 PM
reply to post by ntenzpunishment
I agree, you gotta love internos, but it's still a cool picture, well, both of them actually. I'm saving one to the hard disk. Thanks internos, for the real deal.

posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 08:58 AM

Originally posted by littledogbean
the thing with digital cameras is that they have different settings for quality. most people when they purchase a digital camera, they just don't bother with the manual and they just start to click away merrily. so very often they wind up with a jpeg that is 640 x 480 (somewhere in that range). then when a digital image is enlarged you wind up with artifacts and/or a distorted image, which also accounts for the poor picture quality.

standard film photography has its limitations as well, but a regular picture can be scanned at a larger scale than the original and there is less distortion. also when developing, you can get some nicer larger images.

if people were to take the time to learn what their camera can do, they could be surprised at how much better the images look, which can lead to better documnetaion of the unexplained.

This is 100% correct. In the many UFO photos and videos I've seen, I think operator error accounts for much, if not most, of the questionable quality.

Many, many people buy cameras and camcorders, get them free of the package, and assume they're instant experts because the technology makes it "easy". So much of the new equipment has simplified "default" settings that make decent family photos, but are really inadequate for documenting strange goings-on in the sky, at night, moving, etc. That so many people don't even crack open the manual or make a serious effort to practice with their equipment doesn't help.

This happens a lot with video, too. Something I notice ALL the time in UFO vids is that the camera is moving around and the focus is going in and out, especially as operators attempt to zoom in on an object. I have TV camera/production training, and I'll tell you it takes a TON of practice to hold a video camera straight and keep it focused on-target, even with a tripod. Doing it without a tripod is even harder. Add excitement to the mix when someone is trying to document something they can't comprehend (at least at that moment) and that seems "paranormal" and it's small wonder so much video/photo evidence is next to useless.

Many people also make the mistake of thinking the camera "sees" the same things their eyes/brain do. Modern digital imaging systems, especially, view things very differently--they pick up and amplify all kinds of little things our brains have been trained to "gloss over" (like small dust particles near to the camera that show up as the ubiquitous "orbs" so many ghost hunters love to crow about-our eyes see these things too, but our brains "edit" them out in favor of larger, more detailed objects because they're not really "important"). Digital systems see the WHOLE picture, not just what "want" to look at, and that often raises problems when someone thinks they've caught something unusual--more likely than not it's some random, mundane thing your eyes saw but your brain just didn't register.

So, basically, good equipment+uninformed, inexperienced operators+excitement and adrenaline rush+object that could be a UFO=lousy photos/video. Add a dash of wanting for their 15 minutes and it's little wonder UFOlogy isn't getting anywhere.

posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 09:28 AM
reply to post by internos

Hi internos, good example.
and strrd.
I'm scared stiff, because when I see the object in your picture it looks to me on one of Tom Cruises War of the World monsters.

<< 1   >>

log in