There's a point I would like to make about photographing UFOs.
It sure is still part of speculation to a degree, but some analyses have detected energy fields around UFOs, and as a matter of fact, we never got so
far a clear shot of a UFO that resisted debunking. All those that resisted are not totally clear. In fact, it seems that our process of imaging is
somewhat blurred by the presence of that field. I refer in particular to the analysis of the triangle photographed over Petit Rechain in Belgium in
1989. I have published a translation of a news article as well as the extensive latest analysis of that picture in
and the results are quite stunning.
That would mean, if these analysis proof to be entirely correct, that we would never have a way to photograph a UFO clearly with our current methods
of imaging/photographing/grabbing picture in general, as it is blurred.
To help stand my point, I'd like that everybody remembers how many of the conclusive cases include somewhat blurry pictures (to a degree) and how
most if not all the clear shots (Adamski, Meier, just to name those 2) were more or less easily deemed fakes, including by the non skeptics analysts.
If I remember well, the famous shot issued by Adamski was later proved to be a street lamp in LA (or San Francisco?), but I can't be bothered right
now to research that (that guy is a waste of time, and an insult to serious ufology, imo).
Anyhow, the point is that even if we all could use billion pixel cameras to photograph UFOs, we would likely end up having a more detailed blur!
For the anecdote, another case where the presence of intense fields has been more or less proved is the famous "Amarante" case, described in detail
in the GEPAN "Note technique n°17". I have not found so far a complete translation of that case in english, but a simple research will give you a
few links mentioning it. One remarkable thing about this case is how the grass directly under the object observed has straighten up vertically during
a second or two at the precise instant the object departed, in a perfectly vertical, very high speed, trajectory "as if sucked up by the air"
according to the witness. Tests in laboratories have established that in order to produce an electrical field able to produce that effect on the
grass, it would have to be of at least 30KV/m, which is enormous...
I don't think we'll ever be able to capture a clear shot of a UFO unless either it is totally stationary (less intense fields?) or landed on the
ground, still (in which case it is reasonable to assume that the fields around the object can be reduced or zeroed).
[Edit to add:]
I have a complete version of that Note Technique n°17 in French for anyone interested. It is a 62 page Word document. I plan to translate those docs
one day... but it is quite some work! Maybe some time in the future...
[edit on 31-5-2009 by SpookyVince]