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.


Possible Explanation of Blurry UFO Photos

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:39 AM
Hi to all ATS readers,

I am a new registration, unable to post to the other fora, & I thought I'd post this idea here. I think it is important to get it out into the public domain.

Re: The constant & ubiquitous criticism of UFO photos:

Why are UFO photos blurry? Why are there never clear photos of UFOs?

I'm not sure if this has been pointed out before; I have been interested in the UFO phenomenon for about 29 of my 32 (thus far) years, have been looking into UFO cases (amongst other things) for at least half that time, and have never come across the ideas that I am proposing here:

UFOs are blurry because they affect the gaseous atmosphere around themselves


UFOs are blurry because they emit fields of radiation

Proposition #1: UFOs are propelled by the production of certain types of fields around the craft: electromagnetic, magnetogravimetric, etc.

Proposition #2: UFOs are not propelled by such fields, but the power plants and/or propulsion devices produce such fields as a by-product.

Proposition #3: The fields are a product of electromagnetic shielding to protect the occupants and/or internal components from particular forms of external radiation.

Proposition #4: The effect is a deliberate attempt to produce a plasma envelope around the craft to reduce or eliminate atmospheric resistance.

I ultimately propose that we are seeing a disturbance of the surrounding atmosphere from one or another source that is integral to the craft's functioning. As far as I am able to ascertain, the most likely reason for the blurriness surrounding these objects is that the craft somehow cause the atmosphere to become a plasma. Plasma, as is known, can be caused to flow in particular ways in accordance with the electromagnetic fields that are influencing it. If you consider the way that the atmosphere distorts images when observing a mirage above a road in the heat of the desert, then you get the sort of idea that I am proposing.

We know that research is being conducted into electromagnetic (and magnetogravimetric) propulsion. (Aside from the admissions from US Govt contracted developers, there's also EMdrive:

We know that turning the atmosphere in front of an aircraft to plasma can help to eliminate wind resistance.
Wind resistance reduction by plasma

We know that electromagnetic fields have been proposed as a radiation shield for spacecraft.
Electomagnetic Radiation Shield

(Please research further articles for your own interest, I am not able to spare the time at present to provide an in-depth resource list).

Furthermore, those of us acquainted with (at least the basics) of electromagnetism and the production/behaviours of plasma should be able to grasp exactly why the above propositions would have a good probability of producing such effects.

Additionally, one of the properties of plasma is that, under certain conditions, it will emit light of varying colours; as in the many nebulae through the universe, and such things as neon lighting.

This would also explain why some UFOs are seen to emit light of certain colours. The manipulation of the electromagnetic fields would also be likely to cause colour changes in the plasma as different elements react to different energy levels and/or frequencies.

I think if you are familiar enough with the physics, you will quickly extend upon this idea, and this brief description should suffice.

However, it seems to me that these ideas are conveniently overlooked by the physicist that criticise UFO phenomena, which is why I believe it is important to publicise these ideas.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by Vagrant]

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:57 AM
Well, Billy obviously didn't had any trouble making some razor-sharp photographs, lol.
No but seriously, I think your post is very useful and very worth to consider. I haven't thought about it myself really.

Good point!

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 07:27 AM
reply to post by Vagrant

It does make sense as far as the photos go, but wouldn't the UFO also appear blurry to the viewer as well? I like your thinking though and it's obvious that you have given this quite a bit of thought. Very well written too!

Blurry photos aside though, you have some great ideas. Proposition #4 makes a lot of sense to me as it could explain how those things can manage to go so fast. Combine propositions #3 and #4 together and it could very well explain how it's possible for beings to travel at and survive unearthly speeds.

Great post!

Starred and flagged!

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 07:34 AM
reply to post by -Vagrant-

Nice post , well thought out and explained , I agree with your theory as it makes perfect sense , these propulsion systems are designed for either space travel , dimensional travel or both .so any effects on an atmosphere would be a byproduct of the propulsion system in our gas atmosphere , same as the prop on a boat churns up water .

[edit on 10-9-2009 by gortex]

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 07:44 AM
Hi there Thom,

Thanks for your reply, it has brought to my attention that I overlooked something: the available clear photographs of UFOs.

Although I am not convinced of Billy's authenticity (all arguments aside), there is an abundant amount of such photographs of UFOs.

In my experience, many of these ultimately turn out to be fakes.

However, those that are not conclusively proven to be fakes (also in my experience) seem to be older photographs.

I have found that some of the clearest images of UFOs are old black-&-white photographs dating to the first half of the 20th Century.

It is almost as if the transition to magnetic- and electronic-based recording media (since the ol' video tape onwards) has produced an increase in the percentage of blurry UFO images.

There are a number of possible explanations, including the possibility that the UFOs presence somehow interferes with the electrical devices. This would be in keeping with the electromagnetic phenomena described in many cases. Given that video cameras and most modern digital cameras are electronic, it may be in keeping with this known UFO phenomena.

Considering that before around 1980, and to a large degree thereafter, the most common type of still camera was mechanical and chemical in nature, as was the common film camera (with the exception of the electric motor), it may stand to reason that there is a tendency to find that the older photos are amongst the clearest (once again, based on my own experience).

Another explanation could be that different races may employ different technologies, or similar technologies in different ways. Some races may have developed technologies that are better able to handle and manipulate the required fields; leading to smaller, less noticeable, less interfering with the surrounding atmosphere.

I have no doubt that the variety in craft is explained by two things: the diversity of races visiting our world, and the variety of different models of UFO they are utilising. I also expect that some races aren't that much more advanced than us (on either or both of the axes of cultural development or scientific/technological development) whilst others are way ahead of us. With such diversity, I expect that their craft will also exhibit a remarkable range of diversity and technological prowess.

Although it had slipped my mind, I didn't mean to give the impression that the only photos available were blurry, but the important thing for me is to bring to light a logically derived, scientifically based explanation for the sheer abundance of blurry UFO photos.

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 07:51 AM
reply to post by Vagrant

It is almost as if the transition to magnetic- and electronic-based recording media (since the ol' video tape onwards) has produced an increase in the percentage of blurry UFO images. There are a number of possible explanations, including the possibility that the UFOs presence somehow interferes with the electrical devices. This would be in keeping with the electromagnetic phenomena described in many cases. Given that video cameras and most modern digital cameras are electronic, it may be in keeping with this known UFO phenomena.

... and that would explain why UFO's wouldn't appear blurry to the viewer but would be blurry in the photo, so kind of answers my first question in this thread.

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 07:52 AM
Hi gemineye & goretex,

Thanks for your replies as well.

As a quick note, gemineye, I have also considered the why UFOs appear to be clear to the naked eye.

The tentative conclusion I have reached at this point is that it may have something to do with the live observer watching a moving object through a medium that is also moving (air currents, etc.).

It may be that may atmospheric disturbance is cancelled by these movements.

It may also be that the field does not extend very far from the craft and, unless you're lucky enough to be up really close to the craft, you may not be able to see the field.

There may also be a 'wash out' effect in that smaller, less distinct objects against a significantly large enough and bright enough background can wash out with respect to the finer detail. It may be that the disturbances are (as above) not extending far enough from the craft &/or they are washing out against the background.

To be perfectly honest, I'm still trying to iron out the details of the theory myself.

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 07:56 AM
reply to post by Vagrant

I don't think that the fact that most photos taken today are digital explains the blurriness in the photos and not on the sighting itself, after all digital cameras work with the same light as the old film cameras, so there is no reason for them to behave in a different way.

But your possibilities should be considered when the witnesses say that the UFO looked blurred.

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 07:57 AM
I think the most obvious answer is that they are blurry because they are complete and total BUNK. Thinking to hard or delving to deep only causes you to fall prey to the charlatans that have a need for you to go leaps and bounds out of your way in order to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Ever notice how most of the world's mysteries are always blurry? Does Bigfoot, Nessie, Champ and any number of the hundreds of fringe subjects also have the ability to come out bury because of their ability to electromagnetically affect recording equipment or disturb the atmosphere immediately surrounding them?

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 08:08 AM
reply to post by ArMaP

Hi ArMaP,

Also, thanks for your reply.

My conjecture was not some much with the light being received by the camera, but the possibility that there may be electromagnetic interference that is affecting the function of the camera's circuitry.

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 08:15 AM
reply to post by Vagrant

I see you've put a lot of thought into this - but, I believe you're overthinking it
It doesn't need a complex answer.

As you say - not all photos are blurry, anyway.

The reason most are? Because it's very hard to get a clear photo of something that's that far away. Sure, you might stand a chance if you have a tripod, but who carries a tripod around? Nobody is prepared to see a UFO and you often get an extremely limited chance to take your shot.

It really is that simple. You either get a shot of a small dot that's no good to anybody, or you zoom in on the object. As soon as you zoom in, the *tiniest movement* of the camera will make it blurry.

Here's the best two shots I got of a lunar eclipse last year. And, being the moon, it wasn't even moving much

If that doesn't explain why UFO photos are blurry, I don't know what does

[edit on 10-9-2009 by Clickfoot]

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 08:31 AM
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts

Hi IgnoreTheFacts,

Thanks for your reply, too. it's always good when someone brings in an example to 'prove the rule' as it were.

My first response would be that it is my experience that most people are dragged in to the charlatanry you're pointed out by not thinking hard enough about things. (Planet X / Nibiru is a case in point for me. For most of the conjecture, the math and the physics just doesn't bear up to the most cursory scrutiny.)

However, if a soundly based, logical hypothesis is available to explain a phenomena, I believe it should be considered that the phenomena then becomes possible. The example here would be Alcubierre's Metric for space-time warping. This theory seems to hold up to peer scrutiny, with one of the most common current criticism being that occupants inside the warp-bubble would be fried by radiation. If this was shown to be the only practical complication, and it is summarily overcome by some form of shielding or deflection, the theory would then be rendered a viable option for practical space travel (provided we can build and power such a device).

(I'm also aware of the energy requirement argument re: the Alcubierre Metric [the other big criticism], but I understand there has been progress in ways to reduce the energy requirements with the indication that they may be further reduced.)

In regards to your last point, I have to confess that I don't now who or what Champ is. However, with Bigfoot and Nessie, although I haven't gone out of my way to look into cryptozoology too much. I understand two things regarding these creatures, those being that there a very few photos in comparison to UFO photos and that the vast majority of these photographs are proven fakes. As this is the case, I am not surprised that these photos are of poor quality.

There is also another point to take into account: there seems to be a perception when faking photos or video footage that if you do certain things, it will make things look more genuine. Such things as:
- poor focus, including rapidly zooming in & out for no apparent reason
- bouncing the camera around
- deliberate attempts to blur or otherwise obscure the image
all ultimately with the aim that if it looks 'spur of the moment' and rushed, then that will somehow lead to an image that is more believable as being genuine.

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 08:42 AM
reply to post by Clickfoot

Hiya Clickfoot,

My thanks to you also... I see that you have found Occam's Razor.

Yes, you are quite right. 100%, in fact. And I guess that this would apply in the majority of situations.

However, given the thousands of available photos it would be hard for me to believe that all of the blurriness can be explained this way. For what I concede is probably the minority of blurry photos where there was plenty of time to capture the image, or where the craft was reasonably close, there is always the need for an alternative explanation or two.

But I do believe that your explanation is correct, having some very minor experience with a number of different optical devices.

Thanks for bringing this point to my attention (and that of others). I will now be just that more astute when examining the photographs.

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:25 AM
reply to post by Vagrant

For the blurriness to be a result of a camera malfunction because of some interference that interference would be only on the sensor, making each pixel affect the pixels around it, as if it was a point made of ink that got some water and spread to a larger and less marked point.

I don't see how that can happen on a CCD or on a CMOS sensor.

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:40 AM
reply to post by ArMaP

Since digital cameras use memory cards, I find it hard to believe that the camera would be affected into such a extent that it would make blurry photos, but at the same time it wouldn't affect the memory cards...

Honestly, if a camera could be that affected by that type of phenomena, you wouldn't have a blurry photo, you wouldn't have a photo at all...

But I could be wrong, I'm not an expert in photographic material. lol

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 02:20 PM
You have a lot there and all good.
I'll have to check those causes out and always consider them.

Here is something to consider.
The light bending ability of electricity.
Electricity, in some form, might bend light greater than gravity.

new topics

top topics


log in