Why Is Great UFO Footage Seemingly Impossible To Get?

Hey
What if all the grainy, blurry, and other wise crappy footage of ufo's is by design or on purpose? What if all the mass sightings, without footage or clear photos happened too by design?

I for one have been convinced that we have been visited by intelligent life forms for a long time and believe too that certain departments or agencies have been in league with said beings for quite some time. As well, I believe that "they" probably see us as nothing more than glorified ants scurrying about our stupid business. I believe their technology makes ours look like Lego or not even. There fore I conclude that they probably know fully well of every photo opp they are facing when in proximity of a recording device.

They probably appear when there is little risk of being recorded, They perhaps interfere with the camera, allowing only grainy recordings, or none at all. They are most likely aware of the limitations of our tech and stay just beyond range.

All the skeptics cry for good footage or no footage at all.

Perhaps good footage is not possible because they won't allow it.

Well, imagine that they aren't subject to our "known" laws of physics. They could produce any number of "irregularities" as a result. We're only now figuring out that what we "know" is actually wrong -- and it's only in the beginning of that understanding. It's just not widely known yet, or rather, widely admitted.

This is another reason that "scientific rigor" is so absurd. Pff. We're most likely missing the whole thing simply because our observational skills are so limited, and our "science" narrows it still further.

reply to post by sparrowstail


There is actually clear footage out there its just extremly hard to find and even the clearest one are still open for interpratation. I think you've been looking at youtube too long. I ve noticed that when i upload videos to youtube it deminishes the quality. I thought videos you put up yourself for your own channel would be better but i was wrong.

As for UFO's deliberatly making videos grainy by choosing times and places its hard to film. Im not so sure. I think its just the quality of low to mid price range cameras when it comes to filming objects that small at a distance.

I know how you feel though, its really frustrating.

I haven't looked into all the footage that ATS has to offer. But it reminds of the 1994 Nellis Air Force Base UFO.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The video shows that that there is a pitch black spot on the aircraft, as if it absorbs light. There was an analysis of it also. Here is the video for it.

When strange craft were on the ground or low level flight no one
had a camera.
Except for the Belgium triangle.
Ever since the early operation of these ship the visibility and
photo evidence were evaluated and perhaps deemed no problem
from being identified.
Such craft had the ability of knock out the electronics of radar
on B-17s invading Germany and used to stop bombing runs.
So their operation seems free to go anywhere except near
radar stations and will not be identified.
One theory has so much electricity surrounding the ship that
it generated the light surrounding the craft that makes photos
fuzzy.
Guess thats true.

There is some footage out there. I tend to think that they 'know' when there are 'camera's' present and don't wish to be on film. This is not to say there isn't any evidence visually, or that there is no evidence, but it seems to me that it is highly plausible given the nature of the technology and the way they can get people to experience things like 'missing time.'

They are toying with our minds.

reply to post by MZYYY


I was aware of that case but ive never seen this annalysis before thanks for posting the vid.

Im not going to draw too many conlusions from just two videos, but it would be interesting to compare ten or so like this and see if theres any corelation. Just maybe there could be something to this.

Thanks again.

reply to post by MZYYY


Black bumps?
There are 12 of them around the ship.
The biggest black spot indicated the direction of flight.
Check out some of Mr Lyne's theories of the Tesla ship.
So many electrons are traveling into that bulb or electrical contact
the light rays are not evident and the photos show a black area.
The whole ship has light charges flowing through it for hover
suspension and sideways travel from two potentials.

reply to post by sparrowstail

I can't agree with the technology aspect unless I'm misunderstanding you. For instance, let's take a sighting that was recorded with a 2 MP camera phone. If a photographer would have recorded the same exact sighting with a high end 20MP/100X optical zoom/10,000 frames per second camera on a tripod, I believe it would show significantly different evidence. I'm assuming you mean our technology overall as opposed to the technology an individual may possess.

I also can't agree with the interference theory since that would imply grainy and blurry recordings only when recording UFO's. But we get the same issues because of the limitations of our cameras even when not recording UFO's, so I question the interference issue. Why would they need to interfere with the camera if they knew the limitations and only appeared when there is little risk of being recorded? If there were frequent photographic anomalies and limitations only while recording UFO's I'd probably have to agree with you.

Well if gordan cooper was telling the truth, have not the military intelligence groups got a vid of a ufo that landed.

So they let themsleves to be filmed in that case. So you would think that can can if they want be filmed, but like you say they do not, unless at military bases it would seem.

Someone has evidence, and if you have, would you even bother telling the public.

If i ever filmed one good one, i would keep to myself, ask bob lazar about people and this subject, lol.

Nothing will be good enough for a certain percentage of people.

reply to post by sparrowstail
Physical evidence is increasingly rare. The old 'landing site' trace evidence cases are seemingly a thing of the past. Likewise, vehicle interference cases (at least in cars) have fallen away. We still have reports of aircraft interference and radar returns, but they fall short of *proof* as long as technology has glitches. In some cases, there's little reason to doubt the veracity of reports by aviation staff (ATC, pilots, crew etc), but are they enough to draw conclusions from?

Regarding footage, it's frustrating isn't it? There are more cameras in this world than ever before and yet every day a UFO video is uploaded and just isn't good enough. Most of the time the contents are identified within a one page thread! The same goes for images.

In the past 20 years, I can think of a handful of videos that remain remarkable. Nellis AFB, Hudson Valley boomerang, the flying triangle footage and one from a British documentary apparently showing a black object interacting with a UFO at twilight. It ain't much huh?! Each of them could have terrestrial explanations a la 'secret tech.'

Why is this the case you ask? The straight answer is we just don't know. Speculation is possible, but largely baseless in evidence and facts.

Originally posted by KrypticCriminal
reply to post by sparrowstail

 

There is actually clear footage out there its just extremly hard to find and even the clearest one are still open for interpratation. I think you've been looking at youtube too long. I ve noticed that when i upload videos to youtube it deminishes the quality. I thought videos you put up yourself for your own channel would be better but i was wrong.

As for UFO's deliberatly making videos grainy by choosing times and places its hard to film. Im not so sure. I think its just the quality of low to mid price range cameras when it comes to filming objects that small at a distance.

I agree there is some clear footage; just not as much as there should be based on the amount of tech that we have for recording. i think too the sheeple are getting stupider and less aware of there surroundings.

Not sure why you would think I've been looking at youtube too long, or assume that I even have a youtube channel which I do not.

I guess it's the distance itself that puzzles me. Not much footage of ufos in close proximity of cameras

Well, look at it this way. Do you always carry a good, high-quality camera or video camera around? These days people have cell phone cameras, but they're really not very good. Before now, you pretty much had to have a camera handy, so you'd get more UFOs photographed when people were on vacation.

So a UFO pops up! What do you do? If you're like most people, you stare at it in amazement. You don't want to take your eyes off it for a second, even to run and get a good camera. It's flying away at great speed. You get your camera, but you're only able to get a tiny little blob of light, vanishing in the distance. Even if you're a trusted contactee, like Billy Meier, you're not able to get clear, crisp video of the thing landing and aliens stepping out of it.

And considering that "real" UFOs only show up maybe a dozen times a year worldwide, it's not too hard to see why it's so hard to get decent images.

Most important, however, is to understand that even the sharpest image doesn't really prove anything unless there's something else lasting and able to be analyzed to go with it. Otherwise, even if it's a real UFO, it can't be proven, so the image is nothing more than a relatively worthless curiosity.

Genuine UFOs are a rare phenomenon. I think that's the simplest answer.

Part of the problem is that debunkers - even skeptics - of UFOs want it both ways. They demand good quality photographs or videos but, when it's provided, they howl "CGI!" or "too good to be real." This way, they think they can get away with arguing that NO evidence has convinced them - however good it was - so that they can maintain their limited, high-school paradigm of reality that they realize is discredited by ETs visiting this planet, whilst at the same time appearing to be reasonable and to maintain a proper, scientific posture. This ruse, of course, does not fool more unbiased students of the UFO phenomenon.

reply to post by sparrowstail
I should add that the two genuine UFO sightings I've had would make very poor footage.

The first would need a good camera and tripod and would've been inconclusive due to the effects of light pollution on the camera. The second happened out of nowhere and was over in the time it took to swear a few times...maybe 4 seconds?

There probably have been lots of great and genuine UFO (alien craft) photos and videos over the years, and we've seen said photos and videos. The only problem is that they're immediately dismissed as hoaxes without a second thought. Maybe because they're too good.

Same goes for the common statement of, "No one can keep this secret for this long," as an argument point against the governments knowing anything about ET. Well, last I checked, many former NASA and government employees over the years have NOT been keeping the secret. Or at least allegedly not keeping the secret. But they're all apparently tossed into the same barrel and dismissed as obvious liars trying to sell books or DVDs.

It appears that all of the true hoaxers have done their jobs, hasn't it? They've made such a smoke screen that nothing is taken seriously, even when it could be the truth.

reply to post by sparrowstail


I was talking about myself, with youtube, but you know what i mean.

Originally posted by sparrowstail
Perhaps good footage is not possible because they won't allow it.

IF the UFO's are Plasma Life Forms (Critters) then you would not expect to get a clear photograph of a fuzzy ball of glowing energy
85%ish

IF the UFO's are black of stealth aircraft testing various cloaking technology like special coatings that scatter energy such as light and radar waves, or use plasma charged skins to do the same, then you would not expect to get a clear photograph
15%ish

IF the UFO is a true 'visitor' using an exotic gravity/magnetic/plasma drive that creates an energy field around the craft as part of its operating function, then you would not expect to get a clear photograph
5%ish

You want a clear photo of a UFO? Catch one on the ground with its engines off

Ever try taking a clear picture through a jet exhaust?

Different mechanism... same concept

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/387114a05832.jpg[/atsimg]

I find it amusing how people talk about exotic drive systems on UFO's and expect to take a clear picture
Stop blaming the camera or the photographer

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
When strange craft were on the ground or low level flight no one
had a camera.
Except for the Belgium triangle.
Ever since the early operation of these ship the visibility and
photo evidence were evaluated and perhaps deemed no problem
from being identified.
Such craft had the ability of knock out the electronics of radar
on B-17s invading Germany and used to stop bombing runs.
So their operation seems free to go anywhere except near
radar stations and will not be identified.
One theory has so much electricity surrounding the ship that
it generated the light surrounding the craft that makes photos
fuzzy.
Guess thats true.

There ya go!

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
Well, imagine that they aren't subject to our "known" laws of physics. They could produce any number of "irregularities" as a result. We're only now figuring out that what we "know" is actually wrong -- and it's only in the beginning of that understanding. It's just not widely known yet, or rather, widely admitted.

This is another reason that "scientific rigor" is so absurd. Pff. We're most likely missing the whole thing simply because our observational skills are so limited, and our "science" narrows it still further.

yes, scientific rigor is so absurd and useless. I mean, its only been responsible for every advance mankind has made for the past few hundred years. vaccines, antibiotics, relativity, the space program, etc etc...

Screw science, right?