Please, STOP trying to find UFOs with web cams!

There is a new virus spreading within UFOlogy. That virus is people looking for UFOs with web cams. There are several reasons why looking for UFOs with web cams is pointless, and will set you up with many false alarms. These false alarms are very distracting to the real efforts of the experienced researchers. In the end, it does nothing but further muddy the waters for those who are looking for good evidence. There seems to be a trend, and newcomers to the UFO subject are no longer looking for good evidence, but instead, they are looking for anything that can pass as an unidentified flying object.

Here are some reasons web cams are not good for UFO hunting:

1: You are not there to personally witness it. Being there to see it with your own eyes in 3D allows you to better judge distance, size, and possibly location, but even then it is still difficult at times. Being there in person allows you to get more information and see more detail because you aren't looking through a 2D square pixel representation of the object, and you have more situational awareness of the enviornment.

2: There is usually no sound with these web cams. You can't hear if it is a jet, or a helicopter, or if you hear birds calling out, or their wings flapping, or insects buzzing, or the squealing of an RC toy. You have no sound to help further identify the object.

3: Most web cams are fixed focus. This means any objects too far or too close will just be orbs of visible light. Out of focus objects are hard to identify no matter what it is. If you have no control over the focus, then you might as well search for UFOs through dirty foggy distorted glass. Speaking of dirty foggy distorted glass, most outdoor web cams are not maintained very often and their dirty glass protective covers or lenses are also cause of false alarms.

4: Most web cams don't allow you to change the zoom. If you can't zoom in on an object then you can't get a better view of it obviously. If it is an object really far away, chances are the details of the object are smaller than the size of the pixels you are trying to view them with. Viewing a circular coin at 100 feet with no zoom will appear like 1 square pixel. Try to view it from further away and that 1 square pixel will have no choice but to change to a color that tries to represent the coin and the surroundings at the same time, and the coin will appear to not even be there, or just appear semi transparent. Zoom is important... REAL ZOOM with lenses. Digital zoom is not good at all, it is just taking the pixels and making them bigger, it is not actually getting more or less light (detail) via changes in lenses.

5: Compression. Web cams are notorious for having strong compression algorithms so there is less visual data to send over the internet. Most of the compression is lossy, and detail is... lost. To reduce file sizes transfered over the internet, most compression algorithms start with reduction in the amount of unique colors. This is why you get blocks in the images. When one color blends into another there is many unique colors within that blend. To reduce file size, they reduce the amount of unique colors, and so that blend becomes more like steps. This kills a LOT of detail, and makes it look blocky. This could make identifiable things unidentifiable.

6: Most web cams are fixed or uncontrollable so you can't pan or tilt the camera to follow the object you are looking at. One of my pet peeve's are UFO videos that don't show the object fly away, and instead, just end. Seeing how the object disappears is a major factor of figuring out what it is. Did if fly straight up to the stars? Or did it fall to the ground? Did it fly behind buildings? What happened? You can't really get that from web cams.

7: There are many more, but I am running out of time. Maybe the experienced UFO researchers can chime in.

The only reason to ever use web cams for UFO hunting is when you live in the area you are hunting and can go outside to get a better look after you spot one. Or if you know someone in the area so they can look at it with their eyes. Like a warning system. However, you will have lots of false alarms, and you will be rushing outside only to find out you filmed a blimp (or something else) that is flying miles away from your web cam.

A simple fact is; anything can be unidentifiable when looking through bad cameras!

Sometimes I feel there is a group of people who are trying to force others to "believe" by taking inconclusive images and video and then labeling them as "UFOs". Then, because the images are such horrible quality, people have no choice but to agree that the object is unidentifiable and flying (UFO). Of course it is unidentified, how do you expect people to identify something that lacks detail and definition? That is when people get all excited and say stuff like "see I told you UFOs exist!" and "this is the best UFO evidence ever!", simply because there is an object lacking detail and you can't identify it. Of course unidentified flying objects exist.... Objects that are out of focus, blurry, have zero detail, too small, are pixelated, with bad lighting, and all around lacking any definition are very hard to identify.

It's like trying to prove UFOs exist to an old man with bad eye sight by telling him to remove his glasses and look into the sky at everything that flies. "See old man? UFOs exist!".

I think there are two kinds of UFO... Real UFO, and Semi UFO.

Semi UFOs are objects that lack detail and you can't possibly figure out what it is visually (could be anything), and you have to rely on flight characteristics to determine what it may be (very hard to do).

Real UFOs are objects that have clear detail, you can clearly see that it is not a bird, or aircraft, or something mundane, and you can visually rule out that they are known (identifiable) objects. (these videos are very rare, if not non-existent, and for a very good reason).

UFOlogy has changed recently because of all the new comers. They are focusing more on semi UFOs, and not on real UFOs. I don't want to see blurry pictures of what could be anything. I want to see clear pictures of what couldn't be anything.

Ok, rant over.

Most people use webcams so they can record something for long periods of time and then go back later and skim through the footage.

There are 1080p webcams that are better than most cameras.

Rant or not, nobody told you that you have to watch those videos..

Amen, I just registered to tell a 7+ page thread that what they were seeing was merely the lights/roads/fog on the Hollywood Hills.

And it made me laugh at all those other times people have stared at webcams for hours at places they don't even know and assumed that what they were looking at "HAD" to be UFOs.

Sorry, but if you aren't looking with your own two eyes, you can't judge depth/size/location/source very well at all, and if you don't know the location, you don't know what regular light activity in the area looks like, maybe the lights you saw happen once a year?

Trust me, when the UFOs really do come in spaceships, they're not going to be small blinking LEDs in the distant skies. It will be much more epic. I believe an aliens, and alien contact and alien abduction through dreams/drugs/etc. But I for one do not believe that they have made landfall yet, and I have yet to see evidence to the contrary.

This whole webcam thing needs to stop.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


I can understand what you're saying but anyay to record your experience is important and should be used! It shouldnt be the only tool or camera used in investigations. However, i think its great to use the web cams rather than nothing at all. Especially recording overnight footage that can be pretty long is easier with webcams to download to your PC. I do think in order for objects in web cams to be labeled 'UFO's' from, there better be a lot of evidence pointing to such claims, not just a slow moving, distorted light in the sky.

Well, I'm not going to tell folks to NOT watch for UFOs in any manner they see fit but I will say this to those who wish to start a thread about a webcam sighting:

Put on your detective cap and do a little research about the webcam before posting. Where is it specifically? What direction is it pointing? Can I find a daylight picture? Is there an airport in view? And so on. Gather this basic info and then post.

reply to post by MurrayTORONTO


I'm not talking about high definition cameras left on to record. I'm talking about these public web cams that you find on websites which are usually low quality. Even then, sitting a camera out to film something why you are away is also not the best way to record "UFOs" because you can't verify what you filmed. You can't see how far or how close the object was, you can't zoom in, you can change the focus, etc. . You will record something you can't identify for sure, because you have only a fixed 2D image of it. High definition or not, it's just setting people/yourself up for a fail. It is NOT a good way to get images of real UFO, only semi UFO. Any person can set up a camera and get images of unidentified things, because you were not there to identify it. All you have is a crappy pixelated representation of the object.

If you are serious about UFO, setting up a camera is not the best way to go, you will have many false alarms. The best way to go is to be there yourself and film.

Originally posted by MurrayTORONTO
Rant or not, nobody told you that you have to watch those videos..

This comment above doesn't sit well with me. It's illogical.

I am a UFO researcher. If someone posts a video saying "UFO caught on camera!", then I am going to watch it because I want to see it too. How am I supposed to know if it is a good video or not if I don't watch it?

I just hate getting disappointed when I watch the video and I find out it is a crappy web camera, zero detail, and is completely inconclusive. It's a waste of my time... and your time. Nothing can come from it, and it only sets people up for false alarms.

Why do you care about inconclusive videos to the point you feel you need to post them in public? It's like "hey look I got a blurry out of focus object of something in the sky... it could be anything.. but who cares? Lets just talk about an object that could be anything!". It's a waste.

I hope I make sense.

here is an example of web cam footage that i beleive is alien craft
if you only want studio quality footage you are likely to be deceived




yes web cams can deceive too
xploder

reply to post by wildshoetwt


I agree with you 100%.

Another example was the New York lights from the Earthcam cameras.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Which were found to just be jets:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yep people still believe they are UFO because 1) they are looking at time lapse images, 2) they were not there to see it, 3) they are not familiar with the area.

This above sighting even fueled people's belief in a fake prediction, and they actually believe the prediction came true. Over false data.

In that same topic, they also confuse dirt on the lens as a UFO, this dirt UFO spreads all over the internet as being real... and later it is proven to just be dirt on a web cam image.

It's never ending nonsense. It is destroying legitimate research.

reply to post by XPLodER


Still going at it I see. That video was proven to be of jets long ago, and you are still going around B.S.ing people about it. You are destroying legitimate research, and leading people off the correct path. You are deceiving people with your inconclusive, out of focus, dirty lens web camera images.



Luckily someone found high definition images from another camera to prove they are normal lights:

Originally posted by XPLodER
yes web cams can deceive too

Please do take note of your own words.

Transferring my reply from the soon-to-be-closed dupe thread:

Another issue is shutter speed/exposure. In order to capture enough light to resolve an image in twilight or darker, you can increase the signal gain (and consequently noise) or reduce the shutter speed to 1/4 second or even longer. Thus a simple airplane or firefly can end up looking like a "cigar-shaped object". This applies to all cameras, but web cams are particularly problematic because they have the worst optics and sensors, and the gain is already maxed out and amplifying a lot of noise.

That being said, I don't think people should stop pointing web cams at the sky. In fact, I think people with the resources should save all of their web cam images permanently. There are some powerful-but-slow statistical techniques (e.g. "Bayesian superresolution") that allow you to remove noise and increase resolution by combining the data from multiple video frames into one image. In a few years when everyone has petaflop supercomputers under their desk, it will be possible to go back and process those old junk images.

Someone on the duplicate topic asked this:

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Could you provide some comparative photo examples please?

For instance, a few webcam ufos, then a few real ufo pictures.

Thank you, you raise some good points.

Although I don't have any "real ufo" examples, I can tell you a good scenario.

The government has a history of developing "secret" aircraft. For example, the stealth bomber. Imagine that someone spotted this stealth bomber before it was declassified, and then took a very clear image of it. I am talking about a clear image of it's shape, and color, and a reference to size, and height. THAT would be a REAL UFO image because nobody knows what it is, and the image would clearly show a craft. They could see it's not a bird, or a toy, etc., and they can see that it is actually some type of craft. It would be a flying object that is yet to be identified. Nobody knows who owns it, or who is flying it...

A semi UFO would be a blurry picture or a light in the sky. We can't identify it, of course, it's lacking detail. If it is just a light it could be anything. A jet, a toy, a flashlight on a hill, reflection on the lens, etc... anything... Who the really cares about semi UFO? Not me, they are inconclusive. This is why I feel it is a waste of time posting semi UFO on UFO websites... who really cares about them?

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


as a science guy
i know how and when i feel about scientific things
in your mind all of this stuff is phoney
but in my mind my footage is unexplainable
so it is my opinion that this footage is real
saying im full of bs or not credable is attacking my beleifs or my ego
how about trying to logically convince me that you can expalin why these objects arnt unidentifyed flying objects and are 100% without doubt what you claim they are

while your at not attacking me and explaining how the "planes preformed a syncronised right turn"

here is another still from earlyer on
what is the large luminous object because everyone seams to have a different explination as to what it is
so that kinda fits the bill for unexplained
here is the pic i mean


so far i have yet to have the object in the upper right of the pic identifyed to my exacting standards

can you do so?

or is this the type of thing thats "always" a plane?
are you letting preconceived ideas to cloud your judgment
or am i?

explanation of why i beleive this is unexplained
www.abovetopsecret.com...

please could you detail how and why my thinking is bs or at least why i am wrong

as for being bad for the ufo comunity
i think the lack of critical thinking also can be seen on the debunker/skeptics side also so this may open eyes to missing footage that may be good because of previous experence

i can learn from anyone can you?

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


This is the type of thing I am talking about people.... this guy's post.

All you have is inconclusive video of lights. The moving lights can easily be jets, and it has already proven to be jets. The video is filming a known flight path, and examples have been shown. There is even video of it happening the next day, and the next day, and the next day. If you insist that UFO's are showing up every day in the same spot and nobody is getting more than a web cam video of it, I would have to say that is the most illogical thing I have ever heard.

As for that more stationary object you point to in the top right... that is just a light. It could be anything. It could be a reflection on the lens from another part of the city. Or it could be Jupiter (if you look at sky maps for that time and direction you can confirm this to be accurate). It could be many things. If you watch the time lapse you can see the object moves the same speed as Earth spins and could easily be a celestial object. Those web cams have dirty protective covers over them, so it could be a much smaller light that only appears larger because the protective cover is distorting the light and making it appear the way it does.

The problem is, this is inconclusive, low detail, no sound, out of focus, no eye witness, rubbish. What do you expect from it? It could be multiple things.... it's a semi UFO. From the video it appears that it's not even flying, it just happens to appear in the sky. It could be a reflection. It moves a little, and could be a celestial object, but those don't fly....

It's just inconclusive unless you ignore direct evidence. I am willing to believe it was Jupiter because not only is it moving the speed of celestial objects, but that is EXACTLY where Jupiter was on that night.

....There is no point debating with you. I am aware of your denial, I have read your posts. Plus, it is crappy web cam video. Exactly what this topic is about.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by XPLodER

 

This is the type of thing I am talking about people.... this guy's post.

All you have is inconclusive video of lights. The moving lights can easily be jets, and it has already proven to be jets. The video is filming a known flight path, and examples have been shown. There is even video of it happening the next day, and the next day, and the next day. If you insist that UFO's are showing up every day in the same spot and nobody is getting more than a web cam video of it, I would have to say that is the most illogical thing I have ever heard.

the debunking video you posted shows someone elses video not mine so try again
i have spent nearly five weeks of my life looking at this cam every night and have yet to see anything at all like i saw that night so please spare me the lights were seen the next night stuff as i have been cafully watching to see what is "NORMAL" air traffic patterns so i can say these lights HAVE NOT been seen since

As for that more stationary object you point to in the top right... that is just a light. It could be anything. It could be a reflection on the lens from another part of the city. Or it could be Jupiter (if you look at sky maps for that time and direction you can confirm this to be accurate). It could be many things. If you watch the time lapse you can see the object moves the same speed as Earth spins and could easily be a celestial object. Those web cams have dirty protective covers over them, so it could be a much smaller light that only appears larger because the protective cover is distorting the light and making it appear the way it does.

funney thing is in the explination thread i linked to you will see no one has explained this light 100% and there is two sets of footage from different angles with buildings in the foreground
you said it yourself this could be anything
thing is i have cheaked for a five week period and any celestial object would have reapaired by now so no

The problem is, this is inconclusive, low detail, no sound, out of focus, no eye witness, rubbish. What do you expect from it? It could be multiple things.... it's a semi UFO. From the video it appears that it's not even flying, it just happens to appear in the sky. It could be a reflection. It moves a little, and could be a celestial object, but those don't fly....

just look at the behaviour of these objects again the move together as if connected i dont think you read my link

It's just inconclusive unless you ignore direct evidence. I am willing to believe it was Jupiter because it was not only is it moving the speed of celestial objects, but that is EXACTLY where Jupiter was on that night.

so there we have it you have wrongly concluded what the larger object was and yet your 100% sure you know what it was (would have been visable by now 5 weeks) dont worry though i have had people name the moon jupiter venus the iis a heli copter planes ballons and other things i have cheacked all these claimes and can say they are not up to scutiny by me

....There is no point debating with you. I am aware of your denial, I have read your posts. Plus, it is crappy web cam video. Exactly what this topic is about.

edit on 13-11-2010 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)

point in trying to make here is that you are adament this has been solved yet your explinations are lacking
im willing to discuss your opinions
are you willing to discuss mine
because if not this thread is an attempt to try to make members look and feel stupid weather you realise it or not
and by having this conversation with you i wish to show you that i personally am not stupid
or easily fooled and i dont like it when members attack an avenue of interest because its not your cup of tea

each to their own no need to belittle anyone here just dont post

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


This will be the last time I reply to your off topic rant about a debunked video. I know no explanation is good enough for you. You are clearly in denial, and don't know what deductive reasoning is.

1) Those objects are jets. They were filmed days later in the same spot, moving the same speed (after a storm passed). There is other video of the same spot, on a different year, with the same objects. The camera is sitting between 2 major airports. They are jets, and were already proven to be jets. They look and act exactly like jets. Don't ignore these facts.

2) The more stationary object you see is in the EXACT location Jupiter should be. It is even moving the EXACT SPEED of Earth's rotation. On that day, Jupiter was very close to Earth and wont be that close until 2022. Don't ignore these FACTS. The reason you didn't see Jupiter again after that day is because there was a storm and lots of clouds. After that, Jupiter was in a different position each night. It is not always in the same spot. Please do learn some astronomy.

MOVE ON! IT'S BEEN EXPLAINED! FIND BETTER EVIDENCE OF UFOs!

This topic is about how inconclusive web cam images are. This topic is not about the debunked NY Earthcam video.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
These false alarms are very distracting to the real efforts of the experienced researchers. In the end, it does nothing but further muddy the waters for those who are looking for good evidence. There seems to be a trend, and newcomers to the UFO subject are no longer looking for good evidence, but instead, they are looking for anything that can pass as an unidentified flying object.

I disagree with you. First of all, the title of your thread seems to condemn people for hunting UFO through webcams whether they actually upload anything or not. It is really up to them to decide what they do in their private lives.

Secondly, who are the experts and experienced researchers that you are referring to? You should realise that any witness is actually as good as, if not better than, the so-called experienced researcher (especially if the researchers themselves have had no encounters and are just theorising)

I have come across this kind of UFO snobbery many times before , with the usual: "I have been researching UFO for many years so I know more than you" attitude.

There is somethng else which bothers me. Some people seem to take exception to people posting questionable UFO clips on youtube because they say that it damages the hard work of researchers. As far as I am concerned, these people can carry on posting as many clips as they want and Alison K can continue flooding Youtube. It does not bother me at all. It really does not change anything at all. I have my views and that's it. I have not got such a poor view of humanity to worry about how the world will be influenced by youtube clips.

Perhaps there is a drive to create a universal belief about what UFOs are. Maybe that is what some UFO researchers trying to do. I have seen many posts where 'Ufologists' are suggesting that the definition of Ufology should only be limited to the consideration of physical crafts and the examination of evidence. They say that no other considerations should come into it. In other words they are saying that Ufology should not embrace things such as philosophy, Quantum physics, Spirituality, Metaphysics, the occult .. and I could go on. That means that UFOs will remain a mystery for the next millenium thanks to this attitude.

In my opinion, 10 million amateur UFO clips can never be 'false alarms' . People will choose to believe what they want to.

The problem is, this is inconclusive, low detail, no sound, out of focus, no eye witness, rubbish. What do you expect from it? It could be multiple things

That describes just about every ufo pic or vid. I agree that live cams arent a good place to look for ufo's, but i dont think a blanket dismissal of everything they show is right, just because someone thought lights on a hill were aliens.

Okay I apologize. Once somebody mentioned the recent LA ufo webcam thread... I see what you mean now.

But regardless, people will always do it. It's a way of viewing somewhere not anywhere near you. If I saw something strange I would post it.. but that thread.. haha. I remember reading it when it had a few posts, and im just thinking "it's in the distance, in the mountains.. a structure with lights. it's not a ufo fleet". 10+ pages later they finally all agree on this.

Also like that thread about the new york 'ufos' at night... planes that were clearly headed towards the camera as it was pointed at an airport

Though I still think the recent 'incident' in LA was a missile ;p

"This comment above doesn't sit well with me. It's illogical."
It wasn't in my intention to offend you with that comment.

I've seen hundreds of ufo videos .. when one is fake to me, I don';t take the time to get upset about it or make a stand to tell people it's fake. I move on. If *I* can figure out it's not real, then i'm sure other people can too. The people who believe everything they see are the ones who haven't seen enough ufo vids to be able to sift through the bs.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


your topic is about web cams my responces are related by the fact that i captured footage of a yet unexplained phenomonon ON A WEB CAM

please dont dictate what i can or cant use for fear of damaging a ufology study as i am studying luminous orbs of light
there is a feeling of disgust that i get from reading your replys
if venus or jupiter is what is in the footage, what is the object recorded from the opposite direction
you see my point is this
i can prove an object was in the sky that was in range of the webcam that was not
planes
venus
jupiter
moon
mars
ballons
iis
or satalite
yet from your point of veiw my footage is worthless
to my point of veiw
this is an unexplained object

why is your attitude that this footage is void because it only shows orbs of light
when from my point of veiw these orbs ARE the point

can you understand that any light source could be a plane
or it could be something else
untill conclusivly identifyed it is a UNIDENTIFYED flying object
and as of yet these orbs over NYC are IMHO just that

xploder

Originally posted by crowdedskies
I disagree with you. First of all, the title of your thread seems to condemn people for hunting UFO through webcams whether they actually upload anything or not. It is really up to them to decide what they do in their private lives.

I am not trying to tell them what to do with their lives. I am teaching them that they are going to set themselves up for disappointment if they search with web cams. They will have many false alarms.

Originally posted by crowdedskies
Secondly, who are the experts and experienced researchers that you are referring to? You should realise that any witness is actually as good as, if not better than, the so-called experienced researcher (especially if the researchers themselves have had no encounters and are just theorising)

ME.

I do realize witness are better, but being a witness through a web cam is NOT. If your only view of the object was through a web cam then you are not a "witness", the camera is the "witness". A crappy camera with no live eyewitness to see what the camera is seeing with their own eyes is not a good witness.

Originally posted by crowdedskies
I have come across this kind of UFO snobbery many times before , with the usual: "I have been researching UFO for many years so I know more than you" attitude.

UFO snobbery?? What I am saying is common sense. This topic is mainly about people who live in California, and are hunting UFO's with web cam videos in New York. They can NOT rely on crappy web cams to catch something. If they don't have their eyes there they are setting themselves up for failure. It is really easy to think you caught a UFO with crappy web cam videos when you are not there. It's a waste of time. If your eyes are not there too see it yourself, it's most likely a waste of time.

Originally posted by crowdedskies
There is somethng else which bothers me. Some people seem to take exception to people posting questionable UFO clips on youtube because they say that it damages the hard work of researchers. As far as I am concerned, these people can carry on posting as many clips as they want and Alison K can continue flooding Youtube. It does not bother me at all. It really does not change anything at all. I have my views and that's it. I have not got such a poor view of humanity to worry about how the world will be influenced by youtube clips.

It doesn't "damage hard work of researchers", it makes more work for researchers to do. If you are going to post b.s. UFO images without first researching it your self, it just creates more work for the rest of the researchers.

Also, have you never heard of "the boy that cried wolf"??

...and, do you not care about other people being deceived? Do you not care about the truth?

Alison K. is spreading disinformation. Plain and simple deception. Her loads of fake videos will make the real ones hard to find.

Originally posted by crowdedskies
Perhaps there is a drive to create a universal belief about what UFOs are. Maybe that is what some UFO researchers trying to do. I have seen many posts where 'Ufologists' are suggesting that the definition of Ufology should only be limited to the consideration of physical crafts and the examination of evidence. No other considerations should come into it. In other words they say that Ufology should not embrace things such as philosophy, Quantum physics, Spirituality, Metaphysics, the occult .. and I could go on. That means that UFOs will remain a mystery for the next millenium thanks to this attitude.

If you bring quantum physics, spirituality, metaphysics, the occult, etc. to UFOlogy then EVERYTHING becomes a UFO. Nothing will have an explanation. You will get the usual "you don't know what technology the aliens have" rubbish which then could mean any hoax UFO could be considered real.

Originally posted by crowdedskies
In my opinion, 10 million amateur UFO clips can never be 'false alarms' .

What? :pus:

You mean when someone uses a web cam which has dirt on the lens, and goes around claiming the dirt is a UFO.... that can never be a "false alarm"?

This isn't about what people believe, this is about what is true or not. I am seeking the truth, not what I want to believe.