Explain this to me

When I see pictures like these:







We all have seen them like this and they are cool as hell.

But explain to me, why, no one has ever (at least that I have seen) produced a high quality image of a relatively stationary UFO in the sky, but images of light moving, well, at the speed of light can be captured with stunning detail.

It could be that UFO's are mainly staged hoax's, and real UFO's (if they are out there) are probably very good at hiding themselfs since they (obviously) don't want to be known.


Btw i'm only saying this because i wanted a reason to say thanks for showing me those photos. I saved em :s

reply to post by Skewed

Well to some degree you can set up and predict the right conditions for a high probability of thousands of lightning strikes in a said area. If you have some UFO predicting equipment I would gladly set out for day's to get one for you.

Much like catching a car crash on live TV without prior notice and how many car crashes are there a day?

Just my opinion though.

Some guy on here made a good point about jet fuel bluring photo's and us not knowing how the UFO is powerd. I cant remember exactly now. But basically they might be using an energy that make them appear distorted in photos.

Originally posted by timewalker
reply to post by Skewed

 

Well to some degree you can set up and predict the right conditions for a high probability of thousands of lightning strikes in a said area. If you have some UFO predicting equipment I would gladly set out for day's to get one for you.

Much like catching a car crash on live TV without prior notice and how many car crashes are there a day?

Just my opinion though.

Agree with the above. Also notice that the items being struck in your pics OP are also the tallest elements within each picture. Which means that focusing on a tall object during a lightning storm is a good way to possibly catch a good pic of lightning striking. When it comes to UFO's, I am unsure if there are conditions or circumstances where one is more likely to show up over another.

Originally posted by Skewed
But explain to me, why, no one has ever (at least that I have seen) produced a high quality image of a relatively stationary UFO in the sky, but images of light moving, well, at the speed of light can be captured with stunning detail.

Several very good reasons:
1) Lightning is a very common event. It happens all the time, all over the world. Not like UFO sightings.
2) Taking the photos is different. With a UFO, you have to be there, ready and in focus with a relatively fast shutter speed. For lightning, all you have to do is have a camera set up, point it at a tall structure, and leave the shutter open.
3) Lightning actually lasts a long time. It can have multiple pulses that can last nearly a second. Sometimes a UFO is gone faster than that.

That being said, there have been quite a few good, high-quality images of UFOs taken over the years. The problem, however, is that photos don't prove anything without other supporting evidence. They're just curiosities that could show any number of things.

Ok, reasonable answers. It just seems odd that someone could not get a good picture of one.

Ok here it goes .
If you attend a motor race , chances are you will get a great shot of a spectacular crash.
If you spend loong enough at sea , you will probably capture the perfect storm.
If you sit by the shore for a whole year at sundown , chances are you will capture the most beautiful sunset ever.

Now then . If you are , for example , walking along a country lane , late at night with your mobile phone or your point and shoot camera tucked snuggly in your pocket , what are you gonna capture in those valuable few seconds, if you come across a UFO ?????

Most of the UFO pictures appear in a picture and are only noticed after the fact. Sometimes multiple pictures are taken in sequence with almost no time in between and a UFO will show up in only one frame. There are also cases of UFOs only showing up on Infra-Red cameras - while another regular video camera is filming the same area with no sign of the UFO. The famous Mexican military UFO footage from 2005 shows 11 objects on a state of the art FLIR camera, but radar only detected less than half and only a few were visible to the naked eye.

reply to post by Skewed


As someone who used to be obsessed with photographing lightning, I can answer this one.

There are actually "lighting activated camera shutter triggers" that you can attach to some cameras and basically just let the camera set there on a tripod until there is a flash of lightning that basically causes the shutter to open and photograph the lightning all by itself. I don't think they make those for UFO's... but they should, LOL!

And even without one of those nifty little contraptions, lightning is usually predictable, as long as you know what region of the sky to aim for. If only UFO's were as predictable! But if they were, we probably wouldn't be near as interested in them, lol.

reply to post by gemineye
Right. We need a UFO sensor.
2nd.

As Zorgon would commonly say in regards to this question. If these craft operate off the use of creating a magnetic field around the ship. This would cause some form of distortion, thus giving you the somewhat blurred or poor quality images. Makes sense to me given our current optical technology would not be made to be able to capture images of objects clearly through a magnetic field? Atleast in regards to craft that operate off a engineered magnetic field.

the pictures you linked to were taken by very expensive camera equipment...most people dont carry around really high-tech equipment on the off chance they will see a ufo, what they have is their cell phones, etc

reply to post by Skewed





Here you go. This was taken in Belgium during the 1989-1990 wave and subsequently analyzed six ways from Sunday (see Leslie Kean's book, which you can download for free on mp3 at audible.com). No evidence of faking was found, and the data taken from the analysis jibed perfectly with the witness's account of what happened. This is actually an overexposed print made from the original negative. In the original print, only the four lights were visible. The triangle shape was not even discovered until the folks analyzing the photo lightened it up a bit. More than 500 unexplained reports were tallied during this flap, most of them describing craft just like this one.

reply to post by Skewed


great photo's.

could be that it's very difficult to throw a small disk in the air and take a good picture of it at the same time.