It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

are there cases where UFOs are invisible to photography?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Is anyone aware of cases where a camera should have been able to photograph a UFO but it simply did not appear on the photograph?

I read a case last night where sailors on an aircraft carrier watched a UFO through binoculars for several hours but could not photograph the UFO for some reason. The book isn't clear why the photography failed. I have a relative who used cameras on a submarine as one of his duties, so I assume an aircraft carrier would have had many good cameras and people who knew how to use them.

If UFOs sometimes do not show up on film when they should, then what would explain that?

Here is the quote:


Gulf of Oman, near Iran - 1978 or 1979, 11:00 P.M. to 2:30 A.M.
The crew of the U.S.S. Nimitz spotted a glowing object about 1500 yards to starboard. It was a cigar-shaped UFO with two portholes just above the water's surface. Photography was attempted, and failed. The object was not picked up on ship's radar. Several members watched the object for several hours through binoculars. Commanding officers informed those who witnessed the object that they were not to talk about it.

(from "Grass Roots UFOs", Michael D. Swords, Anomalist Books, page 120-121)




posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Interesting. Maybe it was in another dimension or inbetween dimensions? But that wouldnt explain why people could see it and the camera couldnt. But yet again, this was in 1978-79 so perhaps cameras back then - having no where near the capabilities of the human eye - just couldnt pick it up...

The most reasonable thing i can think of is it had an anti-camera cloak on
surely if they have the tech to build craft that can travel at vast speeds and cloak themselves, they could handle not being photographed.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Saw a show on UFO encounters with commercial aircraft that had IR video of a dumbbell-shaped UFO near an airliner that was only visible upon review of the video. Can't remember the name of the show at the moment.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
According to some research, some UFO's are only visible in the infrared spectrum and can be photographed by an IR camera.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlanQaida
According to some research, some UFO's are only visible in the infrared spectrum and can be photographed by an IR camera.


I wonder if the human eye has a slightly broader spectrum that it can see than a typical camera. For example, I have read references to an experiment where a different form of vitamin A made the retina more sensitive to infrared. If this vitamin is natural then maybe everyone has some slight capability to see infrared if the source is bright enough. Here is a quote on that:


Although I've mostly been interested in sensory augmentation by means of technology, there was an interesting third-hand report of augmentation through diet and biochemistry. The military during WWII (there are mentions of both US and British forces) evidently experimented with putting people on diets that replaced the normal form of vitamin A with a slightly different chemical, in the hopes that the red-sensitive photopigment in the retina constructed from it would be changed to a chemically similar form, present in other animals, with spectral sensitivity extending into the near infrared. The idea, of course, was to be able to see signal lights and so forth that were invisible to enemy soldiers.

I did some quick checking on this, and though I couldn't find any references to military research, there were some examples in the regular civilian literature. Yoshikami, Pearlman, and Crescitelli (Vision Research 9:633-646 1969) did a similar experiment on rats, putting them on a diet which was deficient in vitamin A and supplementing it with additions of either vitamin A1 (the normal form) or A2 (the altered one). No behavioral studies were done, but they did extract the retinas and perform some spectral analysis, with the result that there was indeed some alteration of the photopigments, specifically the addition of a second form with sensitivity shifted redward by about 20nm.

That study cited Millard and McCann (Journal of Applied Physiology 1:807-810 1949) which was an experiment on humans, albeit with fairly loose controls on diet. They found that behaviorally the group taking A2 supplements had slightly improved red sensitivity, but didn't provide any detailed spectral response curves.

So it seems to be the case that this effect is real, but small: the best you can hope for is a shift of about 20nm, which is not really enough to be of military significance or even detectable without careful testing. Still, it's an interesting "hack" on human biochemistry.

Infrared and Vitamin A
edit on 1-2-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 


A number of years ago, a friend of mine was at an multiple day outdoor concert and observed some clowns (literal clowns, not just people acting stupid) who were waving oddly at him and didn't look right.

Pulling out his disposable camera, he spent the afternoon stalking around them, taking pictures from different areas, exhausting the entire roll of film. All while they quietly watched him, occasionally dancing.

After getting home a couple days later, he eagerly brought in the camera to walmart, and after an hour anxiously opened the package of developed pictures. He needed other people to see these clowns.

Turns out the clowns were actually garbage bins. He had spent the morning before seeing them eating mushrooms, but in his bewildered excitement, had forgot to factor that in.

My point? Sometimes you should know better than to expect magic clowns show up on film.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
No, it isn't possible.

If you think about it, if a physical object only reflected or ommited light beyond that detectable by a camera, it would still block out the light from behind it. So you would still 'see' a silhouette.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
This is kind of related. I woke up one morning in Helsinki, we lived on the 5th floor and was looking over the terrace outside. To cut a long story short I took a photo from about 70 meters away - I could visually make out a metallic sphere, just larger than a football (soccer ball for our cousins) with a horizontal strip/e around the middle and making some very audacious manoeuvres - tripped me right out - my wife also saw it as it sped off.
I got a few pics with an old 5mgp camera and all that came out was a yellow/gold blob and then a black one at distance - nothing like what I was seeing.

To get to my point they may have some sort of 'security' against photography - I mean if we can spray our number plates to avoid the speedcams imagine what can be done.

I have one pic in my media I think but couldn’t upload back then - if anyone’s curious I will dig it from the old h/d and post it.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by dethfromabuv
reply to post by cloudyday
 


A number of years ago, a friend of mine was at an multiple day outdoor concert and observed some clowns (literal clowns, not just people acting stupid) who were waving oddly at him and didn't look right.

Pulling out his disposable camera, he spent the afternoon stalking around them, taking pictures from different areas, exhausting the entire roll of film. All while they quietly watched him, occasionally dancing.

After getting home a couple days later, he eagerly brought in the camera to walmart, and after an hour anxiously opened the package of developed pictures. He needed other people to see these clowns.

Turns out the clowns were actually garbage bins. He had spent the morning before seeing them eating mushrooms, but in his bewildered excitement, had forgot to factor that in.

My point? Sometimes you should know better than to expect magic clowns show up on film.


That's a plausible explanation. Also it's possible they used an inexpensive camera or didn't know how to use a good quality camera. Or the story could have been fabricated.

Mostly I'm curious if this is common for the UFO phenomena. I like to read about UFO reports, but I don't recall any similar stories where the UFO was visible but didn't appear on film. There are many supposed cases where the UFO is on film and the photographer never saw it.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Speaking of invisible UFOs wasn't there ufos where several ufos in almost triangular formation travel rapidly through the sky. Seen through infra-red or night vision: Ah here it is:



I think the military have a technology to conceal or cloak their aircraft.,, though the lights do not get cloaked unless this is orbs in formation.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
A camera records the same light a human eye detects. So if you see a ufo, take a picture and there's nothing there it's all in your head



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by LestatG
This is kind of related. I woke up one morning in Helsinki, we lived on the 5th floor and was looking over the terrace outside. To cut a long story short I took a photo from about 70 meters away - I could visually make out a metallic sphere, just larger than a football (soccer ball for our cousins) with a horizontal strip/e around the middle and making some very audacious manoeuvres - tripped me right out - my wife also saw it as it sped off.
I got a few pics with an old 5mgp camera and all that came out was a yellow/gold blob and then a black one at distance - nothing like what I was seeing.

To get to my point they may have some sort of 'security' against photography - I mean if we can spray our number plates to avoid the speedcams imagine what can be done.

I have one pic in my media I think but couldn’t upload back then - if anyone’s curious I will dig it from the old h/d and post it.



Do you think the difference between what you photographed and what you saw with your eyes was due to limitations of the camera or is it possible your mind was imagining the metallic sphere to fill in the gaps of a confusing scene? In other words do you trust your eyes or the camera?

I have a nice Nikon camera with a zoom lens but I'm often surprised that my eyes can see more than the camera. I took photos of deer and they looked like mice in my photo. I guess I need a huge zoom lens for nature photography.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 


The first one to notice that UFO's were more often better visible in IR was Wilhelm Reich.
Yes the same guy that has his name connected to Orgone energy and the cloudbuster.
His used a standard camera loaded with infra-red film.
He was also the first to notice that most UFO's were creatures, not ships.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Wrong... Science says: human eye can only see light of the Visible Spectrum, the eye cannot see for example infra red light. Cameras with the special fitlers for it can, so yes you can record what you don't see with a naked eye..



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by BagBing
No, it isn't possible.

If you think about it, if a physical object only reflected or ommited light beyond that detectable by a camera, it would still block out the light from behind it. So you would still 'see' a silhouette.


That is an interesting point that might also apply to the creatures that only appear on IR film. But what if the UFO or creature is transparent like glass in the visible but not in the IR? Aren't some fish almost transparent?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I'am a instrument operator on a survey team. Our electronic distance meter thedolite robot, uses a powerful infrared beam to calculate distance, by the speed of light [the time it takes for the infrared beam to return to the survey insturment,] temperature and barometric pressure. In the reflectorless mode.... you can see the infrared light hitting the target. In the reflector mode.... you can, in low light situations ---- see the infrared light hitting the prism glass.

In some tight situations.... people tend to develop tunnel vision. The rods in your eyes tend to concentrate on one specific target. You have to break that tunnel vision, by scanning the surrounding's by turning your head to and fro.
edit on 1-2-2012 by Erno86 because: spelling

edit on 1-2-2012 by Erno86 because: ditto



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
As for for the U.S. Nimitz's attempt at a UFO photograph --- I would not be surprised at all.... if somebody sabotaged the negatives on the roll of film, before it ever had a chance of being developed; though 1,500 yards is a very long distance.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erno86
As for for the U.S. Nimitz's attempt at a UFO photograph --- I would not be surprised at all.... if somebody sabotaged the negatives on the roll of film, before it ever had a chance of being developed; though 1,500 yards is a very long distance.


I wish the report I read was more detailed. It would be interesting to know why the sailors think the photography failed. Maybe they were using a cheap camera designed for vacation snap shots or some other innocent explanation. Or maybe like you suggested the Navy sabotaged the negatives. Or maybe somehow the eye or mind could see the UFO even though the film on the camera could not.

What you mentioned about the infrared laser sounds very interesting. I imagine the red sensitive nerves in our eyes are sensitive to a range of frequencies around red - where the tails of the bell curve might extend very weakly into the infrared. Maybe it takes an very bright infrared source for the human eye to sense it?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Pic or it didnt happ... oh wait...




posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloudyday




Do you think the difference between what you photographed and what you saw with your eyes was due to limitations of the camera or is it possible your mind was imagining the metallic sphere to fill in the gaps of a confusing scene? In other words do you trust your eyes or the camera?

I have a nice Nikon camera with a zoom lens but I'm often surprised that my eyes can see more than the camera. I took photos of deer and they looked like mice in my photo. I guess I need a huge zoom lens for nature photography.

I trust my eyes, well in that particular case anway, I was watching the approach (originally assuming it was a light aircraft as there is a small airfield near by), and continued to watch as it came closer. I went to wake my girl in the next room to see and when I got back it was between the two buildings opposite. I was stunned.

The camera on the other hand was old back then and not very good. I 'clearly' remember the detail more and much different than the camera did.

One of those 'always remember' moments.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join