Originally posted by eriktheawful
When we take a look at pictures and videos presented to us here on ATS of UFOs, I have noticed a lot of observations by members that seem to show a
lack of understanding of things like perspective views, photography and telescope optical systems.
The idea behind this thread is not to "debunk" anything, but instead to try and help ATS members be better observers in this field. Knowledge is
power, and being informed on how things work can help enable a person's observational skills.
With the power of the internet in today's world, we have a multitude of people who can now cruise the internet and come upon all sorts of images and
videos that people have posted and claimed that they are UFOs.
This has allowed any memeber here on ATS to watch a video on YouTube, or find a picture posted somewhere, and in turn bring it here to ATS for others
to see. This can be a very powerful thing as it allows a large number of people to examine something.
However, part of the problem is that many times we have pictures and videos of things that memebers look at, but they lack the knowledge or education
of the device that was used to take that picture or video.
Good examples of this are pictures or videos taken by satellites such as SOHO or STEREO, and ATS members will make posts that state such things as:
The OP explains that photography and telescope optical systems have flaws, which can result to pictures with “UFO” who are not real.
Then, by trying to be more specific and make us understand, he gives an example about pictures or videos taken by satellites and what can be wrong
Sorry but HALF-TRUE .
The problem is, that he gives an excuse to easily debunk UFO photos, because viewers of a photo will think that “photography and telescope optical
systems have flaws, so there it is, its not a real UFO’
So let me give the other HALF-TRUE, who explains why photos can show (real) objects that our eyes can not see.
FIRST, our eyes “catch” a small slice of the electromagnetic spectrum which we call the “visible light”. You can do a small experiment. Take
any infrarent remote control (lets say from your TV) and point it to your eyes.
Press a button, do you see anything to happen? No!
Now take a digital camera or better the camera of your cellphone and point it to the infrared window of the remote. Press a key on the remote and YES
you can see the infrared light which the remote emits in the screen of your camera or phone. And this happens despite the fact that digital camera
have filters to block infrared light. (That’s why its better to use cellphone because usually they don’t have so good filters).
So, a digital camera, or an astronomic telescope (telescopes have a digital camera in their heart), can see frequencies near the visible spectrum
your eyes cant .
SECOND, common digital cameras, especially in broad daylight, take pictures in a fraction of a second, something like 1/1000 of a second. So If a UFO
passes by, the correct moment it can be captured, even thow your naked eye didn’t saw anything
As you can see in the above link, digital photos can freaze the blades of the helicopter.
If a UFO is cloaked to visible light, as a by-product of its propulsion, or on purpose by technological means and its above your head, maybe in
other frequnces near visble ones something can be seen.
Or, if it passes by, in high speed, again a camera at the right place time can “see” something.
So, a camera or a celphone, or an astronomic telescope (with a camera in his heart), can be superior to our eyes in two significant ways.
In the following documentary, in the beginning there is a demonstration of an infrared camera side by side with an ordinary one.
Keep in mind, that despite that the infrared camera in this documentary is a modified one, most regular cameras can record an amount of infrared
light, because their heart, the sensor (CCD) can easily pick up the infrared with easy, so all cameras have filters to block the infrared, But filters
are not perfect so many cameras can see more or less in the infared spectrum.