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.

 

Photos: The Greatest Evidence UFOs Don't Exist

page: 11
9
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 02:51 AM
link   

alienreality

conundrummer

pdawg67
There is no amount of evidence that will convert a skeptic on this subject. You can deny them all that you want. You can call them secret government projects and some probably are. You even can call them demon chariots if your religious views are too strong to face the truth.

The UFO Believers seem just as entrenched, if not more so.



This is because one of these groups is right. But both groups like to argue which one is right,

The debunker type skeptics can easily be proven wrong in my opinion.. But that doesn't mean believing should include just anything.

Debunkers seem to be politically driven and just parrot the popular belief that nothing strange exists. and if it does exist, there isn't anything strange about it, i.e. it is just balloons and aircraft and stars and planets. according to debunkers.

All the evidence that argues against that also doesn't exist to debunkers because they already believe that it can't exist.


REALLY there are lots of threads on here with extreme claims of a dot in the sky on a phone video on youtube or a small object in a picture even claims of ufo's from camera phone pics shown to be the Moon!!!

The MORE information given the more chance of providing a solution do you not think it strange that ufo web sites seem to remove the exif data from pictures which would give time, date, shutter speed, aperture, focal length, camera type etc etc now why do they do that?




posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by pdawg67
 


Please tell me what is a good focal lens, in your opinion.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   

alienreality


Debunkers seem to be politically driven and just parrot the popular belief that nothing strange exists. and if it does exist, there isn't anything strange about it, i.e. it is just balloons and aircraft and stars and planets. according to debunkers.

I can't speak for others, but I like to debunk things because I find facts more intellectually appealing than mysteries. If there's a mystery then I like to know the true story. In many cases, applying a bit of science and optical knowledge to a mystery photo or video can reveal the truth. And I don't know about you but I like truth!

Of course, not every mystery can be debunked like this, but a surprising number can.

And these days, when the majority of people are carrying around half-decent cameras on their person every waking hour in the form of smartphones, you would expect the volume and quality of UFO photos to have increased exponentially since the 1950s and 1960s, when very few people had cameras with them in day-to-day life.

But they haven't.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   
I ve seen once a soccer... so I have many proves in my memories, not to bother with skeptics...

I saw once when I was a 8 years old (About) and I was inside a big fishing boat, far from land (about 1986-1987)... So basically my concern is not the ufos in our solar system that are trapped (the criminals), but when these pests are going to be executed/killed. So my interests in these kind of topics, are different from trying to convince my self of their existence.

a small story, how I saw it... My father is a fish captain with big fishing boats. I went just for a tour, to see how things done... And during the process to collect the fish with his crew... I stayed inside the captains bridge... And I saw it about 50m from me... It came down from the stars and it almost touched the surface of the sea! Then i felt that they took notice that I am watching... They start making extremly fast moves left and right in the area and they left back in the stars.. whatever that was

I was impressed about the speed (disc shape). I remember also the spot I saw it in the map.

if u enter in google maps, go to Greece, Lesbos Island and add these coords 38.929235,26.178646
edit on 26-2-2014 by Ploutonas because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by InTheLight
 


It really depends on the situation you're facing. I'll use the standard 35mm SLR lengths as a reference to illustrate my opinions. Capturing this phenomena is incredibly difficult as one really cannot plan for the shot. I really have to state that adrenalin and the chaotic nature of a true UFO are not your friends.

A wider lens, say 28 to 50mm, would be great for an unknown object in very close proximity to you but something very far away would be a useless dot that would show nothing. Wider lenses are why cell phone/snapshot cameras are a poor choice. 50mm is considered a normal lens as supposedly it is fairly close to how we see with our eyes. However, one really needs way more focal length to get effective shots. Camera shake is really not that apparent at wider angles though which is a benefit.

As you progress up to say 1000 to 2000mm lenses, camera shake starts to become a major issue as one moves up the zooming scale. Normally one would use a tripod or a surface to stabilize the lens which may or may not be an option for making your shot.

I'd actually choose my "bridge" level digital camera SLR hybrid for any still photography attempts as the built-in very wide to telephoto zoom lens covers a wide range of focal lengths w/o needing me to change out any lenses. You also want as much physical zoom as possible. Digital zoom very quickly becomes a liability. I also would apply the same concepts to video cameras too.

The actual UFOs that I've witnessed were only visible to me from 2 seconds to 1 minute. They ranged from 100 feet from me to the upper layers of the atmosphere. These things are so unpredictable that you've got to keep things very simple as far as your setup goes.

I really only got 3 seconds of decent video on my triangle video(It runs for over a minute) due to the following:

1) It took me a while to realize it was odd and not normal. I'm actually very skeptical on calling anything a UFO.
2) I had the video camera tripod mounted which was a bad idea in this case as I had to remove the camera in order to shoot.
3) I then had to manually focus the camera. Auto-focus is useless for nocturnal UFOs and works against you.
4) Pine trees kept interrupting my view of the craft so I had to keep running around to gain a view.
5) As the craft moved further, I kept having to refocus. I had the camera for only 2 days and was not familiar with it. I highly recommend practicing manual focusing and making it second nature too.
6) Camera shake began to become a major issue as I got to the extremes of my zoom, yet I could not use a tripod. I was able to grab a couple of still frames of the back end of it though.

I'd personally choose a video camera as you're taking multiple frames per second which opens up the possibility of being able to retrieve a frame or two where the craft is actually in focus or shake is not an issue. I am primarily a still photographer not a videographer.

It's been three years from when I I had that 2 month run of sitings. I was also noticing on the Internet where a few other people were reporting sitings close to where I live one even got mentioned on a local TV station. I do make a regular habit of checking for others making UFO reports in my area now too as I would love to be able to grab some more footage. I'll do anything to increase my odds of getting another siting as it is very fun and addictive once you lose your fear of them.

I will say that UFOs are the most challenging subject one can choose. Being skeptical is also very important too as almost everything you will see is not a real UFO. Hopefully, the summary of my experiences over my posts will be of aid to others.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 05:19 PM
link   
I've only had one instance where I tried to take pics of a UFO (which I later identified). Here's the pics:






I noticed that some pics were just blurrier than others. The first one, its very hard to tell what you're looking at. The second is a little more clear, the third is quite clear. I'd say the blurriest one is the one that looks MOST like a UFO, because the blurriness makes it harder to make out the true shape of the craft.

This made me ponder something: I wonder how many clear UFO pics were discarded or NOT made public because they WEREN'T blurry. By this I mean that some people only want to support a true UFO narrative, and if one of their pics says BOEING on the side, it might never see the light of day. Or if a "cigar shaped ufo" changes its flight path and you can see plane wings, those might not be in the Cigar Shaped UFO Album. This is very much the opposite of what is proposed by many conspiracy theorists- that the blurry ones are the only ones allowed to be made public, while their HD pics of alien ships are taken by guys in black suits. If I just posted the first pic there, I'd probably get several people congratulating me on my great UFO pic, but if I included the other ones, they'd just say "that's an octocopter".

So, my pet theory is that as blurriness increases, so does the "unidentifiability" of the flying object, and you can say its anything, and that some unscrupulous photographers cherry pick the most "unidentifiable" of their photos to prove that they saw a genuine UFO.

Because I wanted to make sure I got a good pic, I took several of them in a row. I think this is the natural thing to do when photographing a UFO, so I think its a little strange when someone only has one pic of the UFO (unless its in the background of a pic of something else).

Why would someone want others to think they saw a real UFO instead of an odd looking terrestrial craft? I'm not really sure, but it certainly is a thing that happens in UFOlogy.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by pdawg67
 


Thank you for your expertise in this matter. I believe I have overcome the 'shock' stage and find myself a back seat mortorcyclist with a very good digital camera complete with continuous picture burst. I will endeavour to look and shoot at the skies as I travel about in the day and night.

By the way, you are absolutely spot on regarding UFO visibility duration and subsequent obtaining a good shot problems.

If you have not aided anyone else, you have aided me greatly.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by pdawg67
 


Couple of things although a bridge camera is a good idea because of the high zoom ratio most have relatively small sensors which don't work as well in low light and get very noisy at high iso values compared to a DSLR.

100% AGREE about autofocus at night even on very expensive DSLR's better to manual focus, my camera has a focus peaking function so on manual focus anything in focus has it's edges highlighted in one of 3 different colours I can choose.

Image stabilisation my camera has that in it's body so all lenses attached produce a stabilised image to give an example here is a picture I posted yesterday on this thread. Members Astrophotography



Moon & Venus

For those that like to know exposure details below.

Sony SLT A37 1/30th of a second (hand held) f5.6 280mm focal length iso 400.

As you can see 1/30th of a second shutter speed for the focal length used most people would use 1/250th or above normally.

The above information brings me to another point exif data my picture above still has ALL the exif data attached unlike the quad copter pictures a couple of posts above. So on my picture with an exif reader you can see all the exposure details and time date camera model firmware version etc etc something that always seems to be missing from ufo website images.

Lots of things regarding an image can be determined by this data strange those sites leave it off or is it!!!!

edit on 27-2-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I totally agree with your comments on the weaknesses of a bridge camera. I use mine primarily for convenience in day time and the crazy amounts of optical zoom it provides. My DSLR blows it away in overall performance in all areas.

What I really want is a few gigapixel sensor camera with low noise coupled with an infinity focus lens. I'd mount that thing on my roof and just let it sit there and watch. Something like this:

Gorgon Stare

Digital imaging technology is a double edge sword as it makes it easier for people to fake things yet it makes it easier to capture the real deal too. I would hand over EXIF data on any images I have acquired or ever will hopefully acquire to anyone that asks.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 



Well it's become abundantly clear that neither of you have a rational explanation for the 1994 Ariel School incident. I find this odd in the sense that you both seem to maintain this attitude of riducule towards the idea of aliens actually visiting this planet, yet you can't present an even remotely plausible explanation for this event. And what's worse, it's clear from your responses that you haven't even studied this case. Can we say "contempt prior to investigation"?

And since there seems to be some (intentional?) confusion regarding my beliefs surrounding the subject of aliens, here it is, plain as day: I believe that there are certain cases for which there exist no compelling mundane explanation, and that therefore the subject warrants further scienfic research and investigation. That's my belief.

In general, there is this culture of intellectual dishonesty and laziness that exists today, with the result that it's "okay" to maintain an intellectual posture or attitude regarding a subject without having any kind of rational argument to back that attitude up. You don't have to travel vast distances for evidence for this - look in this very thread. The arguments that you do find are often pseudo-arguments, involving basic logical fallacies in the form of attacking people's characters, or simply a total lack of research effort.

So my advice would be this: If you find yourself posting on an internet forum regarding a subject that you frequently ridicule, and what's worse, ridicule without being able to present a decent rational argument to support this attitude, then you may want to find something that you actually enjoy doing. I actually enjoy thinking about this subject, and I even welcome counter-arguments against it. But if you think this entire subject is a joke, then I expect you to at least be able to tell me why in a specific, rational manner. I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 08:02 AM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by Brighter
 


This doesn't look like a alien to me and its not one of the 3 drawings presented most of the time to help support what 62 kids saw.

Nice polka dot shirt and matching pants that alien has.


Just to let you know, you just presented a picture of a small humanoid with large black eyes and oval face standing on a floating disc.

Congratulations on shooting yourself in the foot. Again.

I don't even have to try any more. I'll just sit back and watch what's left of your cognitive faculties self-destruct

edit on 27-2-2014 by Brighter because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-2-2014 by Brighter because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 


Considering the wide range of inconsistency in the drawings made by the children, in addition to the extremely poor cross contaminating and leading interview questions presented to the children, there's nothing very compelling about this case except in giving near textbook example of enabling attention and positive enforcement in encouraging a false "truth".

We've seen this behavior from children during the infamous witch trials:
Torsåker witch trials

Hornæus was zealous in his work — by the time his task was complete, 71 people, 65 women, roughly one fifth of all women in the region, and six men, had been beheaded and burned.
...
The witch-hunt in the country continued; after the Torsåker witch trial, it reached the capital, where it lasted until 1676 and ended with the execution of Malin Matsdotter in Stockholm, after which the authorities proved that the child witnesses were lying and it had been a mistake.


Children are veritable lying machines.
It's a fundamental aspect with many in their development where they reach a stage in which they'll lie about anything for any or no reason at all. It's a part of social development.
This isn't necessarily universal, but, quite common and expected behavior for children.

When a Child Lies -Psych Central

All in all, the Ariel School case is not remarkable in the least bit.
We have X number of children making a claim, telling stories.

Anyone, of course, is more than welcome to try forcing this group of children telling stories into whatever shaped box they desire, but, in the end, it's just children telling stories and without any good credible supporting evidence to give any real credibility to the claims, it's just children telling stories, made even more sensational by an extremely poor Psychologist (with an agenda) asking leading questions.



edit on 2/27/2014 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by thesearchfortruth
 


I'm not saying that Aliens exists or don't exists but that has got to be one of the worst argument used to disprove they exist.

Its like saying at one time Atoms and Electrons didn't exist because we didn't have any good pictures of them.

Or that top secret planes don't exist, because we don't have pictures of them.


Unless of course, you buy into the Observable universe theory.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 


Well as has already been stated kids make great lying machines and have great imaginations! It's a bit like when members on here point to ancient drawings and carvings that they say look like aliens is that because they assume every artist paints sculpts or draws life like images ?

Well imagine in we were wiped of the face of the Earth and some et's came along and the only evidence of how we looked or what our world was like was this.

Woman Weeping

or this

Dali

What would they think

edit on 27-2-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 



Just to let you know, you just presented a picture of a small humanoid with large black eyes and oval face standing on a floating disc.

By who's interpretation? What did the kid say who drew it? You don't know which kid drew it. One kid said they saw a gardener. One kid said they saw someone with "hippy hair". Another said the object was the size of of his thumbnail at arms distance.
As far as hovering, there was very high grass which would hide wheels. No one saw the object take off and fly or land. No UFO. The arrows in the picture point to what look like wheels. The "landing" site is on a path or dirt road. Put that together and you get someone with long hair and a van or a trailer.



Congratulations on shooting yourself in the foot. Again.

I can see your ability to to make any type of argument has left the building again.


I don't even have to try any more. I'll just sit back and watch what's left of your cognitive faculties self-destruct

right. That is much easier to do than actually discussing the case when you have nothing of substance to add. At your request, I have presented aspects of this case which make it a rather poor case. The whole thing falls apart at the seams when you look at the details and try to fill in the missing information. Your response is rather satisfying to me.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 




Well it's become abundantly clear that neither of you have a rational explanation for the 1994 Ariel School incident

Aside from not much of anything, a couple of kids saw something and got freaked out and scared the rest of the kids. Or some older kids scared the younger kids telling them that the thing over there was a flying saucer with aliens. Or any number of scenarios. We will never know exactly because we barely have any of the basic information to make any determination whatsoever.


I find this odd in the sense that you both seem to maintain this attitude of riducule towards the idea of aliens actually visiting this planet, yet you can't present an even remotely plausible explanation for this event. And what's worse, it's clear from your responses that you haven't even studied this case. Can we say "contempt prior to investigation"?
I have no problem with the ETH actually. Any ridicule is directed at the people that present poor cases like this as good evidence for ET. You keep bringing up "studying the case" when there is very little in the way of documentation. If there is more, please present it. I think I have seen all the documentaries but they don't add much. When I first came across this case I thought it was compelling and then it fell apart when I started looking for the missing information.


And since there seems to be some (intentional?) confusion regarding my beliefs surrounding the subject of aliens, here it is, plain as day: I believe that there are certain cases for which there exist no compelling mundane explanation, and that therefore the subject warrants further scienfic research and investigation. That's my belief.
You stated that this was a good case for aliens and I disagreed. Get over it. As far as further "scientific" investigation with this, there was no science to begin with. There is a documentary that is it. Where are the the other 50 testimonies and drawings?


In general, there is this culture of intellectual dishonesty and laziness that exists today, with the result that it's "okay" to maintain an intellectual posture or attitude regarding a subject without having any kind of rational argument to back that attitude up

projection. Text book.


You don't have to travel vast distances for evidence for this - look in this very thread. The arguments that you do find are often pseudo-arguments, involving basic logical fallacies in the form of attacking people's characters, or simply a total lack of research effort.

stupid lazy people with their intellectual dishonesty and logical fallacies attacking peoples character. You do see the irony in your comments. No? Projection. Those traits are yours. Examine them.


So my advice would be this: If you find yourself posting on an internet forum regarding a subject that you frequently ridicule, and what's worse, ridicule without being able to present a decent rational argument to support this attitude, then you may want to find something that you actually enjoy doing. I actually enjoy thinking about this subject, and I even welcome counter-arguments against it. But if you think this entire subject is a joke, then I expect you to at least be able to tell me why in a specific, rational manner. I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation.
:

Let me be honest with you. You do not exhibit one ounce of "welcoming counter arguments". You fooled me once but you are the first to lash out. You do this consistently. I have actually grown to respect some of the more extreme believers here. People are entitled to their beliefs but don't act like an idiot and expect me to ignore you.
edit on 27-2-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Brighter

In general, there is this culture of intellectual dishonesty and laziness that exists today, with the result that it's "okay" to maintain an intellectual posture or attitude regarding a subject without having any kind of rational argument to back that attitude up. You don't have to travel vast distances for evidence for this - look in this very thread. The arguments that you do find are often pseudo-arguments, involving basic logical fallacies in the form of attacking people's characters, or simply a total lack of research effort.



The IRONY of that statement is lost on you, now all you have to do is post a video on here/youtube showing a light in the sky at night and it's stars & flags galore from the ufo faithful NO proof required!

When so called evidence like that is posted WHY is it that you don't get video's or pictures from people below the objects why is it always from the other side of the town/city ?

Why do the ufo faithful make excuses when it's pointed out low and behold the local airport is in that direction?

Why is it now when we have BETTER photographic equipment we don't seem to get any shots with the classic old style disc only a few hundred feet away that we see from the 50's & 60's?

Why is it that ufo web sites post digital images with all the exif data removed?

Seriously it works both ways, what you have to remember there is a wide variety in the membership here we have astronomers
professional,semi professional & long time amatuer photographers (30+ yrs for me) that enjoy looking at images and are used to looking for flaws and things that don't add up with their experience on the subject.

If you look at this link here Members Astrophotography
which I posted a few posts before you will see we have a VERY SKILLED membership when it comes to taking pictures of the night sky and have a good knowledge of what's up there.

The reason I joined here was because I was told I would see images I wouldn't believe UNFORTUNATELY so far for it's for the wrong reason, I would love to see real evidence if I saw a picture/video I thought was real I will back it 100% !!!!!

So far all I have seen up till now is mostly wishful thinking backed by a poor understanding of images,optics and a lot of the time basic science
edit on 27-2-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-2-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 



Just to let you know, you just presented a picture of a small humanoid with large black eyes and oval face standing on a floating disc.

So the "floating disk" hovered along the path of the electric lines where there is a path, stopped then disappeared. or a vw bus drove along the path...most importantly, look at the sunglasses.

edit on 27-2-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 



I don't even have to try any more. I'll just sit back and watch what's left of your cognitive faculties self-destruct

Whilst extensively studying the Ruwa Zimbabwe Ariel School UFO Alien incident of 1994, I made a remarkable discovery. What they saw was a VW bus and one or two hippies that were lost (as usual). Cynthia Hind repeatedly refers to the hippy as a "creature" and not a person. Most of the descriptions are of person with long hair. At least two witnesses said they thought it was a gardener. The VW Bus and hippy were seen from a 100 meters on a bright sunny day. Descriptions of "eyes" and white pupils would not be possible from this distance. Hippies sometimes where large sunglasses and being a sunny day would also be consistent with sunglasses and reflections off a VW Bus.

Notice the square windows and "hippy" like people on to of the "object" that looks like the size of a VW Bus. Also notice what are described as "lights" which could be reflections of day-glow paint. Hippies are notorious for painting their VW Buses in crazy bright colors:


Square windows:

Strange Lost Hippy people on top of their brightly painted VW Bus.


Also of note is the "flute" sound. Now I have studied the hippy people and they do like their flutes:

Ruwa Zimbabwe Ariel School UFO Alien incident of 1994- Debunked


edit on 1-3-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   
And then there's me, a professional photographer who is an avid believer in Aliens and such, who is 90% of my time with my Nikon D7000 and my 18-105mm (or my 70-200mm 2.8f, which is far better for pictures of the sky), who has never seen anything remotely "supernatural" in her life. Never stopped me from believing in this stuff tho, but you gotta admit it's really unfair. I could counter-argue every claim in this topic with a single click, but it seems UFOs don't like me.

And that brings me to my point: if there were really high resolution pictures of UFOs around, wouldn't you guys simply find a way to disprove it's veracity? You'd say "nope, that's way too pretty of a picture, it's gotta be CG", and so on.

So what's really the point of even arguing about the existence (or lack thereof) of HD pictures of UFOs, when they do show up, it's always dismissed as staged?
edit on CST870Sat, 01 Mar 2014 13:53:03 -0600pm53303 by TBrains because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join