Are there any clear, definitive UFO photos/videos out there?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

That photographer 4 years earlier was teaching how to fake UFOs in any scenery, and his friends and family claim he admitted that too was a hoax.

Maybe , maybe not.
I'm with Kevin Randle on this one.

But the person making this new claim of hoax is not a relative, or a witness for that matter, but a neighbor and she has no evidence to back up her accusation. There is also a niece, unidentified other than as a niece, who says she has Barauna’s files and she confirms it is a hoax.

Here’s the deal... and I’m sure even the skeptics will agree with this. Let’s wait on the final pronouncement until the files surface and prove the hoax. In the last few years, we’ve had several people come forward explaining that their UFO photographs, none quite as famous as these, were faked. I have no problem with the photographer telling me he or she faked the pictures. That seems to be solid evidence.

In this case, however, we don’t have the photographer, but a neighbor. And the niece who has the files. Let the documentation from the files be reviewed before we completely close the case. If it is a hoax, so be it, but let’s wait until we have the absolute proof before we label it. That might be coming soon.
kevinrandle.blogspot.co.uk...

The weird thing about Ufology is, video/ pictures doesn't go hand in hand with witness descriptions.

Witness descriptions describe fantastic close up of UFO's with incredible details and in some cases aliens, not one video/ picture has captured anything like that.

Also over time videos/ pictures have changed, from hardware UFO to blinking lights, something is missing.

a reply to: gortex
But neither you nor Kevin Randle deny he made the fake UFO pics 4 years earlier, right?

Regardless of whether he faked the later pics that poses a credibility problem for me, since he's a known expert at faking UFO pics.

HI,

Many thanks for your informative replies and links.

I realize that the probability of high quality UFO photos is low,
and that

--- UFOs don't loiter long enough to allow expensive cameras to be deployed
--- Unpredictable, random appearances and locations
--- and that most of us don't travel with expensive camera equipment.

Perhaps UFO photography will yield more conclusive results in the future, particularly where casual eye-witnesses can deploy camera drones to get closer to the UFOs (assuming, of course, that the UFO is loitering within range of a camera-drone).

I attended my first MUFON meeting last month; it was said that interstate truckers see UFOs all the time. Given they can't take their hands off the wheel to photograph what they see, or find a place to pull over fast enough to get out and take pictures, we rely on their eye-witness reports alone.

Maybe dash cameras will pick up UFOs in the future.

Thanks again for your enlightening replies.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

But neither you nor Kevin Randle deny he made the fake UFO pics 4 years earlier, right?

Can't speak for Kevin Randle but I'm not claiming or denying anything , I posted the picture as an example of a good UFO picture.
I remain open minded in this case , maybe it was a hoax maybe it wasn't I don't know.

Even the best cases( like Southern Illinois,Belgium/Eupen, Hudson Valley, Colares, and Westall) where I think most people would admit to something being there, have no pictures. People just arent prepared or dont have a camera handy when an unexpected event happens. One of the least likely cases to have a picture taken, Westall, did have a teacher snap some pics, but of course those were confiscated..

But with the same description by several people in different locations, you can get pretty solid recreation of what they saw. The Westall drawings for instance are from boy who stood right in front of the object.

And even if we had the pictures in hand, it wouldnt solve anything. The question would still remain, is it just an experimental military craft? I think the evidence leans the other way, but judge for yourself.

originally posted by: gortex
I remain open minded in this case , maybe it was a hoax maybe it wasn't I don't know.

In my opinion an open-minded person would consider all the evidence. It doesn't appear to me like you're considering the evidence of his previous fakes at all. Now if you considered it and then gave it a low weight, that's your prerogative, but to say "I'm not claiming or denying anything" regarding his previous fakes doesn't seem open-minded to me, it seems like a conscious decision to ignore the known fakes. But generally you do seem open-minded to me so I'm surprised by this particular comment.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
Even the best cases( like Southern Illinois,Belgium/Eupen, Hudson Valley, Colares, and Westall) where I think most people would admit to something being there,

There is a photograph of the Southern Illinois UFO but it's not a good one, however it's good enough to rule out common astronomical explanations like Venus, etc.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

but to say "I'm not claiming or denying anything" regarding his previous fakes doesn't seem open-minded to me,

I said that in regard to the picture I posted , I posted it with no claim just the date and location.

But generally you do seem open-minded to me so I'm surprised by this particular comment.

Statement from Captain José Viegas who was one of those that witnessed the UFO.

Captain Viejas' eyewitness description of the incident was published in the Brazilian press:
"The first view was that of a disc shining with phosphorescent glow, which -even at daylight - appeared to be brighter than the moon. The object was about the apparent size (angular diameter) of the full moon. As it followed its path across the sky, changing to a tilted position, its real shape was clearly outlined against the sky: that of a flattened sphere encircled, at the equator, by a large ring or platform. Its speed was around 700 miles an hour [1,100 km./hr.] at the moment it disappeared into the horizon."
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

The fact there were witnesses to the incident is why I remain open minded to it.

originally posted by: Adonsa
Maybe dash cameras will pick up UFOs in the future.

It's possible. They've proven to be pretty useful in picking up other short-lived phenomena such as meteorite falls. And they're generally fairly high resolution and likely to get better.

But there have been a growing number of dash cams sold and used around the world, and so far it doesn't look like anything of note has been captured by them, UFO-wise. Maybe that will be the next BIG THING when somebody manages to capture a flying saucer parked on a road somewhere with little dudes walking around it. If only Betty and Barney Hill had a dash cam...

originally posted by: gortex
Statement from Captain José Viegas who was one of those that witnessed the UFO.

That's misleading because he wasn't a captain, in fact he wasn't even a member of the crew. The captain of the ship didn't see the UFO and not a single officer of the crew saw the object according to the Navy's report. Viegas was a retired air force captain and for all I know he could have said that because Barauna offered to split the loot with him. Apparently the questionable background of the photographer was a big consideration in the US analysis, which you don't seem to want to acknowledge, but here it is from your own source:

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

In contrast to the careful and neutral style of the Brazilian Navy report, the U.S. Naval Attaché in Rio, the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) and Project Blue Book at the Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC), did not hesitate to label the Trindade Island UFO photos as a notorious hoax. The ONI Information Report from the Naval Attaché, while containing valuable data about the case and the position of the Brazilian Navy, is written in a very slanted negative style. It labels Barauna as a man with "a long history of photographic trick shots" and suggests that "the whole thing is a fake publicity stunt put on by a crooked photographer, and the Brazilian Navy fell for it."

If you compare the photographer's previous known fakes with the allegedly "real" UFO, they have some remarkable similarities.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

That's misleading because he wasn't a captain, in fact he wasn't even a member of the crew.

He was a Captain and nobody said he was a member of the crew , he was however a witness.

The captain of the ship didn't see the UFO and not a single officer of the crew saw the object according to the Navy's report

The Captain of the ship saw the commotion caused by the UFO.

Apparently the questionable background of the photographer was a big consideration in the US analysis

Well I guess if US analysis says it then it must be true.


As I've said several times I'm open minded about this case , you are not and that's fine.

a reply to: Adonsa

Of course there's a ton of UFO photos and videos that are more than dots in the night sky and "orbs" in daylight. Not all photos and videos are hoaxes as I am my own proof of UFO reality and while I didn't take a photo of the true, no questions asked thru zoom binoculars it could have been branded as a hoax 'cause it was closeup and full of the details everyone wishes for. At YouTube are thousands of clear and closer aerial objects that are certainly not human. But, as we all know, photos and videos have to be taken with a grain of salt 'cause some humans delight themselves in being able to fool others.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
Even the best cases( like Southern Illinois,Belgium/Eupen, Hudson Valley, Colares, and Westall) where I think most people would admit to something being there,

There is a photograph of the Southern Illinois UFO but it's not a good one, however it's good enough to rule out common astronomical explanations like Venus, etc.

I guess I shouldnt be so quick to speak for everyone, but for me, the photo in the illinois case doesnt really add anything. I think it would still be a top case.

The cases that would really benefit from a photo are the single witness sightings, but the best cases out there stand on their own without photos. But even so, the question of military operation is still there with or without a photo.

Sorry I can't supply any info on clear UFO vids but it did bring me to question something so I thought I'd add it here on this thread as it's semi related to the thread so I'll ask the people of ATS ...

If you were to capture a UFO either by photo of video what would do with the evidence? Would make multiple copies? Bury the evidence somewhere? Pass it on to a thread in case you were to suddenly disappear? Where would you share the evidence?

Hi,

What kind of camera belongs in the glove box, just in case a UFO is in photography range?

Should it be a film camera? The argument here is that the roll of exposed film could be sent straight to MUFON, in order to eliminate any suspicions that it's a photoshop hoax. Then the experts at MUFON can process the exposed film.

Perhaps a combo is best, high res digital camcorder and film camera.

And of course, a tripod or bipod comes to mind.

Thanks much