I wish there were more HD cameras trained on UFO's..

I like how everyone who attempted to answer the op's questions conveniently danced around this one:

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

Why the insistance that credible UFO sightings must be terrestrial and can't be of ET origin? I'm not sure I understand that particular bias and where it's coming from? Is it fear? Incredulity? What do you think?

I myself would love to hear the answer to this question. Any thoights....anyone?

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
Would this not qualify as "proof"?

An image by itself is never good enough for proof. We already have dozens of photos and videos of UFOs that are as clear as anybody could want. But they only generate questions, not answers.

Why the insistance that credible UFO sightings must be terrestrial and can't be of ET origin? I'm not sure I understand that particular bias and where it's coming from? Is it fear? Incredulity? What do you think?

We need to already have proof of aliens to "explain" something else as an alien ship. "Oh, alien is it? Well, which specific alien civilization or species that we know of are you referring to?"

originally posted by: Cauliflower
The aliens don't trust everybody in the military.

How many aliens do you know?

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
I myself would love to hear the answer to this question. Any thoights....anyone?

I didn't answer that because I don't think it's true.

In my case (and I only speak for myself, as usual) I don't see an ET origin as impossible, only much less likely than a terrestrial origin.

a reply to: ArMaP

Ditto.

I've nothing against the idea, that say 10 billion years ago, maybe
1 billion galaxies over, there might be some relatively primitive
space-travelling aliens.

But with the time scales and the distances involved, and the (apparently)
highly self-destructive nature of life, it's so exceedingly unlikely
that we'd ever meet an alien species.

It would also seem that true FTL is not possible.. because if it was..
even one species could colonize the entire universe in a few
thousand years if it wanted to, and we would likely see evidence
of that.

We appear to be alone... and it would be psychologically healthy if
more people did the basic science reading to confirm that strong
likelihood.

Kev

Interesting reactions/responses..

The question that arises I feel is two fold - one, is FTL travel possible, and 2, has the Earth been visited at any time by an ET craft ie: are ANY of all the UFO reports a valid description and experience for what could only be considered a solid craft built and piloted by a technologically advanced species and civilization?

Someone also raised, as an objection to such a notion as violating the Fermi Paradox ("where are all the aliens?"), which would be moot if "colonization" as we think of it, just isn't part of their high tech modus operandi (for any number of reasons), and would certainly be moot of SOME UFO reports are of ET craft and by far exceeding terrestrial technological advance (even if such technology has by now been successfully copied or reverse engineered).

Which brings us straight back to the premise of the OP regarding the next generation of cameras, which are everywhere now, and that's why I suggested that if such things are moving around in our atmosphere, that soon enough we'll be looking at some HD images and videos of "UFO"'s.

What also interests me, is the intellectual and heavily biased blockage, as evidenced in this thread, towards the possibility of interstellar ET vehicles and technology, the only argument against which is the prohibitive nature of the whole concept of acceleration of mass, but what if they were never travelling through the intervening space to begin with..as would HAVE to be the case given the distances involved if any UFO's are indeed ET craft, unless they come from multigenerational mother ships, which I think is unlikely.

So I'm interested here in people's reasoning, along with what would constitute proof for them within the context of a LOT of rather blurry images and videos to date.

Best regards,

Ankh

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
Someone also raised, as an objection to such a notion as violating the Fermi Paradox ("where are all the aliens?"), which would be moot if "colonization" as we think of it, just isn't part of their high tech modus operandi (for any number of reasons), and would certainly be moot of SOME UFO reports are of ET craft and by far exceeding terrestrial technological advance (even if such technology has by now been successfully copied or reverse engineered).

As far as I understand it the Fermi Paradox only makes it unlikely, not impossible. Besides that, it's only theoretical. As for colonization, there are other reasons to travel through space.

Which brings us straight back to the premise of the OP regarding the next generation of cameras, which are everywhere now, and that's why I suggested that if such things are moving around in our atmosphere, that soon enough we'll be looking at some HD images and videos of "UFO"'s.

By definition, "next generation" cameras do not exist today.

The problem with having many good cameras available is that to get a photo you need more than a camera, you need a photographer, and the fact that there are many cameras around doesn't mean that the owners look at the sky or know how to take a good photo.

What also interests me, is the intellectual and heavily biased blockage, as evidenced in this thread, towards the possibility of interstellar ET vehicles and technology, the only argument against which is the prohibitive nature of the whole concept of acceleration of mass, but what if they were never travelling through the intervening space to begin with..as would HAVE to be the case given the distances involved if any UFO's are indeed ET craft, unless they come from multigenerational mother ships, which I think is unlikely.

They can also come from different dimensions, for example, or, like some people think, a different time. Why limit the possibilities?

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

What makes you think that an increase in resolution would change anything?

Most footage presented here is either out of focus, blurry due to camera movement, too far away, or shot in too low light to be of any use. Shooting footage in HD is not going to make any difference in most of these cases, and minimal difference where the object is at distance. It's not a "magic bullet".

Of course the fact that many photographers have been shooting with high quality cameras/lenses for decades is completely ignored. If there was anything to the theory, IMHO, we would know by now.

There are more important aspects to photography/videography than resolution, and other ways to shoot that could (if done correctly) support many of the claims that are made. For example, I've heard the claim that "it suddenly shot off into the night at tremendous speed" many times here.

If that is really true, then why not, instead of splashing out on some expensive HD gizmo that will be next to useless (even if the operator knew how to use it properly) set up a DSLR on a tripod with a reasonable lens (fast, and ideally wide, but not necessarily expensive), and take long exposures. Any such object that makes wild maneuvers (as claimed) will leave a trail that is unmistakable as something unusual. Even a cheap setup with 50mm f1.8 lens will pick up satellites/space junk that is near invisible to the naked eye in my experience.

However, people like myself (astrophotograpers - a small army of them) have been doing this for decades, yet nothing unusual (as people claim) has emerged. Why would this be I wonder!? Hint: I've seen plenty of things which would have seemed unusual had I not known what they were.

The only way people are going to make progress is if they: A/educate themselves, and B/learn how use cameras properly in a way that is carefully thought out. Simply saying "let's get more HD footage" helps no one.

To turn one of your own questions around, why must (intelligent) aliens (which are visiting us) exist? I'm guessing that you could accept that they do exist, but why the reluctance to acknowledge that they also might not exist? Would it really be that unusual if humans were the only advanced intelligent beings around these parts, given the estimates of size we have for our universe and the difficulties in traveling such distances?

I've always been perfectly willing to accept that there might be other intelligent beings (if not now, then in the past) somewhere (probably not here though), but after decades of observing the sky, and looking for credible evidence in the form of images/footage/indisputable accounts, the only conclusion I can come to is that there is no credible evidence at this time.

There can be no positive conclusion to UFOlogy because as soon as someone starts doing stuff that is logical and thought out, they become "cast outs", not to be listened to because their view no longer matches. And so the cycle of ignorance perpetuates.

originally posted by: FireballStorm
... the only conclusion I can come to is that there is no credible evidence at this time.

That's the sum of it, yes. There are some curiosities and some unexplained activities of all kinds. However, none of it adds up to "aliens from space." It just doesn't.

Not that there couldn't be aliens out there. We exist, so we know it's possible. As for probable... well... who can say? The "best" equation we have for figuring that out is the Drake Equation, which can either add up to zero (not counting us), some or billions. So how useful is it, really?

The funny thing is, if an alien did happen to make itself known on Earth, that still wouldn't mean there are any others out there. It might just be us and Mork from Ork, and that's all. Unless Mork knows of some other ones.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

There would need to be real, physical aliens, in real, physical ships, that land slowly and carefully
in front of thousands/millions, and most importantly it could not happen in America or even most
NATO countries, or it would be just more of the 70 years of fraud perpetrated by the US
government.

An infinite amount of clear HD pictures would be meaningless.. at least if they are taken in
the USA or a US ally country.

That's what happens when you've been played continuously for 70+ years by your own government
and they've been caught red-handed, repeatedly, perpetrating fraud.

I wish it wasn't this way, but that's how it is.

Kev

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
I like how everyone who attempted to answer the op's questions conveniently danced around this one:

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

Why the insistance that credible UFO sightings must be terrestrial and can't be of ET origin? I'm not sure I understand that particular bias and where it's coming from? Is it fear? Incredulity? What do you think?

I myself would love to hear the answer to this question. Any thoights....anyone?

Yes. Only speaking for myself here, but not only do I think some UFOs could be of extra terrestrial in origin, but I can prove this to be the case. Note - I said nothing about "beings" or "intelligence", although in that case I would say, it's possible, just highly unlikely given how much stuff goes on in the sky that people are not familiar with. Given a long history of peoples propensity to misidentify (and report as a "UFO") mundane objects and not even understand what they are seeing, it is more likely.

Insecurity has nothing to do with it. My motivation here is that is saddens me to see otherwise seemingly intelligent people, misidentifying aircraft, balloons, birds, insects, all really mundane things that are quite easy (or should be) to rule out.

Yet as soon as we start talking about things that could be stars, meteors, satellites, etc, which are all things that most people here are unfamiliar with (who here could go out and name me/point out more than one or two constellations, or explain to me the differences/similarities between the appearance/behavior of a satellite and a meteor, or tell me what meteor shower is active at this particular point in time? Be honest!), it's unlikely that lot's of people could get it wrong? If anything, it's much more lightly, wouldn't you agree?

In my own experience (specializing in photographing/observing/studying meteors and fireballs) I see that every time there is a bright fireball observed by at least a few people, some say it looked like a crashing plane, others say "WTF? UFO?" (or something to that effect), when there is no doubt that they were looking at a meteor. The reasons behind why people do this can be explained, and besides the direct link to UFOs it does hint at why people see UFOs in general.

If you look at what Jim Oberg is finding (his specialization being manned (and I guess unmanned too) spaceflight), it also points to the same conclusion, which is that, when people see something they are unfamiliar with in the sky, they often mis-identify it and/or are not exactly sure what they are seeing.

In my own experience, and I've spent a lot of time trying to observe the sky in the last couple of decades, I've seen plenty of "unusual" things in the sky that could have been mistaken for "UFOs", so why would I not think others are seeing the same things and mistaking them for UFOs, when descriptions match?

For example, were you reading these forums a few years ago when everyone was excited by the ranch you could go to to see UFOs (I forget it's name), and all they were doing was showing people Iridium satellite flares (for a fee of course) which were easy to see almost anywhere back then? I did point it out out the time, but lots of people and their time/money were parted despite that.

It doesn't take much to convince people they are seeing something unusual if they are not familiar with what is already there. Popular culture and misconception perpetuated by the media (because selling something as a UFO makes more money than selling something as balloon) does not help much either.

originally posted by: FireballStorm
Most footage presented here is either out of focus, blurry due to camera movement, too far away, or shot in too low light to be of any use. Shooting footage in HD is not going to make any difference in most of these cases, and minimal difference where the object is at distance. It's not a "magic bullet".

Exactly, see what happened with "Mars anomalies".

Some people were complaining about the quality of the photos, so they demanded (people like that don't ask, they demand) higher resolution colour photos. With Curiosity they got higher resolution colour photos (and JPEG artefacts), but most anomalies are still either small objects or too far away, as that's when things cannot be easily perceived.

Higher resolution only makes the distance to unrecognisable objects bigger.

If SOME UFO sightings and reports are ET craft and there's a concerted effort by TPTB to cover it all up as if there's nothing to it at all, then given the responses on this thread I'd say that they've done a damn good job.

I don't see why it would be so utterly extraordinary if indeed some UFO's are alien craft. Even the laws of physics don't preclude the possibility of a space-time warp, albeit it would require immense energy sources.

The witnesses to the Phoenix Lights I felt was compelling, as well as the Japan Airlines over Alaska sighting and radar returns, but there are so many more with air force pilots observing etc.

I never realized that the ATS UFO forum was filled with so many skeptics..

In fact, I believe that it is so important with such far reaching implications and consequences for the human species and the life on Earth we experience and enjoy, that we should "act as if" they have made it here and buzz around from time to time in our atmosphere, and forge policy around what the implications of it might be ie: are we being observed as if in a quarantine? Should we start forging an exopolitical understanding in preparation for future contact?

I tried to explore many of these angles in a thread I made

The Fermi Paradox and the "Prime Directive" (where are they?)

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

To many people, hearing the acronym "UFO" immediately conjures an auto response which has been conditioned into them to immediately dismiss the topic. Years of psyops run by the alphabet agencies along with their planted shills inside UFOlogy have ensured negative auto response conditioning among the masses relative to UFOlogy.

Let's take your question in your OP. HD video as evidence. It would immediately be dismissed as CGI. You and I both know it. Here again we have been automatically conditioned to dismiss it as being CGI simply because of all the prior CGI fakery over the years and candidly it would seem too good to be true. Even though I know beyond a shadow of a doubt UFOs are real based on multiple first hand encounters. I, still, would question the validity of any HD video of a crystal clear UFO. If the source were heavily vetted then I would be more likely to believe.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
If SOME UFO sightings and reports are ET craft and there's a concerted effort by TPTB to cover it all up as if there's nothing to it at all, then given the responses on this thread I'd say that they've done a damn good job.

There's also the possibility that people have their own opinions.

The witnesses to the Phoenix Lights I felt was compelling, as well as the Japan Airlines over Alaska sighting and radar returns, but there are so many more with air force pilots observing etc.

The problem is that witnesses see something but they do not know what they are seeing, that's why those events are unidentified, so assuming those events represent extraterrestrial technology, to me, is a sign that people have a preconceived idea and that they are looking for confirmation of their own idea instead of looking for the truth.

I never realized that the ATS UFO forum was filled with so many skeptics..

I think there aren't enough sceptics on ATS' UFO forum, scepticism is a tool that helps people accept only information that is validated in some way, instead of accepting any thing.

In fact, I believe that it is so important with such far reaching implications and consequences for the human species and the life on Earth we experience and enjoy, that we should "act as if" they have made it here and buzz around from time to time in our atmosphere, and forge policy around what the implications of it might be ie: are we being observed as if in a quarantine? Should we start forging an exopolitical understanding in preparation for future contact?

To me that's putting the cart in front of the horse. Why should we spend time and energy acting if something we do not have confirmation is true? And that specific thing and not any other? Why not act as if we are being visited by humans from the future? Or from a past that had an advanced civilisation for which we haven't found any traces yet? And why not for visitors from different dimensions or parallel universes?

It looks like you are also a sceptic, but only for some possibilities.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

In my opinion the Universe is OVERFLOWING with star-travelling
empires of energy beings.

It's just advanced organic life that is nearly non-existent by all
evidence.

My mind is VERY OPEN.

It just so happens that the nuts and bolts folks have been deceived
and have been completely and totally wrong SO FAR.

However tomorrow, for the first time ever, some nuts and bolts aliens
could show up.

There's more chance that pink unicorns will fly out of my nose
and impeach Donald Trump, but it could happen.

I'm entitled to my very educated, very informed opinion, based upon
conversations with people who know what's going on, at least
somewhat, "inside".

Kev

a reply to: ArMaP

very nicely said.

For what it's worth, i'm also a skeptic of my own informed opinions.

In the big picture, all this "UFO" craziness is far less important than the fact that humans
are making all life go extinct on this planet over the next few centuries.. but hardly
anybody seems to care about that... or scream, carry on and demean others about that..

they go chasing after lights in the sky or believe government deception instead.

Kev

Alien spacecraft are equipped with sensors that detect HD cameras and high-quality, long focal-distance lenses, so they can avoid being captured definitively on video.

Duh.