This is Why You Can't Photograph a UFO Properly

I watched every minute of the podcast. Bob Lazar's recount never changes.

The first time I ever heard of bending of light around a craft to give the illusion of invisibility was one of the original Star Trek episodes where Spock clearly and logically explains it.

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Gothmog
Nope
One cannot generate a gravity field strong enough to bend light in that fashion .
Think black hole , or just the sun
Impossible , isn't it ?

Nothing's impossible.

Perhaps is in another phenomena, causing a difference in the clarity, between the cameras and the naked eye?
Not only film-based cameras, but digital as well.

Anyone photographers here know of any such thing?

I think you’re right that it’s another phenomenon.

My hypothesis has become that the “cloaking” shield that’s been theorized might actually be a thing - but different than we’ve envisioned or the Romulans from Star Trek .

My UFO photo came out horrible for detail but clear enough to say its not a plane/bird/drone etc. - particularly under the circumstances.

My thought is that these UAPs can silently move and repel/use/defeat gravity - right? Well, why couldn’t they to some degree create gravity?

If they could - they could basically build an “atmosphere” around them by emitting the same/similar blend of molecules and density found in the atmosphere and trap those molecules via a contained gravitational force generated by the craft. Light then hits it, bends and becomes visible as the same or similar blue color as the sky based on how the light hits it. Kind of like a mini, matching atmosphere that reacts just like the real atmosphere and voila - craft disappears.

I figure if it’s reasonable they understand how to create anti-gravity propulsion they must understand how gravity works and could possibly create it (or enough of it) to use it for camouflage or distortion purposes.

Just a thought.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

My UFO photo came out horrible for detail but clear enough to say its not a plane/bird/drone etc. -

Which photo would that be?

a reply to: mazzroth

As far as science is concerned light or photons have no mass.

So they would not be effected gravity, or in this case by an anti gravity engine. Though gravity effects matter, and matter effects light. Go figure right how and why does something that is supposed to be massless effected by mass?

Anyways! And even though photons as everybody says have no mass, well they do get absorbed or reflected or refracted or effected in some way, by all and every kind of matter every single second of every single day.

Even other electromagnetic waves get effected by matter from light giving you a sunburn to why your radio or wifi not working well when your deep in the jungle or in plant life, as they would absorb the signals. And if these so called craft have a anti gravity field around them, they would I guess repel matter. If they can push a hand away like he says, and push off the earths gravity or electromagnetic field.

Light would still reach them. So they should be visible. But it depends on how the things work, and it could be that if your underneath they may be less visible. Not because gravity bending spacetime or whatever you people call it.

And yes the earth atmosphere is just one big refracting bubble for all kinds of electromagnetic wavelengths, including light. Its why you have a shadow when your out in the sun, why the part that is to the sun is much more brighter and hotter, then the one in shadow, the earths atmosphere refracts light everywhere, not just directly in a straight line, or else your shadow and the part that is not getting hit by the suns rays would be completely pitch black.


So if they ionize and distort the surrounding atmosphere around them which is much heavier then the photon wavelengths, it would create issues for light to pass through ie distort and refract in all kinds of strange ways. It would be like if you threw a car license plate in a pool of water and there were ripples in that water moving around all the time.


It would make it hard to read what it says on the license plate, or like your watching it through a stain glass window, only this window may be moving at various speeds from normal to way above supersonic.

So yes, it could be that every single blurry and crappy out of focus light saturated pixelated picture out there that you seen of a UFO is that way because of something like that. Which would mean that all the crappy picture of UFOs out there are possibly real, and all the clear pictures are fake.

Who know right.

I mean its hard to say anything on it when the whole collective sum of human knowledge can say for certain what exactly gravity is. May as well say its antimatter. But then again, what the hell is antimatter but just a different kind of matter. I mean if everything is made of matter, including a spoon. What is there a anti spoon out there somewhere made up of antimatter? I do believe they call the antispoon, a fork.

Ah! Even if they had something like that up there somewhere like Lazar says. I would not hold your breath that these pointdexters would figure it out anytime soon. Like everything else people do, they would likely still be arguing about the meaning of an interpretation on a word for the next 50 years or more. And when they finally agree they will realize it means absolutely nothing.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

I mean its hard to say anything on it when the whole collective sum of human knowledge can say for certain what exactly gravity is. May as well say its antimatter.

No. Gravity is not antimatter. Like normal matter, antimatter causes gravity.

While we don't know why mass and energy distort spacetime, we do know the effects. Well enough to send probes from planet to planet and out of the Solar System altogether.

Creating something like true artificial gravity or selectively distorting gravity enough to bend light may be possible. Black holes do it, they make distant galaxies look like arcs of light. But they also do other, more obvious things. And the really interesting thing is that they do it in a manner predicted by a man named Albert.

a reply to: Phage
I did not say gravity is antimater. I said they dont know what gravity is, just like they there concept on antimatter is anything but flushed out. Antimater? Its like mater, only anti it. See its not saying much.

What the hell Phage guy! You know there were a few more sentences after and bellow the one you quoted.

Or I think there were, I am not moving my mouse wheel up to check. But pretty sure that if you check its there.

Which is more then I can say for this spacetime thing you all like to go on about.

But hey, you have the space, and the time. So you may as well.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Antimater? Its like mater, only anti it. See its not saying much.

Um. No.
Antimatter is quite well defined. An antielectron is also know as a positron. They exist. It is the same thing as an electron except that it has a positive electrical charge. Similar to an antiproton, but the opposite. But not completely the opposite, because gravity works the same way with it. Probably.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: Phage
I did not say gravity is antimater. I said they dont know what gravity is, just like they there concept on antimatter is anything but flushed out. Antimater? Its like mater, only anti it. See its not saying much.

No. People are just equivocating on "matter". Positrons and antiprotons are every bit, within the reductionist system of particle physics, as "material" as are electrons and protons.

a reply to: TamtammyMacx

He did say this time that the Gravity Generator repelled his hand..? this would mean it was anti gravity no ? Gravity as far as I knew always attracted.

a reply to: mazzroth

I would think more of a flicker affect, like what happens when you take a picture or video of a computer screen.

a reply to: mazzroth

Gravity Generator? Well, as the saying goes, there's two sides to every story.

Here's a statement from a particle physicist, about generating a gravitational field and using that field to distort space/time:

If you are distorting spacetime with a gravitational field, it produces a very specific kind of distortion, and a very specific kind of attraction. That’s what gravity IS – a distortion in spacetime, at least according to general relativity. And gravity attracts EVERYTHING. A gravitational field is a gravitational field…you can’t pick and choose which objects it has an effect on. So, going by what Lazar says here, I still say that if you were to generate a gravitational field intense enough to warp spacetime and “bring the destination to the source” you’ll also bring everything else in the nearby universe to the source too! If Mr. Lazar had really distorted spacetime like this back in his “Area 51” lab, every object on the face of the Earth would have rushed into New Mexico.

Then, there is this:

I can’t possibly demonstrate conclusively that Lazar’s mechanism is impossible. All that I can hope to demonstrate here is that his scenario would require a COMPLETE overhaul of our theories of gravity and particle physics in order to work. Not just some minor changes…I’m talking from the ground up. Mr. Lazar makes no mention of this fact, and he proposes no alternative theories. But, if Lazar’s scenario is true, then we will NEED some new theories, because we are wrong about a great many things. We don’t understand gravity. We don’t understand nuclear interactions. We don’t understand spacetime. We don’t understand stellar evolution. However, considering Mr. Lazar’s careless use of language, his casual redefinition of scientific terms, and the complete lack of details in his presentation, I’m willing to bet the farm that it is actually Lazar who doesn’t understand any of these things.

www.otherhand.org...

Mr. Lazar had really distorted spacetime like this back in his “Area 51” lab, every object on the face of the Earth would have rushed into New Mexico.

Area 51 is in New Mexico? That's our problem.

Foo fighter starships can camouflage themselves in magnetically contained, dense fusion plasma shields. It would have to be at least two off-board magnetic shields...so as to contain the fusion plasma that is possibly derived from deuterium in seawater.

The fusion plasma shield is an excellent camouflage, that can be falsely explained away as ball lighting or meteors.

Foo fighters can also hide in cloud cover...and the use of cloaking laser holography is not out of the realm of possibility.

a reply to: Phage

But not completely the opposite, because gravity works the same way with it. Probably.

That last part... Probably. And even in what you wrote, why bother calling just another form of matter, antimater? Seems redundant.

Remember things fall down. They don't fall up. I think we should check up if they came up with any anti matter gravity thingamajiger sometime in the next few thousand years. I figure going by the science of the day, that about how long it would take to get some concrete answers on these question.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Much like stating there should not be the terms negative charge and positive charge, just charge.

a reply to: HonorablyTainted

Camera shake was my first thought!

a reply to: Maverick7

Hey Phage, are you the man? To take us into quantum physics to understand this problem of 'blurry'?

a reply to: roadgravel
Ya! Its just verbiage. In which case, we may as well call antimater, anticharged matter.

But can you imagine a world were the human mind did not evolve, and was steeped in this duality and two part dichotamy?

Seems almost impossible right. I mean if there is a blue team, there must be a red team, a good and evil, a up and down, even a left and right, negative and possitive, us and them, up and down.

Its in every single part and parcel of human thought and behavior is an expression of that. And consequently the very world around you down to the microcosmos and above to the macrocomsmos is just a reflection of the observer that observes it.

Must be why if Aliens and UFOs or whatever if they exist, are zipping around not even noticing us.

They simply have evolved to not complicate matters more then necessary.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Memo # 3580...they have cloaking technology. No, wait we don't have the wherewithall to delete the fuzzy.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

That last part... Probably. And even in what you wrote, why bother calling just another form of matter, antimater? Seems redundant.

There is some experimental evidence that antimatter works like ordinary matter as far as gravity goes.

Redundant perhaps, but antimatter is quite different from matter except that it has mass. For example, if you manage to merge two protons you get helium. If you merge a proton with an antiproton you don't. To say the least.

How about dark matter? Is that redundant too?