So where is all the cellphone movie footage if we're visited so often?

originally posted by: Jaellma
a reply to: Scdfa

I just love how 90% of tangible threads about UFOs start off with a bang, great videos, superb stories then digresses into incessant banter, arguments and eventually doubt, disbelief, more questions, revelations and ultimately....nothing.

Never fails.

Aw, you poor fella. Not sure what you want, agreement? On which view?

Be strong, your avatar has big deltiods.

a reply to: Scdfa

No agreement, friend. Just great dialog and in-depth analysis.

The trend here on ATS is to doubt, doubt, doubt, even with ample evidence. No one said to agree with everything or believe everything one sees but the level of ignorance in this particular forum is quite extravagant.

And oh, my avatar is "Pitt", from Image Comics. Look it up, if you dare.

originally posted by: Jaellma
The trend here on ATS is to doubt, doubt, doubt, even with ample evidence.

Ample evidence? Interesting assertion. I doubt because I do not share that opinion regarding ample evidence.

No one said to agree with everything or believe everything one sees

Why would anyone do that, it would stifle debate.

but the level of ignorance in this particular forum is quite extravagant.

Again, in your opinion of course.
Thank you for sharing it here though, all opinions are interesting.

a reply to: grainofsand

LOL...Let me tell you, friend, it's posts like yours I am talking exactly about. It's called DERAILING a good thread. Instead of of attacking my little drivel, focus on providing thoughtful analysis of the OP's post. That would make things much more interesting for the thread.

Derailing a thread is easy (as we are doing right now, lol). You and I should be discussing what the OP said and providing thoughtful points but instead you are trying to draw me into a prolonged debate, of which I am not going to. I am done here....unless, of course, you care to discuss the original topic, in depth.

originally posted by: Jaellma
a reply to: Scdfa

No agreement, friend. Just great dialog and in-depth analysis.

The trend here on ATS is to doubt, doubt, doubt, even with ample evidence. No one said to agree with everything or believe everything one sees but the level of ignorance in this particular forum is quite extravagant.

And oh, my avatar is "Pitt", from Image Comics. Look it up, if you dare.

iI'm strictly old school Marvel, the Hulk could kick his ass!

But I agree, no amount of evidence is ever going to please the deniers and deceivers. They're still trying to pretend Roswell didn't happen, for God's sake!

That's life in America today; the phones are smart, the people aren't.

a reply to: Jaellma
Lol, I wrote the OP.
It is you and your mate's like Scdfa doing the derailing as far as I see it...hahah, thanks for the laugh, honestly!


*Edit*
Thought I'd quote you in case it was deleted in an edit by accident...

originally posted by: Jaellma
a reply to: grainofsand

LOL...Let me tell you, friend, it's posts like yours I am talking exactly about. It's called DERAILING a good thread. Instead of of attacking my little drivel, focus on providing thoughtful analysis of the OP's post. That would make things much more interesting for the thread.

Derailing a thread is easy (as we are doing right now, lol). You and I should be discussing what the OP said and providing thoughtful points but instead you are trying to draw me into a prolonged debate, of which I am not going to. I am done here....unless, of course, you care to discuss the original topic, in depth.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Jaellma
Lol, I wrote the OP.
It is you and your mate's like Scdfa doing the derailing as far as I see it...hahah, thanks for the laugh, honestly!

*Edit*
Thought I'd quote you in case it was deleted in an edit by accident...

originally posted by: Jaellma
a reply to: grainofsand

LOL...Let me tell you, friend, it's posts like yours I am talking exactly about. It's called DERAILING a good thread. Instead of of attacking my little drivel, focus on providing thoughtful analysis of the OP's post. That would make things much more interesting for the thread.

Derailing a thread is easy (as we are doing right now, lol). You and I should be discussing what the OP said and providing thoughtful points but instead you are trying to draw me into a prolonged debate, of which I am not going to. I am done here....unless, of course, you care to discuss the original topic, in depth.

Jaelima is right, this guy derailed HIS OWN THREAD. He asked a question in the OP, which was answered by many posters with valid explanations. That should have been the end of it. But this guy didn't like the replies, so he's been arguing and carrying on ever since.

Not often you see a guy derail his own thread!

a reply to: Scdfa
Hahaha! Not at at all, you beat me to derailing when you started proclaiming aliens as factual reality. Add to that your emotionally immature snide touches like 'whining' or 'ignorance' and basically most of your rant like posts here.
As I said before though, you amuse me, but you got nothing but opinion, same as me.


*Edit*
...and if you take 'arguing and carrying on' to mean that I remain unconvinced then so be it. I do not share the same opinion on aliens as you, and if you reply to this thread I created then I shall of course continue to reply if I find amusement in doing so.
I respect your right to believe in such things but I do not believe myself.
I have made no assertions in this thread, you have made many.

I am a little lost now so forgive me if you may?

Are you now being gang assaulted for derailing your own thread?

I came back pretty late but remember you starting this one?

good luck with this I blame aliens, it's the only answer?

a reply to: grainofsand

a reply to: nonspecific
Lol, nah just a few believers who I can only assume are cross with me because I don't hold their beliefs.
...always worth the chuckle, especially when the first joker didn't even realise I'd started the thread

ATTENTION!

Most if not all of you have been here long enough to know the topic is never each other, or opinions of each other.

Return to the topic and knock off the tit for tat or Posting Bans will follow.

Do not reply to this post.

>>
1. The lack of a zoom on cell phones guarantees what ever footage is captured will only be recorded on a very small portion of the video recording chip (CCD). Any attempts to magnify will be very blurry.
>>
We don't have problems proving the existence of elephants, wales or even unknown and new species 30.000ft down in the Mariana Drench. I can go to the zoo tomorrow and prove to you that peacocks exist. Someone can go in a jungle and provide proof that black panthers exists. No sweat.

But for UFOs which are allegedly seen by many, some "miles wide"...."the lack of zoom" etc. of cameras seems to be a problem? Why is that?

>>
2. Cell phones can't shoot dimly lit stars or objects. Phones have trouble focusing at infinity in the dark.
>>
Not interested in something which is "dimly lit" or resembles a tiny star. We're talking UFOs here, something which immediately should catch your eye as something *extraordinary*, not just "resemble a star" or a plane, aka a tiny light at night someone cannot identify. No one is interested in THOSE sightings. If your camera cannot even catch the object because it's so subjective, dim, tiny, unidentifiable...chances are it's something ordinary as are likely MOST sightings of "lights" someone sees at night.

>>
3. People are so shocked, by the time they reach for phone, its too late.
>>

People in 3rld word countries from India to Bangladesh nowadays even have cell-phones. The argument that people are so shocked if they see something so they don't film it...is far-fetched, given that we have footage of pretty much anything, accidents, whatever events even the most trivial things today.

>>
4. CG is so good, its impossible to spot real footage. Most assume great footage is fake and gets lost in search engines after being "debunked" by auto reply debunkers.
>>

It may be difficult today to spot real footage, but you can filter and sort "suspicious" footage from the good footage. It's not skeptics problem that most so called "good" footage often turns out CGI and hoaxes.

if however a footage (or a photo) is truly genuine, there are certain indications and signs ...in the same way as a hoax or fake ALWAYS (astonishingly!!) has some red-flag or giveaway sign that it is fake. You CAN examine footage or a photo and conclude that it's likely genuine. It's doable.

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
>>
1. The lack of a zoom on cell phones guarantees what ever footage is captured will only be recorded on a very small portion of the video recording chip (CCD). Any attempts to magnify will be very blurry.
>>
We don't have problems proving the existence of elephants, wales or even unknown and new species 30.000ft down in the Mariana Drench. I can go to the zoo tomorrow and prove to you that peacocks exist. Someone can go in a jungle and provide proof that black panthers exists. No sweat.

But for UFOs which are allegedly seen by many, some "miles wide"...."the lack of zoom" etc. of cameras seems to be a problem? Why is that?

>>
2. Cell phones can't shoot dimly lit stars or objects. Phones have trouble focusing at infinity in the dark.
>>
Not interested in something which is "dimly lit" or resembles a tiny star. We're talking UFOs here, something which immediately should catch your eye as something *extraordinary*, not just "resemble a star" or a plane, aka a tiny light at night someone cannot identify. No one is interested in THOSE sightings. If your camera cannot even catch the object because it's so subjective, dim, tiny, unidentifiable...chances are it's something ordinary as are likely MOST sightings of "lights" someone sees at night.

>>
3. People are so shocked, by the time they reach for phone, its too late.
>>

People in 3rld word countries from India to Bangladesh nowadays even have cell-phones. The argument that people are so shocked if they see something so they don't film it...is far-fetched, given that we have footage of pretty much anything, accidents, whatever events even the most trivial things today.

>>
4. CG is so good, its impossible to spot real footage. Most assume great footage is fake and gets lost in search engines after being "debunked" by auto reply debunkers.
>>

It may be difficult today to spot real footage, but you can filter and sort "suspicious" footage from the good footage. It's not skeptics problem that most so called "good" footage often turns out CGI and hoaxes.

if however a footage (or a photo) is truly genuine, there are certain indications and signs ...in the same way as a hoax or fake ALWAYS (astonishingly!!) has some red-flag or giveaway sign that it is fake. You CAN examine footage or a photo and conclude that it's likely genuine. It's doable.

Could you provide us with some examples please of the "good" footage or photos that you feel may be genuine? I would be very interested to take a look.

I find this quote of yours to be false, however.

" The argument that people are so shocked if they see something so they don't film it...is far-fetched, given that we have footage of pretty much anything, accidents, whatever events even the most trivial things today."

Yes, we have plenty of footage of the most trivial things. That's quite the opposite of a UFO sighting, however.

Tell me about the most shocking thing you've ever seen personally, please. And I assume you've got some good pictures of that event? If the event you saw was half as shocking as seeing an alien ship or an alien, then I want to see your pictures. Will you please show them to us?

A person who has actually experienced something that fantastic, unexpected, and brief will tell you that taking a picture is the last of their concerns.

The first reaction is to simply try and understand what you're seeing. Say you see a flying saucer. Your first thought is not, oh, an alien ship! Despite what some deniers insist, your first thought is to try and reconcile what you see with everyday reality. You start running through a checklist in your mind, "is it an airplane? No, a helicopter? a hot air balloon? a movie set?" You consider every other possibility first, no matter how unlikely. Like, a sci-fi movie being filmed on your street. Highly unlikely, but still possible. It is only after all other conventional possibilities fail that we start to consider something like UFOs.

Now, depending on the duration, your sighting may be over by this point.

The next reaction, once you realize you are seeing something truly unusual, is to simply look. This is the moment you never thought you'd have, and you will not even blink. You won't miss one second because you know you may never have an opportunity like this ever again in your life. This is your moment and you won't blow it.

If it is a close proximity sighting, you may now start to realize that what you're seeing is so unusual it might be dangerous or mean you harm. You may feel a fight versus flight reaction, and maybe getting the hell out of there is a good idea. Like Travis Walton's friends.

I feel is only if a significant sighting event is of substantial duration, perhaps more than a minute or two, that a person is likely to consider it important to try to get a picture. When a major, shocking event is happening, the last thing on your mind is proving it to strangers on the internet.

a reply to: Scdfa
"Genuine" footage could be of any "known" flying object. Airplanes, satellites, meteors, comets, rocket reentry, birds, bugs, balloons, RC drones, etc. Known flying objects would be your baseline. I think you are interpreting "genuine" to mean "genuine ET craft". In that case, there isn't any.

We have all seen the released videos of the SR2 Blackbird, the F-117 nighthawk, F22 Raptor and the B2 Stealth Bomber

how much phone camera footage of these aircraft are captured?

these aircraft are rare and travel fast, very high up,

we only know they exist because Military have de-classified them,

UFO's are real, weather man made or of Alien origin, just because we don't have HD or 4K footage to disproves this??

and anyway aren't our Governments in the job of not disclosing info on UFO's, so if they had good high quality footage would they upload to Youtube?

a reply to: grainofsand

I had an experience with an object I could not identify not too long ago. I wasn't able to record it, but even if I was able to, it was early in the morning (still dark) and we all know how our cellphones love low light conditions! I doubt I would have been able to pick up anything at all, if I was it'd certainly not be anything anyone would consider a "UFO" of E.T. origin as it'd probably only show up as a small prick of light.

But I know what I saw, I'm not one to jump head first into believing all UFO's must be of alien origin. Heck, I've not been fortunate to see much of anything that could possibly be E.T., but my encounter that day sure had me thinking.

(Read more about my experience here if interested: Link)

So imagine the people who do experience things like this, the first thought on your mind isn't "let me grab my camera or phone", but rather, "WTF is that?!". Only after your initial reaction does it occur to you to grab your camera. By that time, many of the sightings are over.

And how about people who DO? Like I mentioned above, the majority of phones don't like taking pictures at night. Many of our phones will switch to low light mode that will create pictures with blur and noise. Movies at night are also rather abysmal. So imagine that many people did capture something, only to find out that it all looks like a blur or you can hardly see anything... It's not hard to imagine that many wouldn't care to try to post their proof as proof.

I have footage but will not post it to the net for 2 reasons. 1. People will assume it's fake, they always do. 2. People will use my video to make stupid videos by mixing it in with all sorts of hoax type BS. So I keep it to myself and enjoy, sharing only with friends & family who come to visit. I have a feeling there are others out there who share the same feelings as me on this.

originally posted by: Auricom
a reply to: grainofsand

I had an experience with an object I could not identify not too long ago. I wasn't able to record it, but even if I was able to, it was early in the morning (still dark) and we all know how our cellphones love low light conditions! I doubt I would have been able to pick up anything at all, if I was it'd certainly not be anything anyone would consider a "UFO" of E.T. origin as it'd probably only show up as a small prick of light.

But I know what I saw, I'm not one to jump head first into believing all UFO's must be of alien origin. Heck, I've not been fortunate to see much of anything that could possibly be E.T., but my encounter that day sure had me thinking.

(Read more about my experience here if interested: Link)

So imagine the people who do experience things like this, the first thought on your mind isn't "let me grab my camera or phone", but rather, "WTF is that?!". Only after your initial reaction does it occur to you to grab your camera. By that time, many of the sightings are over.

And how about people who DO? Like I mentioned above, the majority of phones don't like taking pictures at night. Many of our phones will switch to low light mode that will create pictures with blur and noise. Movies at night are also rather abysmal. So imagine that many people did capture something, only to find out that it all looks like a blur or you can hardly see anything... It's not hard to imagine that many wouldn't care to try to post their proof as proof.

I agree with you completely Auricom, taking a picture is a very low priority to someone experiencing a close encounter. Only during an encounter of significant duration, maybe minutes or more, does a person eventually think of documenting the event.

It takes a while to even figure out that you are experiencing something fantastic. Then you are more concerned with simply observing, completely caught up in the moment. These are often life-changing events, and taking a pic to prove it to the internet is not the natural reaction.

And, honestly, why bother? The same people who demand photo proof of a UFO encounter are just going to label any photo you take as a hoax. That isn't sour grapes, I've seen it happen again and again, serial deniers are very poor judges of legitimate UFO evidence.

That is not to say that it wouldn't be great to have more great UFO photos, please, if you can, take a picture!

originally posted by: Scdfa
I agree with you completely Auricom, taking a picture is a very low priority to someone experiencing a close encounter.

Are you making this assertion for everyone or some people?

Only during an encounter of significant duration, maybe minutes or more, does a person eventually think of documenting the event.

Again, are you making this claim about all people, or just basing it on anecdotal evidence or your opinion. Right now it appears as unsubstantiated assertion at best.

It takes a while to even figure out that you are experiencing something fantastic. Then you are more concerned with simply observing, completely caught up in the moment. These are often life-changing events, and taking a pic to prove it to the internet is not the natural reaction.

Again, may I ask are you making this assertion about 'natural reaction' based on researched study, or is it simply personal assertion based on your own experiences and/or perspective?

I would love to see the sources of social research you discovered to present such opinion as fact, perhaps I can learn something new. Of course if your comments are merely opinion then they draw me no closer to becoming a believer of visiting aliens, but I certainly respect your right to believe whatever you like.

And, honestly, why bother? The same people who demand photo proof of a UFO encounter are just going to label any photo you take as a hoax. That isn't sour grapes, I've seen it happen again and again, serial deniers are very poor judges of legitimate UFO evidence.

How does one holding a high standard of evidence in order to believe something indicate that said person is a poor judge of 'legitimate' UFO evidence? I am interested to learn the qualifying requirements for these 'judges' you mention?

a reply to: grainofsand

You repeatedly refer to "belief". Belief is for matters of faith. You can save your belief for things like Jesus and the Easter Bunny.

The UFO and alien situation does not require belief. Either you are aware it is true, or you are not aware that it is true. It does not require a majority of the population agreeing to make it true, and it does not need a famous scientist to make it true. It is true, and all the disbelief you can muster won't change that. Most people thought the Sun went around the Earth, that did not change the reality of Earth orbiting the Sun, despite popular opinion, and the "scientists" of the time. Including Occam's Razor.

You and those like you often say that nobody knows aliens are real, you either "believe" aliens are here or you don't believe. This make no sense, it is simply illogical. If aliens are coming here and encountering humans, then those people would know aliens are real, agreed? They would no longer be in a position where they were simply guessing, like you are. They would know aliens are really here, would they not? They do not need to "believe". They know. While you do not, right? I mean, you do admit that you don't know, you're simply guessing that aliens are not here.

Your position, that no one knows for sure, fails.

It only considers the denier's position, you see. An inadequate assumption.