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

Hi,

I certainly don't intend to disparage the efforts of UFO photographers, they've done their best with what they have on hand, in the limited time they have.

Over and over, we see photos and videos of UFOs which appear to be a dot, just a white or black dot. The eye witness probably saw more, but the image is just a dot. Photos and videos, that might be construed as good closeups, appear too blurry to be definitive.

Even, the actual UFO that I photographed (Asahi Pentax with 400mm lens braced on sandbags) turned out to be a white dot with a black background, hence it was worthless. I, and fellow witnesses, saw a lot more (of the loitering UFO) than the camera picked up.

Are there any clear, close-up, or definitive photos/videos out there?

Thanks

It's really a subjective topic. One person's 'relatively clear' photo is another person's blurry mess.

I like the UFO Casebook photo archive.
If you haven't seen it yet, it's worth a look.
I love the old "Golden Age of Flying Saucers" black & white pics, like the Cave Junction and McMinville, Oregon sightings.
The classic saucers.

a reply to: Adonsa

In short, no. Wasn't helped that most witnesses who did get photos or video seem to have never gotten their pictures back after submitting them, sometimes the involved agencies would also "lose" them. Very convenient indeed

However, as I have the time and Ufology is a great time-killer for me for years, here's some examples of what I deem to be genuine examples:

Badilla UFO, Costa Rica from 2007.



Captain Niotti (Airforce), Argentina UFO from 1960:



Pilot David Hastings, UFO over Grand Canyon in 1987:



That's some examples, genuine imo, there may even be better out there and whilst these aren't perfect or clear, they show enough.

The Rudi Nagora photos are still as yet unexplained.

a reply to: Adonsa

There are probably quite a few in the hoax bin.
That's where all the real evidence is stored.

originally posted by: Adonsa
Are there any clear, close-up, or definitive photos/videos out there?

There might be if I'd had a video camera, or any camera for that matter, back when I had my first sighting. I woke up one morning and went to look out my bedroom window since it was a nice day out, and right down the road in broad daylight was a black UFO just casually floating along. The only camera in the house at the time was this old antique thing and I had no idea where my parents kept it. I've had 3 other UFO sightings since that but unfortunately never the opportunity to photo/video any of them.
I said might before because I'm not 100% sure I'd show any photos or videos publicly if I had them.

a reply to: Adonsa

Are there any clear, close-up, or definitive photos/videos out there?

Yes. I have a 3 minute video of this plasma orb in my back yard, dancing around, disturbing the farm animals at 4:30am one morning. I have infrared/security cameras mounted all around property. This made no noise.

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

I have several "real evidence" and none are in the hoax bin. But I get your drift.

a reply to: Adonsa

Well...one thing I wish we'd change out here...is the use of the terms verified unidentified objects..flying.

I dont know how...but you asked about "clear, close-up, or definitive photos/videos" of something or things that are un-identified for sure, positive or absolute!

How can we verify as you ask...that something is positively un-verifiable and unidentified? We continually want to know if "U.F.O.'s" (and U.S.O.s) are real. As to what? Yes. They are really unidentifiable...so that proves what again?

That some un-identified stuff is unidentified...still. So the answer is "yes". There are some clear and closeup pictures of stuff that positively, absolutely, for sure..can't be identified...and flying....

It seems an endless circle of things and terminology that is proven...to be things that cant be proven. Its a confounding conundrum. Unidentified objects remain for the most part un-identified...otherwise they'd be proven otherwise.

Then they become "Identified Flying (or submerged) Objects, or I.F.O.'s.......geez, my head hurts now....

It doesn't matter. There have been some very good, very clear UFO photos taken over the years, but they don't add up to anything other than maybe there are some weird things flying around in the air sometimes. The ones where "I didn't see anything when I took the photo," can't be ruled out as being camera or film artifacts.

So far, in the history of UFOs, there has never been an instance where multiple non-anonymous people have taken clear photos of a UFO and then that sighting was in any way linked with a hard piece of evidence proving that it came from another world or dimension or reality or what have you.

It's disappointing. We're about due for another "flap," but we've gotten so good at spotting where the holes are in the evidence / proof folder that it might not happen.

a reply to: Adonsa

There must be.. but not declassified for the masses. You know what bothers me the most..? When these countries say they will disclose all their UFO files....but say nothing about the real stuff they won't disclose. France is one such a country..you bet your sweet a$$ that when fighter planes are scrambled to intercept an unindentified flying object in their airspace they will make pictures of the object.

I bet so did this fighter pilot Milton Torres in 1957 when chasing this carrier size UFO above England. England said to declassify their UFO stuff but these pictures of Milton Torres are not among them... Maybe because he was an american fighter pilot. Anyways, all countries who say and promise to release their UFO documents will not give us the good stuff. I wonder why... It is a certainty that these countries have in focus, clear pictures of Ufo's.

originally posted by: Adonsa
Hi,

I certainly don't intend to disparage the efforts of UFO photographers, they've done their best with what they have on hand, in the limited time they have.

Over and over, we see photos and videos of UFOs which appear to be a dot, just a white or black dot. The eye witness probably saw more, but the image is just a dot. Photos and videos, that might be construed as good closeups, appear too blurry to be definitive.

Even, the actual UFO that I photographed (Asahi Pentax with 400mm lens braced on sandbags) turned out to be a white dot with a black background, hence it was worthless. I, and fellow witnesses, saw a lot more (of the loitering UFO) than the camera picked up.

Are there any clear, close-up, or definitive photos/videos out there?

Thanks

The French Rouen event looks a good one. But it looks more like an experimental stealth aircraft. The craft is wedge shaped in two planes with a turbofan in the middle along with a tail rudder.

Early photographs before hoax UFO pictures became possible. Those are either pictures of airships or hot air balloons.

a reply to: Adonsa

The 1958 Trindade Island UFO

Later [16JAN58], at 12:15 P.M., as the Almirante Saldanha sat anchored off the south coast of Trindade and prepared for a return trip to Rio de Janeiro, 48 crew members and passengers spotted an object approaching the island. Among the witnesses was Almiro Barauna, a civilian who had been brought along because of his skill in underwater photography. Barauna gave this account to João Martins of the magazine 0 Cruzeiro:

It glittered at certain moments, perhaps reflecting the sunlight, perhaps changing its own light — I don’t know. It was coming over the sea, moving toward the point called the Galo Crest. I had lost 30 seconds looking for the object, but the camera was already in my hands, ready, when I sighted it clearly silhouetted against the clouds. I shot two photos before it disappeared behind Desejado Peak. My camera was set at speed 125, with the aperture at f/8, and this was the cause of an overexposure error, as I discovered later.
www.ufoevidence.org...

a reply to: gortex

I remember that one! That is an oldie but goodie!!

originally posted by: stormcell

The French Rouen event looks a good one. But it looks more like an experimental stealth aircraft. The craft is wedge shaped in two planes with a turbofan in the middle along with a tail rudder.

Early photographs before hoax UFO pictures became possible. Those are either pictures of airships or hot air balloons.

Stealth aircraft, in 1954??

It's not wedge shaped, it's a disc and it strongly resembles the McMinnville sighting of 1950. Four years of experimenting with the same craft over two continents. I'm not sure.

As for your knowledgeable dismissal of early UFO pictures, well I suppose we should just close the casebook on them now, seeing as you have solved them all in one sweeping statement.

As I have said before, if you are going to state something as fact, then back it up with evidence.

a reply to: NewzNose

3 min video and yet you only show a still

Colour Space [0xA001] = sRGB (1)
Lens F-Number / F-Stop [0x829D] = 240/100 ===> ƒ/2.4
Digitization Date/Time [0x9004] = 2015:09:26 19:03:15
Focal Length [0x920A] = 3970/1000 mm ===> 3.97 mm
White Balance [0xA403] = auto (0)
Image Width [0xA002] = 2048 pixels
Metering Mode [0x9207] = spot (3)
Original Date/Time [0x9003] = 2015:09:26 19:03:15
User Comment Character Code = unknown
Components Configuration [0x9101] = 0x01,0x02,0x03,0x00 / YCbCr
Image Height [0xA003] = 1536 pixels
EXIF Version [0x9000] = 0220
Flash [0x9209] = Flash fired

Flash fired interesting you also said 4:30 am yet the time on image is 19:03

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: Adonsa
Are there any clear, close-up, or definitive photos/videos out there?

I said might before because I'm not 100% sure I'd show any photos or videos publicly if I had them.

Aww cmon why not?

"Whose afraid of the big bad trolls, big bad trolls.... la la la la laaaaaaaa"

The chinese lantern brigade can only whine so much.


Here is my contribution of a couple of comparatively close ones from Area 51 -

They are not Matrix HD 6 angle clarity but you can make out the shape of the craft.

You can only get so close to a TS facility but hey, it's the best we could do.




Area 51 - 1989




Area 51 - 1991

If you believe BIlly Meier's photos are genuine, then there really are nothing else out there with this kind of definition.
But you have to buy the story and the photos... a stretch of magnitude.

a reply to: gortex
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.

Trindade Island case photographer admits hoax

originally posted by: data5091
a reply to: gortex

I remember that one! That is an oldie but goodie!!

I don't think a UFO photo from a photographer known for teaching people how to fake UFO photos is a 'goodie", but that's my opinion.

ufoupdateslist.com...

Almiro Barauna is a very well known photographer in Niteroi... In 1954, in the magazine "Mundo Ilustrado", he presented
photos with a text of Vin=EDcius Lima entitled "A Flying saucer was at My House. . . " where, in a curious and critical journalistic article, he taught "how to make a Martian aircraft" with two chips of the then Carioca Fleet, joined on their flat faces, in "photographic tricks" that could serve as "exploration and fun". This he did in face of his disbelief in UFOs, to ridicule the article published by Joao Martins and Ed Keffel, that photographed in May of 1952 an "Unidentified Aerial Object" in Barra da Tijuca, whose report had been published in the magazine "O Cruzeiro" of the time.

originally posted by: charlyv
If you believe BIlly Meier's photos are genuine, then there really are nothing else out there with this kind of definition.
But you have to buy the story and the photos... a stretch of magnitude.

Yes, that looks suspiciously like something from a car or truck engine compartment. All the clear photos look like fakes and the photos that don't look like fakes are very unclear, though if anybody has photos they think are exceptions to this I'd like to see them.

A famous photo is from McMinnville, and "experts" say it's genuine but I put "experts" in quotes because it looks suspiciously like a canning pot lid to me. Note lid on canning pot:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b79c38caea7b.jpg[/atsimg]

Compare Canning pot lid photos to famous photo from McMinnville:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: gortex
I did believe them but after the Stirling effort put in by SeenMyShare and the others on My thread I now believe beyond reasonable doubt that it was a hoax and the UFO was most likely a canning pot lid suspended from the wires .

Of course we can't know for certain but I think the balance of probability is a Hoax .

Recreation by SeenMyShare



Trent picture

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
Captain Niotti (Airforce), Argentina UFO from 1960:

Pilot David Hastings, UFO over Grand Canyon in 1987:

Those look more like photographic artifacts than UFOs to me, in fact I can't clearly identify a flying object in either one. The black dot doesn't have characteristics of a normal object, and the last one looks more like a ghostly apparition than an object, which reminds me of the Oldfield UFO, also an apparition but a much clearer one.

a reply to: Adonsa

To be honest, I dont think so. and to ColeYounger's point -- its very subjective what a person accepts as evidence now.

Given CGI and photoshop, etc, its shockingly easy to fake things realistically, hence the general skepticism.

I suppose the only way *I* would accept it is, if it happened to me.