What happened to all the non-blob UFOs?

a reply to: bgerbger

Bonus points for the "blurfoot" remark.

Even the legendary Patterson-Gimlin footage of bigfoot has been accused of being a fake (and the evidence is overwhelming) but now things get worse with the rise of CGI. I like to watch movies on youtube that claim "evidence" of paranormal activity even though I could replicate them.

The problem is anecdotal evidence as no one will believe what one sees, I saw something that looked like the shuttle from Return Of The Jedi smear it's contrails like a kid with finger paint, that's the only way I can describe it. However using fake photographic evidence to prove untruths is nasty.

I bought a magazine (which will remain anonymous due to their gullibility) published an article that claims a man got photos of the African Bigfoot, and in a fraction of a second after viewing the image I recognized it as an elephant in dense foliage, suckers.

These cleverly named Blurfoots could be MIFO's (misidentified flying objects) but sometimes hearsay of cases can be of help as aircraft have a sonic boom, if you don't hear that then it's time to turn on the gray matter.

Compare today's sightings which are usually indistinct blobs of light in the sky. One would think with the graphical processing ability of computers that hoaxers would be able to produce a convincing looking UFO, but my my own searchings just show lights in the sky that could be anything.

New age asks for new innovations . The illuminating blobs are the same models as the early age only more advanced and more the shape they prefer most I guess.

So they show us and we back engineer , problem solved !

a reply to: bgerbger

A lot of UFO sightings were actually phenomena that happens from earth itself, ball lighting, comes to mind. With everyone having a camera in their pocket now, I am sure some of these blobs of light are just that exactly, Earthly strange weather sightings. And yea, hoaxes.

But, I have my own sort of theory on the classic flying saucer you are referring to.
There seemed to be an influx sometime around the mid 1900's, and it slowly died off either it was A: A hysteria built up after WW2 from unknown flying craft in sky because of the impending Cold war, or B: Where ever or who ever were flying those craft came studied, and abruptly left. A sort of on going galaxy exploration mission, one that might be along the lines of a Star trek sort of thing.

a reply to: strongfp

And you think people going to buy that sh#t nowadays .. Wake up!

Saucers were a product of their time. They were a typically American phenomenon.

Most other places, you still had balls of light as the prevailant "UFO". It's just that media focus was primarily on the American phenomenon.

The balls of light sort of approach exists the world over. Saucers, football field structured craft -- these are predominantly American aspects of UFOlogy. For whatever reason, presumably, the mass scale coverup the American gov employ, but have no interest/reach over the rest of the world.

So they didn't disappear as such, more that they never really existed in the first place. They were a construct. Adamski being one of the first major hoaxers.

There's no hard proof that Arnold McFirst Sighting Guy didn't actually see balls of light. Merely that whatever he saw was saucer shaped. The media then invented flying saucers and then along came that classic metallic two car hubcaps connected to each other shape. It was fabricated.

It must have been, because as you note, it died a death. The humble flying saucer lost its impact so the American gov created or enlisted the help of football-field sized UFO craft aliens. But balls of light never did. They were always around and are still around. They buzzed planes many years ago (foo fighters) and still to this day (commercial flights). But very few if any of those pilots ever said "Hey, there's an actual hubcap UFO flying with me". There was never a real in-flight account of that type of UFO... just balls of light -- the real phenomena.

The important thing to remember is that the American side of UFOlogy functions almost autonomously from the rest of the world. The more persistent ball of light phenomena just isn't big and grandiose enough for most American news outlets (and perhaps the people). I don't know why your UFOlogy is different to the rest of ours, but one thing we all know, is that no-one covers this stuff up in quite the scale the Americans (Gov/higher powers) do.

a reply to: markymint

Ever though that those balls could be the aliens?

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: strongfp

And you think people going to buy that sh#t nowadays .. Wake up!

Elaborate a little for me here ...

a reply to: 0bserver1

The jury is still out on that one, sure.

People like a flying saucer because it has a defined shape, because it is a "container". Because it works in the conventions of how we understand space travel - you have to be inside a thing to traverse time and space. Because there's a nice familiar door that opens with a whoosh and a puff of smoke and out walks a being from its shielded hubcap. Because how can that thing operate without a Windows XP control panel inside it somewhere? Our spacecraft need these things afterall... Try telling a 1950's person that a UFO is the alien itself, their head would explode.

But yes, absolutely, the "balls of light" might be beings in themselves. Maybe energy. Maybe shield or what not around something more solid inside it. We've done very little to get a hold of the truth on that one. We know very little about them. Perhaps because we prefer conventional things that make sense to our experiences of life and earth, which flying hubcaps align with much better.

a reply to: bgerbger

I would say most non blob ufos are hoaxes.

Most ufos have one thing in common. Plasma. Its central to their propulsion mechanism.

Also 99 percent of all ufos are man made. Half of them arent even vehicles.

a reply to: strongfp

Easy, there's to much happening in the world related that there is a extraterrestrial presence on our world and has been for a long time.. our whole civilization is builded on that foundation. And before that one and only question falls my answer will be " To much ! And for those still in denial none.. "

a reply to: markymint

Unintentionally, you have made part of my case about the true history of UFO. The US which, I'm not ashamed to say, probably has at the current epoch in human history the most leverage upon the world in any area you can mention: economics, technology, political and ideological. --Not to say the best in all, but the strongest influence. Therefore, that is why the abduction cases that starting appearing in the early 1960 continued to multiply into the 1990s in the US but also happening elsewhere.

The sad thing is that many of threads like this come on the scene with a narrow window that refuses to acknowledge, ignores or gives little credit to the phenomena other than what the OP wants to present. I've seen this tactic for years on ATS. The only explanation is that the OP is acting in self-interest with a very limited knowledge of the total UFO phenomena as it interfaces with modern society. That self-interest can be view of the OP or the view desired to be presented. Some threads are honest but simply short-sighted to the true situation. Some of these threads are designed by psyops folks to limit and guide the discussion of UFOs and have input from associates that have the job of reinforcing the presented narrow viewpoint. In that way any real discussion of what is really going on is ignored or lost when it appears within the thread. As to the case here, I can only guess from my several years of experience of beating the drums for an honest look at UFOs, what they are and what they mean to us as we blindly look to the stars as no government has ever publicly investigated the UFO phenomena with a full, unbiased scientific study to arrive at a definite conclusion.

LMAO!
the first picture is from adamsky (hoaxer), the second is from billy meier (hoaxer,too), the third is from the guld brezze hoax and the fourth is from an unknow source but it is obviously an hoax
you cant just capture an good image of an ufo they are too fast and unpredictable

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

WHOA MATE! dont put words in jacques vallee mouth, he said they are just interdimensional
no bs about demons

There are still plenty of "saucer" style UFO sightings. There has never been many legitimate pictures of UFOs at any point in time. As far as blurry blobs go, there is only a larger # of these pictures, as cameras are flipping attached to everything now. So more stuff gets photographed, simple as that. The # of reliable or significant sightings hasn't changed much over the years.

While Gulf Breeze may have been a hoax, that model doesn't prove it. It was made out of blueprint plans for a house Ed Walters was designing on a date after all the photographs and sightings were reported. Was funny it was made of blueprint plans to begin with - someone was obviously trying to tie it to Ed, who designed houses.

Since Ed took multiple polygraph tests, and took pictures with a camera provided and sealed by MUFON, that case still has some interest. Like I said.. could be a hoax, but even photography experts still can't explain the photos (if hoaxed).

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
The problem is anecdotal evidence as no one will believe what one sees, I saw something that looked like the shuttle from Return Of The Jedi smear it's contrails like a kid with finger paint, that's the only way I can describe it.

I believe you saw what you saw. (Or at least that you honestly believe you saw what you saw.) A photo might help identify it... or not. That's the state of UFOdom these days.

originally posted by: zeroPointOneQ
a reply to: bgerbger

The more detail in a photo/video, the more 'information' available in the image to prove it's fake.

Blur masks this 'information', hence this is why I think image quality is lacking despite the available (pricy and time investment heavy) technology.

That aside I also think image stabilization (lowering resolution), compression artifacts, ISO noise in low light conditions and optical zoom are the main issue.

I think you mean digital zoom, optical is better as for iso noise in low light at all that has changed look here



If the ufo BS pushers on facetube are really after the truth they would invest in cameras like that , the problem then is we would see the lights in the sky are planes, bugs, bats & birds and there goes there income.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: bgerbger

Most ufos have one thing in common. Plasma. Its central to their propulsion mechanism.

There is absolutely NO proof for that statement what so ever and you know it

a reply to: wmd_2008

Yes, digital zoom. My bad!

I'm actually amazed by that clip. My DSLR (an old Sony Alpha 330) begins to produce noise starting from 800 ...

Like you suggest, this still remains a problem on lower end devices and cellphones though, so yeah serious research/proof requires serious tech.

Makes me wonder how thorough hardware is checked.

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: zeroPointOneQ
a reply to: bgerbger

The more detail in a photo/video, the more 'information' available in the image to prove it's fake.

Blur masks this 'information', hence this is why I think image quality is lacking despite the available (pricy and time investment heavy) technology.

That aside I also think image stabilization (lowering resolution), compression artifacts, ISO noise in low light conditions and optical zoom are the main issue.

I think you mean digital zoom, optical is better as for iso noise in low light at all that has changed look here

If the ufo BS pushers on facetube are really after the truth they would invest in cameras like that , the problem then is we would see the lights in the sky are planes, bugs, bats & birds and there goes there income.

That camera is amazing!

Obviously, it is set-up on a tripod, which I highly doubt any unexpected UFO sighting would afford such time and luxury, hence the majority of pictures and videos are captures from the highly inefficient cameras in mobile phones or shaky attempts from more adequate, but still incapable, cameras. It would probably take a huge slice of luck to have a camera set-up on a tripod and adjusted for high ISO photography just as a UFO pops up in the sky. Not impossible, but very improbable.

I agree though, that any serious UFO investigator aiming to get conclusive proof, would take steps to get the the best there is available on the market, within their budget.