If Mobile Phone Cameras Had Been Available 50 Years Ago.

As the title suggests, if we had Mobile Phone Camera Technology available to us all those years ago, would any ATS members been able to produce a video or photograph of a UFO that would have been undisputed evidence that these things exist ?

For myself, there have been two instances i witnessed which would have been quite damming evidence. Both where close observations which i believe would have stood up to scrutiny.

One example would be the Westall Incident from observations by others:-

IN 1966 over 300 children and staff from a Melbourne school reportedly witnessed multiple UFOs silently flying through the sky before landing in a nearby field. It is the largest mass UFO sighting in Australia yet hardly anything was reported on it at the time

www.news.com.au...

It will be interesting to hear your opinions.

On a lighter note, maybe ET doesn't appear as close up as they once did, because they now know humans have the technology easy to hand to be able to record them on film. Well just maybe.

originally posted by: alldaylong
On a lighter note, maybe ET doesn't appear as close up as they once did, because they now know humans have the technology easy to hand to be able to record them on film. Well just maybe.

I’d say this is an accurate assumption. Going back to NIDS findings at Skinwalker Ranch. They said that whatever was creating the anomaly’s, was one step ahead of them, at all times. As if, ‘it / they’ could predict what the team would do next, to avoid detection.

This would make a lot more sense considering the IDH. It would make far less sense with the ETH, IMO.

Perhaps related to this question is my recent FAQ response:



Perceptive observers of the UFO scene over the last two thirds of a century have noted a tell-tale feature of the evolution of reports – their nature has been changing, keeping uncanny pace with the progress in human observation and detection [AND RECORDING] technologies. As with dragons and sea serpents of half a millennium ago, they always seem to lurk just at or beyond the limits of clear human vision, with ‘Here be dragons’ on the maps obediently retreating in synchronization to the inexorable advance of human knowledge and technology.

These new ‘UFO reports’ [the Elizondo material] , still fragmentary and inadequately documented, nicely fit this time-tested pattern – some anomaly is detected at the limits of sight [that by all means needs to be understood] but isn’t clear enough to unambiguously establish its non-explainability. If the reports truly represent an authentic autonomous phenomenon, they would have been invisible to human observers until recently, just as the UFOs of the 1940s and 1950s, if they really were caused by actual phenomena, would today be exhaustively documented by the vastly improved observation capabilities of humankind.

But. They. Aren’t. Instead, year by year, the ‘old UFOs’ fade away just before the advent of new technologies [that would have unambiguously documented them] come on line, to be replaced by a new flavor of ‘anomalies’ that precisely match the limits of vision of new technologies.

This is a powerful indication that the phenomenon derives its existence NOT from some stand-alone phenomenon, but directly FROM being at the limits of human detection and recognition. As an observer-based rather than reality-based phenomenon, its apparent existence derives from the range – and limits – of human perception. That perception and its limits are real, but the apparent stand-alone stimulus does not have to be, and never did. Such a postulated stimulus [ETI technology] could well exist and be responsible, but may not be mandatory.

a reply to: JimOberg

Just going to throw this out there.

One could argue that humans are "most aware" of current technological limitations and use that to their advantage. That way reports continue to be fuzzy with no hard evidence.

a reply to: JimOberg

Have you commented on the "tic tac" video footage and testimony?

originally posted by: alldaylong
As the title suggests, if we had Mobile Phone Camera Technology available to us all those years ago, would any ATS members been able to produce a video or photograph of a UFO that would have been undisputed evidence that these things exist ?

For myself, there have been two instances i witnessed which would have been quite damming evidence. Both where close observations which i believe would have stood up to scrutiny.

One example would be the Westall Incident from observations by others:-

There are two possibilities for the Westall incident.
One possibility is as you suggest, a video might suggest the event was truly anomalous.
Another possibility is a video might show there's some explanation for events which is not so anomalous.

Look at the videos we do have and how even they get misinterpreted.

We have several videos of the lights over phoenix that some witnesses thought was a giant craft, but the earlier video shows it's not a solid craft but 5 or 6 airplanes which move with respect to each other, so the giant craft was a misperception. The later event of flares also resulted in misperceptions, even by people who watch the video and play it over and over and over again. But professional video analysis removes any doubt about the misperceptions, it was flares and we know who dropped them.

Look at the TTSA FLIR video which appears to show a sudden acceleration at the end. We have extremely intelligent people, scientists and physicists who were completely fooled by that video, because they didn't understand all the nuances of what it showed, which upon further more accurate analysis shows no acceleration at all at the end!

So 2 things:
1. The videos don't necessarily solve anything when so many people can still badly misinterpret UFO videos they can watch over and over again and analyze to eliminate the misperceptions, yet they fail to do so and still misperceive the video.
2. If the videos which can be analyzed and re-analyzed in excruciating detail are misinterpreted so badly, how much less confidence should we have on eyewitness sightings of which there is no recording at all and no chance to re-play and review what was seen as with the videos? I think the value is not exactly zero, but from a scientific perspective it must be considered very close to zero value since the eyewitness misperceptions necessarily must be even more pronounced than with misperceived videos, which can be watched over and over and over again and still mis-perceived after countless re-watchings.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: JimOberg

Have you commented on the "tic tac" video footage and testimony?

Not specifically, I haven't studied them enough to offer a informed opinion. I'm not Bill Nye.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
…..
Look at the TTSA FLIR video which appears to show a sudden acceleration at the end. ...

'Appears' is the key word, and I =HAVE= offered an opinion of claims of 'observables'.

--- FAQ --

The '5 observables' allegedly demonstrated by the bizarre events reported by Navy pilots are NOT ‘observations’, they are INTERPRETATIONS of what the raw observations might mean.

What IS ‘observable’ is that the author of the list knows less than zero about the proper function of a military intelligence officer or any investigator of unknown causes of eyewitness perceptions, which is to observe and record, NOT to interpret or explain.

To jump to such interpretations preemptively is a notorious intellectual fallacy that REAL investigators have learned must be avoided because once formulated, an explanatory theory can subconsciously flavor the interpretation of new evidence, and even skew the direction of follow-on research, and through lines of questioning, even skew the memories of direct witnesses.

As NTSB accident investigators know, pilots are among the MOST susceptible witnesses to memory editing, probably because of their entirely proper professional instinct to reach fast assessments of unusual observations in terms of potential hazard to themselves. This is a very valuable bias in terms of flight safety, at the cost of dispassionate intellectual curiosity.

So what was really observed?

Anti-gravity lift. [objects] have been sighted overcoming the earth’s gravity with no visible means of propulsion.

This would be ‘observable’ only through its effect on the motion of the object, or more precisely, on changes in its measured azimuth/elevation relative to Earth horizon [not to a viewscreen]. With objects of unknown size, any eyeball estimate of range is worthless.

Sudden and instantaneous acceleration. The objects may accelerate or change direction so quickly that no human pilot could survive the g-forces

Effective acceleration determination requires knowledge of a time history of the object’s angular rate, observer-to-object range rate, and accurate range value. There seems to be no description of reliable capture of any of these parameters, so ‘acceleration’ CANNOT be observed.

Hypersonic velocities without signatures. If an aircraft travels faster than the speed of sound, it typically leaves "signatures," like vapor trails and sonic booms

Determination of raw velocity requires these same parameters, so without them the ‘velocity’ is not observable.

Low observability, or cloaking. Even when objects are observed, getting a clear and detailed view of them—either through pilot sightings, radar or other means—remains difficult.

‘Observability’ can be observed qualitatively but needs more details about which sensors are involved, from human eyeball [under what attenuation/illumination conditions] to visual sensors [visible light, IR, etc] to ground or airborne skin-track radar, lidar, or other technology. Without time history of quantifiable measurements in an environment of potentially rapidly changing range and aspect angle, the ‘observation’ observability is a dubious characteristic.

Trans-medium travel. Some UAP have been seen moving easily in and between different environments, such as space, the earth’s atmosphere and even water.

This is yet another INTERPRETATION of low-observable imagery, involving a target of unknown size and range.

Some of these interpretations may well be validated by investigation of the actual raw observables, but beginning an investigation based on pre-existing conclusions [and then selecting the evidence that fits] is a recipe for confusion and frustration and dead-ended detours. It demonstrates the sad unsuitability of such sloppy methodology to attempting to make sense of these undeniably interesting reports.

I think it's fairly well proven at this point that ubiquitous cell phones with still and video cameras would have more than likely simply revealed many "classic" UFO reports to be a load of garbage, since that's what we're seeing right now. MUFON continues to be flooded with photos of people excited to see "blue orbs" in photos that they (surprise!) didn't see when they took the photo. Because they're lens flares, you dopes! So many lens flares. So many balloons.

I'm not saying there wouldn't have been any solid UFO photos, because there were some already taken with the good cameras available at the time. But it's extremely unlikely that the overall quality of the photos would have been any better, nor would they have led us to any "answers," because we still don't have any despite years of digital photos/images being taken.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: JimOberg

Have you commented on the "tic tac" video footage and testimony?

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: JimOberg

Have you commented on the "tic tac" video footage and testimony?

Not specifically, I haven't studied them enough to offer a informed opinion. I'm not Bill Nye.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Look at the TTSA FLIR video which appears to show a sudden acceleration at the end. We have extremely intelligent people, scientists and physicists who were completely fooled by that video, because they didn't understand all the nuances of what it showed, which upon further more accurate analysis shows no acceleration at all at the end!

If either of you or anybody else is curious about the specifics of problems in the way that video has been misinterpreted, here is a short video explaining the misinterpretation by a physicist suggesting anomalous acceleration. If all else was the same, the physicist of course knows physics and applied correct calculations assuming nothing on the display had changed except the motion of the UFO. But this was a flawed assumption. The physicist wasn't familiar with what the numbers on the display represent, and once those numbers are accounted for, the acceleration calculated by the physicist vanishes:

Errors in Nimitz UFO g-force Analyses


There is another analysis hundreds of pages long which looks very sciency, but it has a very similar fatal flaw, that the author makes some calculations about acceleration at the end which would be correct if the numbers shown on the display were not changing, but he fails to account for some other numbers on the display which are changing, so it's really kind of sad and almost appalling to see so much effort being put into an analysis which ends up with the wrong answer because the analyst doesn't understand the display. Even the pilot David Fravor has suggested he thinks the video shows acceleration at the end, and you would think the pilot would understand the display but apparently he doesn't understand it well enough to know it doesn't show acceleration as he thinks it does. So depsite the claim by some that pilots don't misinterpret things, it seems very clear that Commander Fravor doesn't understand the video since he thinks it shows something impressive, which it doesn't.

The other thing that's extremely annoying is the assumption by some and perhaps Fravor that the video shows the same thing he saw, when there's no reason to assume that and many reasons not to, such as the video shows no anomalous motion or behavior such as Fravor observed. All the "anomalies" occur when there are changes in the settings of the display and only suggest the display needs a little time to stabilize when its settings are changed, not that the object is behaving in any unusual way. For one thing the reports from earlier that day were that there were 9-10 UFOs in the area, and Fravor saw one UFO. Since the video was made by another pilot in another plane in another area after Fravor's sighting, why couldn't it have been one of the other 8 UFOs that were being tracked or perhaps even another unregistered plane that entered the area? Cdr. Fravor suggested he thought the area might be used for drug runner planes.

That's about the video. As for Fravor's eyewitness account, what he saw was definitely not a drug runner plane, and he seems quite sure it wasn't a plane at all since it had no visible wings. I can only speculate on what he might have seen, but this thread discusses my speculation:

Was "Bob Lazar's" Area 51 technology related to Fravor's 2004 UAP sighting?
That tech makes a tictac shape which could easily run circles around any aircraft as Fravor described, but since it would be classified there's no way to prove it, but someday it may get declassified, then we can see. Even before it gets declassified, you can test the physics using the modeling software linked in the thread, and see that the physics works, so it seems plausible even if speculative and not confirmed.

originally posted by: KKLOCO

originally posted by: alldaylong
On a lighter note, maybe ET doesn't appear as close up as they once did, because they now know humans have the technology easy to hand to be able to record them on film. Well just maybe.

I’d say this is an accurate assumption. Going back to NIDS findings at Skinwalker Ranch. They said that whatever was creating the anomaly’s, was one step ahead of them, at all times. As if, ‘it / they’ could predict what the team would do next, to avoid detection.

This would make a lot more sense considering the IDH. It would make far less sense with the ETH, IMO.

Like one big happy family, we are the young whippersnappers that get the hand-me-downs when big brother gets the latest toy or technology on the market.

I agree with KKLOCO.

To the original question posed regarding cell phones, we'd likely not have very good evidence even with 50 years of cell phone cameras. The video/photos today taken with a cell phone mostly show up us blurry round lights, not much different looking than a nitetime photo of a lightbulb some distance away

a reply to: alldaylong

Never ever have people taken this much pictures, all the time. Yet the quality has never been this low. Go out in the early evening, sun is setting, and compare your top of the line cellphone cameras with any old analogue film camera with a crappy 35-70 lens and you will see the difference. You can buy it aywhere for a couple of bucks.

Even many serious UFO-hunters with cameras today use mostly what is aimed towards family and vacation photography.

Dont think it would make much of difference since digital will probably never be as sharp as the old cameras. Not only that, since it digital, cgi would probably be around.

I'm also inclined that the actual unknowns might have a huge edge over our tech tree, let alone how we perceive the world. And the fact they even emit their own light, instead of having a stealth mode just brings up a ton questions.

What about old religious paintings, would they count?

a reply to: alldaylong

Probably not because you couldn’t have the phone tech in a vacuum unto itself.

The smartphone is a derivative of a lot of other tech. It didn’t come first. So in my view, all other tech would be equivalently advanced - which leaves us where we are today.

If you went back 50-60 years with the latest iPhone, a go pro , a drone, DSLR and FLIR then yeah you’d probably see something. Why? You’d be more advanced then our defenses or what we were likely guarding against as far as civilian surveillance is concerned.

By see something though I mean black projects or other craft that we under development at the time most likely. Perhaps you could have seen some more interesting things as well....