Imaging reveals orbital and atmospheric incursions.

originally posted by: VulcanWerks

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: play4keeps

Wait, is that distortion from a low end mobile phone imaging chip trying to capture background detail without over saturating the light areas, thus causing them to appear blown out?

Doesn't look like it was captured with high end optics to me. Looks home made.

sorry, but no access to the original images, including the meta data, then no sale.

It’s not the phone IMO.

It’s the way the objects camouflage themselves - from my experience.

I spent a fair amount of money on equipment most people don’t have. I have captured some interesting footage but few “gotcha!” images. And all of my devices record in high quality.

I have a hunch we’re all approaching this wrong. The phenomenon somehow has to do with using light to create camo (based on footage I have analyzed).

There has to be some way to turn it “off” or minimize the effects. If not, at least see the outline of objects that are being obscured.

Said another way, there is a logical explanation for how this works and I suspect the tools to detect it already exist here on earth but are used for different applications (e.g. not hunting craft). Part of me wonders if the military or alphabet agencies are stubbornly approaching the subject the way they would approach a known-earthly foe. If so, they’re probably not going to have much success.

I have touched on previous posts along the way about the need for ways to view brightly lit objects in the sky……

I believe it’s a matter of mating the right filters to the right devices.

Cellphone cameras as of yet….that I’m aware of, do not have “True” filters for the purposes of removing or minimizing blinding brightness. In essence, cellphone cameras are useless to use other than to record and establish that an object of light was physically seen in the sky.

I think we have to think of defining what a bright object in the sky is, in the same way we view the Sun. There are in use, Solar (Sun) filters to significantly cut through the brightness of the Sun to see a more defined body in the space.





Until there are “True” filters (not “Simulated” filters in today’s cellphone cameras and iPads and Apps) that can be “quickly” attached or internally dialed (rotated) in, in front of a cellphone camera lens in the spur of the moment of wanting to capture a bright object in the sky, you’ll always be guessing as to what the object actually looked like behind the brightness.

Example “Simulated” (False) filters(ing) App bundled in an old iPad mini….. IR - Thermal




So then, who is constantly outside with a filtered standard camera, or filtered binoculars (some have cameras built in) strapped around their necks or shoulder hung…. all day, all night?? It becomes inconvenient in a person’s lifestyle.

Also, are there filters in the wavelengths needed to use for flying objects? Are they yet to be invented? Or they do exist only to be used by Classified projects under tighter control then what Night Vision used to be?

…..” Optical filters selectively transmit light in a particular range of wavelengths, that is, colours, while absorbing the remainder. They can usually pass long wavelengths only (longpass), short wavelengths only (shortpass), or a band of wavelengths, blocking both longer and shorter wavelengths (bandpass).”….




UPDATE: Here are 2 possibilities. I can’t speak to the fidelity of the specifications using them for distance such as objects far off into the sky.



👽🛸🔭📷

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

If you have a bright object in the sky and want to take a photo of it you just need to use manual controls to play with the exposure time, sensitivity and aperture. Most cell phones do not have physical ways of doing it, so they do it in software, and it's not the same thing.

a reply to: ArMaP

You make a point as well as “you just need to use manual controls to play with the exposure time”

And there in lies….a problem ….“to play with” is the Achilles heal of it all. Sightings are mostly fleeting moments in time.

It’s usually a “hurry up! get the cellphone to video record it or take a still picture of it before it’s gone”.

So the chances are high that, with excitement and adrenaline, that you won’t have the time “to play with” manual controls of software to adjust the exposure time, sensitivity and aperture.. You would want to take out your device and start shooting in seconds….Otherwise it may be to late and the object already has sped off.

If exposure time, sensitivity and aperture are all that’s needed to remove the brightness of an object for clarity….. then we should have better pictures presented in this forum. Instead mostly bright balls of lights at a distance is all we mostly get.

I will stick with my assertions that we need filters at the right wavelengths to help reveal what’s under the brightness. The analogy here is NV was developed to see in the dark…. 😉

👽🛸🍹

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1

originally posted by: VulcanWerks

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: play4keeps

Wait, is that distortion from a low end mobile phone imaging chip trying to capture background detail without over saturating the light areas, thus causing them to appear blown out?

Doesn't look like it was captured with high end optics to me. Looks home made.

sorry, but no access to the original images, including the meta data, then no sale.

It’s not the phone IMO.

It’s the way the objects camouflage themselves - from my experience.

I spent a fair amount of money on equipment most people don’t have. I have captured some interesting footage but few “gotcha!” images. And all of my devices record in high quality.

I have a hunch we’re all approaching this wrong. The phenomenon somehow has to do with using light to create camo (based on footage I have analyzed).

There has to be some way to turn it “off” or minimize the effects. If not, at least see the outline of objects that are being obscured.

Said another way, there is a logical explanation for how this works and I suspect the tools to detect it already exist here on earth but are used for different applications (e.g. not hunting craft). Part of me wonders if the military or alphabet agencies are stubbornly approaching the subject the way they would approach a known-earthly foe. If so, they’re probably not going to have much success.

I have touched on previous posts along the way about the need for ways to view brightly lit objects in the sky……

I believe it’s a matter of mating the right filters to the right devices.

Cellphone cameras as of yet….that I’m aware of, do not have “True” filters for the purposes of removing or minimizing blinding brightness. In essence, cellphone cameras are useless to use other than to record and establish that an object of light was physically seen in the sky.

I think we have to think of defining what a bright object in the sky is, in the same way we view the Sun. There are in use, Solar (Sun) filters to significantly cut through the brightness of the Sun to see a more defined body in the space.

Until there are “True” filters (not “Simulated” filters in today’s cellphone cameras and iPads and Apps) that can be “quickly” attached or internally dialed (rotated) in, in front of a cellphone camera lens in the spur of the moment of wanting to capture a bright object in the sky, you’ll always be guessing as to what the object actually looked like behind the brightness.

Example “Simulated” (False) filters(ing) App bundled in an old iPad mini….. IR - Thermal

So then, who is constantly outside with a filtered standard camera, or filtered binoculars (some have cameras built in) strapped around their necks or shoulder hung…. all day, all night?? It becomes inconvenient in a person’s lifestyle.

Also, are there filters in the wavelengths needed to use for flying objects? Are they yet to be invented? Or they do exist only to be used by Classified projects under tighter control then what Night Vision used to be?

…..” Optical filters selectively transmit light in a particular range of wavelengths, that is, colours, while absorbing the remainder. They can usually pass long wavelengths only (longpass), short wavelengths only (shortpass), or a band of wavelengths, blocking both longer and shorter wavelengths (bandpass).”….

UPDATE: Here are 2 possibilities. I can’t speak to the fidelity of the specifications using them for distance such as objects far off into the sky.

👽🛸🔭📷

I have the FLIR pro attachment. It does actually work well for this purpose, but not in the way one might think.

The FLIR doesn’t suddenly illuminate UAPs. It does help understand a bit about where to potentially look for one.

That said, I’m in the early stages of figuring out how to deploy some of the tech I’ve acquired most effectively. What I can say with a fairly high degree of confidence is that it’s not my equipment that causes blurry photos.

It’s, for lack of better terminology, the camouflage the crafts deploy.

The military isn’t sending us junk pictures - what they’re showing you is some of the best imagery they have based on what they could pick up in the non-visible light spectrums.

That’s my take now but still evolving my thinking here.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
And there in lies….a problem ….“to play with” is the Achilles heal of it all. Sightings are mostly fleeting moments in time.

It’s usually a “hurry up! get the cellphone to video record it or take a still picture of it before it’s gone”.

That's why people that want to take photos of UFOs at night should practice with easier targets first.
And use a real camera instead of a phone.

Some cameras (even cheap ones, like my Samsung WB5000) have a programmable setting that you can preprogram as you like and, when needed, only have to select that specific setting to take photos with those preprogrammed settings.

If exposure time, sensitivity and aperture are all that’s needed to remove the brightness of an object for clarity….. then we should have better pictures presented in this forum. Instead mostly bright balls of lights at a distance is all we mostly get.

Most people do not know how to use a camera, they expect the camera to do everything they want as if by magic.

And most photos today are, most likely, from smartphones, that may be smart as phones but are not that great as cameras.

I will stick with my assertions that we need filters at the right wavelengths to help reveal what’s under the brightness. The analogy here is NV was developed to see in the dark…. 😉

The problem with using filters is that they may remove too much. The less things the light has to go through the better.

originally posted by: VulcanWerks
What I can say with a fairly high degree of confidence is that it’s not my equipment that causes blurry photos.

Could it be a user problem?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: VulcanWerks
What I can say with a fairly high degree of confidence is that it’s not my equipment that causes blurry photos.

Could it be a user problem?

Not in my case, no.

Others? Unsure.

I create content around cars that ends up as people’s backdrops on their machines for fun (no charge). I do fine with my vocation - don’t need to get paid for everything. My day job has nothing to do with photaging.

I am proficient with a DSLR or a smaller handheld and posses thousands of dollars in camera equipment.

This is a phenomenon issue. But, if you want to drop 10-20k to prove me wrong (before we get to my HD DGI drone) please do.

I say that seriously.

I’m barking up a tree but I can’t say it’s the right one.

I just picked up a big iMac to do PS pro for the UAP topic. I’m going hunting and I am tired of wondering. $xxxxkto try and expand the conversation on the biggest mystery or curiosity in the history of humanity? I’m in. And, I am in.

I never had a personal experience until recently. I now know I’m right - 100% - about the “phenomenon”.

Bigelow nailed it. Even when I thought he was wrong - he wasn’t.

I have work to do on this pet project (job/wife/kids) but I will find what I’m looking for - and it won’t take “millions of dollars” to sort it out if you know where to look.

*Disclaimer*: Alphabet agencies watching my posts (and they do) - I’m not your enemy. I can help, actually. Come knock my the door. “Real life” is boring.

a reply to: play4keeps

look like sprits and elfs.

they are upper atmosphere phenomena related to static electricity


they see them on the space station but from the other way(obviously)

cool catches, they are hard to get on camera

a reply to: VulcanWerks

always clean your optics.


and when was the last time you hade them realigned by a professional?


even a hair of difference can fuzz out the image.

originally posted by: VulcanWerks
I am proficient with a DSLR or a smaller handheld and posses thousands of dollars in camera equipment.

The price of the equipment is less important than the photographer's knowledge, but if you say you are proficient, I can only accept that answer.

This is a phenomenon issue. But, if you want to drop 10-20k to prove me wrong (before we get to my HD DGI drone) please do.

Not possible, I don't have that kind of money or the time to do it. Or even the will to do it, as I'm not really interested in prove a personal opinion wrong.
And, once again, the photographer's knowledge is more important than the price of the equipment, a good photographer can take good photos with a pinhole camera.

Back to the article, visual evidence which is filmed by a biased source has to be taken into account. That bias is not only proven by a past history, but through the article itself using the terms "cargo" and "wormholes" as ArMaP said, as well as inferring occupants of these lights by using "they". Credibility is taken down another notch when using those in absolute terms when they are not in this case. This is an opinion of someone with a past history of beliefs. Scientist or not.

It needs to be a repeated anamoly that's observed again and studied to carry weight. Not some guy proclaiming what he believes is alien created, evil spirits, or whatever his personal belief is.

originally posted by: VulcanWerks

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: play4keeps

Wait, is that distortion from a low end mobile phone imaging chip trying to capture background detail without over saturating the light areas, thus causing them to appear blown out?

Doesn't look like it was captured with high end optics to me. Looks home made.

sorry, but no access to the original images, including the meta data, then no sale.

It’s not the phone IMO.

It’s the way the objects camouflage themselves - from my experience.

I spent a fair amount of money on equipment most people don’t have. I have captured some interesting footage but few “gotcha!” images. And all of my devices record in high quality.

I have a hunch we’re all approaching this wrong. The phenomenon somehow has to do with using light to create camo (based on footage I have analyzed).

There has to be some way to turn it “off” or minimize the effects. If not, at least see the outline of objects that are being obscured.

Said another way, there is a logical explanation for how this works and I suspect the tools to detect it already exist here on earth but are used for different applications (e.g. not hunting craft). Part of me wonders if the military or alphabet agencies are stubbornly approaching the subject the way they would approach a known-earthly foe. If so, they’re probably not going to have much success.

To my knowledge you're correct and a big "Yes already being done" concerning

"There has to be some way to turn it “off” or minimize the effects. If not, at least see the outline of objects that are being obscured. "

A51Watcher (member here) and a team have been doing this for awhile now & coming up with some incredible stuff.
I think you'll enjoy checking it out. To my knowledge the techniques/software used are proprietary and have been developed over something close to 25 years now. So absolutely NOT a flash in the pan.

A thread was done by A51Watcher here quite awhile ago and totally did not get the attention it deserved. I would guess just because the image done was from Bob Lazar. Regardless there was such a degree of "radio silence" here that I believe it was intentional just to get the imaging work and interest in to quickly die and get it off peoples radar.

People involved in disinformation NEVER shut up and go away, however legit stuff goes "dead" faster than a speeding bullet. JMO

image-analysis-team.com...

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: VulcanWerks
I am proficient with a DSLR or a smaller handheld and posses thousands of dollars in camera equipment.

The price of the equipment is less important than the photographer's knowledge, but if you say you are proficient, I can only accept that answer.

This is a phenomenon issue. But, if you want to drop 10-20k to prove me wrong (before we get to my HD DGI drone) please do.

Not possible, I don't have that kind of money or the time to do it. Or even the will to do it, as I'm not really interested in prove a personal opinion wrong.
And, once again, the photographer's knowledge is more important than the price of the equipment, a good photographer can take good photos with a pinhole camera.

Fair enough.

Given I have now witnessed the phenomenon, clear as day with my own two eyes and no cameras required (though I wish I had my gear!) I can say this…

I’d wager you could find the best photographer on earth with the best equipment and return moderate results at best.

What’s kind of funny to me is I picked up a Ring indoor/outdoor stick up cam and pointed it largely at the sky. I find more potentially interesting items with that than anything else in color night vision mode.

So maybe all the gear isn’t all that necessary - but we will see.

a reply to: VulcanWerks

Sent PM

👽🛸🍩🔭

a reply to: VulcanWerks

its's a natural weather thing.

its from static build up and currents of electricity grounding out but not big enough for a real lightning


the second pic i posted like 3 posts ago is a real picture from the ISS....

the reason this catch is a big deal is no joke like 3 pictures from the ground exist of these phenomena.


if you guys really have pics of these you could sell them to NatGeo or even NASA, they would trip over themselves getting them from you.