Better Cameras = no evidence!?

I can see where you're coming from but I disagree in using the WTC attack as an example. How many photos and videos were there of the first plane going into the building compared to the second impact? Not many. Why? Because it happened in a matter of seconds, whereas the second impact had everyone looking up at what was going on.

This applies to most UFO sightings as well, they're just too quick normally.

The problem these days isn't with better quality cameras and etc, but the better quality video editing programs out there that even an amateur could throw a Frisbee and make it look like a ufo flying across their camera.

Unfortunately even with the best evidence it will still look like something that can be produced... (Look at high budget movies about aliens these days).

Until a ufo lands down and vulcans or even Ferengi come out and teach us about profit there will be big deniers.

And actually its not the fact there is countless trillions of stars out there and etc, but alot of people state the huge distances between our, and other solar systems/worlds etc is just so vast! (Since we seem to not yet know of these technologies, on the sly sly side) that traversing these distances currently is impossible, and with some form of anti gravity device we would be destroyed in the process of traveling from our to another world in a reasonable time frame.

That is not to say these technologies do not exist. I mean there is so much reporting or at least people telling us, that so and so nazis, other governments have developed such craft and had this information given to them by out of this world beings. (Edited: But also added this; About the video/camera footage: Which unfortunately increased so much during the last 100+ years since cameras etc, which is from the fact people have more access to these, or alot of people want recognition for hoaxing them, maybe a dis info thing).

Anyway that about is all I want to talk in just the one post. Unfortunately I cant type a small one like most people do

[edit on 14-11-2008 by Aoxoa]

[edit on 14-11-2008 by Aoxoa]

I think HankMcCoy has hit the nail on the head here.


As a photographer of nearly a decade now, I've seen firsthand the transition from analog to digital. Although improvements in optics have been relatively minor, what digital has done is a number of things:

1. It's closed the gap between professional and consumer equipment. Even though the majority of cameras sold produce worse quality images than old analog 35mm film cameras, they are better than the old analog compacts that the vast majority of people owned, and also have zoom abilities that were only previously found on expensive professional cameras.

So yes, I think the average Joe has a better camera today than in days gone by.

2. As Andre Neves has said, allot of people have also been encouraged by digital to invest in DSLR camera/lens systems that are capable of significantly better photographs than old analog film SLRs, primarily because of improvements in the sensor's sensitivity to light and low noise at the same time.

So we also have allot more people about with semi-pro and fully-pro gear.

I think everyone will agree that better quality photographs means that it's easier in general to identify the content in a photograph, and I'll bet my bottom dollar that as a proportion, true UFOs are less common than they once were, since more objects in photographs are correctly identified now.


As for those who think UFOs are some how disrupting our ability to photograph them:

1. If there has ever been a case where someone's camera lost power during a UFO encounter, I've yet to hear about it (and that doesn't include batteries dying!).

2. In many cases, old film cameras used batteries/electricity, so why did they work then and not now? I say there's no evidence for this assumption, so it can be thrown out.

3. If you can see it, you can photograph it... to suggest that UFOs could not be photographed because the light has somehow been "changed" if pure fantasy. How could ETs get some photons to change their behavior, and yet not affect what you see. Having to change the laws of physics to fit a theory is generally not considered good science!

The evidence in this case supports the theory that UFOs are almost certainly all mis identified and generally mundane phenomena, and with every day (that the "smoking gun" is not found), the evidence for this becomes stronger and stronger.

This is one time where continued absence of evidence is IMO evidence of absence. If you'd asked me the same thing 1 year ago, I would have probably said the exact opposite - but I know better now!

reply to post by C.H.U.D.

1. If there has ever been a case where someone's camera lost power during a UFO encounter, I've yet to hear about it (and that doesn't include batteries dying!).

Yes but in some cases dying batteries could actually be caused by the UFO.

2. In many cases, old film cameras used batteries/electricity, so why did they work then and not now? I say there's no evidence for this assumption, so it can be thrown out.

Because in many cameras everything was mechanical except flash and film winding. So you could take one picture even with dead batteries.

The evidence in this case supports the theory that UFOs are almost certainly all mis identified and generally mundane phenomena, and with every day (that the "smoking gun" is not found), the evidence for this becomes stronger and stronger.

Or maybe aliens are more careful than in the 50s or 60s. They don't land near people any more if they can avoid it. Why did the UFO sighting on the ground with aliens getting in or out and scaring people near a country road or farm completely disappear?

Originally posted by nablator
Yes but in some cases dying batteries could actually be caused by the UFO.

Well, if you can show me proof of this, I would change my view... without anything to backup this claim, I'm staying on this side of the fence.

Originally posted by nablator
Because in many cameras everything was mechanical except flash and film winding. So you could take one picture even with dead batteries.

Yes, this is true in some cases, but not all (by a long way if you are talking about cameras from the 80's and 90's), and I still have yet to hear of a case in which a camera died because of a UFO... so it' doesn't add up IMO

Originally posted by nablator
Or maybe aliens are more careful than in the 50s or 60s. They don't land near people any more if they can avoid it.

Again, I've seen no evidence to support this. People are on here claiming close encounters all the time... but no pics.

Originally posted by nablator
Why did the UFO sighting on the ground with aliens getting in or out and scaring people near a country road or farm completely disappear?

Eh? You've lost me completely with that question!!?!!

I really don't think it would matter... the instant anyone here sees any REALLY good proof it's instantly labelled as 'too good to be true'.
What's the use anymore? The best proof you're going to get is with your own eyes, and until then people are going to continue to be sceptics...and then get frustrated when they DO see something, come post it on here, and get bashed.
It's quite sad.

Originally posted by MurrayTORONTO
I really don't think it would matter... the instant anyone here sees any REALLY good proof it's instantly labelled as 'too good to be true'.
What's the use anymore? The best proof you're going to get is with your own eyes, and until then people are going to continue to be sceptics...and then get frustrated when they DO see something, come post it on here, and get bashed.
It's quite sad.

It's not sad at all. That's the way it should be. Are you instantly going to jump up and down when you see a good photo of a UFO, and immediately declare it to be proof positive of aliens because it "looks really good?" If you did that, you'd be an idiot.

Anybody who comes on here, or anyplace on the Internet, is perfectly free to present what they have. In the same regard, we're all perfectly free to question that person about the photo. If they don't care, don't like the questioning, and don't need criticism (or "credit"), then they don't have to post photos.

The bottom line, however, will always be that if I go out tomorrow and take a perfectly clear picture of a flying saucer with my high-definition camera, and nobody else does, and the saucer doesn't leave anything else behind, that's all I have. All it means is that I have a picture of a flying saucer. That's all. Yippee for me. Without additional evidence, nobody including myself can say anything else about it that isn't complete conjecture.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
I can see where you're coming from but I disagree in using the WTC attack as an example. How many photos and videos were there of the first plane going into the building compared to the second impact? Not many. Why? Because it happened in a matter of seconds, whereas the second impact had everyone looking up at what was going on.

This applies to most UFO sightings as well, they're just too quick normally.

Yes you're right.
BUT, as soon as it happened Tons of people got their cameras out and started filming and taking pictures.
What about mass UFO sightings over cities!?
examples...

Stratford sighting
Source: www.ufo-blog.com...

A crowd of 100 stunned stargazers brought a town centre to a standstill when five mysterious UFOs were spotted hovering in the sky. Drinkers spilled out of pubs, motorists stopped to gawp and camera phones were aimed upwards as the five orbs, in a seeming formation, hovered above Stratford-Upon-Avon for half an hour.

100 people watched this for half hour. And all they could come up with is this...



Lights over Phoenix 1997



It was sighted over Phoenix by "thousands" of people, yet this seems to be the only video ever shot of it. What gives?
I can find many mass sighting cases like these that have produced little evidence. In fact, here are ufoevidence.org's maps showing the amount of UFO sightings through
USA



Europe



I just don't understand how "one" great picture. A "WOW" kind of picture . Hasn't been produced from all of these!?

[edit on 14-11-2008 by Andre Neves]

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by MurrayTORONTO
I really don't think it would matter... the instant anyone here sees any REALLY good proof it's instantly labelled as 'too good to be true'.
What's the use anymore? The best proof you're going to get is with your own eyes, and until then people are going to continue to be sceptics...and then get frustrated when they DO see something, come post it on here, and get bashed.
It's quite sad.

It's not sad at all. That's the way it should be. Are you instantly going to jump up and down when you see a good photo of a UFO, and immediately declare it to be proof positive of aliens because it "looks really good?" If you did that, you'd be an idiot.

Anybody who comes on here, or anyplace on the Internet, is perfectly free to present what they have. In the same regard, we're all perfectly free to question that person about the photo. If they don't care, don't like the questioning, and don't need criticism (or "credit"), then they don't have to post photos.

The bottom line, however, will always be that if I go out tomorrow and take a perfectly clear picture of a flying saucer with my high-definition camera, and nobody else does, and the saucer doesn't leave anything else behind, that's all I have. All it means is that I have a picture of a flying saucer. That's all. Yippee for me. Without additional evidence, nobody including myself can say anything else about it that isn't complete conjecture.

I didn't mean it like that, as in the instant you see something really good you need to believe it 100%.. people post their proof, but there are some people who wont believe it just for the FACT that it's too clear of a shot. Nothing will please these people. THAT is what I meant by sad.. is that there is literally no way, on the internet to prove anything to these sceptics because they will find a way to call ANYTHING shenanigans.. unless like I said in my last post, they see it with their own eyes...

Yes there are plenty of hoaxers, we can't just go believing everybody because we'd be fooled by these people all the time... but.. well, I've only been on ATS since about august of this year, and I've seen a lot of BS, and a lot of legit stuff that people call BS because they've seen so much bs.. ATS has its ups and downs, I just think people are too quick to call hoax on some stuff.

Edit:
Yes people have really nice cameras now.. but how many of those people carry their awesome, hugely expensive gear around with them at all times? I'm sure some, like people who do it for a living, but half the time you see grainy video of a ufo it's because it's shot with the fastest thing they can find at that moment, like a cell phone cam.. it's not like ufo's linger around for a long time for you to take your time and get your gear and set it up.. and when they DO, like pheonix lights, you have the testimonies of entire towns or cities (militaries even).. that beats a picture in my books.

There have been many times i've seen some crazy lights and I run and get my camera, take a billion shots, yet NONE of them turn out right, either they're way too blurry because I was hella excited, or my camera just wasn't up to par to see lights really far away in the sky.

There's a billion reasons why there isn't any really good footage of UFO's.. but if people can say that it'd be ignorant to think there isn't life on other planets, then of COURSE ufo's exist right? So why do you need video proof of it?


[edit on 14-11-2008 by MurrayTORONTO]

Originally posted by MurrayTORONTO
ATS has its ups and downs, I just think people are too quick to call hoax on some stuff.

Well, again, I disagree. This isn't a court of law, and around here, everything and everyone should be assumed to be guilty until proven otherwise.

The best thing a person can do around here if they have a good UFO photo is to simply present it with all the associated data and just admit, "I don't know what it is." If they did that, they're not likely to be shouted down. Most people here, including me, want the thing to be true.

reply to post by Andre Neves


And to add to what you said (great post BTW), at least some of these people would have been professional photographers, astronomers with access to pro-grade/research-grade gear... that not one *good* photo or piece of footage has surfaced, in spite of UFO's being reported more frequently than ever before, defies logic, if ET's are really visiting us!

At this point in time, I don't see how anyone in their right minds can claim that the mounting evidence supports the possibility of us being visited, when if you actually take the time to look at it, it shows the exact opposite. Unfortunately, there will always be people who insist otherwise, having convinced themselves beforehand that we "must be being visited".

I believe there is a good chance intelligent life exists elsewhere in this universe, but equating that with "they must have come here" is plain foolish.

Just look around you at this world - humans (not all, but its enough) generally lie and embellish the truth for their own personal gains, and even when the "truth" is recorded, errors are often made and more importantly, the "truth" is usually recorded from one single narrow point of view, but that's just half the story, because the "truth" can often be misinterpreted after it was recorded.

That, and suspicious (understandably) human nature compounded by ignorance, results in what we today call UFOology. Half truths, rumors and unfounded speculation is rampant, which is why no one takes UFOs seriously anymore (if they ever did?).

In the mean time, while UFOlogy has been chasing it's tail, we have this ironic situation where UFOlogy has shot itself in the foot by collecting so much evidence that it points to there not having been any contact, the exact opposite of what it was almost falling over itself to try and prove!

Just IMHO...


[edit on 14-11-2008 by C.H.U.D.]

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
reply to post by Andre Neves

 

And to add to what you said (great post BTW), at least some of these people would have been professional photographers, astronomers with access to pro-grade/research-grade gear... that not one *good* photo or piece of footage has surfaced, in spite of UFO's being reported more frequently than ever before, defies logic, if ET's are really visiting us!

Exactly!

Originally posted by MurrayTORONTO
... but if people can say that it'd be ignorant to think there isn't life on other planets, then of COURSE ufo's exist right? So why do you need video proof of it?

That's not true. I imagine it's very likely life exists elsewhere, less likely it's intelligent life, and very, very unlikely it's visiting us.

It's a double-edged sword. The sheer size of the universe that makes it likely life exists also makes it unlikely it's stumbled across us. Our information sphere is tiny - about a hundred light years. I don't know what that amounts to - stumbling across a marble somewhere on the entire surface of the planet? Anyone who's not been in that sphere would have no idea we were here. Anyone who had, likely by exploring at random by means of artificial probes, we'd see obvious signs.

Plus, wiki 'Great Filter'.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by damagedoor]

Originally posted by MurrayTORONTO

Edit:
Yes people have really nice cameras now.. but how many of those people carry their awesome, hugely expensive gear around with them at all times? I'm sure some, like people who do it for a living, but half the time you see grainy video of a ufo it's because it's shot with the fastest thing they can find at that moment, like a cell phone cam..

I agree with you up to a point here, but what us skeptics are trying to say is that, you would not have to be carrying your gear with you, but to say that out of 100's or even 1000's of people across a wide area, in a developed country, there was not one with access to pro (or above) level camera gear is very hard to believe. There are more of us about than you might think

A much more reasonable explanation is that many, if not all of these people who had access to pro-level gear, and who saw the object/objects, probably took a couple of looks and then correctly identified the object/objects as some more mundane phenomenon, hence no film, since no one wants to look at mundane things like planes and stars unless they are doing something extremely unusual.

How ever many people see it, quantity does not equal quality - people can convince themselves of almost anything when they have little or no knowledge of celestial phenomena as this page shows.

Humans, unfortunately, are not infallible... even the pros misidentify objects and phenomena from time to time.

Do the Math please I worked out earlier that the chances of capturing a ufo on high quality digital video camera is around 1 in a trillion at least. That's the reason why there's no footage. Ufo's do exist, the only question to answer is "are they from elsewhere or is this ours?".

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
In the mean time, while UFOlogy has been chasing its tail, we have this ironic situation where UFOlogy has shot itself in the foot by collecting so much evidence that it points to there not having been any contact, the exact opposite of what it was almost falling over itself to try and prove!

I generally agree that the mountain of evidence collected with still no good proof of aliens is very problematic. However, I tend to think that it's all part of the overall process of trying to figure out just what these things are. As it is, we're coming to point where we seriously have to think about abandoning the idea that UFOs represent alien spacecraft from other planets. The data just doesn't back it up! Alien critters from space has always just been a hypothesis we were working on. One that doesn't seem to be panning out. Which is fine.

We can't throw UFOs in the trash, entirely, because the data is still there. It just can't be ignored or explained away. It just means we have to get more creative in our thinking and expand our search for an explanation.

reply to post by Andre Neves


Very good post, star and a flag for you.

My opinion is this: The fact that technology has advanced to a point where we should be able to have hi-def pics of everything is undeniable. The thing I think we overlook is the chance occurrence factor of a UFO sighting.

Now. I own a pretty decent digital camera that I used extensively in Iraq and while I've been here in Korea - but that doesn't mean I take it with me every time I walk out the door. I think the reason we get mostly grainy shots and blurry photos is because the UFO is usually moving and not there very long and the people who see it aren't carrying their best device at the time. So - you'll get cell phone shots, MAYBE a 35MM disposable shot, etc.

I'm not saying that's the case for 100% of the bad photos, but it could very well be the cause for nearly 90% of them. I know if I saw a UFO, I wouldn't chance running all the way back to my room to grab my camera and maybe never see it again. I'd probably snap a shot with my cell phone.

That's my opinion.

True, many people own digital cameras nowadays and the image quality, optics and ease of use is vastly improved.

But you still have to be in the right place at the right time with an iota of skill.
(And charged batteries)

I mean many people drive cars nowadays, but not in the Indianapolis 500.

My point is the increased technology does not increase ones chances to witness/photograph a rare event / occurrence.

( e.g. Zapruder film, Rodney King Police beating video etc......)

regards....kk

[edit on 14-11-2008 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by Nohup


My sentiments exactly...

We'd be foolish to assume that science has documented all naturally occurring phenomena (and perhaps even some man-made), so it stands to reason that those photographs or footage that can't be explained (a minute proportion - perhaps 0.001% at a guess) are of yet undocumented phenomena that are more likely not terrestrial in origin.

Perhaps we should be exploring possibilities like, electrical phenomena, plasma, gravitational anomalies, Earth lights... either way, there are lots of potential possibilities that are more likely than being visited by ET.

It's a good thing that NASA are admitting that they can't explain it all. Hopefully now NASA will throw some resources at UFO research, because without them and their hardware we may be looking for decades to come.

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
Perhaps we should be exploring possibilities like, electrical phenomena, plasma, gravitational anomalies, Earth lights... either way, there are lots of potential possibilities that are more likely than being visited by ET.

Hey, maybe some of it is ET as people generally understand it. Star Trek like aliens. I don't know. But I'm even willing to include on the list of "natural phenomena" the possibility of things slipping and popping in and out of reality and different aspects of consciousness combined with spacetime. Odd stuff appearing out of the future (or the past), or virtuality, just long enough to have a photo taken, and then vanishing back into it. How would that work? I don't know.

Our perceptions and understanding of reality are so limited, we don't even know what's possible.