Better Cameras = no evidence!?

reply to post by Nohup


I think we are on the same wavelength here Nohup, and I like your "out of the box" ideas. Speaking of wavelengths, and the electromagnetic spectrum, I think they also may be the key... what lies beyond in the wavelengths beyond which technology is sensing at this point in time is anyone's guess, and there are still probably lots of things that will remain undiscovered until UV/IR tech becomes widespread IMO.

I also like the idea that parallel universes exist, and the StarTrek inspired (I think?) idea that these universes are invisible to us most of the time because they operate at different wavelengths, but perhaps occasionally we get a little peak inside another universe when conditions are right... who knows... there are endless possibilities, and many of them look more likely than ET's in "clunky" metallic UFOs visiting us. Even black ops-tech seems more likely to explain what is left "unexplained"... but we can only speculate about that possibility!

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

We can't forget though, the other point I braught up before when comparing 9/11 with mass UFO sightings.

I've seen 3 or 4 different camera angles of the First plane hitting. That's 4 people who just happened to have cameras on them as soon as it happened. It was an event that was witnessed by thousands if not millions as soon as it happened. After a couple of minutes there were hundreds of cameras on the WTC. Half of them professional grade cameras from news agencies.

Now take a mass UFO sighting. We've heard of several in the past couple years, some over major cities(ex. Mexico city, Phoenix, Stephenville Texas, O'Hare Chicago airport,etc.). Sightings of objects in the skies over long periods of time. Yet, we have nothing on those other than 1 or 2 blurry videos of each event if any.

We live in an age of where High quality cameras are now affordable by the ordinary consumer. Sure, I understand that not everyone, including me, carries around their cameras everywhere they go. But, there are those who either work for media networks or are out taking pictures in travel. In any given time, these major cities hold hundreds of camera-wielding people at once.

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't make sense to me how there are so many stories, so many pictures, so many videos, etc. of UFOs. Yet, we still don't have "the smoking gun" to PROVE their existance. It just doesn't make sense at all.

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

reply to post by Chadwickus


I agree with how many people were looking up on the first one, hardly any probably, but the second one not to many people saw either. Don Dahler (war correspondent) was on the street when the first one hit and said he heard what he could only be described as a missal, not an airplane.

How many real new yorkers have you heard interviewed? Or what about this for consideration.

There are 2,000,000+ New Yorkers. How many tourists do you think were in New York on 9/11? At 8 oclock in the morning, i would venture to say there were LOTS of tourists with cameras just getting ready to tour New York. You know how many "amature" video's surfaced? 36 out of all of New York...36.

Video trickery is all that happened that day or averages alone would bring forth more then 36 "home videos". There was only 5 shots used and they comprise the 36 when you look at all the shots again. 5 angles reedited into our 36 shots. People believe tv not reality. That's the point with this whole thing. Not only that, every one of the "amature" shots were by people somehow related to the media. Not one shot was by a truly average joe.

Peace

^ Not true, I have seen some shot by people no involved in the media.
And there are way more than 2million people in NYC. I believe NYC's population is something like 8 million.
And as far as tourist, at 8 in the morning around wall st's financial district(WTC), there are many. Trust me, just a couple weeks ago I went to take some pictures of the stock exchange building, before moving over to Chinatown nearby and there were a ton of people taking pictures at 8:30. I couldn't even get a shot of the building without someone in the frame.

Nice Post BTW!

I think you are on to something and you are quite correct, there were some really clear Hoax UFO pics on here (ATS) last year, (C2C drone) but they have been proven as a Hoax which i privatly thought was a real shame! The weird thing is I have noticed is that UFO enthusiasts seem to prefer speculating on grainy photos and pixelisation than cold hard evidence. When clear photos occassionally turn up they are normally denounced as fakes (and normally quite rightly so) pretty quickly.

If we are visited as much as we are led to belive by the UFOlogy people - there should be loads of photo's, bits of UFO's, biological evidence and possibly even alien implants to fiddle around with. There doe'snt seem to be 1 peice of scientific proof for UFO's or Aliens at the moment just smoke, mirrors and unscientific reasons for why there isn't!

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!

SO,
I don;t belive in the UFO phenonamen but I do think intelligent extra-terrestials are possible. However where the hell are they? (my favourite pradox - Enrico Fermi!) A race maybe only 100-200 years ahead in technology would be obvious to us from 1000's of light year's away. Given the age of the universe there should be many which are millions of years ahead of us and we should be able to eveidence of there engineering even if they only have ruins left. But we don;t and it seems that what we can see is primordial. Also as someone said there is problems with the huge distances in space, as far as we know (at the moment) Faster than Light Travel is impossible so any alien would take 100's of years to visit us. If thats the case I think it would be more likely we would be visited by wave after wave of colonisation than just the odd ship every now and again anal-probing 1 person and leaving without a trace!

Just what I think about this stuff...

[edit on 16-11-2008 by oinkment]

[edit on 16-11-2008 by oinkment]

[edit on 16-11-2008 by oinkment]

reply to post by Andre Neves


I have also been wondering about something similar: before the advent of CGI we had those nice photos of silver UFOs. You know those old fashioned saucers we all grew up with. But now, where are the videos of those saucers? We are presented with videos that contain superrealistic "UFOs" that scream HOAX. As it happens to be, it is quite difficult to imitate reality without making it appear too polished. Real things have all kinds of imperfections that show and that we are so used to.

With regard to the OP's question, if UFOs are real (and I mean intelligent crafts) than maybe they are trying there best to stay hidden in this camera infested time.

reply to post by Andre Neves


I am one to think most photos and videos are dubious, but one thing is the person who is witnessing the phenomena is excited, and will be shaking. If you go out to photograph a family member by the beach, even some of those type of photos (with a person posing still) come out blurry. I try to take that into consideration when viewing such phenomena.

Originally posted by QueenofWeird
With regard to the OP's question, if UFOs are real (and I mean intelligent crafts) than maybe they are trying there best to stay hidden in this camera infested time.

Either that, or the hoaxers simply moved from throwing hub caps in the air to faking with CGI.

I'll be sticking with the latter, and much more likely option...

I posted on the first page and talked about the technology gap, adding to that; aren't we like isolated tribesmen trying to down a jet with a spear? We have no idea what we're looking at, what it's for or where it's from, no idea what it's capabilities are and here we are trying to catch it on camera. I'm sure that after a few attempts the tribesman would draw the conclusion that the jet was indestructible or a figment of imagination or magic. We know that the jet is real and is highly destructible but you're not going to get it down with a spear. The difference is the technology.

I can only think of a few videos or photos that have really piqued my curiosity or really seemed slightly believeable. I read all these accounts of mass sightings and close encounters, military sightings, military video and the like. Why aren't there any videos of these events? I do not think it's because there's not enough cameras out there, or any other mundane explanation. I do not know why.

There are multiple military men who claimed to have personally taken video of ufo's and subsequently had them taken by their superiors. I don't think it's terribly likely that in 2008, a time in which the entire planet has cameras, the governemnts of the world are able to run around consfiscating every video. For some reason really good video is not turning up, I find it highly suspect. I liken all the hoax videos out there to drawings on a cave wall, absence of authentic proof makes us render likenesses.

Lets see, the majority of UFO sightings are at night and are brief. most people don't have a camera at the time, and if they do, it is hard to get night shots, unless you know what you are doing (an avid photographer). on top of that we have camra phones, which, if you're looking for quality, we're just not their yet (especially night photos).
my 2 cents.

Originally posted by juveous
Lets see, the majority of UFO sightings are at night and are brief. most people don't have a camera at the time, and if they do, it is hard to get night shots, unless you know what you are doing (an avid photographer). on top of that we have camra phones, which, if you're looking for quality, we're just not their yet (especially night photos).
my 2 cents.

You should read the entire thread instead of just the OP

Originally posted by juveous
Lets see, the majority of UFO sightings are at night and are brief.

That in itself has always been a worry to me. I see aeroplanes in the sky day and night, but they're far more easily identified in daylight. You'd expect the same thing with any other flying object. Why is it then that we're inundated with nightime 'lights' which are thought to be UFOs (I mean ET objects) and relatively few daylight images? Why is it that the entities which fly these craft to planet Earth tend to stay on the dark side? The Earth is always 50% light and 50% dark. I mean for any inter-galactic traveller, coming to our planet and flying about mainly on the dark side seems such an odd thing to do. And consider the relative numbers of potential witnesses. On the dark side, a large proportion are asleep. This means that a relatively smaller number of people provide a greater number of sightings. Why is that? If ET flies around the globe with total ambivalence, why don't statistics alone provide unequivocal evidence?

WG3

Originally posted by waveguide3
I see aeroplanes in the sky day and night, but they're far more easily identified in daylight.

Conversely, they are a lot easier to misidentify at night. Most black triangles are only three lights, and the mind fills the gaps and creates the triangle shape. Darkness is a powerful incentive for imagination.

You'd expect the same thing with any other flying object. Why is it then that we're inundated with nightime 'lights' which are thought to be UFOs (I mean ET objects) and relatively few daylight images?

Another factor is the main difference between most UFOs (discounting misidentified airplanes, balloons, and any mundane phenomenon) and airplanes. Their glow is much more visible at night. It attracts attention.

On the dark side, a large proportion are asleep.

Yes, but a large proportion of those who are not asleep are walking their dogs, driving, ... and therefore enjoying a good view of the sky. A very large proportion of daytime activities (a.k.a. work) involves not looking at the sky at all.

reply to post by Andre Neves



Andre being your a photographer is there any camera that could be used which would have shown the 'Phoenix lights' Ship? Either Video or still? I know night vision camera's work well, However usually NOT at distances.. It would have been AMAZING if someone had shot the Phoenix lights and actually captured the ship's design..

Originally posted by nablator
Yes, but a large proportion of those who are not asleep are walking their dogs, driving, ... and therefore enjoying a good view of the sky. A very large proportion of daytime activities (a.k.a. work) involves not looking at the sky at all.

I agree broadly with your comments, but I think the statistics (if someone could calculate 'em) must be greatly in favour of daytime sightings. You could argue that apart from the dog-walkers, etc. a much greater proportion of alert night time people will be doing other things, mainly indoors. Realistically, I reckon the proportion of 'night people' observing the sky will be similar to 'day people'. In practice, a very small section indeed ever really look at the sky. That's supported (for example) by the obvious lack of understanding of stars, planets and satellites exhibited by many ATS members, who by their nature should be 'observant' types. Compare ATS membership with the public at large and the percentage drops even smaller.

WG3

The ships are moving to fast you can only get them when they slow or stop.

I suggest trying to slow it down somehow, I know nothing of camera's

Originally posted by bluespeed
reply to post by Andre Neves

 

Andre being your a photographer is there any camera that could be used which would have shown the 'Phoenix lights' Ship? Either Video or still? I know night vision camera's work well, However usually NOT at distances.. It would have been AMAZING if someone had shot the Phoenix lights and actually captured the ship's design..

Well, when that even happened in Phoenix, film cameras were at their peak. Although not really at a distance at night unless you have a good telephoto or zoom lens, some high speed film, and a tripod for a long exposure. Would probably have better luck with a video camera. The infamous single video clip that was taken of the event is, strangely, the only one that I've ever seen. It appears that many people saw this, yet not one video was ever shot from the city in which it hovered over. Wierd.
BTW, as far as video cameras go, back in 1997 the cameras were bigger with bigger lenses. Big lenses let alot of light enter into the CCD. Since then cameras have gotten smaller, lenses have gotten smaller, but CCDs have gotten better along with various night capture technologies.

I have my eye on the HDR-SR12 from Sony and the Canon HV30. Typically HD camcorders aren't as good as SD ones because of the light being split into a 1440x1080 matrix vs. 720x480. But it's a margin of difference. Besides, you can't beat the fact that your recording onto a hard drive. No tapes, no dvds, just make sure your batter is charged and you're ready to go.

[edit on 11/20/2008 by Andre Neves]

One thing that is for certain, when I made the jump to digital I've never wanted to look back.

I've developed hyper-thyroidism which causes me to have tremors in my hands at times. The new Nikon VR lenses have both kept me broke and made it so I can take hand held shots I could never do with my old N90.

Between Photoshops Camera Raw and Nikons Capture NX the quality of images possible is almost obscene. Add to that HDR and scenic shots will never be the same.

What has really done a lot of damage as far as this subject is a constant flow of tiny dots of light in a night sky that could be anything. The posters always insist they are wonderful shots and proof of something. I don't know if people are just being trolls at times or if they just want to believe or be believed so badly they convince themselves that those tiny dots are evidence.

I know I can easily take a clear image of the moon, handheld and it has to make me wonder why nobody ever gets beyond the tiny white light or even worse the blurs that are 99.999999999999% likely to be birds or bugs. Oh well, at least the rods are gone it seems.




With these new cameras shooting at high ISO's without noise, I'm getting impossible shots.

If these UFO's are real, sooner rather than later, somebody should get some clearly identifiable shots, but for now where are they?

The sad part is I've seen personally three times something I could not explain. All seen clearly. No camera. Now that I'm ready it will never happen again.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Blaine,

That is an awesome moon shot. I, for one, would love to know more about it.
( Mega-pixels,Focal length, ISO,Timed Exposure etc. ? )

What is HDR that you mentioned?

I too share your sentiments and also a recent stroke left my left hand almost useless.

I just purchased a Canon IS 10 (10 Mega-pixel) which has Image Stabilization, a Big Honking Zoom 20x (560mm) and facilitates single hand operation. Image quality is astounding. (Obviously not of same ilk or cost as your Nikon.)


I plan on scouring the skies more often now. Hoping to capture something noteworthy.
Now I just need luck. Hopefully the good kind as I have had my fair share of bad lately.

Not to mention, typing with 1 hand sucks now. Sorry for all the edits.

regards......kk


[edit on 6-12-2008 by kinda kurious]

[edit on 6-12-2008 by kinda kurious]

[edit on 6-12-2008 by kinda kurious]

[edit on 6-12-2008 by kinda kurious]

[edit on 6-12-2008 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by kinda kurious


I hope you get better, those were sad news.

But to answer your question, HDR is a way of making photos that were almost impossible to do with traditional photo.

A simple explanation is that you take at least two photos, one that is made to show the darker areas and the other to show better the brighter areas, HDR will pick both (in this case) photos and creates one photo that is the combination of the best parts of both photos, making a photo that shows the dark areas well (because of the first photo) and avoids the overexposed areas by using the second photo.

I hope this helps.