Pictures of UFOs

i was wondering why every single picture of a UFO in existence is grainy, blurry, and low-res.... i mean, show me ONE high quality photo of a UFO, not just blurred shapes points of light. please.

Ok.

Let me grab my UFO for you, fly right in front of your house, do a few maneuvers, throw on a few lights, and see how long it takes you to get a camera, let alone manually adjust the settings to take an efficient photo, meanwhiles, there's a BLOODY UFO RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE.


Yeah, I'd be perfectly calm if I saw a UFO, and just grab my camera adjust the lighting and zooms, all that nice crap. Not to mention, at night, DIGITAL CAMERAS SUCK at taking pictures of ANY object in the sky, it always traces.

reply to post by Revolution-2012


a goddamn camera phone would take better pictures than what currently exists. give me a break.

reply to post by sdfws


Ok, Buddy, Now you officially pissed me off.

Let me go grab my Digital 7.0 Megapixel camera, and show you what the night sky looks like.

i'm sure you shaking your camera around while you over expose a shot of some dark clouds will prove a lot....

If there were High resolution pictures of UFO's around they wouldn't be UFO's would they?

Originally posted by sdfws
i mean, show me ONE high quality photo of a UFO, not just blurred shapes points of light. please.

Ok

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f987ab2e7169.jpg[/atsimg]

May be a tad blurry, but definently well defined picture

reply to post by Chadwickus


actually, it IS possible to have a high resolution photo of something that is unidentified. imagine a photo of something you've never seen, that you cannot "identify," regardless of clarity.

reply to post by OzWeatherman


i'm pretty sure that is a prime example of my point. this picture shows absolutely nothing, due to extremely low quality. without higher resolution, photos like this lack credibility.

edit***6:32amEST***

i'm going to sleep, i can't debate anymore.... i'll come back tomorrow though, and reply.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by sdfws]

reply to post by sdfws



Nice, I was seeing which definition of UFO you were leaning towards.


You forget that most cases of UFO sightings happen very quickly, it would be likened to you going for a walk in the park and spotting a rabbit running past and trying to get a clear photo of it.

Originally posted by sdfws
reply to post by OzWeatherman

 

i'm pretty sure that is a prime example of my point. this picture shows absolutely nothing, due to extremely low quality. without higher resolution, photos like this lack credibility.

What do you expect of a picture from 1990?

Obviously this photo was scanned to be available online, so naturally quality isnt going to be that great. This picture is great. Its not just a fuzz of lights. The shape is discernible as is some detail.

Im all for challenging evidence, I dont believe everything, but in this case, I think the image is genuine

who the hell needs pictures??? How about some vid action!!!

Enjoy



same object




Spin that

sorry WHAT did you say?? huh? oh yeah NOTHING..

[edit on 9-4-2009 by symmetricAvenger]

Ok buddy, here you go.

1st one is AUTO settings flash OFF

2nd one is me dicking with the settings for 3 minutes to get a visible photo of the sky.

3rd one is SEPIA toneing which makes it easiest to view the night sky efficiently, which is what I would record a UFO under.

Also, what about Phoenix Lights? 100s of ground witnesses isn't enough for you to understand there was unidentified objects in the sky? Sounds like you're a non believer to me, bottom line.



Photo 1: i44.tinypic.com...

Photo 2: i44.tinypic.com...

Photo 3: i42.tinypic.com...

reply to post by symmetricAvenger


I'm sorry but that's Venus and people like you bring incredibility to UFOs.

Please refrain from posting explained, natural events.

reply to post by Revolution-2012


That is not venus...

No offence mate but that aint venus...

reply to post by symmetricAvenger


Listen watch and dont use condersending attitude with me .. "people like you"

what gives you the right to say that? you sound as bad as the skeptics you claim to hate on..

Pfft.. deny ignorance.. or atleast BUY a telescope... its costa rica !!!! go get a map "a star map" look were the moon is and look were venus is ment to be befor you rattle off that mouth of yours.

tsk

reply to post by symmetricAvenger


Let's see, it doesn't move, it's position is consistant to where Jupiter was a bit less than a month ago, it's *by the moon* which just points to Venus in every way, and it doesn't move, wait, did I say that again?

So, are you suggesting this is Nibiru? Would that be a more quantifiable answer than Venus?

The second video was edited in before I was able to view your reply, so, I was referring to the first video. I haven't even viewed the second one yet.

Put the brakes on there, champion.

theresult

"people like me"

ye people like me own a telescope and know were venus is.. and that is NOT venus.

try not be so "condersending next time please"..

reply to post by symmetricAvenger


In the first video, that is where venus is on the western hemisphere, my friend, like I said, around 3-4 weeks ago. 40 degrees left of the moon's 6 o clock.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by Revolution-2012]