UFO Pictures will always be Fuzzy! Try it Yourself!

This is a thread for the critics and debunkers here on ATS.
I have a mission for you and everyone else who like to participate in this tiny experiment! Lay your camera somewhere where you can easily reach it and make sure the battery is full and you have enough memory or empty film. As soon as you hear a plane coming over, rush outside and try to take pictures of it. Like I did in the past, these are the clearest results so far:


Or are they CGI?
It is difficult to get good results because of the suddenness and lack of time. I started this and I still do this to get more practice, just in case of a real sighting. Because the reaction time is similar to an UFO sighting. But as you can see, the result will be blurry, unless they land right in front of me. But maybe I'm a really bad photographer, so I hope some of you will post some results of your own.
I'm aware that 99% of the UFO Pictures are CGI but if only ONE of the many, many pictures there are, you debunkers have a problem, and boy, do you have a problem.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Erich Kemper]

I suppose the helicopter one's a little fuzzy, but the one of the airplane is very well done. Both are way better than the best ufo shots commonly seen. You gots some skills there for sure

Neat idea by the way, I'll give that a shot and see how I do.

reply to post by Erich Kemper


I've had these for a while. I just took them because planes NEVER fly this low here. Not sure what was up on this day...

Plane pic #1


Plane pic #2

So... Because you're unable to attain evidence, debunkers are wrong?

Just trying to follow the logic here. Because that's what we're all looking for here, right? Logic?

Wait, that's right, we're looking for everyone to forget logic and hold hands while believing blindly. That'd work out really well, because I'm sure once the aliens find out that we're all a bunch of fanatics ready to believe in anything without evidence, they'll... Well, I suppose they'll still not be there, but at least everyone will feel good about themselves.

Edit: That may sound a bit harsh, but it's pretty annoying to be called out in every post, I.E. "I'm aware that 99% of the UFO Pictures are CGI but if only ONE of the many, many pictures there are, you debunkers have a problem, and boy, do you have a problem."

[edit on 28-9-2009 by EsSeeEye]

Originally posted by Erich Kemper
This is a thread for the critics and debunkers here on ATS.

Critics of what? If you don't think there is a lot to be critical about in the UFO field you are not being realistic.

I'm aware that 99% of the UFO Pictures are CGI but if only ONE of the many, many pictures there are, you debunkers have a problem, and boy, do you have a problem.

I remind you that UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object. With that in mind no rational and serious person would deny the "existence" of UFOs. UFOs are merely flying object(s) the observer(s) cannot identify.

But what exactly would one picture prove? While a picture would prove that there was indeed something in the sky, it wouldn't help us determine the nature of the object. Unless someone could identify it and it wouldn't be a UFO anymore.

What would be this problem you speak of?

reply to post by Erich Kemper


You mean well but execution is so-so. You recommend being ready to GO! Just like firemen practice to be ready to react without having to think. Chances are that the average person will never achieve the kind of skill to make outstanding photos of UFOs. There are way too many factors to consider and a lot also depends on how close or far the object to be photographed will be. Add to this the sometimes sudden rush of adrenaline that one may experience when the thought sinks in that a UFO is within sight. Arms may start to shake and to rush to get the shot, one may forget to steady their arms on a nearby solid surface to ensure a sharp photo even if the object is far away. A sharp photo can stand being blown up.

This would only be the case if every UFO image was taken by people who were rushing to photograph them.

A lot of them are caught by people taking normal photographs of other things.

Although in those cases it is just the speed of the out of focus plane/bird/insect that is creating the illusion.

Don't forget the equipement people call "camera" because the difference between image quality you get from cellphone, compact, prosumer and professional camera is huge.

I have a prosumer camera, an old digital SLR canon rebel, the image quality is great but it's a pain to carry around this camera because of SLR len has 715g alone

Yes it depends of the camera! most of the normal digital cameras will not focus enough on a distant and fast movement object (normal cameras point and shot) and you will get blur pictures, but if its steady it will focus. Digital DSLR (I have a XSi Canon) is different and you could manually focus with a moving object or use the fuction of massive sutter (take shots in a row automatically) to compensate and slow the movemtn of the object.

Yes the Digital rebels and 35mm digital are quiet heavy to take around, but if i hever see a ufo and i haeve my cam around i would surely try to take the shot.

How are skeptics wrong if you cant take a decent picture ??

The burden of proof lies with the people who make the claim, rather than the other way around. Even if a picture of what people believe to be an alien space craft was taken with any clarity it can hardly be considered definite proof of an "alien" machine as it doesnt discount the possibility that it is terrestrial.

Those who are interested in taking pictures of "space craft" should bother to invest in some decent equipment like telephoto lenses and cameras with high shutter speeds.

The UFO I saw fly overhead was fuzz already.
So no need for a camera.
A strobe light was going off at the left rear.
Only kidding, electrostatic discharges were going off.