So, do you really think UFOs dont exist? Could the imagination be photographed? Or Filmed?

reply to post by Nicolas Flamel


And some people still think this things dont exist.

Thanks. Great pictures.

reply to post by King Loki

so for something to be an actual unidentified flying object it would have to be unidentifiable to everyone, which in almost 100% of cases is not true.

With this definition of your UFO, you just end up with any kind of visualization of UFOs in the world. Anyone looking at the sky and thinking to have seen a UFO, will be wrong. By chance you know something that is consensus of all? His argument is flawed and creates the presumption of imposition.

But if you dont think this is ufos, ok. I dont care. But i respect your opinion.

Originally posted by RUSSO
In both cases there is very little information available.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7929f2ddde8e.jpg[/atsimg]

If that's the picture I think it is, ATSers asked the photographer for the original image with EXIF data. The photographer stated the first thing they did with that picture was reformat it such that the EXIF data would not be available. While this in no way proves it's a hoax, it seems suspicious to me. Practically everyone interested in UFOs knows that any image of interest results in calls for the raw image/film/format for the best possible analysis.

It would certainly have more credibility in my book if the photographer was able to provide the image that came from the camera. And the reason given for not being able to do so really sounded like a lame excuse.

Was the object seen by pilots a UFO similar to this one, recorded in New York on March 20, 1950?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e82fb61c1fa8.jpg[/atsimg]

That's a picture of the moon, multiple image exposure over time.

Don't forget this one:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d6554174e811.png[/atsimg]It's one of the clearest UFO photos ever taken from a plane, and would have become a very famous photo had someone not figured out it's just an optical effect and there's really nothing there.

So this photo is the best answer to your question in the thread title. Can something that doesn't exist be photographed? This image proves the answer is a resounding YES!!!! and quite clearly, too!

Originally posted by RUSSO
This one is my favorite, in HQ:

And here with some effects to dont let any doubts about the UFO.

There was a documentary done about that UFO, by the BBC I think, though I've never seen it and have been looking for it. The documentary concluded it's....guess what...an optical effect.

That was my guess even before hearing about the documentary, it looks just like an optical effect.

www.ufologie.net...

This official British Airways film, was taken in June 1976 during one of Concorde's test flights over southern England. The video depicts a strange white light or probe type object, which seems to descend from above Concorde to below the aircraft and then back up again in front of the fuselage. What makes it puzzling is the fact that the light goes vertically downwards all whilst Concorde is travelling horizontally and at great speed.

However, a later analysis of the images presented in a UFO documentary indicated that the small object was really a reflection of sunlight within the camera lenses. The camera has an image stabilizer, which produced the effect of an apparent independant move of the reflection.

Most people know eyewitness testimony is unreliable, but even the camera can be fooled, so another fine example that "objects" that do not exist can be photographed!

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Hi arbitrageur...

The photographer stated the first thing they did with that picture was reformat it such that the EXIF data would not be available

I understand your point,its suspicius. but It can could happen.

That's a picture of the moon, multiple image exposure over time.

Humm, how about the raw data? Do you know if still exist? How do you know that is a long exposure? Dont get me wrong, just want to understand.

So this photo is the best answer to your question in the thread title. Can something that doesn't exist be photographed? This image proves the answer is a resounding YES!!!! and quite clearly, too!

I have to disagree, because my quastion is about imagination been photographed, and imagination exist only in the realms of the mind. You are talking about something that doesn't exist. Did the camera taked a photo of its own camera diafragm. Camera diafragm is real. What kind of optical effect can be photographed. Even optical effect had to incurs the light, to be seen. Imagination can not. At least not yet. But thanks for your opinion.

So NO!!!, it dont answer my question at all. But thanks anyway.

And about the rest of the pics and videos? All hoax too? And about the air traffic controller who confirmed that it is not unusual career pilots faced with UFOs in the skies? Is he lieing too? I dont think so.

I

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I think it was obviously a weather-balloon on crack with a Concorde obsession.

Are you not sure that this is nota a crak balloon?

My second guess is flares.

My third guess is swamp gass.

Optical effect was my last gess.

Most people know eyewitness testimony is unreliable, but even the camera can be fooled, so another fine example that "objects" that do not exist can be photographed

Sorry, but this is too much. So please, take a picture of what I am thinking right now.

Originally posted by RUSSO
What kind of optical effect can be photographed.

It's a reflection of part of the plane. Actually a number of pictures taken out of plane windows show reflections.

And about the rest of the pics and videos? All hoax too?

I didn't say anything was a hoax, but I did say the picture where the photographer wouldn't share the picture that came from the camera was suspicious.

And about the air traffic controller who confirmed that it is not unusual career pilots faced with UFOs in the skies?

No, they see a lot of stuff, but pilots have some of the highest misperception rates of any class of witnesses according to noted UFO researcher Dr Hynek:

www.msnbc.msn.com...

One of the world’s first genuine UFO investigators, Allen Hynek of Northwestern University, came to believe that some encounters really could have otherworldly causes. But he was much more skeptical about the reliability of pilot testimony. "Surprisingly, commercial and military pilots appear to make relatively poor witnesses," he wrote in "The Hynek UFO Report."

Hynek found that the best class of witnesses had a 50 percent misperception rate, but that pilots had a much higher rate: 88 percent for military pilots, 89 percent for commercial pilots, the worst of all categories listed. Pilots could be counted on for an accurate identification of familiar objects - such as aircraft and ground structures - but Hynek said "it should come as no surprise that the majority of pilot misidentifications were of astronomical objects."

reply to post by RUSSO


What an idiotic post. You expect those of us with the ability to utilize logic, reason and common sense will take a thread like this seriously with the evidence you have presented and the manner in which you defend it (in the face of things that are WAY more plausible)?

This thread is an example of how the "Ufology Belief system" has ruined the ability to discuss this like adults and actually get somewhere.

I can't wait, in twenty years the same things will still be going on, and there will be the loudest among us that proclaim "they are here!!!!!!" posting stuff based on a belief system, but getting nowhere. And they will wonder why, why so many could be so “blind”, lol.

The only way to get to the bottom of this stuff is to take it seriously, and in order to do that, logic, reason and common sense has to be regarded as the only "religion" we can subscribe to. I don't care is you firmly believe your neighbor is an alien, if you want to know for sure you will understand that there needs to be a sense of adult thinking that will allow the world to come to your conclusion.

Ignorantly jumping to the LEAST possible conclusion in an effort to bolster one's belief system, or in an effort to make themselves popular among the believers, is what has made this subject the laughable joke that it is. Failure to understand that simple fact is what will keep this subject relegated to the dark corners of the internet......where if the average Joe with even the use of half his brain stopped by would run away and never come back....further setting this subject back yet ANOTHER generation.

It's called PR. If you don't understand it, well....guess what....

Originally posted by RUSSO
I think it was obviously a weather-balloon on crack with a Concorde obsession.

Are you not sure that this is nota a crak balloon?

My second guess is flares.

My third guess is swamp gass.

Optical effect was my last gess.:

Actually the first picture you posted is kind of interesting, I don't know what that is, though I'm not sure if it's really a UFO. But maybe it warrants further investigation.

But are you saying you don't believe the ufologie quote about the Concorde UFO documentary? I'm not quite sure what to make of your response.

Originally posted by RUSSO
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

That's a picture of the moon, multiple image exposure over time.

Humm, how about the raw data? Do you know if still exist? How do you know that is a long exposure? Dont get me wrong, just want to understand.I

If you look at the caption of your 2nd source, it cites that Project Grudge identified it as the moon. I have every reason to believe that explanation is correct based on my experience. I could duplicate a similar photo of the moon. I sold cameras in high school to earn money for college after shooting pictures with my first SLR at age 12 so I've been very involved with advanced cameras and photography from a relatively young age.

Regarding source information, it clarifies the date (so we can check the phase of the moon), and it mentions a time exposure saying they're not sure if it was taken with time exposure or not??:



Also, check the phase of the moon on March 20 1950: www.life-cycles-destiny.com...

Looks like a match to the photo.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Russo's reply should tell you that you are wasting your time. He/she is desperate to believe in the least probable conclusion...logic, reason and common sense be damned.

You can't have a one sided conversation, and that is what this...and a majority of his/her's threads are. Aimed to read a certain way, aimed to sound a certain way, and aimed to ingore anything that gets in his or her's way.

reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts
Maybe, but I believed a lot of this stuff Russo believes at one point myself, did you once fall for it too before learning the facts?

So just because I believed some of this stuff was ET doesn't mean there wasn't any hope for me, eventually I did more research and learned the truth about some of these cases. So if there's hope for me, maybe there's hope for other believers too that haven't yet figured out they're being scammed on a lot of these cases.

Yeah, the first reaction on seeing the truth can be anger and denial, but I think that's natural to some extent when our beliefs are challenged.

And I still think there may be some interesting cases out there of truly unknown stuff, but we have to sort out a lot of bad stuff to get to them.

Some of the ufos posted above are misidentifications. However, I agree that UFOs are real and they can be photographed.

I agree they are real, those photographs are good examples. That does not prove they are alien spacecraft. I think those are experimental military craft, and sometimes used in projects purposely designed to create UFO hysteria. This is to distract conspiracy theorists from researching real and more immediate threats from the NWO. The UFO programs also may help the military get increased funding by convincing Congress and other officials who aren't in the know of this threat in classified meetings.

I've seen ufos like that during the daytime, 3 times in the same spot on different days. it looks like a disc from far away but theres really no way of actually telling if theres wings but then you see the sun reflecting off of it and its shiny but then it disappears into thin air. the first time i saw it my friends didnt believe me but then a week later they looked in time. i wish i had a telescope in my car

reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts


Agreed. A good quote I recently saw somewhere else for the first time: "The belief that there is only one truth, and that oneself is in possession of it, is the root of all evil in the world" ~Max Born

The imagination can't be photographed, but mundane things that are can be imaginatively interpreted. Heck, even things that are clearly something prosaic in nature can be believed to be something utterly fantastic if someone wants to believe in ET hard enough.

I have seen nothing but light reflections, smudges and in one case, I swore I seen a water droplet. I mean, these are things that are so clear in what they are that it would take a monumental leap to believe that they were even vaguely anomalous.

This whole thing is even more brittle for the fact that these reflections were filmed through aircraft windows. You do know that aircraft windows are basically ideal for these kind of reflections because of they way there are made, right? We're not talking car windshields and living room windows here. We're talking several layers of the stuff...perfect little light-traps...

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by RUSSO

 

I believe that ufo's exist. I do not believe they are of an alien race. This is one of the reasons that I joined this site. I am amazed at all the alien talk when it comes to ufo's. I believe that they are of Nazi and Allied origins. Nikola Tesla was way ahead of his time and had many theories. I believe what we are seeing now is fourth or fifth generation(just like the Camaro) Tesla technologies that the gov't. stole from him.. Nice pics too.

"In an ever-expanding universe of space, time, and matter, without doubt, we aren't alone." Einstein

UFO's do exist..for everyone...but that only means that at one point in everyones life...they are not able to idenitfy the object they are seeing...not that it is Alien in origin. Your constant spelling errors tell me one or two things about you...you are not well educated ( therefore cannot come to any educated conclusions that would help your cause) or you are a bad speller and have not taken the time to fix this ( if you cannot take the time to fix some so easily fixable...how are we supposed to take you seriously on a subject that takes actual work to look into). When done properly...you will come to the conclusion that most "skeptics" do...there is nothing to the whole alien scenerio...I used to believe until I shut my blind belief mindset off..and looked into it with an open mind...not the closed mind of a blind believer.

reply to post by kerazeesicko


You are as intelligent as how you think of other people.