scowl Posted May 30, 2014 #51 Share Posted May 30, 2014 I still think this is nothing more than a handful of blurry pixels, the kind that if you ever find out what the object really was, you'll feel stupid for thinking it was anything else. You could take pictures from your window seat over any busy airport and get photos of distant planes that will be unrecognizable like this one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseCuster Posted May 30, 2014 #52 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Oh dear! It is pathetic that in our age of high definition photo cameras and video cameras no one can come up with a sharp image of an UFO ! PATHETIC ! And, were there no other people on that plane? Or was the photographer the only one with a camera on board ? ? ? The problem isn't that no-one can come up with sharp images of these UFOs. The problem is that when people take clear photos of the UFOs, it's clear that it's not a UFO, but a balloon, RC helicopter, kite, etc. It's only when it's a blurry indistinct shape that it gets reported as a UFO. Other things that are well understood by some people like lens flares, out of focus bugs, distant birds which consist of a handful of pixels, etc. get published as UFOs as well.So the problem is not that the "UFOs" aren't clearly photographed or filmed, it's that the clear photographs and video clearly show them to be anything other than ET craft and thus don't get published as UFOs, but sometimes people photograph these same things and when they look at their photographs, it's not immediately obvious to them what it is because the object is too far away and thus only a handful of pixels and a smudge when blown up or too close in the case of bugs and thus out of focus or other known phenomena, and thus more crap gets added to the pile of "UFOs" that get copied and pasted around the Internet on forums, blogs, Facebook, etc. like medieval monks mindlessly making copies of their religious scripture to be disseminated amongst the true believers. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted May 30, 2014 #53 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Apparently I must have the most powerful camera in the world. Whenever I see a UFO post, the images are crap once zoomed in. I never had this problem using a Canon SX40 which is a digital SLR. This camera had 35X zoom and I could take photos of the moon on a clear night. One problem is that lots of people use their cell phone camera to take these pics. And 99% of cell phones do not have true Zoom ability. They simply are showing a smaller piece of what the lens sees when they are "Zooming". There is no added detail captured when a cell camera zooms in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted May 30, 2014 #54 Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) So the problem is not that the "UFOs" aren't clearly photographed or filmed, it's that the clear photographs and video clearly show them to be anything other than ET craft and thus don't get published as UFOs, but sometimes people photograph these same things and when they look at their photographs, it's not immediately obvious to them what it is because the object is too far away and thus only a handful of pixels and a smudge when blown up or too close in the case of bugs and thus out of focus or other known phenomena, and thus more crap gets added to the pile of "UFOs" that get copied and pasted around the Internet on forums, blogs, Facebook, etc. like medieval monks mindlessly making copies of their religious scripture to be disseminated amongst the true believers. Same thing happens with bigfoot. What would otherwise easily be identified as a bush or stump turns into a bigfoot due to being out of focus due to distance. Edited May 30, 2014 by DieChecker 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted May 30, 2014 #55 Share Posted May 30, 2014 One problem is that lots of people use their cell phone camera to take these pics. And 99% of cell phones do not have true Zoom ability. They simply are showing a smaller piece of what the lens sees when they are "Zooming". There is no added detail captured when a cell camera zooms in. But 99% (well, maybe a tad less than that) of cell phone users do have Zoser abilities... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S2F Posted May 30, 2014 #56 Share Posted May 30, 2014 One problem is that lots of people use their cell phone camera to take these pics. And 99% of cell phones do not have true Zoom ability. They simply are showing a smaller piece of what the lens sees when they are "Zooming". There is no added detail captured when a cell camera zooms in. That's the difference between digital and optical zoom. Digital zoom is crap, I never use it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstralHorus Posted May 30, 2014 #57 Share Posted May 30, 2014 perhaps due to how UFO'S supposedly work, they emit a force that messes with our cameras components? thus, making a blurry photo of it. just a theory, i'm no photographer....perhaps i should start! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetpumper Posted May 30, 2014 #58 Share Posted May 30, 2014 perhaps due to how UFO'S supposedly work, they emit a force that messes with our cameras components? thus, making a blurry photo of it. just a theory, i'm no photographer....perhaps i should start! Maybe anti-gravity propulsion? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scowl Posted May 30, 2014 #59 Share Posted May 30, 2014 That's the difference between digital and optical zoom. Digital zoom is crap, I never use it. Well I crop my pictures all the time which is sort of digital zoom. A 400mm f2.8 lens costs much more than my 300mm f2.8 and my present camera has four times the resolution of my first digital camera so it's not always a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S2F Posted May 30, 2014 #60 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Well I crop my pictures all the time which is sort of digital zoom. A 400mm f2.8 lens costs much more than my 300mm f2.8 and my present camera has four times the resolution of my first digital camera so it's not always a problem. I suppose I should qualify my statement in that I've never owned a camera good enough that the digital zoom didn't suck. I'd like to get a new camera but at this point that is a luxury that will have to wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBene Posted May 30, 2014 #61 Share Posted May 30, 2014 I never realised that it was going up, for me it was just a question of perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyOtherAccount Posted May 30, 2014 #62 Share Posted May 30, 2014 I did a couple of captures after pausing the video. Then I played with the captures. A few things proved to be interesting: There are disturbances in the image near the object, however it doesn't look like a reconstruction job. It is more like the disturbances one sees from distant heat waves. Such disturbances are left and right of the object and trails up the photo a far distance. Another thing I noted is that after balancing the primary colors' histograms the clouds to the left and below the object have a dirty yellow hue (if the object came from that direction, one could conjecture that the object ever so slightly gives off or alters the cloud places it has passed through. Really interesting is that the yellow hue closely resembles the same yellow hue that surrounds the object and that there is "cast-off" (circled in plum red). Finally, the blackest area has absolutely no hidden details in it. It stays solidly blacker than black! The large cast-off implies the yellow hue to the same thing but in smaller doses. Anyway here are some images that have been altered to see what we could find. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakari Posted May 30, 2014 #63 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Maybe anti-gravity propulsion? Is there a way to ignore certain phrases, and not the user? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetpumper Posted May 30, 2014 #64 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Is there a way to ignore certain phrases, and not the user? "UFO" means unidentified. Can't wait 'til that one pops up again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted May 30, 2014 #65 Share Posted May 30, 2014 "UFO" means unidentified. Can't wait 'til that one pops up again. What means staring at the sun with obscure (or whatever that "gadget" was called)? Sounds familiar? Try that trick again, maybe "UFO" will pop up again (straight up to/from the sky). It happened in the past (twice, if I remember correctly), no doubt it'll be "popping" every time you try to "see UFO" in the same conditions nowadays... Now, how many "UFO"s you can see (with "sun blocking device") on the daily basis? None? Strange, cause in the past it happened twice in the row (per your claim). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaraT Posted May 30, 2014 #66 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Simple explanation. It's the top of a building above a dense fog, but a strong gust of wind came along and blew it away. Nobody will probably notice it for years. And again I'm left to figure out everything for everybody! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted May 30, 2014 #67 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Simple explanation. It's the top of a building above a dense fog, but a strong gust of wind came along and blew it away. Nobody will probably notice it for years. And again I'm left to figure out everything for everybody! Thank God youre here Sara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakari Posted May 30, 2014 #68 Share Posted May 30, 2014 "UFO" means unidentified. Can't wait 'til that one pops up again. I was joking about the anti gravity thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poltergeistnz Posted May 30, 2014 #69 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Gah! Again, no zoom, why not video it instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeskov Posted May 31, 2014 #70 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Maybe anti-gravity propulsion? How could it be anything but anti-gravityTM? Cheers, Badeskov 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkfish Posted May 31, 2014 #71 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Just as most cameras these days have sharpener modes and anti shake settings so UFO's all have a special device which sends out a signal directly to the camera and unsharpens and shakes like hell. This device patented on Bopar 2272 in the year 12th millenium (our time) is soon to be superseded by an even more potent gizmo which will fry the brain of any potential UFO image taker. SO BEWARE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted May 31, 2014 #72 Share Posted May 31, 2014 perhaps due to how UFO'S supposedly work, they emit a force that messes with our cameras components? thus, making a blurry photo of it. just a theory, i'm no photographer....perhaps i should start! This virus is still known and active already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smedley Butler Jr. Posted May 31, 2014 #73 Share Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) I don't know why my first post was rejected. I didn't cuss or go off-topic. Perhaps it is because I said that this craft might be an Illuminati craft. Apparently, whacky topics like UFO's are welcome but the word "Illuminati" isn't. At any rate, I believe that a mass propaganda campaign is under way by the power elite who rule this planet to prepare the denizens of this world for a UFO hoax. Whether this hoax will be benevolent, malevolent, or both I couldn't say. I find it interesting that, not only is TV inundated with UFO shows on a near daily basis, not only do ET movies continue to be spewed out by Hollywood, but we have former astronauts, politicians and military higher ups telling the public that governments (especially the U.S. government) are covering up the fact that they know ET is real, or that ET has already contacted the world's governments. Heck, even the Vatican has embraced the idea of ET appearing here. The Pope's astronomers (I never knew the Pope had astronomers!!!) say that there is likely ET life out there. It just seems to me that there is a concerted effort to brainwash and propagandize the public into believing that ET is real. I think it is possible that ET's are out there. In fact, I've seen UFO's myself (with witnesses, and not under the influence of any substance). However, a mass ET epiphany could easily assist the power elite of the world in the formation of their desired one-world government (which has been a dream of despots and tyrants for millennia). Maybe I'm making too much of all this, but I think that people need to consider ALL possibilities, especially regarding phenomena that can be potentially life-changing. Edited May 31, 2014 by Smedley Butler Jr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted May 31, 2014 #74 Share Posted May 31, 2014 I don't know why my first post was rejected. I didn't cuss or go off-topic. Perhaps it is because I said that this craft might be an Illuminati craft. Apparently, whacky topics like UFO's are welcome but the word "Illuminati" isn't. At any rate, I believe that a mass propaganda campaign is under way by the power elite who rule this planet to prepare the denizens of this world for a UFO hoax. Whether this hoax will be benevolent, malevolent, or both I couldn't say. I find it interesting that, not only is TV inundated with UFO shows on a near daily basis, not only do ET movies continue to be spewed out by Hollywood, but we have former astronauts, politicians and military higher ups telling the public that governments (especially the U.S. government) are covering up the fact that they know ET is real, or that ET has already contacted the world's governments. [...] 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purple Octopus Posted May 31, 2014 #75 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Yes. It is absolutely a hoax UFO from the Illuminati. Or a building sticking up out of fog. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now