If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of taking clear video/stills of UFO's?
"Doc" wrote in message ... I'm limiting this to what seem like technically oriented groups, not including UFO forums in an attempt to avoid slobbering tirades from the tinfoil hat brigade. I'm wondering why it is, in all the incidents of "UFO" sightings, including some that have made the news, any images that aren't obvious hoaxes (and many that are) are always grainy, shaky, indistinct blobs blurs, pinpoint lights etc. Okay, the conspiracy buff's default is always going to be that anything the gov't has is instantly going to be hidden and disavowed by the MIB. Maybe my perception is incorrect, but it seems powerful consumer photographic gear has been available for some time and there are legions of skilled photography and videography enthusiasts amateur and professional. How hard would it be to get that suped-up telephoto or zoom lens trained on the objects in question to get something resembling a clear shot in the case of something like this http://youtube.com/watch?v=MAox0pcZZxo where the objects are clearly visible for some time, seemingly plenty of time for someone who's skilled to get their gear onto a tripod and get a reasonably close-up shot. Or do I have a mistaken notion of how powerful the available optics are? The News stations show clear, distinct shots of the fast-moving Space Shuttle when it's well into its trajectory on launch days, I would guess from at least as far if not farther than these objects are from the cameras. The above link is an incident that occurred over a major city and apparently caused quite a buzz. *Nobody* there had good gear they could whip out to take some pics? I would think a major city has astronomy buffs and universities who have fairly sophisticated gear already set up to photograph distant objects. Wouldn't capturing something at airliner altitude be quite possible? Thanks \ Well, let's not forget that any group of beings who are able to travel lightyears to our planet are, well, light years ahead of us technologically. Now, look how far photography has advanced in the last ten or fifteen years, and try casting your mind forward the amount of time it will be before we are able to travel that far, and then try to imagine where the art / science of capturing images will be at that time. Will we be using materials that reflect light the same as it is now reflected? In addition to moving through the regular three dimensions, will we possibly be moving through time as well? Is that how we will manage to travel such great distances? If so, will an object that has such capabilities be photographical? Having spent a lot of time taking shots in low-light conditions -- rock concerts, nightscapes, astronomical, etc -- I can vouch that it is not easy to get a good, crisp and clear object of something that is right in front of you let alone 35,000 feet above. If you think it's easy, try to find a nice spot at the end of a runway and try getting a "good" shot of a plane taking off after dark. Unless you've got good equipment, and you know how to use it, make sure you pack a lunch. You'll probably be there for a while. Now, imagine that an object that size is flying somewhere in the distance without an external source of elumination shining directly on it. Your EZ-Flash 100 isn't going to be much good. As for shuttle launches, don't most of them take place in the middle of the day? And, it seems like most UFO sightings seem to take place when it's dark, or at least in low-light settings. The few that take place in broad daylight happen so quick you'd be lucky to get your camera bag open, let alone get your camera out, dialed in and up to your eye before the little devil's gone for good. For What It's Worth, Dudley |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of taking clear video/stills of UFO's?
Dear William Graham:
"William Graham" wrote in message . .. "Doc" wrote in message ... On Feb 19, 6:24 pm, dlzc wrote: I've seen UFOs. But I don't care if I convince someone of that, nor whether or not they were of extra-terrestial origin. Not my job. I got 15-20 seconds of amazement, and a friend right next to me that could not see it. I consider it a gift. Heckling welcomed. No aluminum foil hats here. I believe you've seen objects you've been unable to identify, by default making it a "UFO" from your vantage point whether it was a cloud or the Goodyear blimp. Not so easily convinced that it had anything to do with visitors from another planet. Yeah.....With my knowledge of aircraft, almost everything in the sky is a, "UFO" to me.......But the last thing I would assume is that any of it is from some other planet......The closest "other planet" is over 4 light years away from us, so this is a no brainer....... Oh, I don't think the technology is impossible. If we can think of it, we can eventually accomplish it. I cannot believe we are the smartest organism to come along in the history of the Universe. But if you have the technology, why would you come *here*? They probably already know what the Vogons have planned... It can't be for the "hot air", the pig swill of political rhetoric, or the very remarkable material governmentium. or they'd be seen over Washington D.C. David A. Smith |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of taking clear video/stills of UFO's?
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:41:22 -0800 (PST), Doc
wrote: I'm limiting this to what seem like technically oriented groups, not including UFO forums in an attempt to avoid slobbering tirades from the tinfoil hat brigade. Regurgitation of that same thread a while ago? -m- -- Official website "Jonah's Quid" http://www.jonahsquids.co.uk |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of takingclear video/stills of UFO's?
On Feb 20, 4:42*am, Larry in AZ
wrote: It's catch-22 in a manner of speaking. If someone gets a shot of a recognizable craft, it would by definition be an IFO, not a UFO, and therefore not newsworthy and not interesting. In reality there are thousands, perhaps millions of shots of exactly what the original poster is asking for - an IFO. See how that works..? What I'm thinking is that it could be shown in contrast to all the less detailed photos - "Remember the video of the "UFO's" featured on last night's broadcast? Well, Joe Schmoe from Kokomo got a clear picture of it and it turns out it was..." And of course TV news isn't the only forum, I'm sure other news outlets, UFO debunkers etc. would be happy to use such a photo. And if the image ever did turn out to be something in the "what the hell is that??" category, I'm sure it would be of interest to everyone including the gummint. If the San Diego lights were in fact avoidance flares as has been suggested, such events must be snicker fodder for the military, knowing every time they do such a thing the populous is going to assume it's little green men from Mars. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of takingclear video/stills of UFO's?
On Feb 20, 2:52*am, "Dudley Hanks" wrote:
Having spent a lot of time taking shots in low-light conditions -- rock concerts, nightscapes, astronomical, etc -- I can vouch that it is not easy to get a good, crisp and clear object of something that is right in front of you let alone 35,000 feet above. Many of these events happen during the day too. Here's another way to ask the question. How difficult would it be to get a clear shot of an airliner or a launching space shuttle during the day - what would it take? By clear, I don't necessarily mean being able to see the kid in the 8th row back picking his nose, but where you can distinctly make out the form of the craft. What about one of a manned balloon that's hovering at high altitude? Totally different level of difficulty? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of takingclear video/stills of UFO's?
You know, if the Air Force really did want to keep some of their
exercises a secret, why wouldn't they just say, "Golly, yes, I guess you must have seen a UFO..." and leave it at that. It seems odd when they sometimes say there was no UFO. It is understandable that they would say "it wasn't us", but how could they possibly know for sure it wasn't somebody else? Everybody stay calm. Larry in AZ wrote: Waiving the right to remain silent, Pudentame said: But, IIRC, the USMC later admitted they were conducting training west of San Diego that night. There were some pointed comments made about why the military would first deny having aircraft in the area then later admit they were operating there. They claimed it was all a mis-understanding. It probably *was* a misunderstanding. There is not one solitary individual answering questions about all military operations. When the question was first asked of some overworked second lieutenant on IO duty that night, he may have known nothing about it, and answered, "Wasn't us." At some later point, the question got to the Colonel who did know about it, and decided that telling wouldn't compromise anything. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of takingclear video/stills of UFO's?
Doc wrote:
snip Or do I have a mistaken notion of how powerful the available optics are? The News stations show clear, distinct shots of the fast-moving Space Shuttle when it's well into its trajectory on launch days, I would guess from at least as far if not farther than these objects are from the cameras. The above link is an incident that occurred over a major city and apparently caused quite a buzz. *Nobody* there had good gear they could whip out to take some pics? I would think a major city has astronomy buffs and universities who have fairly sophisticated gear already set up to photograph distant objects. Wouldn't capturing something at airliner altitude be quite possible? Thanks The pix of the shuttle soon after takeoff are made through a special telescope, made by Perkin Elmer, as I recall. It allows the ground crews to monitor the takeoff closely, with the extra use - a plus for the image-concisions NASA - of providing dramatic shots for TV. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of taking clear video/stills of UFO's?
"Doc" wrote in message ... On Feb 20, 2:52 am, "Dudley Hanks" wrote: Having spent a lot of time taking shots in low-light conditions -- rock concerts, nightscapes, astronomical, etc -- I can vouch that it is not easy to get a good, crisp and clear object of something that is right in front of you let alone 35,000 feet above. Many of these events happen during the day too. Here's another way to ask the question. How difficult would it be to get a clear shot of an airliner or a launching space shuttle during the day - what would it take? By clear, I don't necessarily mean being able to see the kid in the 8th row back picking his nose, but where you can distinctly make out the form of the craft. What about one of a manned balloon that's hovering at high altitude? Totally different level of difficulty? But, as was stated in my earlier post, if these incidents truly are evidence of visitation from other worlds, then we are dealing with a rather dramatic difference in technological capability. With this difference in mind, there is no certainty that our level of photographic ability would be sufficient to catch an image of futuristic crafts floating in some kind of time / space netherland. The eye can see dynamic ranges that currently cannot be captured in its entirety by current films and sensors. There is nothing to say that materials from other planets / solar systems will not reflect light or generate some sort of visible image that cannot be reproduced accurately on film / memory device. Hence, bad pics. Trying to keep my mind open, Dudley |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of taking clear video/stills of UFO's?
"Bill" wrote in message .. . You know, if the Air Force really did want to keep some of their exercises a secret, why wouldn't they just say, "Golly, yes, I guess you must have seen a UFO..." and leave it at that. It seems odd when they sometimes say there was no UFO. It is understandable that they would say "it wasn't us", but how could they possibly know for sure it wasn't somebody else? Everybody stay calm. Well, I can understand how discussing the difficulties of catching a UFO in clear detail might fit into this newsgroup, but second guessing military responses seems a bit outside the purpose of alt.photography. However, I'm a sucker for this kind of discussion, so I'll bite. If the military actually said, "Hey, isn't that neat! You folks saw a UFO over Vegas last night. Cool!" Wouldn't that lead to a bit of anxiety on the part of Vegas residents? Wouldn't the people of that fair city then be saying: "So, with all the money in your budget you missed it? Are you also going to miss a missile coming in over the Atlantic or Pacific?" Given our system of command and control and accountability, the powers that be need to maintain the impression that they are like God, omnipresent and ever vigilant. To admit that something happened that cannot be rationalized underminds the whole system and will never be admitted. Take Care, Dudley |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lens picture taking quality comparison question | Allan | Digital Photography | 8 | March 17th 06 12:44 AM |
Print stills question | Cathy | Digital Photography | 60 | November 23rd 05 05:18 PM |
Taking pictures in a nightclub (newbie question) | KB | Digital Photography | 10 | March 26th 05 05:28 AM |
Taking pictures in a nightclub (newbie question) | KB | Digital Photography | 0 | March 25th 05 07:27 PM |
QUESTION:taking concert photos? | Korana | General Photography Techniques | 1 | February 27th 04 03:31 PM |