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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of taking clearvideo/stills of UFO's?
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 Damn.. when are people going to learn about aerial flares and missle avoidance flares.. I am so friggin tired of this.. 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? Yes. Everyone wonders this. And some set out to capture good photos of UFOs. The best photos are debunked and the ones that can't be debunked or explained become the stuff of legend. We'll know the answer to your question as soon as good proof starts coming in and people are no longer fascinated by Air Force training missions. UFOs. That's what I do now. A new show every friggin week and $1000/month electrical bills for the render farm. They're real enough for me! Thanks |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of takingclear video/stills of UFO's?
On Feb 19, 3:41*pm, 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. 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. Speed of object. Zooming in on something that is close to the "grain size" of the recording medium. ... Or do I have a mistaken notion of how powerful the available optics are? No. I suspect that much of the popular press "reports" seem to immediately preceed a new SciFi movie, such as "Cloverfield". 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? Launch photographers were probably not available. The youtube video shows a nighttime shot, that blooms badly from the adjacent "garage". Such "string of pearls" lighting is normal here in Arridzona, where approaching flights are directed along I-17. I would think a major city has astronomy buffs and universities who have fairly sophisticated gear already set up to photograph distant objects. 10-60 miles is not distant. Many such devices you would call to serve cannot focus that close, nor can they ncecssarily be aimed close to the horizon, track high speed objects, etc. Wouldn't capturing something at airliner altitude be quite possible? Graininess results. 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. David A. Smith |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of takingclear video/stills of UFO's?
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 1) Most UFO sightings are over the Continental USA 2) These were excitable college kids 3) One is heard to say "anti-missile missiles". 4) The Newscaster was prepared for the helicopter explanation and 5) (last and very least) if the lights WERE identified by the method you suggest it would not be an unidentified flying object, but an identified flying object. IFOs are not newsworthy. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of taking clear video/stills of UFO's?
"Larry L [in Honolulu]" wrote in message ... Actually no one I know with good video or even still equipment keeps it ready, unprotected, and sitting on his car seat, as that would be an invitation to have it stolen. My gear is always in a case, at best in the trunk, and if I saw a UFO I'd have to consider the time I'd spend not looking at it in order to get the camera out and ready. Considering that most of these events don't last too long, that might be a tough call. Larry [in Honolulu] I had an SLR at the ready sitting on an open glovebox door. The damn thing got up and hit me in the head. It might not have done that if I hadn't fallen asleep and rolled the car. 40 years ago David |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of takingclear video/stills of UFO's?
On Feb 19, 8:35*pm, "Larry L [in Honolulu]"
wrote: Actually no one I know with good video or even still equipment keeps it ready, unprotected, and sitting on his car seat, as that would be an invitation to have it stolen. My gear is always in a case, at best in the trunk, and if I saw a UFO I'd have to consider the time I'd spend not looking at it in order to get the camera out and ready. Considering that most of these events don't last too long, that might be a tough call. I was thinking of gear kept in a house too, but anyway. I hear the points you're making, but it just seems that by sheer numbers, over the years - the circumstance of an event and someone with gear ready would converge. Someone already doing a shoot at the beach or other outdoor circumstances, someone videotaping from their balcony, rooftop, wherever, you would think that by now someone would have gotten a good shot of one of these "unexplained" objects, showing it to be either a recognizeable craft or object or not. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of takingclear video/stills of UFO's?
Doc wrote:
On Feb 19, 8:35 pm, "Larry L [in Honolulu]" wrote: Actually no one I know with good video or even still equipment keeps it ready, unprotected, and sitting on his car seat, as that would be an invitation to have it stolen. My gear is always in a case, at best in the trunk, and if I saw a UFO I'd have to consider the time I'd spend not looking at it in order to get the camera out and ready. Considering that most of these events don't last too long, that might be a tough call. I was thinking of gear kept in a house too, but anyway. I hear the points you're making, but it just seems that by sheer numbers, over the years - the circumstance of an event and someone with gear ready would converge. Someone already doing a shoot at the beach or other outdoor circumstances, someone videotaping from their balcony, rooftop, wherever, you would think that by now someone would have gotten a good shot of one of these "unexplained" objects, showing it to be either a recognizeable craft or object or not. after many years as a news cameraman, i always travelled with a cheap instamatic in the glove compartment - now with an equally cheap digital camera. over the years i have made a bit of money from snapping the odd incident, scene, curiosity, whatever. and my motivation wasn't financial, rather, there's many a strange thing you see on the road you'd like to show your partner.... lesle |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of taking clear video/stills of UFO's?
"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....... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
UFO Photography and Videography (was: from a skeptic)
"Neo" wrote in message .. . "Doc" wrote: I'm limiting this to what seem like technically oriented groups -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Simply apply the George Carlin rule of government, which is the "Everything the government tells me is a lie" rule, and you'll know the truth of the matter. Works every time! But this is like saying that once Adolf Hitler was balancing his checkbook and added two plus two, and got four, so today every mathematician/accountant has to assume that two plus two can't equal four....... |
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 01:44 AM |
Print stills question | Cathy | Digital Photography | 60 | November 23rd 05 06:18 PM |
Taking pictures in a nightclub (newbie question) | KB | Digital Photography | 10 | March 26th 05 06:28 AM |
Taking pictures in a nightclub (newbie question) | KB | Digital Photography | 0 | March 25th 05 08:27 PM |
QUESTION:taking concert photos? | Korana | General Photography Techniques | 1 | February 27th 04 04:31 PM |