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

"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

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

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.

"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.......

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

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote in message
...
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.

"Impossible" can mean many things to many people. In theory, anything might
be possible, especially to a pure mathematician. But realistically, if you
are going to bother to even consider (and discuss) any problem, then you
must consider the laws of physics as we know them to be today. And, in the
light of those laws, it is extremely unlikely that any object here on earth
came here from some other star system. - I have no objection to "flights of
fantacy" speculation, but just understand that when you indulge it these,
you are leaving the realm of rational thought, and entering the realm of
science fiction fantacy. IOW, when I look up in the sky, and see something
that I do not understand, I will be willing to believe almost anything about
it rather than speculate on it's origin being outside of our own solar
system. This is simply a practical matter based on all the laws of physics
that I have known (and used) during my whole lifetime. I spent about 30
years working at a high energy physics laboratory chock full of people with
PhD's in physics. We used relativistic mechanics on a daily basis to solve
real problems involved with the machines we built and used to investigate
the make up of matter. I can assure you that these equations were reliable,
and enabled us to do our jobs well. We built and used machines that cost the
taxpayers over 100 million dollars using them, and they worked as expected
when completed. So, I am forced to go with that technology unless and until
I am shown some other technology and had it explained mathematically to me,
and demonstrated to me as well.




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

"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.

"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

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?