Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of taking clearvideo/stills of UFO's?

"Larry L [in Honolulu]" wrote in message
...
Doc wrote in news:6d3a57e5-9a10-4a9b-b05f-
:

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.


You'll get as many answers as you get replies, but here's my take. I'm an
engineer who's also skilled photographer and videographer who happens
also to be a pilot and who has seen an object in the sky I couldn't
identify. (By definition a UFO)

The great video you see of shuttle launches are taken by videographers
with expensive equipment, set up well in advance, who know exactly the
path the shuttle will take at exactly what time down to the millisecond.
Add a little skill and it's pretty easy to get good video. The problem
with UFO photography is that they just don't schedule their appearances
in advance. The odds that someone with a high speed high def video camera
all set up at the exact moment one shows up is pretty much zero. If it
were really a good hoax, someone would be set to film it with good
equipment!

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]

Point taken.....but it's also rather unlikely that someone would travel over
4 light years to get somewhere, and then not bother to land and say,
"Howdy.....My name is Gork.....What's yours?"

"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

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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

"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