Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t..

On Feb 19, 3:41 pm, Doc <docsavag....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t.. 

On Feb 19, 6:24 pm, dlzc <dl... RemoveThis @cox.net> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t.. 

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:41:22 -0800 (PST), Doc <docsavage20 DeleteThis @yahoo.com>
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.

I think the most obvious reason you haven't seen high-quality images
of a UFO, where the image of the object is clear enough and distinct
enough to be identified as a UFO, is because the objects could be and
would be identified as something *other* than an ET.

>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.

Most likely these UFOs were sky lanterns ... essentially a hot-air
balloon the size of a garbage sack and typically heated by a small
candle. Sky lanterns can reach an altitude of nearly a mile, and even
from a short distance a they look like a glowing blob. Not an easy
object to photograph.

The thought of foam ducks releasing a squadron of sky lanterns
anywhere, but especially in an area as prone to wildfires as SoCal,
just boggles the mind.


TR
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t.. 

On Feb 19, 8:35 pm, "Larry L [in Honolulu]" <la... RemoveThis @no-place.org>
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.
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t.. 

"Doc" <docsavage20.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b698113-03ed-4b7f-85d7-fc00f019c780@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 19, 6:24 pm, dlzc <dl....RemoveThis@cox.net> 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.......
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t.. 

dlzc wrote:

> Heckling welcomed. No aluminum foil hats here.

Aluminum foil won't work. It's gotta be genuine TIN foil. ;-D
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t.. 

"Doc" <docsavage20.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6d3a57e5-9a10-4a9b-b05f-ce9d2fa84b8f@c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
| 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.
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t.. 

Doc <docsavage20.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in news:6d3a57e5-9a10-4a9b-b05f-
ce9d2fa84b8f.TakeThisOut@c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:

> 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]
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t.. 

"Larry L [in Honolulu]" <larry.RemoveThis@no-place.org> wrote in message
news:47bb83fd$0$22803$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Doc <docsavage20.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in news:6d3a57e5-9a10-4a9b-b05f-
> ce9d2fa84b8f.RemoveThis@c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
>
>> 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?"
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t.. 

"Larry L [in Honolulu]" <larry.DeleteThis@no-place.org> wrote in message
news:47bb83fd$0$22803$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t.. 

Doc wrote:
> On Feb 19, 8:35 pm, "Larry L [in Honolulu]" <la... RemoveThis @no-place.org>
> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t.. 

Dear William Graham:

"William Graham" <weg9.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:mIOdnXQeu9GHXibanZ2dnUVZ_uqvnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>> "Doc" <docsavage20.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:4b698113-03ed-4b7f-85d7-fc00f019c780@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 19, 6:24 pm, dlzc <dl....TakeThisOut@cox.net> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t.. 

"Doc" <docsavage20.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6d3a57e5-9a10-4a9b-b05f-ce9d2fa84b8f@c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t..