4 ms·

UFOs ..... universally, always, without exception pictured by grainy out of focus long distance cameras. That’s the real phenomenon, in a world full of high res

UFOs ..... universally, always, without exception pictured by grainy out of focus long distance cameras. That’s the real phenomenon, in a world full of high resolution superb optical equipment. Never ever once imaged clearly and never once imaged up close.

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
Same with Big Foot.
- elevaet 5y ago
  Big Foot/Yeti are bears walking bipedally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vqI_jC_qcY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vqI_jC_qcY It looks a lot more humanoid or ape-like when the bear is far away or the resolution is grainy.
thebigspacefuck 5y ago
I found this video enlightening. It’s a bunch of objects people might call UFOs getting zoomed in on by a Coolpix P1000 https://youtu.be/s64qV134Xis https://youtu.be/s64qV134Xis
kimixa 5y ago
I'd suggest that if they had clear images, they would be less likely to be "unidentified" flying objects, and then identified as mundane things. Like a known object with some unexpected angle or optical illusion making it appear to do "impossible" things, or a sensor artifact or interference. Or a combination.
anonporridge 5y ago
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExIGSZ3UUAQ22gV?format=jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExIGSZ3UUAQ22gV?format=jpg Q.E.D.
partiallypro 5y ago
Go to an airshow and take pictures. Most of them will be awful. Taking pictures of aircraft that are miles up in the sky is not easy for an amateur photographer, even today with better cameras most people are relying on digital zoom instead of optical zoom. Anyhow -most- of the photos taken from US Aircraft are clearly balloons, some consumer but most spying; it's a huge intelligence failure that these incidents aren't reported to the higher ups when -most- of it is clearly enemy spying. The War Zone did a few good pieces on this. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31151/area-51-veteran-and-cia-electronic-warfare-pioneer-weigh-in-on-navy-ufo-encounters https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31151/area-51-veteran-... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40054/adversary-drones-are-spying-on-the-u-s-and-the-pentagon-acts-like-theyre-ufos https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40054/adversary-drones... As for the super high speed phenomena being observed, I have serious doubts that it is an adversary given US defense spending, so they are either secret projects or something beyond. The article (from NRO) claims the fast objects are distorted by a parallax effect but seem to ignore the radar signature showing similar speed to what is visually observed...not the speed of a bird or a balloon. The theories in this NRO are pretty laughable to be perfectly honest in regards to some of the cases that are clearly not commercial aircraft, birds, etc as the author claims. Clearly making a joke out of what is possibly a serious national security issue in regards to enemy spying, especially. The Drive (War Zone) write ups take the issue far more seriously, and rightfully so, I'd recommend them.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jk7tarYZAQNpTQa 5y ago
  > Go to an airshow and take pictures. Most of them will be awful. Taking pictures of aircraft that are miles up in the sky is not easy for an amateur photographer, even today with better cameras most people are relying on digital zoom instead of optical zoom. Go ask a room of random people to go outside and take a video of a bird in flight. You'll see how bad both people and smartphones are at it. Add to that that most UFO phenomenons happen at night, and that people nowadays walk 99% of the time looking down at their phones.
mrandish 5y ago
This YouTube channel does a great job of analyzing and explaining "UFO" videos, including those mentioned in the article. They even do experiments and recreations to demonstrate the effects being seen. https://m.youtube.com/user/mickword https://m.youtube.com/user/mickword In one example, they were able to fully explain a previously "mysterious" UFO seen in a video taken by a military helicopter in South America. Thanks to the overlaid GPS coordinates and time, they were able to create a 3D model recreating the camera's viewpoint and then overlay the flight tracking data from that day. That along with weather information allowed them to demonstrate that the UFO was in fact an IR reflection from a commercial airliner as seen through a somewhat rare but well-understood atmospheric effect combined with lens blooming. It was impressive sleuthing and very cool to see the flight's 3D track line up exactly with the mysterious blob from the helicopter's POV.
- jk7tarYZAQNpTQa 5y ago
  Mick West is a commonly known "debunker". IMO he's not interested in objectively finding the truth, he wants to debunk at all cost. He has his conclusion before he starts analyzing the evidence. He's even known to edit pictures [1] so that they prove his point. He said in an interview that he's doing it in part because he was terrified of UFOs as a kid [2]. And in general, he will just ignore the evidence he can't explain, and focus on what he thinks he can explain. "Radar logs show something traveling at 50k mph, and eye witnesses claim it was Ferrari red. Since it's Ferrari red, it's obviously just a Ferrari". If you want to listen to opinions that contradict West, listen for example to Cmdr David Fravor [3], or Robert Powell [4]. He reminds me of the Condon Comittee. In "The Edge of Reality", Allen Hynek claims that in the first week of the investigations the conclusions were already being written on the boards. [1] https://twitter.com/4Eridani/status/1387157151232167936 https://twitter.com/4Eridani/status/1387157151232167936 [2] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentagon-started-taking-ufos-seriously https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentag... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBt4CNHyAck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBt4CNHyAck [4] https://open.spotify.com/episode/2ZFg3HmKpFf9rKvm6oaY9v?si=211e03dacdb94d43 https://open.spotify.com/episode/2ZFg3HmKpFf9rKvm6oaY9v?si=2...
hindsightbias 5y ago
> UFOs were spotted in restricted U.S. airspace “every day for at least a couple years.” You’d think people would put 2 and 2 together. But many will always see 5. These are the most highly instumented areas of the planet. Just look at google maps of San Nicolas island off San Diego. A Navy range bristling with the most advanced electro-optical and radar sensors on earth. But like you say, always a fuzzy polaroid. It’s strange when forums of supposed contrarian rationalists are so herdish.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  > These are the most highly instumented areas of the planet. Just look at google maps of San Nicolas island off San Diego. A Navy range bristling with the most advanced electro-optical and radar sensors on earth. The more highly-sophisticated equipment you have tracking one area, the more likely you are to get false readings in that area, assuming the equipment has any kind of failure rate. For a comparison, LHC has "seen" many millions of much more impressive events, with much more sensitive equipment. They don't go publishing about new particles every day though, because they know how to account for measurement flukes in their instruments.
Macha 5y ago
If there was good documentation, they would be identified, and therefore no longer be unidentified flying objects.

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago

Same with Big Foot.

elevaet 5y ago
Big Foot/Yeti are bears walking bipedally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vqI_jC_qcY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vqI_jC_qcY It looks a lot more humanoid or ape-like when the bear is far away or the resolution is grainy.

thebigspacefuck 5y ago

I found this video enlightening. It’s a bunch of objects people might call UFOs getting zoomed in on by a Coolpix P1000 https://youtu.be/s64qV134Xis https://youtu.be/s64qV134Xis

kimixa 5y ago

I'd suggest that if they had clear images, they would be less likely to be "unidentified" flying objects, and then identified as mundane things. Like a known object with some unexpected angle or optical illusion making it appear to do "impossible" things, or a sensor artifact or interference. Or a combination.

anonporridge 5y ago

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExIGSZ3UUAQ22gV?format=jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExIGSZ3UUAQ22gV?format=jpg Q.E.D.

partiallypro 5y ago

Go to an airshow and take pictures. Most of them will be awful. Taking pictures of aircraft that are miles up in the sky is not easy for an amateur photographer, even today with better cameras most people are relying on digital zoom instead of optical zoom. Anyhow -most- of the photos taken from US Aircraft are clearly balloons, some consumer but most spying; it's a huge intelligence failure that these incidents aren't reported to the higher ups when -most- of it is clearly enemy spying. The War Zone did a few good pieces on this. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31151/area-51-veteran-and-cia-electronic-warfare-pioneer-weigh-in-on-navy-ufo-encounters https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31151/area-51-veteran-... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40054/adversary-drones-are-spying-on-the-u-s-and-the-pentagon-acts-like-theyre-ufos https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40054/adversary-drones... As for the super high speed phenomena being observed, I have serious doubts that it is an adversary given US defense spending, so they are either secret projects or something beyond. The article (from NRO) claims the fast objects are distorted by a parallax effect but seem to ignore the radar signature showing similar speed to what is visually observed...not the speed of a bird or a balloon. The theories in this NRO are pretty laughable to be perfectly honest in regards to some of the cases that are clearly not commercial aircraft, birds, etc as the author claims. Clearly making a joke out of what is possibly a serious national security issue in regards to enemy spying, especially. The Drive (War Zone) write ups take the issue far more seriously, and rightfully so, I'd recommend them.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jk7tarYZAQNpTQa 5y ago
> Go to an airshow and take pictures. Most of them will be awful. Taking pictures of aircraft that are miles up in the sky is not easy for an amateur photographer, even today with better cameras most people are relying on digital zoom instead of optical zoom. Go ask a room of random people to go outside and take a video of a bird in flight. You'll see how bad both people and smartphones are at it. Add to that that most UFO phenomenons happen at night, and that people nowadays walk 99% of the time looking down at their phones.

mrandish 5y ago

This YouTube channel does a great job of analyzing and explaining "UFO" videos, including those mentioned in the article. They even do experiments and recreations to demonstrate the effects being seen. https://m.youtube.com/user/mickword https://m.youtube.com/user/mickword In one example, they were able to fully explain a previously "mysterious" UFO seen in a video taken by a military helicopter in South America. Thanks to the overlaid GPS coordinates and time, they were able to create a 3D model recreating the camera's viewpoint and then overlay the flight tracking data from that day. That along with weather information allowed them to demonstrate that the UFO was in fact an IR reflection from a commercial airliner as seen through a somewhat rare but well-understood atmospheric effect combined with lens blooming. It was impressive sleuthing and very cool to see the flight's 3D track line up exactly with the mysterious blob from the helicopter's POV.

jk7tarYZAQNpTQa 5y ago
Mick West is a commonly known "debunker". IMO he's not interested in objectively finding the truth, he wants to debunk at all cost. He has his conclusion before he starts analyzing the evidence. He's even known to edit pictures [1] so that they prove his point. He said in an interview that he's doing it in part because he was terrified of UFOs as a kid [2]. And in general, he will just ignore the evidence he can't explain, and focus on what he thinks he can explain. "Radar logs show something traveling at 50k mph, and eye witnesses claim it was Ferrari red. Since it's Ferrari red, it's obviously just a Ferrari". If you want to listen to opinions that contradict West, listen for example to Cmdr David Fravor [3], or Robert Powell [4]. He reminds me of the Condon Comittee. In "The Edge of Reality", Allen Hynek claims that in the first week of the investigations the conclusions were already being written on the boards. [1] https://twitter.com/4Eridani/status/1387157151232167936 https://twitter.com/4Eridani/status/1387157151232167936 [2] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentagon-started-taking-ufos-seriously https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentag... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBt4CNHyAck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBt4CNHyAck [4] https://open.spotify.com/episode/2ZFg3HmKpFf9rKvm6oaY9v?si=211e03dacdb94d43 https://open.spotify.com/episode/2ZFg3HmKpFf9rKvm6oaY9v?si=2...

hindsightbias 5y ago

> UFOs were spotted in restricted U.S. airspace “every day for at least a couple years.” You’d think people would put 2 and 2 together. But many will always see 5. These are the most highly instumented areas of the planet. Just look at google maps of San Nicolas island off San Diego. A Navy range bristling with the most advanced electro-optical and radar sensors on earth. But like you say, always a fuzzy polaroid. It’s strange when forums of supposed contrarian rationalists are so herdish.

tsimionescu 5y ago
> These are the most highly instumented areas of the planet. Just look at google maps of San Nicolas island off San Diego. A Navy range bristling with the most advanced electro-optical and radar sensors on earth. The more highly-sophisticated equipment you have tracking one area, the more likely you are to get false readings in that area, assuming the equipment has any kind of failure rate. For a comparison, LHC has "seen" many millions of much more impressive events, with much more sensitive equipment. They don't go publishing about new particles every day though, because they know how to account for measurement flukes in their instruments.

Macha 5y ago

If there was good documentation, they would be identified, and therefore no longer be unidentified flying objects.