There was a few car accidents after the SpaceX launch in LA recently with people stopping to take pictures.

That, or maybe you're just a bit out of touch with reality.

In an area with 13 million residents, a few accidents during rush hour surely doesn't equate to all people.

Traffic at that time on the 405 is going 4 or 5 miles per hour, as the joking but not really joking joke goes.

To wit, everyone on Earth isn't a 20-something that auto defaults to documenting their life story.

Yep.
The aliens must know this too, which is why they never let them see their spaceships. They only go visible when olds who left their camcorder at home are around.

I'm saying UFOs- "Unidentified Flying Objects"- are real. That doesn't mean they're alien spacecraft. The definition encompasses all possibilities one of those which is the ETH or Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis.

Such a hypothesis is very improbable imo. It seems to be more popular in the US, Brazil & Russia but not so taken in Western Europe. But it's just one of several hypotheses, all of which are covered under the term "UFOs".

So it's not a question on whether they're real, it's what exactly are they & again, imo there's no singular explanation. Some are misidentified, or natural phenomena, or classified aircraft or unknowns. The "unknowns" aren't necessarily extra terrestrial spacecraft. They're simply unknown at present.

There are tons of UFO photos, and cell phones have only increased the amount of photos that are available.

The problem is that there aren't any good photos, but you refuse to stand under a streetlamp and try to take an excellent photo of that to see why this is the case.

Of course, it is possible that every single photo taken is just a plate tossed into the sky, a weather balloon, flairs, or other easy to explain phenomenon. To say that people aren't taking photos of "UFOs" today is a straight-up lie.

No, the problem is that your logic fails because anyone in this thread can go outside and see a street lamp at any time, while nobody can go look at an alien spaceship. There is no reason to take a photo of a street lamp.

However, lots of people have! This should keep you busy for a while:
https://www.google.com/search?q=stre...iw=360&bih=560

Sigh.... you don't get that many of those are taken on a stationary tripod using a high-end camera, chosen at a perfect time, angle. using filters, fixed in Lightroom, and so on. Despite these facts, you can see how crummy many of those are. None of the street lamps are moving.

It's okay to be ignorant of ****ty cell phone cameras, lumens, stabilization, and contrast, but please do the experiment yourself. You are literally using the same arguments that people use about the moon landings. "Oh, look, no stars!" Yeah... no ****ing stars man...

Cameras are not human eyes. I'm sad that this has to be explained to people.

Ignorant?
Aren't you the one who claims to have seen an alien spaceship?



Its also pretty convenient that aliens only cruise around near camera-less olds when it's night time. No day flying aliens! Oh, by the way, would you also like me to take a picture of a street lamp during the day?

Wasn't there that whole NYC thing, with videos and photo, that happened during the day? There are a lot of daylight photos of UFOs.

There are like 1,000 photos per day submitted to MUFON and other places. Hell, you can do a short search on YouTube that talks about how many photos get submitted, the proper way to take a photo when you do see a UFO, and so on. You can continue to make wild claims, but they don't hold up to the numbers at all.

I can only claim that I saw something very strange. This took place Ohio, but since that state means nothing to you, I guess you wouldn't know that the state has some of the most advanced aerial research bases in the USA.

And once again, a cellphone (or any camera that doesn't have attachments) cannot take photos very well if:

a- the target is at night

b- if the target has too much light (at night)

c- if the target has too little light (at night)

d- if the target is moving

e- if the target is far away.

f- (why am I doing this if you can just look it up yourself?)

This is why there is still a market for expensive cameras, telephoto lenses, RAW manipulation programs, filters, lumen measurement tools, and so on. You really think professionals would bother spending $1000 on a lens if a cell phone came within 100 standard deviations of quality? Of course not.

So, yes, the photo evidence is out there, both day and night, but the problem is figuring out if any portion of that is unexplained (which doesn't mean it's an ET). The problem is that everyone isn't walking around with $5,000 of camera equipment, nor do they have the proper knowledge set, to take high-quality photos.

The problem is that aliens seem to appear to a very select group of people. That are in Kansas. On a farm.

They never seem to hover over a huge outdoor concert or sporting event for a few minutes. Where there are professionals with super-duper cameras.

Sigh...

http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=new+york+city+ufo+2010

And also, regarding the places where UFO sighting occur...

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/...across-us.html

let's not get ahead of ourselves and assume aliens. it could just as plausibly be a superintelligent AI sending drones back in time

Dave,


Youre being really odd about the phone thing. You dont need a magazine cover quality photo to take a pic of a UFO.

I myself have photographed various discernable objects with my phone.

Citation needed. Just because that is true on Earth does not mean that it is true everywhere. While life can survive some amazingly hash conditions, it has to get there or develop locally first. We have no idea yet how common the spontaneous development of life is. It could be unique, though I seriously doubt it.

Again, I'm not saying that it's impossible. Yes it only takes one, but since we have no idea what the denominator is in that ratio, saying "so at least one of them must have been real" is spurious.

To take photos in low light you need a big hole in your camera to let more light in. Phone cameras are great when there's lots of light around, but in low light they either have to increase the ISO (which makes photos very grainy/noisy) or slow the shutter speed, which makes it impossible to get a sharp photo of a moving object, or even a still object without a tripod.

That assumes that the UFOs mostly fly around at night. There may be lots of great phone-camera shots of UFOs during the day, but I've never seen them as they'd never be in the news and I would never seek out photos of UFOs. Maybe someone that loves UFOs could post a good UFO photo or video here.

Maybe you don't need a magazine quality photo, but as the saying goes: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

If a photo has any reasonable doubt attached to it, it's going to (correctly) be dismissed out of hand.

This means that you have to have a stable, close-up, image of a UFO in broad daylight. The UFO can't be moving across the sky, it can't be too far away, etc, because that diminishes the quality of the photo or video. And don't even think about pushing that through PhotoShop to fix it.

The odds of having a UFO just chilling perfectly still in the sky 100ft above your head for 10 minutes while you take the time to adjust for angle, direct sunlight, shadows, and so on sounds like super low odds, don't you agree?

This is the problem. We, as consumers, are so used to seeing simple photos on the internet that we don't really appreciate how the conditions are optimized from the phone to the poster only pushing up 1/10th of the photos they've taken. We also don't quite comprehend that many of the amazing photos we see are are taken on high-quality DSL cameras and pushed through photoshop.

I once photographed the Oscar Meyer Weinermobile while driving on the interstate. People could tell what it was.

If the Oscar Wienermobile was was 500ft in the sky and the sun was directly behind it, that's pretty impressive.

a UFO... yep, I'd say that sounds like super low odds!
I think you're getting the point now!

wow, what if it was? that wouldn't even be a UFO that's definitely aliens

You asserted that there is no daylight photographic evidence in any populous area. I linked to the NYC UFO sighting from 2010 which happened in the daylight, had millions of witnesses and video / photographic evidence, yet you keep on with it.

The evidence is admittedly flimsy. You're problem is that you are a bad skeptic, basically uneducated on the topics you wish to debunk. When the person you are attempting to debunk is more knowledgeable that you are, you need to consider getting yourself educated.

If you don't know **** about photography, don't debunk anything dealing with photography because you are way out your knowledge zone. You ask why there is no good photo evidence and I'm breaking it down for you, and you are the one missing the point over and over again. The funny part is that you don't realize how downright simple it would be to trick you with photographic evidence.

I'd suspect that was the Oscar Wienermobile 3017 that took a wrong left turn and ended up in a time warp.

yes, I'm sure you could easily trick me with photographic evidence.
fwiw I believe you're the only person itt who tried to get into a photography discussion. Im simply pointing out the obvious flaws with your claim. Flaws even golfnutt immediately saw!

how many alien spaceships have you seen btw?

Lots have been reported this year:

https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/califo...ings-490-2017/

Okay, are you going to actually look at photos or are you going to claim that there are zero photos taken on a cell phone by people in a populous area? What are you afraid or finding, that you're wrong about zero photo evidence?

If it matters, the military isn't a lone farmer in Nebraska.