Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Best ufo photo ever taken?

#31
Magical Realist Offline
Quote:No, they're defined as being perceived to defy conventional explanation or not being identified as a familiar object. That does not exclude man-made objects.

Yes it does. Man-made is a conventional explanation. UFO as defined excludes that.

Quote:These still pictures definitely don't defy conventional explanation...unless you think Christmas lights and drones are unconventional or unfamiliar.

Christmas lights don't float in the sky and drones aren't metallic discs zipping by at high speeds.
Reply
#32
Syne Offline
(Dec 14, 2018 06:03 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:No, they're defined as being perceived to defy conventional explanation or not being identified as a familiar object. That does not exclude man-made objects.

Yes it does. Man-made is a conventional explanation. UFO as defined excludes that.
I guess you missed the parts about it only being "perceived" to defy conventional explanation and witnesses being unreliable.
Quote:
Quote:These still pictures definitely don't defy conventional explanation...unless you think Christmas lights and drones are unconventional or unfamiliar.

Christmas lights don't float in the sky and drones aren't metallic discs zipping by at high speeds.

Can't tell from that picture where the lights are, and yes, drones can be metallic and do zip around at high-speeds making sudden direction changes.

[Image: ufo-drone-rc-quadcopter-helicopter-cx-31...rnssbL.jpg]
[Image: ufo-drone-rc-quadcopter-helicopter-cx-31...rnssbL.jpg]


[Image: 43365cf73eb3d469a200d32701dca16d.jpg]
[Image: 43365cf73eb3d469a200d32701dca16d.jpg]



[Image: v6uskn4mbtcrx3b7noqr.gif]
[Image: v6uskn4mbtcrx3b7noqr.gif]


[Image: worlds-fastest-drone.gif]
[Image: worlds-fastest-drone.gif]

Reply
#33
Magical Realist Offline
Let's look at that definition again:

A ufo is"the reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon the land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible."

Nope..manmade explanation is not possible. That's why we call it a ufo, as in unidentified.

Quote:Can't tell from that picture where the lights are, and yes, drones can be metallic and do zip around at high-speeds making sudden direction changes.

Nope..doesn't look like that in the photo. Drones travel way too slow compared to ufos and are way too small. And they were seen and photographed long before there were drones. UFOs are beyond anything humans can create. They are flying discs and oval shaped objects that hover silently and zip around and even appear and disappear. We have no technology like that.
Reply
#34
Syne Offline
(Dec 14, 2018 08:21 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: Let's look at that definition again:

A ufo is"the reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon the land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible."

Nope..manmade explanation is not possible. That's why we call it a ufo, as in unidentified.
Yeah, "reported perception" doesn't mean it is accurate, considering every study on the unreliability of witnesses. "All available evidence" to the technically capable is notoriously of very poor quality.

Plenty of room for mundane origins. But true believers like you will never admit that. It all has to be unicorns to you.  Angel

Quote:
Quote:Can't tell from that picture where the lights are, and yes, drones can be metallic and do zip around at high-speeds making sudden direction changes.

Nope..doesn't look like that in the photo. Drones travel way too slow compared to ufos and are way too small. And they were seen and photographed long before there were drones. UFOs are beyond anything humans can create. They are flying discs and oval shaped objects that hover silently and zip around and even appear and disappear. We have no technology like that.

So...you think a still image can show how fast something moves?

And you think all new and/or experimental technology is know to the general public as soon as it exists?

We only have inherently unreliable witnesses to speak to something that supposedly hovers silently, and grainy photos and shaky, out of focus video for things that supposedly appear and disappear. We do have technology that can either replicate those photos and videos or actually replicate the observed characteristics and performance (and we've had the photo/video capability for a long time with practical effects).

But denial is often strong in the dogmatic believer.  Angel

And apparently you've never seen the size of a military drone either.

[Image: Class-III-military-drone.jpg]
[Image: Class-III-military-drone.jpg]



Nor passenger drones:

[Image: 3EAB859400000578-4352540-image-a-38_1490610836618.jpg]
[Image: 3EAB859400000578-4352540-image-a-38_1490610836618.jpg]


Rolleyes


Nope, your obvious and complete lack of knowledge of all these existing, man-made things just illustrates that many people can be quite unaware of what mundane things exists. They just don't go looking for things that could upset their delicate beliefs.
Reply
#35
Yazata Offline
(Mar 6, 2016 11:24 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: Best ufo photo ever taken?

I'm glad that you put a question mark at the end of that.

Quote:

[Image: ad_198944982.jpg?w=748&h=417&crop=1]
[Image: ad_198944982.jpg?w=748&h=417&crop=1]


Are you proposing this as a candidate for "best"? If so, why?

What makes it a good ufo photo in your opinion?
Reply
#36
Magical Realist Offline
(Dec 14, 2018 06:48 PM)Yazata Wrote:
(Mar 6, 2016 11:24 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: Best ufo photo ever taken?

I'm glad that you put a question mark at the end of that.

Quote:

[Image: ad_198944982.jpg?w=748&h=417&crop=1]
[Image: ad_198944982.jpg?w=748&h=417&crop=1]


Are you proposing this as a candidate for "best"? If so, why?

What makes it a good ufo photo in your opinion?

The disc shape and the lights. I can't think of a more ufo-like photo. I suppose there are many other photos that are clearer, but this one stood out to me because of the account given of it. That taken with the photo itself makes this an impressive example imo. Perhaps I should post more photos of ufos in this thread that would qualify as among the best.


[Image: 1987connecticut-57bbe9363df78c87638f9592.jpg]
[Image: 1987connecticut-57bbe9363df78c87638f9592.jpg]



"Randy Etting was taking a walk outside his home. A commercial airline pilot with over 30 years experience, he spent a lot of time looking at the sky. On the night he took the photograph, he saw a number of orange and red lights approaching from the west. He got his binoculars and called his neighbors to come outside. By this time, the object was a great deal closer and seemed to be over I-84, just east of Etting's home. The lights were shimmering like distortion from engine heat, but he could hear no sound. Etting stated: "As the UFO passed over I-84, cars in both the east and west bound lanes began pulling over and stopping. The UFO displayed a semi-circular pattern of very bright multicolored lights. Five motorists reported that, as the object became visible, a number of cars lost power and had to pull off the highway."---- https://www.thoughtco.com/ufo-photographs-4123245
Reply
#37
Magical Realist Offline
Quote:Yeah, "reported perception" doesn't mean it is accurate, considering every study on the unreliability of witnesses. "All available evidence" to the technically capable is notoriously of very poor quality.

Plenty of room for mundane origins. But true believers like you will never admit that. It all has to be unicorns to you.

Nope..it remains unidentified after all attempts to explain it are exhausted. Project Bluebook was the USAF investigation into ufos for years, and they turned up thousands of true ufos. You don't think they'd know if it was some top secret military craft? Ofcourse they'd know. But such never turned up.

Quote:So...you think a still image can show how fast something moves?

And you think all new and/or experimental technology is know to the general public as soon as it exists?

No..we have no technology of metallic disc-shaped craft that can hover in place silently and then speed off at thousands of mph and then stop on a dime. They have also been observed to morph in their shape and disappear only to reappear in a different location in the sky. This is what we observe with UFOs, and there is no technology known to anyone that can support these characteristics.

Quote:Nope, your obvious and complete lack of knowledge of all these existing, man-made things just illustrates that many people can be quite unaware of what mundane things exists. They just don't go looking for things that could upset their delicate beliefs.

I'm not seeing any craft that can achieve the things we have observed of ufos listed above. There is no science or technology that can explain them. UFOs remain mysterious in their origins which is why we call them ufos. To say they're manmade craft is to deny UFOs exist. And that's your skeptical agenda again. You simply don't believe UFOs exist, which is why you deny all evidence and accounts of them as being faked or mistaken identifications.

Tehran ufo incident, 1976:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeNrsSVlKdY
Reply
#38
Syne Offline
(Dec 14, 2018 10:48 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:Yeah, "reported perception" doesn't mean it is accurate, considering every study on the unreliability of witnesses. "All available evidence" to the technically capable is notoriously of very poor quality.

Plenty of room for mundane origins. But true believers like you will never admit that. It all has to be unicorns to you.

Nope..it remains unidentified after all attempts to explain it are exhausted. Project Bluebook was the USAF investigation into ufos for years, and they turned up thousands of true ufos. You don't think they'd know if it was some top secret military craft? Ofcourse they'd know. But such never turned up.

Thousands of UFO reports were collected, analyzed and filed. As the result of the Condon Report (1968), which concluded there was nothing anomalous about UFOs, Project Blue Book was ordered shut down in December 1969 and the Air Force continues to provide the following summary of its investigations:

No UFO reported, investigated and evaluated by the Air Force was ever an indication of threat to our national security;
There was no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as "unidentified" represented technological developments or principles beyond the range of modern scientific knowledge; and
There was no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as "unidentified" were extraterrestrial vehicles.

By the time Project Blue Book ended, it had collected 12,618 UFO reports, and concluded that most of them were misidentifications of natural phenomena (clouds, stars, etc.) or conventional aircraft. According to the National Reconnaissance Office a number of the reports could be explained by flights of the formerly secret reconnaissance planes U-2 and A-12.
...
Ultimately, Project Blue Book stated that UFOs sightings were generated as a result of:

A mild form of mass hysteria.
Individuals who fabricate such reports to perpetrate a hoax or seek publicity.
Psychopathological persons.
Misidentification of various conventional objects.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Book


You were saying? Rolleyes
Quote:
Quote:So...you think a still image can show how fast something moves?

And you think all new and/or experimental technology is know to the general public as soon as it exists?

No..we have no technology of metallic disc-shaped craft that can hover in place silently and then speed off at thousands of mph and then stop on a dime. They have also been observed to morph in their shape and disappear only to reappear in a different location in the sky. This is what we observe with UFOs, and there is no technology known to anyone that can support these characteristics.
Ignoring the ones I've already shown you pictures of and the unreliability of witnesses, especially where wind and waves could obscure sound at a distance. You haven't posted any evidence of anything traveling thousands of mph and stopping on a dime in this thread. Can you at least link to where you have?

This being obscured in video or temporarily lost on radar are not all that rare. These things have their limits. Those excuses still do not explain why you place so much import on these still photos...aside from faith alone. Angel

Quote:
Quote:Nope, your obvious and complete lack of knowledge of all these existing, man-made things just illustrates that many people can be quite unaware of what mundane things exists. They just don't go looking for things that could upset their delicate beliefs.

I'm not seeing any craft that can achieve the things we have observed of ufos listed above. There is no science or technology that can explain them. UFOs remain mysterious in their origins which is why we call them ufos. To say they're manmade craft is to deny UFOs exist. And that's your skeptical agenda again. You simply don't believe UFOs exist, which is why you deny all evidence and accounts of them as being faked or mistaken identifications.

Of course you're not. That's how attentional bias works.

There was no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as "unidentified" represented technological developments or principles beyond the range of modern scientific knowledge;
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Book


No, saying they are likely man-made is not saying they have been identified. It just assumes the default null hypothesis until anything other than man-made is actually found and identified...lending at least an iota of credibility that such things even exist at all. "Mysterious" is not a synonym of "alien" or "non-human".

As I've said, many times now, it is trivial that unidentified flying objects exist, and I've never denied that they do. Even if they are faked or mistaken, they are still unidentified, as mistaken identity (which includes not knowing something is fake) doesn't magically identify something. Those things are still unidentified, hence still UFOs.

You're the dogmatic true believer who insists that we know enough to definitively rule out man-made objects, which belies that they are wholly unidentified. Angel
Reply
#39
Magical Realist Offline
https://www.nicap.org/bluebook/unknowns.htm

"THE UNEXPLAINED UFO CASES FROM THE PROJECT BLUE BOOK FILES

In January, 1974, I visited the U.S. Air Force Archives at Maxwell AFB, Montgomery, Ala., to review the files of Project Blue Book as the first step toward writing a book on the subject.

In a full week, I read all the "unexplained" cases in the original files and made extensive notes, including the names and other identifying information on all witnesses where given. The cooperation of the staff of the Archives was excellent, and no restrictions were placed on my work.

A few months later, the files were withdrawn from public view so they could be prepared for transfer to the National Archives in Washington, D.C. This process involved making a Xerox copy of almost 30 file drawers of material, blacking out the names and other identifiers of all witnesses, and then microfilming the censored Xerox copy. The microfilm has been available to the public at the National Archives since 1976. The original Project Blue Book files remain under lock and key at the Archives.

On almost every page of the 12,000+ case files, there are big black marks where information that could be used to cross-check Project Blue Book's controversial work has been censored.

This includes the names of witnesses to widely-publicized cases, and even names in newspaper clippings!

As it was perfectly legal for me to copy witness' names when I visited the Air Force Archives, those names can be found in this report of 585 (less 13 missing) unexplained cases. And since the Privacy Act, which motivated the Air Force to censor the files in the first place, does not apply to reporters or anyone else outside the Government, they can be used as the reader pleases.

Inasmuch as the book I planned to write has never progressed beyond the manuscript stage, I see no reason to keep this information under wraps any longer. Perhaps it will encourage others to re-investigate cases and make the results known.

"Unidentified" says a great deal...and it says almost nothing.

Probably the most controversial aspect of the entire Air Force investigation of UFOs was its handling of individual cases.

The means by which one case was determined to be "identified" and another "unidentified" has no doubt fueled more arguments about Project Blue Book than anything else it did.

For many years, Blue Book's most vocal opponents have insisted that the standards by which cases were allegedly explained were grossly unscientific. Blue Book's goal, according to those who held it low esteem, was to attach some explanation to every case, regardless of logic or common sense. Examples of Blue Book saying a violently maneuvering disc was an aircraft, or of blaming a puzzling radar tracking on a supposedly malfunctioning radar set which it never bothered to check out, are numerous in the popular UFO literature.

And they are even more numerous in the files of Project Blue Book. The urgency with which Blue Book officials tagged answers onto cases without having done the proper investigation is obvious, though not proven. But if the Air Force was so eager to label cases "identified", despite the lack of supporting evidence, then those few cases which it labeled "unidentified" presumably withstood every attempt to apply every other kind of label. And so it may be that those cases are truly unidentifiable in familiar terms.

Indeed, the Air Force defines "unidentifiable" cases as those which "apparently contain all pertinent data necessary to suggest a valid hypothesis concerning the lack of explanation of the report, but the description of the object or its motion cannot be correlated with any known object or phenomenon."

To meet such criteria, a report must obviously come from a reputable source, and it must not bear any resemblance to airplanes, balloons, helicopters, spacecraft, birds, clouds, stars, planets, meteors, comets, electrical phenomena, or anything else known to frequent the air, the sky, or nearby space.

Unfortunately, the Air Force failed to stick to its own rules. Some of the "unidentifiable" cases most certainly can be correlated with known objects or phenomena. But most of them cannot. Moreover, many of the so-called "identified" cases cannot honestly be so correlated. But we are primarily concerned here with those cases which Project Blue Book openly admits it tried to explain and failed.

The amount of detail in these cases varies enormously. Some cases - frequently those which were well publicized at the time of the event - contain considerable information, while others are vague and seriously incomplete. Project Blue Book generally placed the blame for such incompleteness on the witnesses, but it should take its own share of the responsibility. 'In thousands of cases, there is no completed questionnaire in the Project files, nor even any indication that one was sent to the witness. And in most of the instances where a questionnaire was filled out, it was never followed up to get more complete answers to questions which the witnesses failed to deal with properly. For much of the life of Project Blue Book and its predecessors, there was no satisfactory questionnaire at all. And one of those used for a lengthy period was so badly organized that a witness should not be held to blame for giving incomplete answers.

Yet, despite all the roadblocks, many reports are sufficiently complete to tell a pretty clear story of a puzzling experience. With this data now available, anyone can look at Project Blue Book's "unidentified" UFO reports and make up his own mind."

You were saying?

Quote:You haven't posted any evidence of anything traveling thousands of mph and stopping on a dime in this thread. Can you at least link to where you have?

I already posted a link to the Tehran ufo incident. If you ignored that, then that's on you.

Here's the famous case of the Belgian black triangle wave: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_UFO_wave

"The reported speed of UFOs varies dramatically. UFOs can hover silently for a long time then instantaneously fly off at great speeds--certainly much faster than conventional aircraft. They can move slowly across the sky, or perform unbelievable maneuvers, such as right angle turns, at incredibly high speeds. We do not know what powers UFOs, or why they have such maneuverability."----
http://www.cufos.org/FAQ_English_index.html

"On June 24, a civilian pilot named Kenneth Arnold reported seeing nine objects flying in formation near Mount Rainier. Arnold timed the sighting and estimated the speed of discs to be over 1,200 mph (1,931 km/h). At the time, he claimed he described the objects flying in a saucer-like fashion, leading to newspaper accounts of "flying saucers" and "flying discs"."---
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentifi...ing_object

"The Super Hornets flew to investigate the last known location of the object and to their surprise, found two objects. The first was large and just below the surface of the water, causing the water to churn. The second object hovered just 50 feet above the water, moving erratically.

The second object suddenly rose up and flew towards the Super Hornets, with one pilot. Commander David Fravor, saying it appeared it was rising up to meet him. The Hornet turned towards the object to meet it and the object peeled away, accelerating, “like nothing I’ve ever seen,” Fravor later said.

The Super Hornets conferred with the USS Princeton and were vectored to a CAP point 60 miles away. Within seconds, the pilots were told by the Princeton that radar had picked up the object already at the CAP point. By the time the Super Hornets arrived however the object had already disappeared."---
https://www.popularmechanics.com/militar...ith-a-ufo/

Quote:No, saying they are likely man-made is not saying they have been identified.

Yes it is. You're identifying it as a manmade craft based on nothing more than your disbelief in ufos. What you yourself call "unicorns". It's the classic skeptical agenda again. UFOS don't exist, therefore all evidence is either faked or mistaken identity.
Reply
#40
Syne Offline
(Dec 15, 2018 01:07 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: https://www.nicap.org/bluebook/unknowns.htm

You were saying?

A small percentage of UFO reports were classified as unexplained, even after stringent analysis. The UFO reports were archived and are available under the Freedom of Information Act, but names and other personal information of all witnesses have been redacted.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Book


And? O_o

No one can make a determination on insufficient evidence or information. Reading more into it is just a conspiracy theory about coverups.
Quote:
Quote:You haven't posted any evidence of anything traveling thousands of mph and stopping on a dime in this thread. Can you at least link to where you have?

I already posted a link to the Tehran ufo incident. If you ignored that, then that's on you.

Here's the famous case of the Belgian black triangle wave: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_UFO_wave

"The reported speed of UFOs varies dramatically. UFOs can hover silently for a long time then instantaneously fly off at great speeds--certainly much faster than conventional aircraft. They can move slowly across the sky, or perform unbelievable maneuvers, such as right angle turns, at incredibly high speeds. We do not know what powers UFOs, or why they have such maneuverability."----
http://www.cufos.org/FAQ_English_index.html
"Reported", i.e. inherently unreliable witnesses, not verified.

Quote:
Quote:No, saying they are likely man-made is not saying they have been identified.

Yes it is. You're identifying it as a manmade craft based on nothing more than your disbelief in ufos. It's the classic skeptical agenda. UFOS don't exist, therefore all evidence is either faked or mistaken identity.

Man-made could mean anything, like a mailbox, skateboard, concrete slab, etc.. If you think that alone actually identifies a flying object, you're off your rocker.
And you equivocating "unidentified flying object" to mean "not man-made" is just intellectually dishonest.

Good luck with all that crazy, little buddy. Wink
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Rare Photo of an Airplane Giving Birth Yazata 2 216 Jul 29, 2023 11:29 PM
Last Post: Yazata
  Did NASA Curiosity Rover catch Martian? Blurred figure in photo stirs controversy C C 0 401 Jun 18, 2018 06:16 PM
Last Post: C C
  The curious case of the alien in the photo -- and a mystery that took years to solve C C 3 503 Oct 2, 2017 01:15 AM
Last Post: Secular Sanity
  The screaming ghost photo Magical Realist 2 1,447 Apr 4, 2016 11:45 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  Best UFO documentary hands down Magical Realist 16 5,268 Mar 31, 2015 11:43 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)