Best ufo photo ever taken?

#51
Quote:The second one doesn't have a cabin or a fuselage, so if you think you see those, you're imagining things.


LOL! I can see the fuselage and the engines clearly on the aircraft. You're an idiot if you can't see them.

It's a drone, moron. You see the electronics package and landing struts.
West Virginia House approves penalties and limits on drone use

LOL! Wow..a tiny drone. No..this is nothing like the large ufo seen in the distance. Read the report..

Quote:Again:
At a greater distance, in poor light, and with a crappy camera, you wouldn't be able to discern the cockpit on this either:

[Image: 9.jpg]

And there was a B2 bomber named Spirit of Indiana in active service in 2008.

I can see the hump of the fuselage even on that one. Nothing like the straight edges of the ufo. Plus the ufo stayed where it was for 2-3 minutes making no noise. No bomber could do that.
Reply
#52
(Dec 16, 2018 03:45 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:The second one doesn't have a cabin or a fuselage, so if you think you see those, you're imagining things.


LOL! I can see the fuselage and the engines clearly on the aircraft. You're an idiot if you can't see them.

It's a drone, moron. You see the electronics package and landing struts.
West Virginia House approves penalties and limits on drone use

LOL! Wow..a tiny drone. No..this is nothing like the large ufo seen in the distance. Read the report..
Yes, a tiny drone....that you said "I can see the fuselage and the engines clearly on the aircraft" about. So you've obviously proven that you can easily mistake a small drone for a full-size aircraft, with fuselage and engines.

For the umpteenth time, witnesses are unreliable. And you've proven that even for you looking at photos.

And I never said your picture was a drone. Just proving my point about mistaken identification. But no doubt you'll run with yet another straw man anyway.
Quote:
Quote:Again:
At a greater distance, in poor light, and with a crappy camera, you wouldn't be able to discern the cockpit on this either:

[Image: 9.jpg]

And there was a B2 bomber named Spirit of Indiana in active service in 2008.

I can see the hump of the fuselage even on that one. Nothing like the straight edges of the ufo. Give up?

Yes, that's why I said "At a greater distance, in poor light, and with a crappy camera", like the picture you posted.
Reply
#53
(Dec 16, 2018 03:53 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Dec 16, 2018 03:45 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:The second one doesn't have a cabin or a fuselage, so if you think you see those, you're imagining things.


LOL! I can see the fuselage and the engines clearly on the aircraft. You're an idiot if you can't see them.

It's a drone, moron. You see the electronics package and landing struts.
West Virginia House approves penalties and limits on drone use

LOL! Wow..a tiny drone. No..this is nothing like the large ufo seen in the distance. Read the report..
Yes, a tiny drone....that you said "I can see the fuselage and the engines clearly on the aircraft" about. So you've obviously proven that you can easily mistake a small drone for a full-size aircraft, with fuselage and engines.

For the umpteenth time, witnesses are unreliable. And you've proven that even for you looking at photos.

And I never said your picture was a drone. Just proving my point about mistaken identification. But no doubt you'll run with yet another straw man anyway.
Quote:
Quote:Again:
At a greater distance, in poor light, and with a crappy camera, you wouldn't be able to discern the cockpit on this either:

[Image: 9.jpg]

And there was a B2 bomber named Spirit of Indiana in active service in 2008.

I can see the hump of the fuselage even on that one. Nothing like the straight edges of the ufo. Give up?

Yes, that's why I said "At a greater distance, in poor light, and with a crappy camera", like the picture you posted.

So you're saying it isn't a drone. Got it. Then that was a total red herring. And there IS sufficient lighting to see a fuselage on the ufo if it had one. But it doesn't. It's a straight edge all the way across. Plus the witness report said the ufo stayed where it was for 2-3 minutes making no noise. No bomber could do that. Give up yet?
Reply
#54
(Dec 16, 2018 04:04 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: So you're saying it isn't a drone. Got it. Then that was a total red herring. And there IS sufficient lighting to see a fuselage on the ufo if it had one. But it doesn't. It's a straight edge all the way across. Plus the witness report said the ufo stayed where it was for 2-3 minutes making no noise. No bomber could do that. Give up yet?

No red herring at all. It got YOU to prove MY point, that YOU can't even tell which is an aircraft between the two, not in size, distance, nor even features, in pictures.

That picture is obviously grainy, poorly lit, and, at best, at an unknown distance. Witnesses are unreliable, even just in their estimation of time, and a B2 could be coming toward the camera, where engines are pretty quiet until an aircraft passes the viewer, i.e. the engines are facing you.
Notice the massive difference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1JSFqImfdg
And these are all close flybys.

Rolleyes
Reply
#55
Quote:That picture is obviously grainy, poorly lit, and, at best, at an unknown distance. Witnesses are unreliable, even just in their estimation of time, and a B2 could be coming toward the camera, where engines are pretty quiet until an aircraft passes the viewer, i.e. the engines are facing you.
Notice the massive difference.

We go by the eyewitness's account, not by what others like you say who weren't there and who seek only to disprove ufos. As I already pointed out, there's no fuselage on the ufo, and it was hovering in place for 2-3 minutes making no noise. A stealth bomber would've flown in and out of there within 10 seconds. Also the eyewitness talks about the blurry turbulence underneath the ufo. This is a common detail often reported with ufos, particularly with black triangles. I don't expect you to know this, but that is what happens and what is observed. I'm sorry it upsets you that ufos exist, but they do. And this is only one of thousands of eyewitness accounts. You'll cope with this somehow. Life will go on.
Reply
#56
(Dec 16, 2018 05:59 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:That picture is obviously grainy, poorly lit, and, at best, at an unknown distance. Witnesses are unreliable, even just in their estimation of time, and a B2 could be coming toward the camera, where engines are pretty quiet until an aircraft passes the viewer, i.e. the engines are facing you.
Notice the massive difference.

We go by the eyewitness's account, not by what others like you say who weren't there and who seek only to disprove ufos. As I already pointed out, there's no fuselage on the ufo, and it was hovering in place for 2-3 minutes making no noise. A stealth bomber would've flown in and out of there within 10 seconds. Also the eyewitness talks about the blurry turbulence underneath the ufo. This is a common detail often reported with ufos, particularly with black triangles. I don't expect you to know this, but that is what happens and what is observed. I'm sorry it upsets you that ufos exist, but they do. And this is only one of thousands of eyewitness accounts. You'll cope with this somehow. Life will go on.

No, we don't. We don't just accept a witness account, in science, in law, or when sane people are being asked to believe something without any firsthand, or multiple corroborating, evidence they can assess for themselves. As YOU'VE already demonstrated, you thought you saw a full-sized aircraft, with fuselage, cabin, and engines, when it was actually only a drone, that was much closer, smaller, and without fuselage, cabin, and engines. And as demonstrated, jets don't make much noise at a distance when coming toward an observer.

Wait, now you're claiming it's a "black triangle"? You do know what else is a black triangle, right?

And he actually said "a sort of wavy-ness of the air surrounding the object", which is expected of jets, not turbulence underneath it.

[Image: 14207532542_c25fb1c0fb_b.jpg]

Common details of UFO reports available to anyone is no surprise. That's why police investigations keep details confidential, so they can use them to assess the credibility of any witnesses, thus corroborating their story.


Again, for the umpteenth time, UFOs exist. Your repeated and desperate attempt to make that straw man just illustrates you're need to justify your beliefs. You're the only one who feels the need to equivocate "unidentified flying object" as necessarily not man-made, when "unidentified" cannot possibly rule that out. Remember that Chinese lantern you were sure was a UFO? It was a UFO because you couldn't identify it, and would have been man-made, even if you never did identify it (which didn't seem likely without my skepticism).


Studies have established that the majority of UFO observations are misidentified conventional objects or natural phenomena—most commonly aircraft, balloons, noctilucent clouds, nacreous clouds, or astronomical objects such as meteors or bright planets with a small percentage even being hoaxes. Between 5% and 20% of reported sightings are not explained, and therefore can be classified as unidentified in the strictest sense. While proponents of the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) suggest that these unexplained reports are of alien spacecraft, the null hypothesis cannot be excluded that these reports are simply other more prosaic phenomena that cannot be identified due to lack of complete information or due to the necessary subjectivity of the reports.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentifi...ct#Studies

Reply
#57
(Dec 16, 2018 08:36 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Dec 16, 2018 05:59 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:That picture is obviously grainy, poorly lit, and, at best, at an unknown distance. Witnesses are unreliable, even just in their estimation of time, and a B2 could be coming toward the camera, where engines are pretty quiet until an aircraft passes the viewer, i.e. the engines are facing you.
Notice the massive difference.

We go by the eyewitness's account, not by what others like you say who weren't there and who seek only to disprove ufos. As I already pointed out, there's no fuselage on the ufo, and it was hovering in place for 2-3 minutes making no noise. A stealth bomber would've flown in and out of there within 10 seconds. Also the eyewitness talks about the blurry turbulence underneath the ufo. This is a common detail often reported with ufos, particularly with black triangles. I don't expect you to know this, but that is what happens and what is observed. I'm sorry it upsets you that ufos exist, but they do. And this is only one of thousands of eyewitness accounts. You'll cope with this somehow. Life will go on.

No, we don't. We don't just accept a witness account, in science, in law, or when sane people are being asked to believe something without any firsthand, or multiple corroborating, evidence they can assess for themselves. As YOU'VE already demonstrated, you thought you saw a full-sized aircraft, with fuselage, cabin, and engines, when it was actually only a drone, that was much closer, smaller, and without fuselage, cabin, and engines. And as demonstrated, jets don't make much noise at a distance when coming toward an observer.

Wait, now you're claiming it's a "black triangle"? You do know what else is a black triangle, right?

And he actually said "a sort of wavy-ness of the air surrounding the object", which is expected of jets, not turbulence underneath it.

[Image: 14207532542_c25fb1c0fb_b.jpg]

Common details of UFO reports available to anyone is no surprise. That's why police investigations keep details confidential, so they can use them to assess the credibility of any witnesses, thus corroborating their story.


Again, for the umpteenth time, UFOs exist. Your repeated and desperate attempt to make that straw man just illustrates you're need to justify your beliefs. You're the only one who feels the need to equivocate "unidentified flying object" as necessarily not man-made, when "unidentified" cannot possibly rule that out. Remember that Chinese lantern you were sure was a UFO? It was a UFO because you couldn't identify it, and would have been man-made, even if you never did identify it (which didn't seem likely without my skepticism).


Studies have established that the majority of UFO observations are misidentified conventional objects or natural phenomena—most commonly aircraft, balloons, noctilucent clouds, nacreous clouds, or astronomical objects such as meteors or bright planets with a small percentage even being hoaxes. Between 5% and 20% of reported sightings are not explained, and therefore can be classified as unidentified in the strictest sense. While proponents of the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) suggest that these unexplained reports are of alien spacecraft, the null hypothesis cannot be excluded that these reports are simply other more prosaic phenomena that cannot be identified due to lack of complete information or due to the necessary subjectivity of the reports.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentifi...ct#Studies


Still in denial of ufos I see. We've gone from drone to stealth bomber to jet fighter in the space of 2 pages now. What next? Swamp gas? Like I said, we go by what the eyewitness reports, always. We do not change their accounts to suit our conclusion that what they saw was really an aircraft. That's called confirmation bias, and you should know better. Ufos as defined as nothing manmade or natural DO exist. That's the blunt truth here. We have them confirmed over and over again in thousands of accounts from credible witnesses ranging from pilots, policemen, military personel, etc. It's just the way it is. Maybe you should study up on the subject more to give yourself more credibility. You're certainly not doing that by altering eyewitness accounts to match your conclusion about it being something identified and mundane. Google ufo evidence and find out about the accounts themselves. You may be surprised at what you learn.

"The official position of the scientific establishment is that humans are not aware of the existence of any extraterrestrial civilizations, which is true. We have not found them; a scientific discovery must be repeatable and documented. That does not mean, however, that they have not found us. The amount of testimonial evidence, by credible witnesses, is overwhelming. While testimonial evidence is not "scientific" - in the sense that it cannot be repeated - testimonial evidence is still quite strong, especially when the witnesses who claim to have seen the same event are numerous and credible. There are a number of well-documented and compelling cases, including:

Japanese Airlines Flight 1628: on November 17, 1986 JAL 1628 - a 747 cargo flight carrying wine from Paris to Tokyo - was flying over Alaska when the three-person crew, led by Captain Terauchi, saw an extraordinary craft, whose size they described "as large as two aircraft carriers." The craft was the shape of a walnut and included smaller craft flying around the "mother ship". This sighting was credible because three crew members observed the craft for 45 minutes, as the craft followed JAL 1628, because the 747 flew very close to the UFO, because the enormous craft was captured on both civilian and military radar, and because a White House science panel (Reagan administration) convened an urgent meeting to examine the evidence from the radars. A high level FAA official, Calahan, was present at the meeting, and despite being ordered by officials to keep silent, Calahan has spoken out about this incident, as has Captain Terauchi. One thing was confirmed from this incident; government officials do not want to inform the public about such incidents.

Rendlesham Forrest Incident - in 1980, UFOs buzzed over, and even landed on, a US military airbase in the UK, near Sufolk England, at the Woodbridge airbase (two bases, operated by the UK and US). Dozens of US Airforce personnel saw the UFOs, including Lt. Col Charles Halt, who has spoken out about this incident, as have others. This sighting is credible because a) the people who saw the craft were trained Airforce personnel who understand airplanes, and what they saw was certainly nothing like an airplane b) the incident was actually a series of events that occurred over a three day period around Christmas, and c) a significant paper trail exists documenting this incident

On September 16, 1994 62 school children saw several UFOs land in their schoolyard in Zimbabwe - they saw two beings exit the craft. The craft and beings were aliens. The incident is credible because of the large number of witnesses who saw the craft, because all of the children described seeing the same thing, and because the late Harvard Psychologist John Mack investigated the event. See the interviews for yourselves:

https://youtu.be/_pKC11SDnog

There are many other such events. One must conclude either that all of these credible people are lying for no apparent reason, that they were all hallucinating, that they are crazy, or that they are telling the truth. I believe they are telling the truth. Just because our scientists choose not to believe such evidence does not mean the evidence is specious. The scientific community is under enormous pressure to espouse the same orthodox line, something we have known since the 1950s. When it comes to the most important issues of our time, one must think for oneself, or tow the party line."----
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-u...about-that
Reply
#58
(Dec 16, 2018 08:49 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
(Dec 16, 2018 08:36 AM)Syne Wrote: Again, for the umpteenth time, UFOs exist.

Still in denial of ufos I see. We've gone from drone to stealth bomber to jet fighter in the space of 2 pages now. What next? Swamp gas?
Nope, still just unidentified. Only without the loony presumption they must be alien.

Quote:Like I said, we go by what the eyewitness reports, always. We do not change their accounts to suit our conclusion that what they saw was really an aircraft. That's called confirmation bias, and you should know better. Ufos as defined as nothing manmade or natural DO exist. That's the blunt truth here. We have them confirmed over and over again in thousands of accounts from credible witnesses ranging from pilots, policemen, military personel, etc. It's just the way it is. Maybe you should study up on the subject more to give yourself more credibility. You're certainly not doing that by altering eyewitness accounts to match your conclusion about it being something identified and mundane. Google ufo evidence and find out about the accounts themselves. You may be surprised at what you learn.

There's no changing necessary when no account is corroborated. It's call the null hypothesis, which is the rational default without compelling evidence. Confirmation bias is denying any possibility of a mundane explanation, even when you've made a fool of yourself ignoring that possibility...so you really should know better. UFO is defined as not identified as man-made or natural, but that cannot be ruled out unless actually identified. The fact is that unidentified literally means you cannot assume to know what it is not any more than what it is. No witness is reliable, especially when extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yes, thousands of accounts with the vagaries of human perception in a world polluted with common knowledge of such accounts. It's called priming.

Snicker. I'm not the one with a credibility problem here.

And how much do you intend on projecting? I'm not the one who changed a witness account from "a sort of wavy-ness of the air surrounding the object" to "blurry turbulence underneath the ufo". You're the only one here changing accounts, hypocrite. I never said anything was identified, and you've repeated this straw man so much now that it can only be willful intellectual dishonesty or just outright lying. See what you have to resort to to buoy your dogmatic beliefs? Angel

I'm never surprised with how gullible, inaccurately perceiving, and bias confirming people can be. They, like you, are usually beyond the ability to learn anything at all.
Reply
#59
Quote:The fact is that unidentified literally means you cannot assume to know what it is not any more than what it is. No witness is reliable, especially when extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yes, thousands of accounts with the vagaries of human perception in a world polluted with common knowledge of such accounts. It's called priming.

But I'm not the one assuming to know what it is. You are, and continue to do so in light of the fact that it defies anything manmade or natural. It remained in place for 2-3 minutes. You cannot dismiss this detail of the account to suit your conclusion. This fact refutes it being any kind of military aircraft, as that would have flown over in a matter of seconds. Add to that the fact that it made no noise, and that it has no engines or fuselage, and well, you have a ufo--- a truly unidentified flying object. And yes eyewitnesses are reliable. We rely on them everyday in the news, in criminal courts, and in traffic courts. People really do see accurately what is right in front of them. The fact that you are arguing that they do not is only your desperate ploy to dismiss the report in favor of your latest assumption about what the flying object is identified as being. Your confirmation bias is obvious as hell. Face it Syne. This is a ufo, and it's the real deal. Read the article I posted on 3 more compelling sightings. You may find yourself actually believing in ufos.

Oh and here's the thing about your much touted "null hypothesis". It's not what you claim it to be:

"With further testing, a hypothesis can usually be proven true or false. A null hypothesis is a hypothesis that says there is no statistical significance between the two variables. It is usually the hypothesis a researcher or experimenter will try to disprove or discredit."

"Null hypotheses are never accepted. We either reject them or fail to reject them. The distinction between “acceptance” and “failure to reject” is best understood in terms of confidence intervals. Failing to reject a hypothesis means a confidence interval contains a value of “no difference”."
---
https://www.google.com/search?q=null+hyp...e&ie=UTF-8

Here's another compelling case of a ufo sighted by multiple eyewitnesses over one of our nation's busiest airports:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2VZOZwZC6M&t=18s

Here's a good resource on ufos full of valuable insights and information about the phenomenon collected from years of studying it.

http://www.hyper.net/ufo/overview.html
Reply
#60

[Image: ufo-lynn-mn-20061211-1.jpg]


Lynn, MA USA 11-Dec-2006 by Fredrick N., two photos of a dark oval/egg-shaped UFO (which is one of the common shapes seen near the ground since the 1950s), flying with the long axis vertical, taken with a digital camera.

Witness story:

'My kids and I saw this incredible UFO in the eastern sky on Dec 11th at around 5 pm. No sound just moving back forth up and down then exited.' [full story and bigger photos]

https://rense.com/general74/bright.htm

Note: Erratic, violent maneuvers are the distinct characteristic of UFOs. Eye witnesses may use terms like "zig-zagged", "zipped around", "hopped around", "dancing around", "bobbed and weaved", "yo-yo'ed" etc.

These two photos will help us to visually identify certain (speculative) concepts about UFOs (covered in sections #7, #8 and #9 of the main part of this page, and the extract from P.Hill's book on UFO illumination and colors).

Notice that both photographs show a bluish glow under the UFO (which is often interpreted as "flames" or "exhaust fumes" by eyewitnesses). This illuminating sheath of atmosphere around the UFO is a sheath of ionized and excited air molecules, known as "plasma" in scientific literature. This plasma is generated by EM radiation accompanying the UFO's force fields, used for propulsion and air-control.

Because of the difficulty of creating plasma at normal atmospheric pressure and temperature, in addition to other confirming observations, such as a) the luminosity of some reported submarine UFOs b) the sudden appearance of "mist" or "cloud-like substance" around UFOs when they startup in high humidity environment, apparently as water vapor adjacent to the UFO is condensed by pressure from a force-field c) the occasional violent sound effects (roar) at startup, while being practically silent in flight d) and the physical effects as UFOs enter/exit the water it seems that UFOs "airflow control force field" (ACFF) creates an envelope of lower atmospheric density (near vacuum) close to the UFO's surface, by pushing the surrounding medium (air/water) away from the skin of the UFO.

The basic idea is that UFOs prevent aerodynamic heating, reduce drag and suppress shockwaves (sonic boom) by utilising their acceleration-type force field technology for propulsion, as well as for controlling the surrounding air (or water). Hill refers to the latter as "airflow-control field". Another way to think of it is using the same principles as a incandescent light bulb: UFO craft is the filament and the bulb is the air-control field around it, which protects the UFO, keeps the surrounding medium (air/water) from coming in touch with the UFO. This minimizes friction and heating issues.

Below: In the #2 photo, note that the three (3) bluish neon-light-like glowing areas appear at some distance around the underside of this oval craft, and are spaced at 120° apart. [better visible in 2nd photo enlargement] It is not the UFO itself emitting light, but an envelope of ionized air (a/k/a "plasma sheath") around it. Interpreting this photo according to the ideas outlined in section #8 on Radiation, i.e. that UFOs' ionizing EM radiation (which creates the glowing plasma), is coincident with the UFO's gravity-like force-fields, the 3 zones of glowing air below this UFO may be revealing the position and direction of the propulsive fields of this particular UFO at that moment in time."----
http://www.hyper.net/ufo/overview.html?f...fx-zau9ebo


[Image: ufo-lynn-mn-20061211-5.jpg]
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Did NASA Curiosity Rover catch Martian? Blurred figure in photo stirs controversy C C 0 147 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 3 169 Oct 2, 2017 01:15 AM
Last Post: Secular Sanity
  The screaming ghost photo Magical Realist 2 825 Apr 4, 2016 11:45 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)