Best ufo photo ever taken?

[Syne]

I believe many things I cannot demonstrate.

We know. That's practically the definition of religious faith.

Yes, nothing metaphysical, like ontology or aesthetics, can be demonstrated. That's what differentiates metaphysics from physics.
At least I'm not so dogmatic that I can't even admit when something can't be demonstrated, unlike you.

In that sense, and so many more, you're far more religious than I. I don't hold any text as absolutely sacred, as you seem to hold witness testimony. I don't believe uncorroborated evidence amounts to proof, as you do with simple still photos. I'm fine with many conceptions of god, while you insist that a UFO can never be man-made or natural.

[Magical Realist]

I don't hold any text as absolutely sacred, as you seem to hold witness testimony.

I believe people know what they see. We do it a thousand times everyday. While driving. While walking. While watching TV. Constantly witnessing details and events right in front of us. That isn't faith. That's belief in the senses. Which is the direct opposite of faith--the belief in a magic skydaddy nobody ever sees or hears. And yes I also believe in photos as accurate images physically recorded by a camera or a cellphone. And I also know there are over 12 thousand photos of ufos confirming their existence: https://www.worldufophotos.org/#/page/home/ Which again is belief in solid evidence and not faith in the invisible.

[Syne]

I don't hold any text as absolutely sacred, as you seem to hold witness testimony.

I believe people know what they see.

Even thought they're still unidentified flying objects.

We do it a thousand times everyday. While driving. While walking. While watching TV. Constantly witnessing details and events right in front of us.

Yep, mundane details we are familiar with.

That isn't faith. That's belief in the senses. Which is the direct opposite of faith--the belief in a magic skydaddy nobody ever sees or hears.

It's the confidence of identifying mundane things misapplied to the unknown. It's a bias called the overconfidence effect.
It conflates common things, that require no special evidence, with extraordinary things, that require extraordinary evidence.

I see god all the time and it takes no faith at all, but then I'm intellectually honest enough to know that you wouldn't understand nor accept my conception of god.

And yes I also believe in photos as accurate images physically recorded by a camera. And I also know there are thousands of photos of ufos confirming their existence: https://www.worldufophotos.org/#/page/home/  Which again is belief in solid evidence and not faith in the invisible.

No one has doubted that photos have recorded physical things. Nor doubted that UFOs exist.
Your faith is expressed in your unfounded belief that unidentified things cannot possibly be man-made or natural.

[Magical Realist]

Even thought they're still unidentified flying objects

Right. As in metallic discs and lit up ovals flying in the sky right in front of them.

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

[Image: UFOshapes-947x1024.jpg]

Yep, mundane details we are familiar with.

No..anything the eyes can see, from a man in a gorilla suit to an airplane crashing to a crime in progress.

It's the confidence of identifying mundane things misapplied to the unknown. It's a bias called the overconfidence effect.
It conflates common things, that require no special evidence, with extraordinary things, that require extraordinary evidence.

No..it's just the normal confidence in our sight to be able to see anything from an airplane to a flying disc to a black triangle which is what is reported in thousands of accounts. It's what people see and report. Repeatedly and with corroboration with other eyewitnesses. There is no armchair second guessing about it being something else they didn't see.

I see god all the time and it takes no faith at all, but then I'm intellectually honest enough to know that you wouldn't understand nor accept my conception of god.

No you don't. You can't see something just because you believe in it.

No one has doubted that photos have recorded physical things. Nor doubted that UFOs exist.
Your faith is expressed in your unfounded belief that unidentified things cannot possibly be man-made or natural.

That's the definition of ufo by the USAF that I quoted twice already. You don't get to make up your own personal definition of ufo here.

[Syne]

Even thought they're still unidentified flying objects

Right. As in metallic discs and lit up ovals flying in the sky right in front of them.

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

Looks like a long exposure...another liability of still photography.

Yep, mundane details we are familiar with.

No..anything the eyes can see, from a man in a gorilla suit to an airplane crashing to a crime in progress.

Men, gorillas, costumes, and airplanes are all mundane things we are familiar with. And many convicted of crimes with eyewitness testimony were exonerated by DNA evidence.

It's the confidence of identifying mundane things misapplied to the unknown. It's a bias called the overconfidence effect.
It conflates common things, that require no special evidence, with extraordinary things, that require extraordinary evidence.

No..it's just the normal confidence in our sight to be able to see anything from an airplane to a flying disc to a black triangle which is what is reported in thousands of accounts. It's what people see and report. Repeatedly and with corroboration with other eyewitnesses. There is no armchair second guessing about it being something else they didn't see.

So you think everything you see is exactly what it seems to be? Never heard of optical illusions, huh?
Never heard of pareidolia either, huh?
Don't even understand the meaning of the word "unidentified", huh?

And why do the reported characteristics always tend to follow trends set by the culture of the time and place?

Unidentified flying objects have long been reported through history, but the claimed craft are always a perversion of the technology or fiction of the day, and "the UFO technology tracks what our culture has but rarely exceeds it by a great deal." When aviation was limited to hot-air balloons, UFO reports consisted of claims of mysterious airships. Reported in the 1890s, these airships were distinguished from our technology by their giant size, but they nevertheless needed propellers. The later flying saucers were also a weird version of then-current aerospace technology; as John Spencer notes in The UFO Encyclopedia: "Witnesses aboard flying saucers have reported, for example, chunky number counters on the saucer control panels, but we did not have reports of liquid quartz readouts until we ourselves invented them."

Reports also track the science fiction prevalent at the time. Claims of UFOs stopping car engines and lights did not appear until a similar effect featured in the 1951 film The Day the Earth Stood Still.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_t...g#Examples

I see god all the time and it takes no faith at all, but then I'm intellectually honest enough to know that you wouldn't understand nor accept my conception of god.

No you don't. You can't see something just because you believe in it.

No, I see because something exists. You know, photons reflected off a surface being absorbed by the receptors in my eyes.

No one has doubted that photos have recorded physical things. Nor doubted that UFOs exist.
Your faith is expressed in your unfounded belief that unidentified things cannot possibly be man-made or natural.

That's the definition of ufo by the USAF that I quoted twice already. You don't get to make up your own personal definition of ufo here.

No, you just keep glossing over the part where it says "or which cannot be identified as a familiar object". You're cherry-picking the definition and then arguing the straw man that anyone is making up anything else. Or you just don't understand how the English language works.

[Magical Realist]

Looks like a long exposure...another liability of still photography

Looks like a photo of ufo to me..

Men, gorillas, costumes, and airplanes are all mundane things we are familiar with. And many convicted of crimes with eyewitness testimony were exonerated by DNA evidence.

No..men in gorilla suits and planes crashing and crimes in progress are not everyday mundane things. And the neat thing about extraordinary things---they tend to stand out over the normal things and tend to be remembered more accurately. Hence the mountains of remarkably detailed accounts of ufos that look nothing like anything manmade or natural.

So you think everything you see is exactly what it seems to be? Never heard of optical illusions, huh?
Never heard of pareidolia either, huh?
Don't even understand the meaning of the word "unidentified", huh?

Nope..the photos confirm the accounts. You can't take pictures of optical illusions and pareidolia, particularly when the object you are looking at is a hovering metallic disc or an oval shaped craft lit up like a disco.

And why do the reported characteristics always tend to follow trends set by the culture of the time and place?

Nope..flying saucers were being witnessed before they became a thing in sci-fi culture. This is a matter of historical record.

"A flying saucer (also referred to as "a flying disc") is a descriptive term for a supposed type of flying craft having a disc or saucer-shaped body, commonly used generically to refer to an anomalous flying object. The term was coined in 1930[1] but has generally been supplanted since 1952 by the United States Air Force term unidentified flying objects or UFOs. Early reported sightings of unknown "flying saucers" usually described them as silver or metallic, sometimes reported as covered with navigation lights or surrounded with a glowing light, hovering or moving rapidly, either alone or in tight formations with other similar craft, and exhibiting high maneuverability.

While disc-shaped flying objects have been interpreted as being sporadically recorded since the Middle Ages, the first recorded use of the term "flying saucer" for an unidentified flying object was to describe a probable meteor that fell over Texas and Oklahoma on June 17, 1930. "Some who saw the weird light described it as a huge comet, a flaming flying saucer, a great red glow, a ball of fire."[1] The term "flying saucer" had been in use since 1890 to describe a clay pigeon shooting target,[2] which resembles a classic UFO shape.

The highly publicized sighting by Kenneth Arnold on June 24, 1947, resulted in the popularity of the term "flying saucer" by U.S. newspapers. Although Arnold never specifically used the term "flying saucer", he was quoted at the time saying the shape of the objects he saw was like a "saucer", "disc", or "pie-plate", and several years later added he had also said "the objects moved like saucers skipping across the water." Both the terms flying saucer and flying disc were used commonly and interchangeably in the media until the early 1950s.

Arnold's sighting was followed by thousands of similar sightings across the world. Such sightings were once very common, to such an extent that "flying saucer" was a synonym for UFO through the 1960s before it began to fall out of favor. A lot of sightings of the cigar-shaped UFO were reported following it.[3] More recently, the flying saucer has been largely supplanted by other alleged UFO-related vehicles, such as the black triangle.[citation needed] In fact, the term UFO was invented in 1952, to try to reflect the wider diversity of shapes being seen. However, unknown saucer-like objects are still reported, such as in the widely publicized 2006 sighting over Chicago-O'Hare airport."---- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_saucer

No, I see because something exists.

Oh really. You see God but thousands of others who see ufos are seeing optical illusions. I suggest you check yourself into the psych ward.

No, you just keep glossing over the part where it says "or which cannot be identified as a familiar object". You're cherry-picking the definition and then arguing the straw man that anyone is making up anything else. Or you just don't understand how the English language works.

That's the part that makes it unidentified and NOT something we are familiar with. I suggest taking a reading course sometime.

[Syne]

Looks like a long exposure...another liability of still photography

Looks like a photo of ufo to me..

Of course it does. You're a true believer.  

Men, gorillas, costumes, and airplanes are all mundane things we are familiar with. And many convicted of crimes with eyewitness testimony were exonerated by DNA evidence.

No..men in gorilla suits and planes crashing and crimes in progress are not everyday mundane things. And the neat thing about extraordinary things---they tend to stand out over the normal things and tend to be remembered more accurately. Hence the mountains of remarkably detailed accounts of ufos that look nothing like anything manmade or natural.

Who said anything about the mundane being "everyday"? Not me. Just another of your endless straw men.
Accurate memory doesn't mean accurate interpretation of the sense events.
And "not identified as a familiar object" does not necessarily mean not man-made or natural.

So you think everything you see is exactly what it seems to be? Never heard of optical illusions, huh?
Never heard of pareidolia either, huh?
Don't even understand the meaning of the word "unidentified", huh?

Nope..the photos confirm the accounts. You can't take pictures of optical illusions and pareidolia, particularly when the object you are looking at is a hovering metallic disc or an oval shaped craft lit up like a disco.

You've never seen a picture of paredolia?

[Image: 794892_2b12_625x1000.jpg]

[Image: green-pepper-faces-PT.jpg]

Or a picture of an optical illusion?

[Image: Unbelieavable-Photograph-Optical-Illusion.jpg]

You need to climb out of your cave, little buddy.

And why do the reported characteristics always tend to follow trends set by the culture of the time and place?

Nope..flying saucers were being witnessed before they became a thing in sci-fi culture. This is a matter of historical record.
...
"The highly publicized sighting by Kenneth Arnold on June 24, 1947, resulted in the popularity of the term "flying saucer" by U.S. newspapers. Although Arnold never specifically used the term "flying saucer", he was quoted at the time saying the shape of the objects he saw was like a "saucer", "disc", or "pie-plate", and several years later added he had also said "the objects moved like saucers skipping across the water." Both the terms flying saucer and flying disc were used commonly and interchangeably in the media until the early 1950s.

Arnold's sighting was followed by thousands of similar sightings across the world. Such sightings were once very common, to such an extent that "flying saucer" was a synonym for UFO through the 1960s before it began to fall out of favor."---- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_saucer

The proliferation of saucer reports didn't coincide with flying saucers in the cultural awareness, i.e. Arnold's "highly publicized sighting"?
And triangle craft didn't seem to be reported until the advent of delta/flying wings? O_o

No, I see because something exists.

Oh really. You see God but thousands of others who see ufos are seeing optical illusions. I suggest you check yourself into the psych ward.

Again, no, it's only your pathetic straw man that any of this is necessarily optical illusion.
Just like UFOs, what I see is open to interpretation, where another person may not recognize what I see as I see it.
You should take your own projecting advice.

No, you just keep glossing over the part where it says "or which cannot be identified as a familiar object". You're cherry-picking the definition and then arguing the straw man that anyone is making up anything else. Or you just don't understand how the English language works.

That's the part that makes it unidentified and NOT something we are familiar with. I suggest taking a reading course sometime.

"Cannot be identified as a familiar object" does not mean it isn't a familiar object, only that it cannot be so identified, in the particular situation.
It's you who needs to learn English, little buddy. You seem to think "be identified as" means "is". As trans women whooping real women in sports have taught us, identifying as a thing is not the thing itself.

[Magical Realist]

Of course it does. You're a true believer.

It's a ufo whether you are a believer or not. That's the neat thing about real things---they exist whether you believe in them or not.

You need to climb out of your cave, little buddy.

So seeing discrete flying objects in the sky is like seeing faces and figures in clouds and green peppers? That's just stupid.

The proliferation of saucer reports didn't coincide with flying saucers in the cultural awareness, i.e. Arnold's "highly publicized sighting"?
And triangle craft didn't seem to be reported until the advent of delta/flying wings? O_o

Nope..the sighting came first. The article itself says this. And the black triangles of the early 90's resembled nothing like high flying delta craft. These craft flew slowly low to the ground, had bright lights on their underside, and made no noise or at most a low hum.

[Image: 250px-Blacktriangle.jpg]

Again, no, it's only your pathetic straw man that any of this is necessarily optical illusion.

You're the idiot that suggested ufos were optical illusions. Don't say what you don't mean to say.

"Cannot be identified as a familiar object" does not mean it isn't a familiar object, only that it cannot be so identified, in the particular situation.

Yes it does. It means precisely that it is not a familiar object, since a familiar object would be immediately identifable as such. But ufos aren't. That's why we call them ufos.

[Syne]

Of course it does. You're a true believer.

It's a ufo whether you are a believer or not.  That's the neat thing about real things---they exist whether you believe in them or not.

Again, again, again, no one said they weren't real things. The belief part is where you're stubbornly certain they can't possibly be man-made or natural.

You need to climb out of your cave, little buddy.

So seeing discrete flying objects in the sky is like seeing faces and figures in clouds and green peppers? That's just stupid.

That's just the human brain's propensity to find significance where none exists. For example, here's some UFO pareidolia:

[Image: 518;358;e222b118435509dd48b3a0ca65dc7555016bc9a7.jpg]

The proliferation of saucer reports didn't coincide with flying saucers in the cultural awareness, i.e. Arnold's "highly publicized sighting"?
And triangle craft didn't seem to be reported until the advent of delta/flying wings? O_o

Nope..the sighting came first. The article itself says this. And the black triangles of the early 90's resembled nothing like high flying delta craft. These craft flew slowly low to the ground, had bright lights on their underside, and made no noise or at most a low hum.

[Image: 250px-Blacktriangle.jpg]

They didn't have to resemble the artist renditions, like the one you have there. Only the lights on a delta/flying wing shape did.
And yet again, witness reports are notoriously unreliable.

Again, no, it's only your pathetic straw man that any of this is necessarily optical illusion.

You're the idiot that suggested ufos were optical illusions. Don't say what you don't mean to say.

Where? Go ahead, quote me. O_o
That was only an example of perception not matching reality. Sorry I overestimated your ability to follow a very simple argument.

"Cannot be identified as a familiar object" does not mean it isn't a familiar object, only that it cannot be so identified, in the particular situation.

Yes it does. It means precisely that it is not a familiar object, since a familiar object would be immediately identifable as such. But ufos aren't. That's why we call them ufos.

No..."be identified as" does not mean "is". Learn English already.

[Magical Realist]

The more I explain the more you bitch and whine and deny saying things until there is an unending plethora of repeated points said in different ways. My suggestion is research ufos yourself and fill the void of your own abysmal ignorance. I'm not wasting my time doing that for you. Hasta la vista...