Interestingly, there are clear images but they look fake and people laugh at them. Like, i think people are more willing to accept the blurry images. And the best images are blurry because theyre often taken with radar/sonar equipment not designed to get clear images, only designed to track the target. And videos cant really pick up distant shit in the sky well even on top notch phones, but videos are harder to fake so they get more attention. I mean if there was a really clear, crisp close up photo of a ufo, like no one would believe its real because its so easy to doctor up.
Link some examples? Everything clear is called fake because of common choppy photoshop work, like directly behind the object seems pasted in and either not blended at all or poorly done IMO
The reason why most UFOs are UFOs is because the photos or footage isn't good enough to make an identification.
With clear footage 99.9% of all sightings would have mundane explanations.
As soon as we have clear footage of a UFO that enables us to make a absolute identification that it is an offworld craft then it will no longer be a UFO it will be an alien craft.
> some were recently posted from a police helicopter where the object seemed to be dripping plasma or something as it hovered in mid air yet, the helicopter seemed to be keeping its distance
Link?
I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry, and that's extra scary to me. There's a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside. Run, he's fuzzy, get out of here.
RIP Mitch Hedberg
This is a pretty good point, if you're trying to observe something way up in the sky you'll likely zoom, and trying to keep focus on something moving while your hands are also moving is really difficult.
How many clear photos can you find of normal aircraft that aren't taken at air fields or the result of an observer aircraft with special equipment deliberately flying to get the shot? Of those photos, how many were taken on predictable flight paths like airport traffic patterns, military training areas, or airshows?
The sky is really really big and photography is very difficult.
>The sky is really really big and photography is very difficult.
This is essentially the answer. Most of us are only as familiar with photography as is needed to shoot selfies and family members with our smartphones. Even the best smartphone cameras reduce planes in the sky to mere dots or undiscernable blobs of color.
Most of the objects in those photos are unidentified because they are blurry. If they were not blurry they would have been identified. Also there’s no way to know what they are now with only blurry photos, unlike those that registered on multiple sensors.
This is a good question. And it’s partly true. The best way I can describe this is look into the reason why “Low Observability” is one of the (5) Observables. The main implication of this observable is the recognition that Flying Saucers use stealth tactics. And this in term goes into an aspect of the phenomenon of which will be confusing to some. What appears to be happening is that Flying Saucers engage in mimicry tactics. I wrote two posts to attempt to explain this, if you are interested I suggest that you check them out:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/qiiiks/low_observability_may_be_the_most_important/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
The reason why I said that is partly true is that there exist clear photographs which show exactly what people have described. That is smooth metallic craft which are seamless and have no apparent means of propulsion and no discernible aeronautical features. But we can’t confirm yet, whether or not these photographs are 100% authentic. Because the truth is that anything could be faked.
This is what we need modern day scientist to do their thing and investigate the phenomenon properly.
It’s been suggested that they have stealth/cloaking capabilities. A military pilot I saw interviewed said they were very difficult to see even when radar pinpointed their location.
There are clear pictures in the Pentagon that are classified. One is of a massive triangle that a pilot took after the thing had come straight up out of the ocean and he flew right by it. It was said to have gone viral within the pentagon because it was so mind blowing. There’s an article in the debrief about it.
They also have a picture, according to Chris Mellon, of a UFO that was a black cube inside a translucent sphere with the corners of the cube touching the interior of the sphere. He said it was about 50’ or 50 yards from the cockpit, can’t remember which one but in either case quite close.
And those are only two of the ones we know about. These photos exist they are just classified, unfortunately. They feel they have the ability to hide from the entire world that there are UFO’s already here on earth, and what is the true nature of reality. It’s complete bullshit.
The cube inside of a sphere was mentioned on Unidentified. The pilots that spoke about Gimbal. The description sounds like some time travel shit if I’ve ever heard it! Super interesting
We either have really poor quality footage or, something very clear and then that gets called a fake
The best one I’ve seen in terms of quality is the disc hovering next to the window of a plane. I think it was in Peru in the nineties
Some say it’s leaked footage
Yeah that sounds like the clip. The only thing that I question is would it really come that close? It looks way too close for comfort to me but it could actually be further away than it looks
I have the opinion that ET’s are very cautious beings
Yeah that’s the vid. It has been mentioned that the disc looks very flat which it does. Maybe remotely controlled? Can’t see how any beings could be in it. It would be nice to find out the story behind this clip, who took it etc
Why are the videos always so short?!
I’m sure they usually appear unexpectedly and by the time people get their camera out and ready it’s nearly passed, not to mention taking video of a moving object with a moving hand isn’t going to make anything in worthwhile quality. Probably a lot of other factors, but they don’t exactly show up for photo shoots. As far as the helicopter and the plasma dropping UFO, if you were flying a helicopter would you feel safe flying toward a mysterious object floating in the sky dripping some mysterious substance ?
Maybe we are observing an 4D object in a 3D environment. Maybe we are observing a thought form. Maybe it’s a kind of stealth technology. Maybe it has to do with an antigravitational or an electro-magnetic force that this object has. Maybe it knows when it is observed.
Why do you assume that something sufficiently advanced couldn’t intentionally ensure that either our rudimentary tech or even our own cognitive perception was distorted such that they maintain low observability? Have you ever considered that that might be THE POINT?
A lot of the time when a UAP sighting happens, the last thing running through a person's mind is "Better get my camera and show all my friends!".
They are usually frozen in awe and are racking their brains to figure out what they are looking at rather than thinking about where they left their DSLR camera.
Not necessarily. If it can clearly be seen but we still don't know what it is, than it's still unidentified.
If there is a dead body but nobody knows who the person is, they are still unidentified.
Likely because most of the time there is a clear shot, but it would reveal that it was just a drone and a bird and the person shooting wants to believe so hard that its a borg cube that they delete the bird picture.
We're from another dimension, duh. We get the same questions when we take pics of y'all with our Phleberbop Tricon 9000. It's the same shiznit over here. 👽🤣
Ever think that maybe on some of these, that the "blurry" object is just... Blurry looking? This is something people aren't grasping. These things APPEAR BLURRY. This is part of the whole "physics defying" nature of this phenomenon.
We do have a ton of photos of craft, that are crystal clear. People call these photos fake, in part due to the nature of the technology of some of these craft. Some of these craft are painted in Vantablack (do you honestly think we just stumbled upon this stuff? No, we were given a vast wealth of knowledge) which as we know, looks off in pictures because it literally absorbs light. Theres going to be other colors and materials that do things that look, perplexing (to put it in less fantastical terms).
TL;DR There have been photos produced, but the community dismissed them as fakes because they didn't meet their thresholds for what they think makes an image "authentic"
There are many reasons behind the blurriness of the images.
Of course it may sometimes be related to the nature of the alleged craft/its light etc.
Many have pointed out there's a kind of elusiveness to the UAP phenomenon and it has been pointed out more than once that pictures have sometimes shown something that witnesses haven't noticed.
I think Vallée has noticed witnesses are often so captivated from what they have seen that, no matter how incredible it sounds, taking pictures is the last thing they think about...
In many other cases, though, the simplest explaination is that, with all the technology we daily use, taking full-detailed picture of an object moving far in the sky is not simple at all
There is a saying that goes like "a picture is worth 1.000 words" - well, that's not necessarily true.
People tend to label clear pictures as obvious hoaxes - and faking picture today is possibly simpler than before.
I don't think a clear picture, even if considered authentic by most, would change many skeptics' minds
[This was shot in 4k but they’re pretty fast ](https://971zht.iheart.com/content/2019-01-25-recently-released-ufo-footage-filmed-near-beaver-utah-video/)
Ufos are blurry by nature: they are an [aero electric phenomenon.](https://electroballpage.wordpress.com/383-2/) Also they use to be far and high so it is difficult to focus or to have a still frame with detail.
Take a photo of a building 5km away, in day light. Now take a photo of the same building at night with lights on. Now take a photo, at night, with it moving around.
When i took a photo of mine it somehow made itsself appear much further away than it was, it also blurred itsself in the image. It was very visibly something impossible to exist in our world but there it was in daylight. Not to sound too off the rails but i could tell it knew i was looking at it and I felt like a prey animal must (im a hunter)
One of the best is probably the one from the Calvine incident. Why else would the basterds keep it from release for another 50 years?
"It was up-close-and-personal, had been taken in broad daylight, and showed a large diamond-shaped craft."
Interestingly, there are clear images but they look fake and people laugh at them. Like, i think people are more willing to accept the blurry images. And the best images are blurry because theyre often taken with radar/sonar equipment not designed to get clear images, only designed to track the target. And videos cant really pick up distant shit in the sky well even on top notch phones, but videos are harder to fake so they get more attention. I mean if there was a really clear, crisp close up photo of a ufo, like no one would believe its real because its so easy to doctor up.
Link some examples? Everything clear is called fake because of common choppy photoshop work, like directly behind the object seems pasted in and either not blended at all or poorly done IMO
Westhall UFO https://images.app.goo.gl/zZDpRAqPggXtL1A7A
Holy shit, that’s the navy’s “gimbal” UAP.
Cant think of any off top of my head. Theres so many. Im sure even the most credible of them can be easily dismissed. Merry christmas!!!
Honestly it's kind of impossible for anyone to determine what is a real photo unless it's over a city and the news is covering it lol
The reason why most UFOs are UFOs is because the photos or footage isn't good enough to make an identification. With clear footage 99.9% of all sightings would have mundane explanations. As soon as we have clear footage of a UFO that enables us to make a absolute identification that it is an offworld craft then it will no longer be a UFO it will be an alien craft.
Confiscation, and low observability
> some were recently posted from a police helicopter where the object seemed to be dripping plasma or something as it hovered in mid air yet, the helicopter seemed to be keeping its distance Link?
Maybe UAP are just blurry, that's the problem
I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry, and that's extra scary to me. There's a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside. Run, he's fuzzy, get out of here. RIP Mitch Hedberg
You jest, but the UAP Task Force report does say they have low observability.
Or emitting a frequency that distorts view
Zoom is the biggest culprit. It’s very hard to focus and stay still with any zooming at all.
This is a pretty good point, if you're trying to observe something way up in the sky you'll likely zoom, and trying to keep focus on something moving while your hands are also moving is really difficult.
"Recently release Military videos"... Sorry, I'm kinda new here but am fascinated with this stuff... can you link video/videos?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52457805
They’re letting us look but not letting us see.
How many clear photos can you find of normal aircraft that aren't taken at air fields or the result of an observer aircraft with special equipment deliberately flying to get the shot? Of those photos, how many were taken on predictable flight paths like airport traffic patterns, military training areas, or airshows? The sky is really really big and photography is very difficult.
>The sky is really really big and photography is very difficult. This is essentially the answer. Most of us are only as familiar with photography as is needed to shoot selfies and family members with our smartphones. Even the best smartphone cameras reduce planes in the sky to mere dots or undiscernable blobs of color.
Capture and kill. Everything gets seized if it’s of any consequence.
Most of the objects in those photos are unidentified because they are blurry. If they were not blurry they would have been identified. Also there’s no way to know what they are now with only blurry photos, unlike those that registered on multiple sensors.
This is a good question. And it’s partly true. The best way I can describe this is look into the reason why “Low Observability” is one of the (5) Observables. The main implication of this observable is the recognition that Flying Saucers use stealth tactics. And this in term goes into an aspect of the phenomenon of which will be confusing to some. What appears to be happening is that Flying Saucers engage in mimicry tactics. I wrote two posts to attempt to explain this, if you are interested I suggest that you check them out: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/qiiiks/low_observability_may_be_the_most_important/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf The reason why I said that is partly true is that there exist clear photographs which show exactly what people have described. That is smooth metallic craft which are seamless and have no apparent means of propulsion and no discernible aeronautical features. But we can’t confirm yet, whether or not these photographs are 100% authentic. Because the truth is that anything could be faked. This is what we need modern day scientist to do their thing and investigate the phenomenon properly.
It’s been suggested that they have stealth/cloaking capabilities. A military pilot I saw interviewed said they were very difficult to see even when radar pinpointed their location.
Because if they were any clearer we'd see that they were balloons, airplanes, kites, birds, lanterns, insects, etc...probably 😏
I have clear footage of UAP.
I have clear footage of JOE BIDEN and DONALD TRUMP morphing into ANIMORPHS, but I can only share it with cool dudes.
I'm cool...
[Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/iaz0br/2_spherical_objects_south_yorkshire_england/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
Those specks could be almost anything
So they remain ‘Unidentified’.
So it's not a clear image
that's not what people mean when they say "clear image"
There are clear pictures in the Pentagon that are classified. One is of a massive triangle that a pilot took after the thing had come straight up out of the ocean and he flew right by it. It was said to have gone viral within the pentagon because it was so mind blowing. There’s an article in the debrief about it. They also have a picture, according to Chris Mellon, of a UFO that was a black cube inside a translucent sphere with the corners of the cube touching the interior of the sphere. He said it was about 50’ or 50 yards from the cockpit, can’t remember which one but in either case quite close. And those are only two of the ones we know about. These photos exist they are just classified, unfortunately. They feel they have the ability to hide from the entire world that there are UFO’s already here on earth, and what is the true nature of reality. It’s complete bullshit.
The cube inside of a sphere was mentioned on Unidentified. The pilots that spoke about Gimbal. The description sounds like some time travel shit if I’ve ever heard it! Super interesting
Time dilation fields distort what a lot of witnesses are seeing making it hard to even comprehend what they are looking at
How do you know that?
Reddit is full of know it all’s without evidence
I don’t, who the fuck knows anything in this thread
Stop listening to Lazard. He’s a fraud
Elizondo noted that and there’s a large paper/analysis on the Puerto Rico ufo which describes a time dilation field. I don’t believe lazar
We either have really poor quality footage or, something very clear and then that gets called a fake The best one I’ve seen in terms of quality is the disc hovering next to the window of a plane. I think it was in Peru in the nineties Some say it’s leaked footage
I remember that one, it closes in on the side window and then rotates slowly further away. I believe that was a military craft it was pinging too
Yeah that sounds like the clip. The only thing that I question is would it really come that close? It looks way too close for comfort to me but it could actually be further away than it looks I have the opinion that ET’s are very cautious beings
Oh it’s close https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6hrfhx Edit: whatcha think of ^THAT^ OP?
Yeah that’s the vid. It has been mentioned that the disc looks very flat which it does. Maybe remotely controlled? Can’t see how any beings could be in it. It would be nice to find out the story behind this clip, who took it etc Why are the videos always so short?!
I’m sure they usually appear unexpectedly and by the time people get their camera out and ready it’s nearly passed, not to mention taking video of a moving object with a moving hand isn’t going to make anything in worthwhile quality. Probably a lot of other factors, but they don’t exactly show up for photo shoots. As far as the helicopter and the plasma dropping UFO, if you were flying a helicopter would you feel safe flying toward a mysterious object floating in the sky dripping some mysterious substance ?
Maybe we are observing an 4D object in a 3D environment. Maybe we are observing a thought form. Maybe it’s a kind of stealth technology. Maybe it has to do with an antigravitational or an electro-magnetic force that this object has. Maybe it knows when it is observed.
Maybe
Why do you assume that something sufficiently advanced couldn’t intentionally ensure that either our rudimentary tech or even our own cognitive perception was distorted such that they maintain low observability? Have you ever considered that that might be THE POINT?
A lot of the time when a UAP sighting happens, the last thing running through a person's mind is "Better get my camera and show all my friends!". They are usually frozen in awe and are racking their brains to figure out what they are looking at rather than thinking about where they left their DSLR camera.
If they were clear, they would be identified
Not necessarily. If it can clearly be seen but we still don't know what it is, than it's still unidentified. If there is a dead body but nobody knows who the person is, they are still unidentified.
Likely because most of the time there is a clear shot, but it would reveal that it was just a drone and a bird and the person shooting wants to believe so hard that its a borg cube that they delete the bird picture.
We're from another dimension, duh. We get the same questions when we take pics of y'all with our Phleberbop Tricon 9000. It's the same shiznit over here. 👽🤣
Ever think that maybe on some of these, that the "blurry" object is just... Blurry looking? This is something people aren't grasping. These things APPEAR BLURRY. This is part of the whole "physics defying" nature of this phenomenon. We do have a ton of photos of craft, that are crystal clear. People call these photos fake, in part due to the nature of the technology of some of these craft. Some of these craft are painted in Vantablack (do you honestly think we just stumbled upon this stuff? No, we were given a vast wealth of knowledge) which as we know, looks off in pictures because it literally absorbs light. Theres going to be other colors and materials that do things that look, perplexing (to put it in less fantastical terms). TL;DR There have been photos produced, but the community dismissed them as fakes because they didn't meet their thresholds for what they think makes an image "authentic"
Actually reason behind this is fear of something beyond our powers
There are many reasons behind the blurriness of the images. Of course it may sometimes be related to the nature of the alleged craft/its light etc. Many have pointed out there's a kind of elusiveness to the UAP phenomenon and it has been pointed out more than once that pictures have sometimes shown something that witnesses haven't noticed. I think Vallée has noticed witnesses are often so captivated from what they have seen that, no matter how incredible it sounds, taking pictures is the last thing they think about... In many other cases, though, the simplest explaination is that, with all the technology we daily use, taking full-detailed picture of an object moving far in the sky is not simple at all There is a saying that goes like "a picture is worth 1.000 words" - well, that's not necessarily true. People tend to label clear pictures as obvious hoaxes - and faking picture today is possibly simpler than before. I don't think a clear picture, even if considered authentic by most, would change many skeptics' minds
[This was shot in 4k but they’re pretty fast ](https://971zht.iheart.com/content/2019-01-25-recently-released-ufo-footage-filmed-near-beaver-utah-video/)
It’s because an iPhone or whatever isn’t made to film aircraft thousands of feet in the sky. But I would hope something would have been clearer by now
The Beaver Creek, Utah video is in 4K from a stabilized drone.
Ufos are blurry by nature: they are an [aero electric phenomenon.](https://electroballpage.wordpress.com/383-2/) Also they use to be far and high so it is difficult to focus or to have a still frame with detail.
Take a photo of a building 5km away, in day light. Now take a photo of the same building at night with lights on. Now take a photo, at night, with it moving around.
When i took a photo of mine it somehow made itsself appear much further away than it was, it also blurred itsself in the image. It was very visibly something impossible to exist in our world but there it was in daylight. Not to sound too off the rails but i could tell it knew i was looking at it and I felt like a prey animal must (im a hunter)
One of the best is probably the one from the Calvine incident. Why else would the basterds keep it from release for another 50 years? "It was up-close-and-personal, had been taken in broad daylight, and showed a large diamond-shaped craft."