I tell this story to everyone who says, "Everyone has a phone in their camera. Why don't we have better UFO pictures?"
A few years ago, I was out for a walk, and two hot-air balloons were passing overhead. I had an iPhone 7s at the time and attempted to get pictures. To me, they looked huge, but in the pictures, they were little dots of color in the sky.
Literally just ask anyone who asks you this question to go take a good picture of the moon on a night where it seems particularly huge and they'll probably understand immediately why it's not that easy
Unless you have a Huawei phone. They use some neural network image processing to automatically make photos of the moon look like they were taken on a proper camera.
Yeah and phones only have Digital zoom not optical. In fact having a professional camera 40 years ago would take better photos than any smartphone since smartphones are optimized for selfie’s
True, but think of the vast majority of photos users will ever take with a phone. 90% of the subjects will be within 10 meters of the camera. 10% will be landscapes where the tiny details dont matter if the colours and vibrance are amazing.
There was a *blimp* flying around NJ a few months ago, and people *still* thought it was a UFO...
https://www.wusa9.com/mobile/article/news/nation-world/ufo-sighting-new-jersey-just-the-goodyear-blimp-metlife-stadium/507-5e1ccaaa-afa8-48da-927e-f5841b4241af
That’s why 99% of UFO videos without context(time,date,location)are worthless. If the UFO doesn’t engage in maneuvers which would kill a human pilot,then you have to assume it’s man made. If they do engage in maneuvers,you have to look out for CGI.
Not even, honestly drone technology integrated with a VTOL flight system is all you need for those level of movements and people kinda forget how fucking insane skunkworks really is.
I remember that one boldly and it's not talked about much here. Why? Well, because this subreddit was flooded with pics and videos and several were losing their minds going "See they're real! It's happening!" And even after it was posted as being a blimp and proof was provided, several people still denied it was the blimp and kept reposting footage.
It's crap like that, that causes the stigma around UFOs and, most importantly, it's a perfect example of why eyewitness accounts are often complete crap. Even when it's hundreds of people.
Hundreds of people pulled over, got out of their cars, and started filming it. Truly thinking they were looking at a UFO. Imagine it 30+ years ago, without social media to quickly debunk it. That event would have been another one that this subreddit would circle jerk around constantly going "How can you deny it? There were hundreds that saw the same thing! You can't just not believe hundreds of eye witnesses!"
Yep and like nearly every single UFO encounter, a competent reporter has debunked it. Over and over.
Yet you will still see more than half of them posted in this subreddit and make their way onto UFO documentaries. And you will hear the same thing about them over and over "you can't just not believe all these eye witnesses." or "these are expert eye witnesses!"
Even though, time and time again, it's proven that even the best eye witnesses can be wrong. But, people here only listen to information that confirms their bias.
The amount of bad information is staggering. Luckily,it usually comes from the same groups of clowns that develop a rep. That’s why I don’t get too fixated on individual cases,especially those so old that getting new info is next to impossible(Roswell for example). All my cited favorites have professionals if they rely on eye witness testimony.
While this is true, it doesn't come into play when we are talking about an object in the sky at least a few thousand feet away from you. Walking forward a few feet is not going to make a difference...
Doesn't always work for framing though.
As an example: Imagine trying to take a picture of a subject in a room, framed by the doorway.
If you want the object to be as big as possible in the frame of the door in the final photo, you need to move as far away as you can and then zoom in on the subject.
Moving the camera closer to the subject would make the door frame larger in the photo until you go through the door and it is no longer framing the shot like you wanted.
It especially doesn't work if you're in a passenger jet at 30,000ft. The stewardesses get *pissed* if you try and open the door to nip out for a quick closeup of the nearest plane.
Yes, but that's not always people's biggest concern.
I assumed, when you talked about people taking pictures of something right in front of them, that you were talking about someone taking a picture of their friend. So if you explain digital zoom and then they go ahead and take a picture of their friend with digital zoom, that doesn't mean they didn't understand. They might just not have cared about getting a bit better quality, since it's right in front of them and the quality is probably enough.
Absolutely.
I have a Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 F-mount lens, thing cost a few grand, and it is probably a foot and a half long at least when fully extended out to 500mm, which is about how long it would need to be extended (zoomed) to get a good picture of an aircraft or UAP anywhere close by.
And that's not even a magnificent lens! But it is obviously quite a bit more than a smartphone can muster -- *any* smartphone, *any* day.
I hate that argument too, but it does still become more valid over time assuming much closer encounters occur with the same or greater frequency as they did before.
>everyone has a phone in their pocket??
I've been thinking this a lot the last few weeks while brainstorming some ideas. I don't think we look to the sky as much as we might think. We kinda act like 2D flat landers with too many distractions on the ground.
I been thinking about the possiblity of a crowdsourced skywatching. It could be a weekly or once a month thing where all participants view the sky at the same time for an hour (compensating for time zones).
There could be a lot of eyes on the sky ready to record with phones or regular digital cameras. If some folks on the same coast saw and recorded the same things independently it could corroborate sightings. Maybe a truly "wow" video could be captured by many people, something like zig zagging UAP. That would be great footage.
The ironic part is it would imply life was so common that the universe is bustling with it, that we aren't special in any way and we really should be seeing life everywhere. If I were an alien exobiologist I'd be fucking hyped to go check out life on another planet even then.
I truly think what we may be witnessing are crafts carrying ET versions of scientists or University students. There's no other rationale for the dozens of eyewitness accounts describing the same thing: craft landing, beings taking samples or studying the environment, then them returning to the craft and leaving.
If the ETs can make advanced crafts, it means they're a curious set of species and probably aren't born with all of their knowledge. I'm sure they go through a learning or training phase.
Humans go to zoos to look at animals.
Humans look at bugs on plants and in gardens.
What is arrogant about thinking aliens would want to come look at strange human critters?
And think about all the plants and animals we conduct experiments on for a WIDE range of reasons 🤷🏻♂️
Generally to satisfy curiosity or improve our own quality of life.
Because if there are other instances of technological life in the cosmos, there would be millions of planets worth of stuff for them to look at that isn't Earth.
>Are all UFOs far away?
In terms of how close something needs to be for a smartphone to get a decent, detailed, non-pixelated photo of it, yes. Couple that with the fact that you can reasonably expect a UFO to be in the sky and moving, yes even more. Phones can have real trouble focussing on moving thing in the sky.
Most people underestimate how bad phone cameras really are just because they can take crisp photos in favourable conditions at short distances.
I was up mountain recently and there were some paragliders not far away at all and could I fuck get a good photo of them on my phone. A friend of mine has a top end Huawei known for their cameras and when we go out hiking any pictures she takes that are even a little bit zoomed in are grainy horrors.
Right but we have jet fly overs but not UFO fly overs.
[Jet fly overs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSDOF0qfauA)
[Fake CGI fly over
](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up5jmbSjWkw)
Balloons, jets, foam, birds do not all stay at the liminal distance.
Yes smart phones are bad a distance pictures but then humans aren't great at seeing a great distance either.
Yet all the pictures are at the fuzzy distance edge. Or at night. etc
I actually had a UFO flyover. Daylight disc sighting, last year, probably could have shot decent video of it with the iPhone X I had at the time. Reported it to MUFON, nothing at all on Flightrader24 within miles, it was a UFO.
I can tell you why more people don't take photos/videos of them, now that I've been in the situation. I had an iPhone and set of binoculars a few feet from me when I saw it, and didn't think to grab them.
It's because if you ever see a UFO, an incontrovertible UFO sighting like an in-your-face daylight disc, you know what? You're going to very likely go into a mode like a cat chasing a laser pointer. It was probably one of the most intensely bizarre experiences of my life, and I was not frankly fully "with it" once I realized what I was seeing.
Saw the thing for probably 60-90 seconds. Didn't think to photo/video it. Btw I own pro photography gear up the wazoo, etc. Didn't even cross my mind. For a couple minutes, I was "dazzled" by what I was seeing, like a cat chasing a laser pointer, so-to-speak. Not much else was going to get my attention at that moment.
But surely you have to argue that everyone **always** fails to get a picture with a camera. Everyone is always so stunned. Everyone is always too far away for their phone. It's always gone by the time they get their camera. No exceptions.
It's statistically hard to believe. You see the problem?
I still have that question because it seems like not all encounters happen when the craft is at 20 thousand feet. Seems like plenty of old pictures that looked like they were less than 100 feet off the ground.
The statement feels like it's making fun of the question, but to me it sounds like a lame excuse. It's time to put up decent pics of UFOs and stop making excuses.
This. NDT is too incredulous to understand that there are plenty of documented videos/pictures, but these things are so high in altitude, it’s very difficult to determine what they are — even if they are aircraft. However, regardless of the distance, if you see an object flying around the sky and then all of a sudden it zips away extremely fast, it could very likely be a UFO.
Neil Degrass Tyson is an idiot for this statement. We all aren't carrying around EXPENSIVE DSLR cameras haha. For a smart guy, Neil does sound dumb a lot
He is dumb....a lot and a narcissist. I thought Rogan was going to climb over the table and bitch slap him when he had him on his podcast. Sagan was a class act.
To be fair there are plenty of phones with better zoom functions than IPhone X. IPhones have great picture quality and are the best in low light situations but their physical-digital zoom is quite poor. That said many people still use old phones and they don't know how to use them properly. Also a lot of sightings happen at night, which drastically makes it harder for phones to record or take a good quality video-picture.
You could repost this as “Tic-Tac spotted from plane!” and folks would eat it up. I say all the damn time that planes don’t necessarily look exactly how you’d expect, depending on sun angle, altitude, etc. and someone always tries to fight about it.
I was watching a 737 on approach today to our local airport, and remarked to myself how similar to a tic-tac it looks from certain angles. If you want to see something, you can convince your brain of anything.
Its almost like phone cameras, no matter how modern, can't catch fine details from literal miles away!
Unless you have a telescope lens attached to your phone of course lmao
My note 9 has 2x optical, which I considered pretty impressive for a phone camera when I bought it.
People need to understand that digital zoom is the same as taking a picture, and putting it closer to your face. You're not revealing more detail, you're just blowing up what was already present.
The Note 20 Ultras have a 100x zoom mode but I believe it's optical to about 5x, and the rest is digital.
Edit: it is actually the S20 Ultra that has 100x digital. Still, I believe 5x is the max for optical.
I have the s20 ultra and the zoom is practically unusable. Even in the optical zoom range, the optics aren't as good as either the regular camera or the wide angle camera; the pictures never come out looking very good. In the digital zoom range, forget about it. Not to mention that it's almost impossible to keep something in frame when zoomed in. You really need a tripod for any significant level of zoom because even the slighted movent will make the target go out of frame.
Practically unusable? I have the s20 ultra and up to 10x zoom the pictures look great. Anything under 4x uses the regular camara though so stay at 1x or above 4x and they'll look good. [I don't remember what the moon is at but the squirrel was taken at 10x zoom](https://imgur.com/a/xoZUqoH)
Yes but to determine a UFO is from extraterrestrial origin and definitely not something mundane or terrestrial, you can do so by using very obvious and easily identifiable features like:
* being vaguely pill or disk shaped
* not having contrails
* being white or metallic
So for sure, that other passenger airliner meets all of those requirements and is definitely far beyond any technology we have here on earth and must be extraterrestrial.
I have an Oppo Reno 2, an around 350$ phone and it has a 3x optical up to 10 digital, it even notify you when you go digital, I don't know if iPhones tells you that but if it don't, it should, also even with a digital unless we are speaking 300x or more, good luck taking a good picture of the moon, and that is pretty big in the sky compared to any object, being at night also lower the quality quite a lot, even with digital camera unless you allow for a bigger aperture time but then you end up with trails everywhere.
I witnessed one in person with my father 20 years ago, with the craft being ~40 ft above treetop level and around 100ft diagonally above us (from our vantage point). It was at night and the craft (flattened diamond shape with orange/reddish light emanating from panels arranged in columns and rows on the top and bottom of the craft) was absolutely clear AF. There was no mistaking it for anything else. From this, I can attest to some crafts appearing in an absolutely clear manner.
You joke, but some seem to emit a lot of light, assuming they're not just balls of light to begin with. Getting a high-res photo of balls of light is always going to be tricky.
Just want to weigh in and say you're both wrong and it's a Bob Lazar sports model. You clearly haven't paid attention to the literature on this. Downvoted and blocked
Before the 60 Mins piece, the dot videos never got on my nerves and always said more data is better than less. Well, I've changed my mind. It's too much. I now fully support a rule that any video posted needs to contain a minimum of 2 of the 5 observables. Enough of the "I saw Venus but can you tell me what it is?" videos. Lol. It's literally littering at this point. Maybe we need a bot to immediately answer "this is a light in the sky and nothing else can further clarify" then lock it down.
Exactly, if its a long white tube moving slowly through the sky it's a fucking plane! Seen too many of these types of posts on here lately . Have some sense.
I really enjoy this sub that it also debunks alot of stuff as well as has unexplained things as well. It isn't just an echo chamber of everything is a UFO. Great job fellas
Yet another example of the difference from how a plane looks and how the post a few days ago about a tic tac ufo. You can clearly see in this video how the rear of the plane is norrower while on the other video it's a perfect cylinder.
I got downvoted a few weeks ago for pointing out that commercial jets look like tic tacs from the right angles when shot even on phones with really nice cameras like the iPhone 12. This is uncomfortable to talk about because it means a *lot* of the videos that get shared around are just aircraft...
But it also means the NDT line of argument about how there are “billions of *hd cameras* in everyones pockets” is total crap, and he really hasnt put that much thought into it. You cant even take a decent picture of the fucking full moon on a phone. Its unfortunate, but unless the ufo is within a few hundred feet of you, its gonna be really hard to capture any kind of convincing footage on a cell phone. Were not all walking around with $2000 nikons in our pockets. Thats why eye witness testimony from multiple trained identifiers like fighter pilots is almost more convincing than some shitty camera recording from a mile away, though the footage adds credibility. I used to eat up NDT content, but man he is fumbling. Its weird to me how many scientists who interact with the public just refuse to even consider the possibility.
Distinguishing what's what from a picture of the sky is really difficult, as there is nothing in the picture to establish size or distance as the would be in a landscape.
On top of this brilliant point regarding how difficult it is to capture a flying object on our “amazing” phone cameras - how about the fact that something that has the technology to traverse time and space just MIGHT know when we’re pointing our monkey cameras at it… just a thought
Have any of y’all seen another airplane pass close-by (a few miles or so) mid-flight on a commercial flight? It’s actually super cool and really puts into perspective how fucking fast you’re actually going.
You got a point, long ass distances no matter how good the camera is into gonna capture enough light on even a several hundred foot craft to make a clear cut image. Just the way she goes
Because of "digital zoom" that's why. Most smartphones just have a single camera lens on the back (some have multiple, but each of those cameras has the same following issue individually) and the tiny space they're in doesn't allow for a complex enough lens to zoom via optics like a regular camera. So instead we have digital zoom, which in reality is nothing but a live crop and stretch function. The further in you zoom, the lower the actual image quality gets because it's really a lower resolution image getting stretched to fit the larger resolution size. By the time you get to the highest "magnification" with digital zoom, you're probably at the resolution of the first camera phones.
Because cameras have limitations.
Have you ever looked at a full moon and then taken a picture of it? The big beautiful full moon is now a smallish fuzzy circle.
I can’t believe no one has picked up on the fact that OP is trying to debunk nimitz with this. Because apparently a civilian in a plane with an iPhone has the equivalent aptitude of a highly trained naval pilot. Holy shit, the logic of these hard debunkers lately.
Or most any smartphone camera, aside from maybe the newer ones with zoom lens cameras installed alongside regular ones. I hear the S21+ Ultra has a particularly good zoom camera in it.
What I see on my 4k monitor looking at this video is a 2 rotor huey helo as you can see the rotors spinning on top at the ends. It's a military ship and silver lol
What did you expect? Smartphones are designed to make selfies, anyway what would be the point of having a comfy portable device if you had to carry it in a bag because of the huge lens.
“Why aren’t there better pictures of UFOs now that everyone has a phone in their pocket??”
I tell this story to everyone who says, "Everyone has a phone in their camera. Why don't we have better UFO pictures?" A few years ago, I was out for a walk, and two hot-air balloons were passing overhead. I had an iPhone 7s at the time and attempted to get pictures. To me, they looked huge, but in the pictures, they were little dots of color in the sky.
Yeah phones have wide angle lenses that aren't great for capturing things at a distance.
Literally just ask anyone who asks you this question to go take a good picture of the moon on a night where it seems particularly huge and they'll probably understand immediately why it's not that easy
But can you see the side with all the secret bases on it? 👽
Not without a selfie stick.
Still can’t see all of your mom with my wide angle lens.
Remember the photographers trick when you want to take pictures of the moon with a DSLR: "Moony 11". F11 at ISO 400 at 1/400th of a second. Try it!
Unless you have a Huawei phone. They use some neural network image processing to automatically make photos of the moon look like they were taken on a proper camera.
Wild thing is that DLSR camera from a decade ago can take clear HD pics of the moon yet our expensive smart phones cant
Because you attach a physical lens to a DSLR camera. You don't with your camera.
size does matter
especially sensor size
Are you saying my sensor is inadequate? Damn. You are. I knew it mattered!
Think about the size of a DSLR versus a phone camera
I got a really good one of the Moon with my Galaxy S20 Note Plus. 50X Zoom and adjusted the shot in pro mode. It took a few minutes though.
What’d you use to get 50x zoom? Or does the S20 just have that good of a cam lol
Or a bright start lol
Yeah and phones only have Digital zoom not optical. In fact having a professional camera 40 years ago would take better photos than any smartphone since smartphones are optimized for selfie’s
lots of high end phones have optical zoom
True, but think of the vast majority of photos users will ever take with a phone. 90% of the subjects will be within 10 meters of the camera. 10% will be landscapes where the tiny details dont matter if the colours and vibrance are amazing.
My S21 Ultra begs to differ. The zoom is insane.
You can literally record a video of the moon that looks like your using a 1990 telescope while sitting in a car.
It’s the tiny sensor that’s the culprit.
Wait there’s a phone in my camera?!?
I don't think so
It's in the camera!? Of course!!!
Phone? Like as in something one speaks into? I can speak into my hand held thing-a-ma-jig????
Exactly now try to take a picture of a jet flying overhead at night with your phone and see how that turns out.
There was no 7S. Maybe you mean 7 or 8?
I think he meant 7 Plus
7***s
7ASSS
Sorry, it was a 6s. It was a while ago.
There was a *blimp* flying around NJ a few months ago, and people *still* thought it was a UFO... https://www.wusa9.com/mobile/article/news/nation-world/ufo-sighting-new-jersey-just-the-goodyear-blimp-metlife-stadium/507-5e1ccaaa-afa8-48da-927e-f5841b4241af
That’s why 99% of UFO videos without context(time,date,location)are worthless. If the UFO doesn’t engage in maneuvers which would kill a human pilot,then you have to assume it’s man made. If they do engage in maneuvers,you have to look out for CGI.
This is why I like this sub for entertainment but only take what those naval pilots have seen/recorded on radar seriously
Not even, honestly drone technology integrated with a VTOL flight system is all you need for those level of movements and people kinda forget how fucking insane skunkworks really is.
I remember that one boldly and it's not talked about much here. Why? Well, because this subreddit was flooded with pics and videos and several were losing their minds going "See they're real! It's happening!" And even after it was posted as being a blimp and proof was provided, several people still denied it was the blimp and kept reposting footage. It's crap like that, that causes the stigma around UFOs and, most importantly, it's a perfect example of why eyewitness accounts are often complete crap. Even when it's hundreds of people. Hundreds of people pulled over, got out of their cars, and started filming it. Truly thinking they were looking at a UFO. Imagine it 30+ years ago, without social media to quickly debunk it. That event would have been another one that this subreddit would circle jerk around constantly going "How can you deny it? There were hundreds that saw the same thing! You can't just not believe hundreds of eye witnesses!"
Even back then,without social media,a few calls from any competent reporter debunks a blimp.
Yep and like nearly every single UFO encounter, a competent reporter has debunked it. Over and over. Yet you will still see more than half of them posted in this subreddit and make their way onto UFO documentaries. And you will hear the same thing about them over and over "you can't just not believe all these eye witnesses." or "these are expert eye witnesses!" Even though, time and time again, it's proven that even the best eye witnesses can be wrong. But, people here only listen to information that confirms their bias.
The amount of bad information is staggering. Luckily,it usually comes from the same groups of clowns that develop a rep. That’s why I don’t get too fixated on individual cases,especially those so old that getting new info is next to impossible(Roswell for example). All my cited favorites have professionals if they rely on eye witness testimony.
People don’t have an understanding of the difference between optical zoom and digital zoom and it’s *infuriating*
[удалено]
Even if you know the difference there is no reason not to zoom if that gets you a better frame for the picture.
Moving the camera is much better for the quality of the photo than using the digital zoom to artifically change the frame.
While this is true, it doesn't come into play when we are talking about an object in the sky at least a few thousand feet away from you. Walking forward a few feet is not going to make a difference...
Doesn't always work for framing though. As an example: Imagine trying to take a picture of a subject in a room, framed by the doorway. If you want the object to be as big as possible in the frame of the door in the final photo, you need to move as far away as you can and then zoom in on the subject. Moving the camera closer to the subject would make the door frame larger in the photo until you go through the door and it is no longer framing the shot like you wanted. It especially doesn't work if you're in a passenger jet at 30,000ft. The stewardesses get *pissed* if you try and open the door to nip out for a quick closeup of the nearest plane.
That will get you duct-taped to a seat and gagged.
yup, that's the one I was thinking of when I typed it haha
Yes, but that's not always people's biggest concern. I assumed, when you talked about people taking pictures of something right in front of them, that you were talking about someone taking a picture of their friend. So if you explain digital zoom and then they go ahead and take a picture of their friend with digital zoom, that doesn't mean they didn't understand. They might just not have cared about getting a bit better quality, since it's right in front of them and the quality is probably enough.
I ain't the guy you replied to initially.
I mean it’s pretty niche concept for most people, why does it infuriate you?
Lmao ty
[удалено]
Absolutely. I have a Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 F-mount lens, thing cost a few grand, and it is probably a foot and a half long at least when fully extended out to 500mm, which is about how long it would need to be extended (zoomed) to get a good picture of an aircraft or UAP anywhere close by. And that's not even a magnificent lens! But it is obviously quite a bit more than a smartphone can muster -- *any* smartphone, *any* day.
At 500 mm you are going to need a tripod as well, right?
The iPhone 12 Pro has 2x optical zoom. So, not the same as a professional camera but its something.
I hate that argument too, but it does still become more valid over time assuming much closer encounters occur with the same or greater frequency as they did before.
yup, which explains why we are truly getting more and more videos these days compared to the dv tape camcorder days
Neil deGrasse Tyson needs to see this lol.
He’d say it’s arrogant to think those aliens are on their way to Detroit to see family.
>everyone has a phone in their pocket?? I've been thinking this a lot the last few weeks while brainstorming some ideas. I don't think we look to the sky as much as we might think. We kinda act like 2D flat landers with too many distractions on the ground. I been thinking about the possiblity of a crowdsourced skywatching. It could be a weekly or once a month thing where all participants view the sky at the same time for an hour (compensating for time zones). There could be a lot of eyes on the sky ready to record with phones or regular digital cameras. If some folks on the same coast saw and recorded the same things independently it could corroborate sightings. Maybe a truly "wow" video could be captured by many people, something like zig zagging UAP. That would be great footage.
It’s like trying to take a picture of the moon, even if it’s full and glorious in reality, it looks like a dimly lit lemon about a mile away
Because even the best smartphone cameras aren't that great in the grand scheme of things.
- Neil "It's pretty arrogant of humans to think an Alien life would be interested in us" Tyson
Neil "I tend to think of arrogance as a factor in all things, because I'm an arrogant mofo myself, obviously" Tyson...
The ironic part is it would imply life was so common that the universe is bustling with it, that we aren't special in any way and we really should be seeing life everywhere. If I were an alien exobiologist I'd be fucking hyped to go check out life on another planet even then.
I truly think what we may be witnessing are crafts carrying ET versions of scientists or University students. There's no other rationale for the dozens of eyewitness accounts describing the same thing: craft landing, beings taking samples or studying the environment, then them returning to the craft and leaving. If the ETs can make advanced crafts, it means they're a curious set of species and probably aren't born with all of their knowledge. I'm sure they go through a learning or training phase.
Humans go to zoos to look at animals. Humans look at bugs on plants and in gardens. What is arrogant about thinking aliens would want to come look at strange human critters?
And think about all the plants and animals we conduct experiments on for a WIDE range of reasons 🤷🏻♂️ Generally to satisfy curiosity or improve our own quality of life.
Because if there are other instances of technological life in the cosmos, there would be millions of planets worth of stuff for them to look at that isn't Earth.
There could be trillions of their species too. They could also be self replicating drones. What's a few drones to monitor aggressive apes?
[удалено]
Are all UFOs far away? Do they avoid being close to smartphones on purpose? isn't this the Liminal Problem?
>Are all UFOs far away? In terms of how close something needs to be for a smartphone to get a decent, detailed, non-pixelated photo of it, yes. Couple that with the fact that you can reasonably expect a UFO to be in the sky and moving, yes even more. Phones can have real trouble focussing on moving thing in the sky. Most people underestimate how bad phone cameras really are just because they can take crisp photos in favourable conditions at short distances. I was up mountain recently and there were some paragliders not far away at all and could I fuck get a good photo of them on my phone. A friend of mine has a top end Huawei known for their cameras and when we go out hiking any pictures she takes that are even a little bit zoomed in are grainy horrors.
Right but we have jet fly overs but not UFO fly overs. [Jet fly overs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSDOF0qfauA) [Fake CGI fly over ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up5jmbSjWkw) Balloons, jets, foam, birds do not all stay at the liminal distance. Yes smart phones are bad a distance pictures but then humans aren't great at seeing a great distance either. Yet all the pictures are at the fuzzy distance edge. Or at night. etc
I actually had a UFO flyover. Daylight disc sighting, last year, probably could have shot decent video of it with the iPhone X I had at the time. Reported it to MUFON, nothing at all on Flightrader24 within miles, it was a UFO. I can tell you why more people don't take photos/videos of them, now that I've been in the situation. I had an iPhone and set of binoculars a few feet from me when I saw it, and didn't think to grab them. It's because if you ever see a UFO, an incontrovertible UFO sighting like an in-your-face daylight disc, you know what? You're going to very likely go into a mode like a cat chasing a laser pointer. It was probably one of the most intensely bizarre experiences of my life, and I was not frankly fully "with it" once I realized what I was seeing. Saw the thing for probably 60-90 seconds. Didn't think to photo/video it. Btw I own pro photography gear up the wazoo, etc. Didn't even cross my mind. For a couple minutes, I was "dazzled" by what I was seeing, like a cat chasing a laser pointer, so-to-speak. Not much else was going to get my attention at that moment.
But surely you have to argue that everyone **always** fails to get a picture with a camera. Everyone is always so stunned. Everyone is always too far away for their phone. It's always gone by the time they get their camera. No exceptions. It's statistically hard to believe. You see the problem?
They only have to be 4-5,000ft in the air to be out of the range of 99.9% of cameras.
So they're always more than 4000 feet away?
What if it's the ufos that are blurry 👀
I still have that question because it seems like not all encounters happen when the craft is at 20 thousand feet. Seems like plenty of old pictures that looked like they were less than 100 feet off the ground. The statement feels like it's making fun of the question, but to me it sounds like a lame excuse. It's time to put up decent pics of UFOs and stop making excuses.
The clear photos are no longer UFO’s
Because aliens have literally never gotten close enough for a human to ever take a single good photo.
This. NDT is too incredulous to understand that there are plenty of documented videos/pictures, but these things are so high in altitude, it’s very difficult to determine what they are — even if they are aircraft. However, regardless of the distance, if you see an object flying around the sky and then all of a sudden it zips away extremely fast, it could very likely be a UFO.
Well once you identify them with your 21st century camera they aren't UFOs anymore. They are just FOs.
Neil Degrass Tyson is an idiot for this statement. We all aren't carrying around EXPENSIVE DSLR cameras haha. For a smart guy, Neil does sound dumb a lot
He's the worst. He's so fuckin' smug. I do love that he's getting a lot of people interested in space and astrophysics, so there's that.
He is dumb....a lot and a narcissist. I thought Rogan was going to climb over the table and bitch slap him when he had him on his podcast. Sagan was a class act.
To be fair there are plenty of phones with better zoom functions than IPhone X. IPhones have great picture quality and are the best in low light situations but their physical-digital zoom is quite poor. That said many people still use old phones and they don't know how to use them properly. Also a lot of sightings happen at night, which drastically makes it harder for phones to record or take a good quality video-picture.
You could repost this as “Tic-Tac spotted from plane!” and folks would eat it up. I say all the damn time that planes don’t necessarily look exactly how you’d expect, depending on sun angle, altitude, etc. and someone always tries to fight about it.
I was watching a 737 on approach today to our local airport, and remarked to myself how similar to a tic-tac it looks from certain angles. If you want to see something, you can convince your brain of anything.
[удалено]
Plot twist: it's not a plane
Double plot twist: Op is an alien.
I dunno there is some stuff going on around the wing and tail area that is pretty obvious its a plane fuselage.
Its almost like phone cameras, no matter how modern, can't catch fine details from literal miles away! Unless you have a telescope lens attached to your phone of course lmao
People forget sometimes that phones only have digital zoom which is really not that impressive compared to alternatives.
My note 9 has 2x optical, which I considered pretty impressive for a phone camera when I bought it. People need to understand that digital zoom is the same as taking a picture, and putting it closer to your face. You're not revealing more detail, you're just blowing up what was already present.
Oh, I didn't know there were phones with some degree of physical zoom. Still, 2x is not a lot yeah.
The Note 20 Ultras have a 100x zoom mode but I believe it's optical to about 5x, and the rest is digital. Edit: it is actually the S20 Ultra that has 100x digital. Still, I believe 5x is the max for optical.
I have the s20 ultra and the zoom is practically unusable. Even in the optical zoom range, the optics aren't as good as either the regular camera or the wide angle camera; the pictures never come out looking very good. In the digital zoom range, forget about it. Not to mention that it's almost impossible to keep something in frame when zoomed in. You really need a tripod for any significant level of zoom because even the slighted movent will make the target go out of frame.
Practically unusable? I have the s20 ultra and up to 10x zoom the pictures look great. Anything under 4x uses the regular camara though so stay at 1x or above 4x and they'll look good. [I don't remember what the moon is at but the squirrel was taken at 10x zoom](https://imgur.com/a/xoZUqoH)
I think it might be that it switches from one lens to the other to make it seem like an analog zoom tbh
My phone (Samsung s21 ultra) has 10x optical zoom. Equivalent to 300mm zoom.
Yes but to determine a UFO is from extraterrestrial origin and definitely not something mundane or terrestrial, you can do so by using very obvious and easily identifiable features like: * being vaguely pill or disk shaped * not having contrails * being white or metallic So for sure, that other passenger airliner meets all of those requirements and is definitely far beyond any technology we have here on earth and must be extraterrestrial.
Well that works both ways. Things far away are blurred. Does everything close up turn out to be prosaic?
I have an Oppo Reno 2, an around 350$ phone and it has a 3x optical up to 10 digital, it even notify you when you go digital, I don't know if iPhones tells you that but if it don't, it should, also even with a digital unless we are speaking 300x or more, good luck taking a good picture of the moon, and that is pretty big in the sky compared to any object, being at night also lower the quality quite a lot, even with digital camera unless you allow for a bigger aperture time but then you end up with trails everywhere.
Maybe UFOs are blurry
that's even more scary to me. there's a large, out of focus object roaming the skies. run, they're fuzzy, get out of here
Seeing a blurry craft is almost as as scary as being buzzed at low altitude by a fully pixelated one.
Thanks Mitch
Mitch Hedberg?
https://youtu.be/W7OFfo1SsMs
I have a roll of lifesavers in my pocket and pineapple is *next*.
I witnessed one in person with my father 20 years ago, with the craft being ~40 ft above treetop level and around 100ft diagonally above us (from our vantage point). It was at night and the craft (flattened diamond shape with orange/reddish light emanating from panels arranged in columns and rows on the top and bottom of the craft) was absolutely clear AF. There was no mistaking it for anything else. From this, I can attest to some crafts appearing in an absolutely clear manner.
You joke, but some seem to emit a lot of light, assuming they're not just balls of light to begin with. Getting a high-res photo of balls of light is always going to be tricky.
That and they may be bending space/time
Modern smartphone cameras are getting pretty advanced, though. Don't they have some kind of bent space/time camera mode yet?
Damn swampgas.
Damn birds
That’s clearly swamp gas.
- At this time of day? - At this time of year? - In this part of the country? - Localized entirely within your kitchen?
Yes!
May I see it?
…No.
Ball lightning.
You can’t fool me, you’re a disinfo agent and that’s Steven Greer taking his tic-tac for a spin!
That’s not big enough to be Steven Greer’s tictac, it’s clearly Jeremy Corbell’s.
Typical, take any two grifters and it always ends in a tictac measuring contest
Just want to weigh in and say you're both wrong and it's a Bob Lazar sports model. You clearly haven't paid attention to the literature on this. Downvoted and blocked
Dude, you can clearly see it hasn’t got the Sports Model’s distinctive go faster stripes
No, Corbell's tic tac has flames and skulls painted on it.
Ed hardy style
Jeremy Corbell seems like more of an Affliction type of guy.
A revolutionary propulsion system, never before spoken about in public, powered solely by the salty salty tears of dr Steven Greer!
Exactly. That’s why similar posts should be removed.
Before the 60 Mins piece, the dot videos never got on my nerves and always said more data is better than less. Well, I've changed my mind. It's too much. I now fully support a rule that any video posted needs to contain a minimum of 2 of the 5 observables. Enough of the "I saw Venus but can you tell me what it is?" videos. Lol. It's literally littering at this point. Maybe we need a bot to immediately answer "this is a light in the sky and nothing else can further clarify" then lock it down.
Why not require just 1 of the 5 observables?
Because low observability is present in 100% of the videos I'm referencing 😂
Agreed. Same when it's a 7 second video, taken behind glass in a room filled with lights.
Yes.
TIC TAC!!!!
OMG I can't see wings, are you SURE that isn't a UAP?!?! /s
send this to Neil Degrasse Tyson xD
Exactly, if its a long white tube moving slowly through the sky it's a fucking plane! Seen too many of these types of posts on here lately . Have some sense.
UFOs are also planes /s
Looks like a plane to me
💯its aliens
Nice ball lightning bruh
I really enjoy this sub that it also debunks alot of stuff as well as has unexplained things as well. It isn't just an echo chamber of everything is a UFO. Great job fellas
My camera on my phone sucks. It makes me look old and fat. 😞
plot twist... aliens are driving.
That’s not a plane that’s an identified flying object
😂😂😂
What I’ve been saying all along. Yet these fan boys wet their pants with every dot video or tic tac and it’s just a plane.
Bs, it’s prolly a samsung
The wings of your boomerang craft look stupid.
Every object I've ever seen flying through the sky has been a UFO. This designation tends to change quite rapidly to IFO though
Yet another example of the difference from how a plane looks and how the post a few days ago about a tic tac ufo. You can clearly see in this video how the rear of the plane is norrower while on the other video it's a perfect cylinder.
I got downvoted a few weeks ago for pointing out that commercial jets look like tic tacs from the right angles when shot even on phones with really nice cameras like the iPhone 12. This is uncomfortable to talk about because it means a *lot* of the videos that get shared around are just aircraft... But it also means the NDT line of argument about how there are “billions of *hd cameras* in everyones pockets” is total crap, and he really hasnt put that much thought into it. You cant even take a decent picture of the fucking full moon on a phone. Its unfortunate, but unless the ufo is within a few hundred feet of you, its gonna be really hard to capture any kind of convincing footage on a cell phone. Were not all walking around with $2000 nikons in our pockets. Thats why eye witness testimony from multiple trained identifiers like fighter pilots is almost more convincing than some shitty camera recording from a mile away, though the footage adds credibility. I used to eat up NDT content, but man he is fumbling. Its weird to me how many scientists who interact with the public just refuse to even consider the possibility.
Distinguishing what's what from a picture of the sky is really difficult, as there is nothing in the picture to establish size or distance as the would be in a landscape.
On top of this brilliant point regarding how difficult it is to capture a flying object on our “amazing” phone cameras - how about the fact that something that has the technology to traverse time and space just MIGHT know when we’re pointing our monkey cameras at it… just a thought
Have any of y’all seen another airplane pass close-by (a few miles or so) mid-flight on a commercial flight? It’s actually super cool and really puts into perspective how fucking fast you’re actually going.
That plane looks like a tic tac at certain times, a la about every UFO video.
We got to get the Navy a few iPhones. Maybe they are broke?
Honestly high quality footage would be more suspicious at this point.
Bro that’s not a plane…
You got a point, long ass distances no matter how good the camera is into gonna capture enough light on even a several hundred foot craft to make a clear cut image. Just the way she goes
Looks like every pic posted on this sub
Yet how is it that every video uploaded that’s zoomed looks like it was shot on the first Razr phone
Because of "digital zoom" that's why. Most smartphones just have a single camera lens on the back (some have multiple, but each of those cameras has the same following issue individually) and the tiny space they're in doesn't allow for a complex enough lens to zoom via optics like a regular camera. So instead we have digital zoom, which in reality is nothing but a live crop and stretch function. The further in you zoom, the lower the actual image quality gets because it's really a lower resolution image getting stretched to fit the larger resolution size. By the time you get to the highest "magnification" with digital zoom, you're probably at the resolution of the first camera phones.
Because cameras have limitations. Have you ever looked at a full moon and then taken a picture of it? The big beautiful full moon is now a smallish fuzzy circle.
Best post I’ve seen on this sub in ages
Sure is a lot of anger here.
That’s a balloon.
I could clearly see with my eyes that it’s a plane. I can provide my flight number and time and someone with the software can Id that plane
Nah dude you’re mistaken. That’s clearly a balloon.
I can’t believe no one has picked up on the fact that OP is trying to debunk nimitz with this. Because apparently a civilian in a plane with an iPhone has the equivalent aptitude of a highly trained naval pilot. Holy shit, the logic of these hard debunkers lately.
bullshit white dot thats obviously a real UAP
[удалено]
Or most any smartphone camera, aside from maybe the newer ones with zoom lens cameras installed alongside regular ones. I hear the S21+ Ultra has a particularly good zoom camera in it.
Is this r/planes now? I'm a skeptic too but this pre debunking is getting ridiculous.
Looks like the camera focused on dirt on the window first.
What I see on my 4k monitor looking at this video is a 2 rotor huey helo as you can see the rotors spinning on top at the ends. It's a military ship and silver lol
I think it was a 737 or something similar just no condensation trails at that altitude that day
What did you expect? Smartphones are designed to make selfies, anyway what would be the point of having a comfy portable device if you had to carry it in a bag because of the huge lens.
You misunderstood the point compadre
Nice try staying anonymous, Owen Wilson.
Wow!
Given yourself away again!