Blog Categories
- African Incidents
- Atlantis Incidents
- Australian Incidents
- Belgian Incidents
- Bermuda Triangle Incidents
- Brazilian Incidents
- Canadian Incidents
- Chinese Incidents
- European Incidents
- France Incidents
- Ghosts
- Giants
- Italy Incidents
- Japanese Incidents
- Middle East Incidents
- Portugal Incidents
- Project Serpo
- Puerto Rico Incidents
- Russian Incidents
- Sasquatch
- Scandinavia Incidents
- Spanish Incidents
- UFOs
- United Kingdom Incidents
- United States Incidents
Thoughts on How We Might Get Some Real High-Definition UAP Footage
I have been thinking about the fact that we have no high-definition images of UAPs. There is a fundamental problem with picture and video evidence of UAPs (other than the government not sharing them): images are being taken with equipment that is not designed to or is incapable of rendering high-definition images in the conditions in which UAP appear. My thought is we as citizens may be able to intentionally acquire UAP images by following these guidelines: .
look for UAPs during the day.
look for stationary UAPs.
use real cameras (not phones!) .
To elaborate.
look for UAPs during the day: Why? The high-quality information we have about UAPs (e.g., Nimitz encounter) comes from day-time encounters, so we know they operate visibly during the day. What is more, we don't even know if UAPs have lights, which is the only way we could see them at night. Even if UAPs are lit-up, night-time images will always be low-quality. Current camera technology is, for the most part, highly impaired even in twilight conditions. If we are trying to film things at night, our images will always be garbage. I have filmed planes at night, and all you see is flashing lights. I can't even accurately identify what I know is a plane as a plane from such images. Night-images of UAP will never be clear evidence.
look for stationary UAPs: Why? We know that UAPs are often stationary during encounters, yet most footage is of moving objects, simply because we tend to notice what is moving and aren't looking for what is not moving. But as far as we know there are more stationary than moving UAPs in the sky right now. If the goal is capturing a high-quality image, we are going to do much better with a relatively still object. Tracking a moving object reduces the footage quality. Wide shots might demonstrate the movement of the UAP, but they provide low-resolution images of the object itself.
use real cameras: This is the most important thing. If you want to get a good image, you need to be using a camera capable of producing that image under the conditions in which UAP operate. Phones obviously fail in this regard—they are basically desinged for portrait photography and don't do much else well. You need a real camera with a good zoom lens. If you look at a clear blue sky, there's a lot of information you cannot see with the naked eye. For instance, you can often identify a plane by the contrail but not actually see the plane in front of it. So if that plane didn't have a contrail (i.e., a UAP), you would neve notice it. Thus, there might be a lot of UAPs out there but you wouldn't know it without a good optical zoom. If everyone was walking around with a 4k mirrorless with 300mm zoom or equivalent (at minimum, ideally better) instead of an iPhone, I 100% believe we would have tons of high-quality UAP images at this point.
Question from user editedito at UFOs at reddit.com.
Answer:
You should also check project galileo from avi loeb.
Answer from user snow_cool at UFOs at reddit.com.
I have been thinking about the fact that we have no high-definition images of UAPs. There is a fundamental problem with picture and video evidence of UAPs (other than the government not sharing them): images are being taken with equipment that is not designed to or is incapable of rendering high-definition images in the conditions in which UAP appear. My thought is we as citizens may be able to intentionally acquire UAP images by following these guidelines: .
look for UAPs during the day.
look for stationary UAPs.
use real cameras (not phones!) .
To elaborate.
look for UAPs during the day: Why? The high-quality information we have about UAPs (e.g., Nimitz encounter) comes from day-time encounters, so we know they operate visibly during the day. What is more, we don't even know if UAPs have lights, which is the only way we could see them at night. Even if UAPs are lit-up, night-time images will always be low-quality. Current camera technology is, for the most part, highly impaired even in twilight conditions. If we are trying to film things at night, our images will always be garbage. I have filmed planes at night, and all you see is flashing lights. I can't even accurately identify what I know is a plane as a plane from such images. Night-images of UAP will never be clear evidence.
look for stationary UAPs: Why? We know that UAPs are often stationary during encounters, yet most footage is of moving objects, simply because we tend to notice what is moving and aren't looking for what is not moving. But as far as we know there are more stationary than moving UAPs in the sky right now. If the goal is capturing a high-quality image, we are going to do much better with a relatively still object. Tracking a moving object reduces the footage quality. Wide shots might demonstrate the movement of the UAP, but they provide low-resolution images of the object itself.
use real cameras: This is the most important thing. If you want to get a good image, you need to be using a camera capable of producing that image under the conditions in which UAP operate. Phones obviously fail in this regard—they are basically desinged for portrait photography and don't do much else well. You need a real camera with a good zoom lens. If you look at a clear blue sky, there's a lot of information you cannot see with the naked eye. For instance, you can often identify a plane by the contrail but not actually see the plane in front of it. So if that plane didn't have a contrail (i.e., a UAP), you would neve notice it. Thus, there might be a lot of UAPs out there but you wouldn't know it without a good optical zoom. If everyone was walking around with a 4k mirrorless with 300mm zoom or equivalent (at minimum, ideally better) instead of an iPhone, I 100% believe we would have tons of high-quality UAP images at this point.
Question from user editedito at UFOs at reddit.com.
Answer:
You should also check project galileo from avi loeb.
Answer from user snow_cool at UFOs at reddit.com.