Damn.. when are people going to learn about aerial flares and missle
avoidance flares.. I am so friggin tired of this..

Yes. Everyone wonders this. And some set out to capture good photos of UFOs.
The best photos are debunked and the ones that can't be debunked or
explained become the stuff of legend.

We'll know the answer to your question as soon as good proof starts coming
in and people are no longer fascinated by Air Force training missions.

UFOs. That's what I do now.  A new show every friggin week and $1000/month
electrical bills for the render farm.

They're real enough for me!

Speed of object.  Zooming in on something that is close to the "grain
size" of the recording medium.

...

No.  I suspect that much of the popular press "reports" seem to
immediately preceed a new SciFi movie, such as "Cloverfield".

Launch photographers were probably not available.  The youtube video
shows a nighttime shot, that blooms badly from the adjacent "garage".
Such "string of pearls" lighting is normal here in Arridzona, where
approaching flights are directed along I-17.

10-60 miles is not distant.  Many such devices you would call to serve
cannot focus that close, nor can they ncecssarily be aimed close to
the horizon, track high speed objects, etc.

Graininess results.

I've seen UFOs.  But I don't care if I convince someone of that, nor
whether or not they were of extra-terrestial origin.  Not my job.  I
got 15-20 seconds of amazement, and a friend right next to me that
could not see it.  I consider it a gift.

Heckling welcomed.  No aluminum foil hats here.

David A. Smith

Waiving the right to remain silent, Doc <docsavage20@yahoo.com> said:

Spots in the sky, very much like the "Phoenix Lights" of a few years ago,
which was proven by the local Air Force base to be one of their exercises.  
They even recreated it for the press some time later, yet the hatters refuse
to believe it was anything other than a "UFO coverup."  Loons.

Both of these areas are heavy with military exercises and training missons,
including the use of avoidance flares, as mentioned by nappy.

In the San Diego video, one of the guys said how "fast moving" they were.  To
me, they appeared to be not moving at all, or very slowly.

Helicopters, or perhaps flares, just drifting on the air currents.

1) Most UFO sightings are over the Continental USA
2) These were excitable college kids
3) One is heard to say "anti-missile missiles".
4) The Newscaster was prepared for the helicopter explanation
and
5) (last and very least) if the lights WERE identified by the
method you suggest it would not be an unidentified flying
object, but an identified flying object. IFOs are not newsworthy.

I think the most obvious reason you haven't seen high-quality images
of a UFO, where the image of the object is clear enough and distinct
enough to be identified as a UFO, is because the objects could be and
would be identified as something *other* than an ET.

Most likely these UFOs were sky lanterns ... essentially a hot-air
balloon the size of a garbage sack and typically heated by a small
candle. Sky lanterns can reach an altitude of nearly a mile, and even
from a short distance a they look like a glowing blob. Not an easy
object to photograph.

The thought of foam ducks releasing a squadron of sky lanterns
anywhere, but especially in an area as prone to wildfires as SoCal,
just boggles the mind.

TR

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Simply apply the George Carlin rule of government, which is
the "Everything the government tells me is a lie" rule, and
you'll know the truth of the matter. Works every time!

Armageddon Cometh,
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/danieljosephmin/

Doc <docsavage20@yahoo.com> wrote in news:6d3a57e5-9a10-4a9b-b05f-
ce9d2fa84b8f@c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:

You'll get as many answers as you get replies, but here's my take. I'm an
engineer who's also skilled photographer and videographer who happens
also to be a pilot and who has seen an object in the sky I couldn't
identify. (By definition a UFO)

The great video you see of shuttle launches are taken by videographers
with expensive equipment, set up well in advance, who know exactly the
path the shuttle will take at exactly what time down to the millisecond.
Add a little skill and it's pretty easy to get good video. The problem
with UFO photography is that they just don't schedule their appearances
in advance. The odds that someone with a high speed high def video camera
all set up at the exact moment one shows up is pretty much zero. If it
were really a good hoax, someone would be set to film it with good
equipment!

Actually no one I know with good video or even still equipment keeps it
ready, unprotected, and sitting on his car seat, as that would be an
invitation to have it stolen. My gear is always in a case, at best in the
trunk, and if I saw a UFO I'd have to consider the time I'd spend not
looking at it in order to get the camera out and ready. Considering that
most of these events don't last too long, that might be a tough call.

Larry [in Honolulu]

Because, by definition, if you can tell what it is from the image, it's
not "Unidentified".

And by corollary, the grainier, shakier and less distinct the image is,
the harder it is to identify what's in the image. So, after you've
identified what you can from the good images, you're left with the
"grainy, shaky, indistinct blobs blurs, pinpoint lights etc."

Watching the video, the people taking the pictures have miserable
photographic technique ... holding a digital point 'n shoot at arms
length to use live view to frame the photograph practically guarantees
blurry images.

There's a follow-up story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvx4Dnu-NDU&feature=related

YEARS ago, some, (cough, cough) friends made some of these "Chinese
lanterns" from tea candles, kite sticks & the plastic bags that the dry
cleaners used to cover hanging garments (thinnest plastic bag you could
find).

Tie about 100' of really light fish line in a circle and then attach
three of the "lanterns" by the ends of the crossed kite sticks to that
loop, light the candles and they'll float along in a more or less
triangular formation.

If anyone on the ground sees it, they'll only see lights floating along
in formation. It's not, BTW, an experiment I recommend in today's "War
on Terror" climate.

But, IIRC, the USMC later admitted they were conducting training west of
San Diego that night. There were some pointed comments made about why
the military would first deny having aircraft in the area then later
admit they were operating there. They claimed it was all a
mis-understanding.

A substantial percentage of UFO sightings are of special operations
forces training and/or operational flights. They're out there trying to
be un-identified.

Further, if you're around the US Southwest (Edwards AFB & "Area 51" ...)
there's all sorts of secret experimental aircraft. The government tests
this stuff at night specifically because it's more difficult for someone
to get a good photograph.

A lot of it is kept hidden to avoid tipping off potential adversaries
about new capabilities.

Even more of it is kept hidden to avoid tipping off the taxpayers to how
much money gets wasted on screwball sh.t that doesn't work.

\
Well, let's not forget that any group of beings who are able to travel
lightyears to our planet are, well, light years ahead of us technologically.

Now, look how far photography has advanced in the last ten or fifteen years,
and try casting your mind forward the amount of time it will be before we
are able to travel that far, and then try to imagine where the art / science
of capturing images will be at that time.

Will we be using materials that reflect light the same as it is now
reflected?  In addition to moving through the regular three dimensions, will
we possibly be moving through time as well?  Is that how we will manage to
travel such great distances?  If so, will an object that has such
capabilities be photographical?

Having spent a lot of time taking shots in low-light conditions -- rock
concerts, nightscapes, astronomical, etc -- I can vouch that it is not easy
to get a good, crisp and clear object of something that is right in front of
you let alone 35,000 feet above.

If you think it's easy, try to find a nice spot at the end of a runway and
try getting a "good" shot of a plane taking off after dark.  Unless you've
got good equipment, and you know how to use it, make sure you pack a lunch.
You'll probably be there for a while.

Now, imagine that an object that size is flying somewhere in the distance
without an external source of elumination shining directly on it.  Your
EZ-Flash 100 isn't going to be much good.

As for shuttle launches, don't most of them take place in the middle of the
day?  And, it seems like most UFO sightings seem to take place when it's
dark, or at least in low-light settings.  The few that take place in broad
daylight happen so quick you'd be lucky to get your camera bag open, let
alone get your camera out, dialed in and up to your eye before the little
devil's gone for good.

For What It's Worth,
Dudley

Regurgitation of that same thread a while ago?

-m-

<snip>

The pix of the shuttle soon after takeoff are made through a
special telescope, made by Perkin Elmer, as I recall.  It
allows the ground crews to monitor the takeoff closely, with
the extra use - a plus for the image-concisions NASA - of
providing dramatic shots for TV.

Dear Doc:

...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/02/22/spy.satellite.ap/index.html#cnnSTCText
... select the second picture.

This was an event they knew was coming, could put all sorts of
resources into documenting, and was only x2 to x5 further away than
some the "effects" you complain about (and "straight" out of the
atmosphere).

Not to restart a fire here...

David A. Smith