Well I have been an amateur photographer for many years and you are just wrong. The above is an out-of-focus photo of some streetlights that I just took and you can see "hard edges" on the bright street lights just like in the purported UFO photos.
Posted on 01/17/2007 5:22:39 PM PST by Zechariah_8_13
What would be the purpose of any lights?
Probably,
However . . . I don't think gloworms have capacitors, do they?
I can imagine that there are likely a number of light producing phenomena which have nothing to do with capacitors.
Then there's the phenomenon of the propulsion system producing various glows because of the gravity/ion flow aspects of the propulsion physics . . . as I marginally understand it.
Then there's the lights which evidently are literally tractor beams lifting cows up for mutilation etc. And on return, the cow being lowered by the same beam--until the beam is evidently arbitrarily switched off and the cow falls the rest of the distance . . . according to solid observer reports.
Certainly ET craft have the capacity to fly, appear, etc. without lights; without being visible in daylight etc. Supposedly that involves--depending . . .
--dimensional factors
--cloaking technologies
--???
Hey Art how ya been ? I haven't heard from ya in a while.
Say hi to the new wife for me........
You would just reply to a post such as I am doing here and then type PING to ping the person to the specific article or comment you are wanting to call attention to.
PING
That's a big mytery that I've not read any conclusive highly placed sources convincingly assert convincing solid knowledge about.
Some say it's a genetic research study.
Some say it's a food slurry for the ET's thing.
Some say it's a pollution of the biosphere research monitoring study to detect when the point of no return has finally been reached.
Some say the ET's have not said what it's about and that the government has no clue.
Some say the government does it as much as the ET's. I'm skeptical of that.
Some say the government has taken it over and the ET's don't do it any more. I personally highly doubt that.
In any case, it's a highly protected operation. Even the New Mexico Senator using the Government Accounting office to investigate the frequent occurrances and the whole field because of New Mexico's large number of cases--even he got essentially neutered in the process . . . and, interestingly died not too many years thereafter of cancer IIRC. Lots of folks getting close to some such things end up dying of cancer. Not sure why that is.
Linda Moulton Howe--one of the world's experts on the phenomena has also had lots of harrassment from powers that be whenever she began to get too close or publicize too much about it.
Of course the more sobering thing is the significant number of cases where humans are mutilated in precisely the same ways as the cows--and it's clear that there was no anasthetic and that the humans were alive and conscious for the process until sufficient blood was drained to end their consciousness and lives. Great fun having one's genitals and rectum; an eye and half a jaw highly precisely excised with evidently a laser or other specialized micro-wave tool that tends to cut only BETWEEN the cells . . . all while one is conscious for however long. Great fun. Especially with one's government insisting nothing's happening, walk on by.
I'm not the expert, but I don't think a camera can see clearly defined hard edges on extremely bright lights. Same goes for the human eye, I believe. Atmospheric effects over distance also tend to make things fuzzy.
Well I have been an amateur photographer for many years and you are just wrong. The above is an out-of-focus photo of some streetlights that I just took and you can see "hard edges" on the bright street lights just like in the purported UFO photos.
If you are a photographer, I am bound to defer to your knowledge, but I still don't have much doubt that if a light generates sufficent brightness, or is distant enough, its edges will appear to blur.
You are still wrong. As wrong as can be. The blurred out-of-focus image is a feature of the optics used and will assume the shape of the aperture gate. It's dark here, but there's nothing brighter and farther away than the sun and you can take an out-of-focus photo of the sun and as long as it's not over-exposed, it won't have blurry edges. Trust me.
But you are straying from the article. The Colonel has a photo of the lights he saw and they strongly resemble the out-of-focus photo of streetlights I posted above. Even in his picture there is no appreciable difference between the "UFO" and the lights of the radio tower he admits is on the right. His photo proves nothing and is useless as a record of what he saw since it is so out-of-focus.
"The Colonel has a photo of the lights he saw and they strongly resemble the out-of-focus photo of streetlights I posted above. Even in his picture there is no appreciable difference between the "UFO" and the lights of the radio tower he admits is on the right. His photo proves nothing and is useless as a record of what he saw since it is so out-of-focus."
I agree with this. I'm not too convinced that any photo, particularly in the digital age, can ever be considered as evidence of UFO sightings. Credibility still rests on the reputation of the witness, like it always has.
Now you have changed the subject. Are you talking about out-of-focus objects or in-focus objects? Static or moving objects?
Well, my original point was that very bright lights will photograph without hard edges, looking sort of blurry, and that the human eye will also not see hard edges on bright lights. The implication being that "UFOs" being photographed would naturally tend to not look very focused.
You pointed out to me that bright lights can actually be photographed with fairly defined edges...so I've been looking around the house at lit lightbulbs, etc, and have found that I actually can see the edges of them pretty clearly...so presumably they could be photographed that way, too.
Meanwhile, I took the dog out for a walk. My street has no street lights, so it's pretty dark out there. I noticed that the outside lights on my neighbors' houses, as well as on my own, when seen from a distance, and in darkness, did in fact appear blurry around the edges to my eye. Perhaps they would not to a camera.
I do assert that a bright light in the night sky, at a considerable distance, would inherently have some blur due to intervening atmosphere...and perhaps also to the contrast between night sky and bright light. Probably most of the time, when the film was developed, the light would be seen as a relatively small dot, which would lose yet more resolution when enlarged.
You are correct, I was losing sight of that point. But how do they get the pictures out of focus? By focusing them closer than infinity, or shaking the camera? I'd think it would be a simple matter to just set the thing on "infinity" and then shoot.
In all likelihood it was a simple point-and-shoot digital camera. Most of them autofocus with enough light. At night like that, they have a hard time focusing properly and usually end up focused halfway from as close as it can go to infinity since the autofocus mechanism can't find a focus point. I wish the camera designers would make them default to an infinity focus, but they don't and most of them default to a halfway focus instead.
Lights 'not of this world' mystery finally solved
Flares for A-10 Warthog training.
The story that prompted this thread might've mentioned that the photographed lights just happened to be over the Fort Chaffee bombing range! Sheesh...
You could be right and you could be wrong.
They tried saying the same type of thing about the Phoenix lights about 10 years ago.
Wouldn't wash. Too many thousands of people saw the huge triangle craft blotting out the stars etc. and more at close enough range, the flare story was laughable.
Though folks not there still believed it.
The simpler explanation is always preferable when it fits the facts...
Understand.
I thought there was some mention of the bomber range in the first story. I forget.
Of course, UFO's sometimes do their thing over bomber ranges . . . neutralizing things in the process.
But, generally, I'd agree with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.