No UFO sightings have shown a marked decline, the same way that more now have access to better cameras. People have cameras on their phones etc. now the blurred smudge can be seen as an aircraft, seagull, balloon etc. With much higher quality cameras available you would expect more evidence, when in fact the opposite is true.
Many photographed UFOs have always been the product of cameras freezing moments in time. It is very common for someone to discover a UFO on their pictures after the fact having seen nothing at the time of taking the photo. In reality something they did see (but in motion - such as a bird) has been frozen into a UFO like pose by the clicking shutter. It only looks odd because of that transformation.
Better cameras often make little difference to this process. The fact that more people now have them just means we get more UFO photos that are really IFO photos (IFO = Identified Flying Object = what 95% + of all reported UFO sightings turn out to be after investigation).
Modern cameras and access have - however - vastly increased the number of moving images. But, to the surprise of nobody I expect who has investigated a few UFO cases over the years, these are all the usual array of lights and squiggles that have always been the mainstay of UFO activity. Even the unsolved cases usually are of that nature.
It is a bit of a popular myth that UFO cases are full of structured spaceships and alien beings who are out there by the truckload and so should now be being photographed all the time if they are real.
Most shapes and structures appear to be read into a more amorphous stimulus and a camera will only reveal what was there - not what the human mind with its vagaries and expectations has read into it.
I think of it as like a remote islander who has never seen an aircraft before. One flies over their island and they tell their friends that they just saw the most remarkable bird. It has to be a bird because that is all they know. So they draw pictures and animate the wings and turn the cockpit windows into a face. They SEE something that matches their expectation of what they saw but that is not actually precisely what they did see.
Then the islander finds a camera dropped on the beach and learns it can capture the image of this strange bird. When they do that it does not look exactly like what by now they are sure they saw. It is too 'artificial' and not bird like.
This is how seeing UFOs works. We superimpose our human expectations on the things we see in the sky. So what we think we see is not necessarily what was actually up there. This creates all manner of confusion and argument when proof (such as photographic proof) fails to support what witnesses think they saw.
But it does NOT remove the fact that they saw something in the first place. And, whilst most of these somethings can be explained with enough investigative effort, a few cannot and there really are some things in the sky that are not yet fully understood.
Thanks for the interesting post Jaycee. The numbers of reported sightings don't really concern me of course - it's those few really intriguing cases with multiple witnesses, witnesses of the same or similar but at different locations and times, large but silent odd looking and moving or motionless craft, good convincing witnesses and residual material information such as radioactive vehicles, burns and chemical changes in plants etc.
I think that the Trent case was recently found to be a hoax - and that was always held up as being real craft. Well it had me fooled.
Having seen some unusual UFO's myself it is very hard to properly film them. Most often they are at a distance to make filming them a hard task - you would at least need a tripod and a proper camcorder (as well as being prepared) otherwise they will only appear as small fuzzy dots.
Also other people have reported some form of influence where they ignored the sighting at the time. I was with my Dad on holiday in a remote farmhouse when across the other side of the small valley there was a VERY strange object. Gleaming white, silent and pouring off some sort of fog. There was no road or track at that point - only bracken. Now, indoors I had my camcorder but instead of rushing in and getting it all my Dad said was 'I don't like the look of that lets go indoors' which we did and did not even look out of the window for it nor feel curious or mention it UNTIL the next day when it sort of hit us and we spoke over it in detail. It was very odd and such objects were spotted by members of public at that time (late 90's) along with my Aunt who saw a similar thing over the Stockland mast.
Many photographed UFOs have always been the product of cameras freezing moments in time.
Remember 'Rods'? That was in the early 2000s. It was insects (or birds at a distance) caught in interlaced video (or in a strobing light effect such as through helicopter rotors) producing a kind of multiple-exposure of them in motion.
Remember 'Rods'? That was in the early 2000s. It was insects (or birds at a distance) caught in interlaced video (or in a strobing light effect such as through helicopter rotors) producing a kind of multiple-exposure of them in motion.
Two common ghost mistakes in photo terms are the balls of light floating in front of a camera that are:
the jewellery worn round the neck by the camera operator getting in shot out of focus.
And the spectral figure in an old castle. museum etc etc that is:
A reflection of a real person out of shot behind the camera but in the glass display case in front of the lens.
I have come across both of these more than once in otherwise strange apparition cases involving photographic 'proof'.
Anytime a thread borders on the paranormal/UFO/religion it's like flies round shite, if you throw a bit of shite you'll see them flock over, that's sorta how it works here. It's like a little bell goes and they all come out the woodwork, ooh what's this, oh something about God being real or ghosts, we need to get this person out the way and shut the thread down.
All I am asking is for is a bit of old fashioned British open-mindedness.
I have spent over 2 hours re-reading through this thread and by the time I got to the 20th or 30th post my heart had drooped with abjection and misery.
I have spent over 2 hours re-reading through this thread and by the time I got to the 20th or 30th post my heart had drooped with abjection and misery.
Black-Eyed People (sometimes called Black Eyed Children or Bek) are young people, often children, with eyes that are solid black with no differentiation between sclera, pupil, or iris, and are occasionally reported to have blue or bluish tinted skin like that of a corpse. Those who report encounters with them often feel that the children were somehow supernatural and extremely dangerous though they could not explain why.
Yet, amazingly, despite the proliferation of mobile technology, which EVERYONE has, not one of these BEPs has been captured on film.
I find that astonishing!
They must not be able to be filmed... Or something.
Because there's no way it's because they're fictional!
All I am asking is for is a bit of old fashioned British open-mindedness.
Some people are so open minded, their brain has fallen out.
I have spent over 2 hours re-reading through this thread and by the time I got to the 20th or 30th post my heart had drooped with abjection and misery.
Yes because I have read it properly and cross referenced it against some cuttings that I have.
I have to ask. WHY do you feel the need to bring this to our attention?
Surely you can see there isn't so much as a shred of evidence which comes from a reliable source of ANY kind.
If you had some proof of your findings, something tangible that would give even YOURSELF some kind of urgent desire to tell (or warn) the world, but you have nothing.
Because, and you can kid yourself all you like, there are some weird things in the world, some mental glitches or group hallucinations, but none of them will ever be proven by you or your kind, because most of them are just that, random glitches in our brains and those weird aberrations we really cannot fathom.
I say what I say to all the other conspiracy theorists: put this to bed and go find a healthier hobby!
This is great news and gives me a ray of hope . We have a totally rubbish council here called Waverley Borough Council and an equally rubbish MP also called Jeremy. This must be some sort of sign.
Can you please advise how how we can persuade your Jeremy to move to Godalming to start haunting the numpties that are ruining our lives. We are desperate..
Comments
Many photographed UFOs have always been the product of cameras freezing moments in time. It is very common for someone to discover a UFO on their pictures after the fact having seen nothing at the time of taking the photo. In reality something they did see (but in motion - such as a bird) has been frozen into a UFO like pose by the clicking shutter. It only looks odd because of that transformation.
Better cameras often make little difference to this process. The fact that more people now have them just means we get more UFO photos that are really IFO photos (IFO = Identified Flying Object = what 95% + of all reported UFO sightings turn out to be after investigation).
Modern cameras and access have - however - vastly increased the number of moving images. But, to the surprise of nobody I expect who has investigated a few UFO cases over the years, these are all the usual array of lights and squiggles that have always been the mainstay of UFO activity. Even the unsolved cases usually are of that nature.
It is a bit of a popular myth that UFO cases are full of structured spaceships and alien beings who are out there by the truckload and so should now be being photographed all the time if they are real.
Most shapes and structures appear to be read into a more amorphous stimulus and a camera will only reveal what was there - not what the human mind with its vagaries and expectations has read into it.
I think of it as like a remote islander who has never seen an aircraft before. One flies over their island and they tell their friends that they just saw the most remarkable bird. It has to be a bird because that is all they know. So they draw pictures and animate the wings and turn the cockpit windows into a face. They SEE something that matches their expectation of what they saw but that is not actually precisely what they did see.
Then the islander finds a camera dropped on the beach and learns it can capture the image of this strange bird. When they do that it does not look exactly like what by now they are sure they saw. It is too 'artificial' and not bird like.
This is how seeing UFOs works. We superimpose our human expectations on the things we see in the sky. So what we think we see is not necessarily what was actually up there. This creates all manner of confusion and argument when proof (such as photographic proof) fails to support what witnesses think they saw.
But it does NOT remove the fact that they saw something in the first place. And, whilst most of these somethings can be explained with enough investigative effort, a few cannot and there really are some things in the sky that are not yet fully understood.
These are the real UFOs.
Having seen some unusual UFO's myself it is very hard to properly film them. Most often they are at a distance to make filming them a hard task - you would at least need a tripod and a proper camcorder (as well as being prepared) otherwise they will only appear as small fuzzy dots.
Also other people have reported some form of influence where they ignored the sighting at the time. I was with my Dad on holiday in a remote farmhouse when across the other side of the small valley there was a VERY strange object. Gleaming white, silent and pouring off some sort of fog. There was no road or track at that point - only bracken. Now, indoors I had my camcorder but instead of rushing in and getting it all my Dad said was 'I don't like the look of that lets go indoors' which we did and did not even look out of the window for it nor feel curious or mention it UNTIL the next day when it sort of hit us and we spoke over it in detail. It was very odd and such objects were spotted by members of public at that time (late 90's) along with my Aunt who saw a similar thing over the Stockland mast.
Remember 'Rods'? That was in the early 2000s. It was insects (or birds at a distance) caught in interlaced video (or in a strobing light effect such as through helicopter rotors) producing a kind of multiple-exposure of them in motion.
Two common ghost mistakes in photo terms are the balls of light floating in front of a camera that are:
And the spectral figure in an old castle. museum etc etc that is:
I have come across both of these more than once in otherwise strange apparition cases involving photographic 'proof'.
I do enjoy your posts.
Even though I am a sceptic.
I speak from experience and I was on the right side of the bars.
All I am asking is for is a bit of old fashioned British open-mindedness.
I have spent over 2 hours re-reading through this thread and by the time I got to the 20th or 30th post my heart had drooped with abjection and misery.
Imagine how everybody else felt.
Yet, amazingly, despite the proliferation of mobile technology, which EVERYONE has, not one of these BEPs has been captured on film.
I find that astonishing!
They must not be able to be filmed... Or something.
Because there's no way it's because they're fictional!
Some people are so open minded, their brain has fallen out.
2 hours reading 5 pages
Oh, Jason. You're a hoot! This made me laugh SO MUCH!!!
XXX
Yes because I have read it properly and cross referenced it against some cuttings that I have.
What sort of plants were the cuttings from?
I have to ask. WHY do you feel the need to bring this to our attention?
Surely you can see there isn't so much as a shred of evidence which comes from a reliable source of ANY kind.
If you had some proof of your findings, something tangible that would give even YOURSELF some kind of urgent desire to tell (or warn) the world, but you have nothing.
Because, and you can kid yourself all you like, there are some weird things in the world, some mental glitches or group hallucinations, but none of them will ever be proven by you or your kind, because most of them are just that, random glitches in our brains and those weird aberrations we really cannot fathom.
I say what I say to all the other conspiracy theorists: put this to bed and go find a healthier hobby!
Where do the cuttings come from, not the internet as you don't use that now?
I have stringers who send them to me.
Over the internet, what's a stringer? So it will be your other CT nutters then?
From your other thread, what's a padlus, can't find that word on the internet.?
This is great news and gives me a ray of hope . We have a totally rubbish council here called Waverley Borough Council and an equally rubbish MP also called Jeremy. This must be some sort of sign.
Can you please advise how how we can persuade your Jeremy to move to Godalming to start haunting the numpties that are ruining our lives. We are desperate..
Because the are real!