Rare things that have been documented much better than UFOs

[yoshy]

I've seen the UAP live in daylight; I have no doubt in my heart...
These ultra-advanced (shape-shifting) machines exist.
And when it finally happens, you usually have very little time to react.
You probably just choose to watch so you don't miss anything !!

And who walks around with expensive camera equipment 24/7, ready to photograph or film a UFO sighting?
It always happens when you least expect it.
But it happens...

Welcome to the forum! This forum invites people to share their experiences, but you just have to find the thread for that or start a new one. And don't take skepticism as an insult. That's just the default here . I think UFOs and Aliens (the sub forum where this thread is) is the right place to make a new post if you like

 

[Fin]

And who walks around with expensive camera equipment 24/7, ready to photograph or film a UFO sighting?

Billions of people carry smartphones with them that can take high-resolution photographs and video, with sophisticated autofocus, image stabilisation, low-light capabilities and, on some models, powerful zoom.

Compared with the consumer photography equipment available in the 1990s when I was a kid, modern smartphones are astonishingly capable and would easily compete with some of the more expensive camera equipment a relatively small number of people could afford & carry around with them even just 20 years ago.

But to more directly answer your question: Today, many millions of people have expensive smartphones with excellent cameras which would put even seriously expensive 90's cameras to shame. They are more "ready" than in previous decades where you'd need to take the time to attach your telephoto lens, tripod etc. We've been more ready and well equipped than ever, but still nobody's ever got a good photo of an unambiguous UFO.

Then we have "Skywatcher" who had seriously expensive equipment, AND tripods, and even psionic summoners! And STILL all we got was blurry videos of distant birds and balloons

 

[GM4AJK]

They are more "ready" than in previous decades

And to add to this, I've seen many videos of "startling events" on the internet that not only capture the "startling event" but often show multiple other people filming the same "startling event" in the foreground.

And STILL all we got was blurry videos of distant birds and balloons

... and satellites, mostly Starlink these days, but the ISS still pops up decades after it was launched.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Regarding "disclosure" and the PURSUE project: I was a bit skeptical on the whole "scraping the bottom of the barrel" hypothesis, but the last tranche of UAP documents are all text and renderings, no videos, no photos, nothing.
Of course we can't completely be certain but, scraping the bottom of the barrel much?

 

[Todd Feinman]

Regarding "disclosure" and the PURSUE project: I was a bit skeptical on the whole "scraping the bottom of the barrel" hypothesis, but the last tranche of UAP documents are all text and renderings, no videos, no photos, nothing.
Of course we can't completely be certain but, scraping the bottom of the barrel much?

I never thought they would release anything of substance; why would they?

 

[JJB]

I never thought they would release anything of substance; why would they?

I never believed for a second that there was anything to disclose in the first place, at least not anything involving extraterrestrials. There are certainly things worth disclosing and talking about military sightings, sensor data and national security, but that's a long way from evidence of alien visitation.

 

[Todd Feinman]

I never believed for a second that there was anything to disclose in the first place, at least not anything involving extraterrestrials. There are certainly things worth disclosing and talking about military sightings, sensor data and national security, but that's a long way from evidence of alien visitation.

Imagine if there was something something to disclose, and there were high resolution images and sensor data that would prove it, and it was far more advanced than anything we knew of and was not a visionary or fictitious phenomenon that they had been keeping secret to study. Would they suddenly do a 180° and release everything because it was the ethical thing to do? Epstein?
Anyway, there's this bridge, in Brooklyn, I'd like to tell you something special about…

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

I never thought they were gonna release 4K videos of detailed flying saucers.
I just thought they wouldn't end up without any videos even before the 10th release.

 

[JJB]

Imagine if there was something something to disclose, and there were high resolution images and sensor data that would prove it, and it was far more advanced than anything we knew of and was not a visionary or fictitious phenomenon that they had been keeping secret to study. Would they suddenly do a 180° and release everything because it was the ethical thing to do? Epstein?
Anyway, there's this bridge, in Brooklyn, I'd like to tell you something special about…

The problem with this argument is that it assumes the very thing it needs to establish: that the government possesses high-resolution images and sensor data proving extraterrestrial technology exists. Where is that evidence?

Everyone can construct an elaborate hypothetical about what the government might hide if aliens were real, but that doesn't demonstrate that such evidence exists in the first place. Epstein has nothing to do with it, either. Government secrecy and institutional misconduct are real, but they don't establish an extraterrestrial cover-up.

And the bridge punchline is amusing, but implying that anyone who disagrees with you is gullible isn't evidence. Show me the data, not another hypothetical about what the data might reveal.

 

[Mauro]

Everyone can construct an elaborate hypothetical about what the government might hide if aliens were real, but that doesn't demonstrate that such evidence exists in the first place.

J. K. Rowling did exactly that (in the Harry Potter world, with wizards of course, not aliens).

 

[JMartJr]

Everyone can construct an elaborate hypothetical about what the government might hide if aliens were real, but that doesn't demonstrate that such evidence exists in the first place. Epstein has nothing to do with it, either. Government secrecy and institutional misconduct are real, but they don't establish an extraterrestrial cover-up.

Bear in mind, too, that EVERY government would have to also be hiding all THEIR proof (or good evidence,) as would every non-governmental group that ever came across any. "Epstein files" is not a relevant to point for most of those, nor any other individual or organizationally specific motive or excuse.

 

[Todd Feinman]

The problem with this argument is that it assumes the very thing it needs to establish: that the government possesses high-resolution images and sensor data proving extraterrestrial technology exists. Where is that evidence?

Everyone can construct an elaborate hypothetical about what the government might hide if aliens were real, but that doesn't demonstrate that such evidence exists in the first place. Epstein has nothing to do with it, either. Government secrecy and institutional misconduct are real, but they don't establish an extraterrestrial cover-up.

And the bridge punchline is amusing, but implying that anyone who disagrees with you is gullible isn't evidence. Show me the data, not another hypothetical about what the data might reveal.

It was just a hypothetical. I understand your stance; it makes sense.
I actually think things would play out much as they are if there was a reality to the UFO phenomenon. I realize that is not proof for skeptics.

 

[Mendel]

J. K. Rowling did exactly that (in the Harry Potter world, with wizards of course, not aliens).

And videos of platform 7½ would abound on Tiktok nowadays.

 

[Fin]

There is plenty of unambiguous evidence, but unfortunately its unambiguous evidence that everyone who's pushing for Disclosure who thinks they have good photo/video evidence is actually just terrible at video & photo analysis.

- From Jay Stratton being completely incapable of identifying bokeh, then doubling down long after its been proven to be bokeh,
- to Sarah Gamm being unable to identify a bird (while hanging out with Chris Bledsoe, no less),
- Lue Elizondo peddling easily debunkable photos of a reflection of a chandelier and.. some irrigation fields. etc..
- Skywatcher: birds and balloons
- Marik VR, prattling on for YEARS about the wholly unimpressive Gimbal video, which demonstrates absolutely nothing that allows us to rule out it being a distant aircraft with rotating lens flare/glare
- Eric Burlison getting excited about a UFO being shot at in 2024 by a Reaper drone: again, nothing overtly anomalous. A blurry blob flying in a straight line being hit by a missile
- Jeremy Corbell's eyes widened (as usual) as he breathlessly told us about a huge black triangle UFO (29 Palms) which is quite obviously just some flares. To be fair, he later partially walked that one back in the face of significant pushback & proof it was just flares, then he went quiet on it altogether. Among other revelatory non-revelations he also spent much energy trying to convince us that an obvious bunch of balloons floating along harmlessly, was actually a jellyfish UAP.

The list goes on, and on, but to summarise, there is an undeniable & very well established pattern: People from within the government & those, like Jeremy, who like to help spread their claims, have established & consistently fuelled an undeniable pattern of behaviour: They confidently present UFO videos and photos, often hyping them up before the big reveal, and in ALL cases their confidence has later been unequivocally proven to be stronger than the evidence actually justified.

Those of us who take some UFO witnesses seriously (I am one of them, being a BT witness and someone who's animated witness cases in great detail for them) do so because we find the PATTERNS compelling. We see a consistent pattern of, for example, black triangle witnesses describing eerily similar things: very low-flying unambiguous triangle-shaped craft haunting roadsides, flying in close proximity to the witnesses, in roughly the same way across multiple continents. We find it hard to ignore those patterns. But so many people invested in the whole UFO Disclosure subject seem to be completely immune to acknowledging one of the most consistent PATTERNS about actual UFO evidence, whether it's presented by civilians or government employees: Its all crap. Its nearly always completely debunkable, and when its not, that's because its a blurry blob in the distance, in the low information zone, where there's just not enough data to either rule out a flying saucer or a balloon, so why would we assume it's a flying saucer? No photo or video, ever presented, is unambiguously anomalous. No photo or video ever comes close to actually & clearly being an unambiguous black triangle hovering by a roadside, or above an air force hangar. In fact, ALL of the most unambiguous UFO videos & photos are hoaxes! And Burlison falls for those too!! (See the Buga Sphere).

With this pattern in mind, all we have left to grasp onto is claims where we hear about great evidence, but don't get to see it, like that of Chris Mellon, from his interview with James Fox. A brief reminder, accurately summarized for me by ChatGPT:

In the transcript of James Fox's appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience (#1976, 26 April 2023), Fox says:

"Christopher Mellon said that there's very high-resolution photographs."

Fox then recounts their conversation:

"I was like, well, how good are the photographs? [...] He goes, James. 4K? Just think about as good as you can imagine of craft."

Fox says Mellon was referring to satellite data. He also says he spoke to five other people who had access to, or were involved with, the alleged programme, and that they confirmed the claims.

Now, given the pattern I've already outlined - that every single one of these sorts of claims result in disappointment when we actually get to see the hyped video or photo - what are the chances that Mellon & co. are also yet another example of people being terrible at analysing ufo videos & photos? They saw something they thought was a 4K photo of a flying saucer, but actually it was akin to Elizondo's irrigation fields. I think at this point, after all that we've seen, its folly to argue that, oh, in that particular case, the evidence actually was completely unambiguous and un-debunkable. What's most likely, given the well established, unambiguous pattern, is that its just another misidentification by yet another person who's just not well-versed enough in analysing ufo imagery.