Hello guys!
But please
I do not wish to offend you in any way with my critics. I believe in fact, that it is good to exercise your senses, to learn, as well learn to discern.
And it is wonderful that many more people have become far more observant of what is going on in our skies. I think that is great ! To be curious. And wanting to explore. To ask questions. To seek for answers.
Don't worry I am not offended and I'm not talking about my photos only, because it's not about me, there's no problem, it's not going to trigger a self-important program where I feel that you are attacking my photos (laughs). In fact, if we are looking for knowledge I can't do it. But I can't say lightly that it's all dust and hair and distortions of light. And not because I won't accept the evidence, because if we're here, that's why we're looking for an answer to all that. But if there is something that I do not understand, it is like not believing in UFOs, which are only an acronym (which I understand well what they refer to separating U.F.O in the literal sense of the word) but if we believe or accept 4d beings and lizards and abductions and in a communication with beings in 6 degrees above among other horrible things that happen product of hyperdimensional reality. I find it too contradictory if something is manifesting itself in my own face and not accept it.
I listen and investigate further and integrate. Trial and error. Many thanks for the detailed information because as a photographer I find it very useful when explaining to others too. Only say that "they appear only after taking pictures" gives room for support that it may be dust or light distortions. My observations on light distortion, dust, chromatic aberration and shapes in terms of speed and distances captured and in my limited way of expressing myself in the absence of terms that give greater basis on what I say, are these:
Dust & specks on the image sensor
Dust will always maintain a fixed distance and position which can be checked with the photo sequences and they are always, always, "transparent dark balls" also their dimension varies depending on the lens being used. Light distortions, depending on the lens aperture and how much light enters the sensor, can always capture the direction they are coming from and the positions are also fixed.
The shape and definition of the blades depends on the distance at which you are working, but the shape is the reflection of the blades, of the diaphragm, being octagonal when they are more defined, otherwise they are circular. And depending on the angle of the light they will always be oval or circular. Again it is to know the behavior of the light through the equipment and the elements in the environment.
But even with 1/1000 sec shutter speed in broad daylight not unusual, a fast flying insect in 2-3 meter distance will still cause a blurry elongated streak.
It depends more on the type of camera. When you become familiar with the different slow shutter speeds, objects always leave a trail of equal size and distance characteristic depending on the speed at which the person or object is moving. Unfortunately I don't know how to express myself in correct scientific terms to say that the maximum speed of a mosquito is X therefore a photo at X shutter speed is sure that you can always "freeze" the mosquito, out of focus or blurred, you will see that it is a mosquito with the only difference that due to the blur, it will look transparent and bulging, but that you will see the mosquito, you will see it. I have done this even when I have gone within 60 cm of the lens, a blurry spot with wings. The closer it gets, it expands and sometimes even "disappears".
Also if you observe a black dot, defined and is present in the same place in all the photos, and maintains the same dimension, that is dust. Birds are the ones that could confuse the most at a very far distance, but they are still dots and they still appear in a series of photographs, with a predictable trajectory and distance. If the person pays attention to that behavior, he will also notice that the birds look in V or m, as if they were drawn by a child.
3) night images of airplanes, drones, satellites, reflections via optics, and other lens-optical phenomenas
Those can confuse and raise questions of what is it you see in your final images, I get that.
For the eye that is not accustomed to differences in the behavior of light on objects, yes, they are easily confused. But the light of airplanes are usually flashes, not rectangular or oval with an intensity close to those emitted by a star and less that surrounds the entire plane, even with the lights on steady. Also an airplane or satellite, maintain a fixed, constant motion and speed. I don't know how air traffic is in other countries, but whoever pays attention to it, knows its the trajectory.
When you make a picture of night scenery at low speeds generally most of the lights present in the scene or close to a source of light outside of the scene, and depending on the angle you get to make another light may enter in through the corners of the scene, reflect, distort, intensified, and his chromatic aberration is larger due to the large amount of light that you are allowing to enter the sensor and that depends on the type of photo that will make, it must be at very low speeds where trepidation is also an important factor for something so contrasted to happen. And if there is trepidation, it is more evident that it is a human error, because all the lights will present the same movement that the camera exerted. They all have the same direction, dimension and distance.
Until now that has been the pattern, a dust, a mosquito, an airplane, etc.that until now I have captured or appear in the background without intention of being captured, at the distance or 20 cm away from the lens and at high and low speeds, has not ceased to be something recognizable and identifiable.
Thanks for sharing AlmaInnovadora,
Beyond the UFO possibilities some of the pictures are pretty good in their own right, so kudos.
Regarding what XPan mentioned, I tend to have a similar approach personally, and this really became my mindset about the whole phenomenon after reading some of the work of John Keel, he has a very healthy skepticism that remains forever open in his writing. And more than that, he is an engaging writer, so his work is rather easy to get through.
Thanks Alejo, I did not accept the photos as evidence before but because I did not live it at that time I never told myself that it was not true for not having had the experience. I do not confirm that all the photos are real but I also do not discard them easily as dust and reflections, I can not due to my experiences also outside the camera. It is good to have a fundamental knowledge of how the camera can create false positives, but it should not always be used to bury and discard lightly.
Have you read any of his work? If not, I would highly recommend it.
I have always found it interesting how despite the incredible amount of evidence out there regarding a phenomenon that transcends our reality, and how widely available it is, most people still choose to ignore it. And if I am honest, while I keep it in the back of my mind, it does not seep into my daily dealings with the world, so every now and then a good reminder of its existence, is actually nice to have.
¿John Alva Keel? who wrote Operation Trojan Horse, men in black, The prophecies of the Mothman? The classics of mystery: Kerry Cassidy, David Icke, etc. (laughter). In case it's that one. Yes, I spent a good bit of time between that kind of material and some Richard Dolan, but it left me with a bad taste. When I found the first Cass forum, it was something else, I was reading something that went straight to the point. Why didn't he talk directly and only about "monster" and always the dead end with the CIA as the mastermind.
That's like Laura coming along one of these days and saying this is all collective madness.
Thanks a lot for the photo, @Alma.Innovadora !
I sincerely share your desire and desire to capture a UFO in a photo. Although it can be dangerous for the person taking the photo.
Thanks AndrewMn,
Nope, I don't want it. I commented at the beginning of the thread that it has been enough with the ones I have had. It's not like I kept hunting UFOs. When I say "I wanted to see a UFO" I am referring to that moment we all go through and would like to see something extraordinary in life as children, from ignorance and curiosity, the rest was to test an investigation that I encountered many years later and also out of curiosity. It is not so complicated when it seems it should happen and yep. Difficult, it is not to have the camera at hand when something really crazy happens, in the end there is the real sighting of the black boomerang confirmed by cass. And Yes! I perfectly understand the danger, once I almost had an accident at the same time I was observing an event.
I was looking for the transciptions where it says something similar to: "The sighting can be fortuitous, but if they want, they will show themselves to you and you will see them." I know I saw him days ago (the transciptions) and now he's gone.
Q: (L) Is it true that some people cannot see aliens or UFOs because they block them from their own minds?
A: That can happen, but the blockade can also be inspired by the alien.
Like the third man?
come on! you should try it yourselves and come out of skepticism. Go out and play with the crocodiles.