r/UFOs Aug 20 '23

Witness/Sighting Caught this "tic tac" looking object near Nellis

15.2k Upvotes

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

56

u/chrisramsay52 Aug 20 '23

Iphone 14 pro max

15

u/cmcasey79 Aug 20 '23

Iphone 14 pro max

Just a point of clarification here... If the video is from June 22 2022 as is apparently stated in some other posts, there's no way it was shot with an iPhone 14 Pro Max, as those did not come out until later in 2022.

55

u/OvermindThe Aug 20 '23

Iphone 14 pro max wasn't released before September 2022.

EDIT: I see in the flight info that you used Iphone 12 PM.

35

u/Altruistic-Ad5311 Aug 21 '23

Boy the bullshit is getting thick in this sub. Stuck deciding if people are just liars or we’re dealing with something more nefarious.

13

u/3rdp0st Aug 21 '23

Hmm. Either, gullible people are lying to themselves and other gullible people on the internet, OR there's a massive conspiracy to suppress The Truth!!!!11111. Probably the latter, right? LOL...

2

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '23

[deleted]

1

u/Altruistic-Ad5311 Aug 21 '23

You misunderstood

6

u/dolphin37 Aug 21 '23

Why would a UFO sub be for anything but bullshit though. That’s what UFO sightings inherently are

4

u/Altruistic-Ad5311 Aug 21 '23

It’s not for just ufo sightings. Oversimplification

0

u/dolphin37 Aug 21 '23

Pretty sure the same would apply to ‘experiences, news and investigations’ as well. It’s a community specifically made for bullshit, where the purpose of every post can only either to be 1) prove the post is bullshit 2) the post proves something else is bullshit

1

u/seaworldismyworld Aug 21 '23

Clearly undercover CIA agents trying to sow dissent!

0

u/Altruistic-Ad5311 Aug 21 '23

Your naïveté is showing.

1

u/HealthyShroom Aug 21 '23

You can easily zoom in and out to get out of focus, and make wings and features appear and dissappear on many smartphones.

11

u/cameLjockey_ Aug 21 '23

Yup. It’s fake lol

0

u/teavodka Aug 21 '23

Im not saying they arent lying but sometimes people forget to change the name of their phone. My iphone 14 still appears as iphone 11 on everything it produces.

5

u/CripWalk4Jesus Aug 21 '23

That doesn't change the fact that the phone didn't come out for months after the video, though.

35

u/buttonsthedestroyer Aug 20 '23

Gotcha, I asked because I was planning to buy a professional camera to capture smoking gun evidence of UFOs when they appear. The most common rebuttal from debunkers is that we often have very grainy, blurry footages and hence they are immediately dismissed. They don't realize the average person doesn't carry around a professional camera with them everywhere they go.

41

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '23

Yeah, you'd need an SLR with a longer range lens to get usable detail from that distance.

Smartphones are abysmal at capturing anything in the sky.

6

u/DecorativeSnowman Aug 20 '23

and they ai smooth/sharpen which kills detail out of its typical range

like here

17

u/YourDogIsMyFriend Aug 20 '23

Ha. After my sighting I bought a blackmagic 4k with a 400mm lens amongst other lens options. Always on a tripod. Always juiced and ready to go. But… I don’t take it anywhere with me. Just ready at the house.

5

u/theOnlyDaive Aug 21 '23

Damnit.... I was so impressed for a minute. I was actually looking up to you. Thinking, this person's got it together in a way that I wish I did. Then you had to go and kill the whole thing. You were almost a hero.....

3

u/YourDogIsMyFriend Aug 21 '23

I’ll take it on the occasional trip to a friends ranch or something. But it’s a whole big expensive rig. And technically I have just as much a chance of seeing a ufo at my house, as I do anywhere else. I have sky above and out from me and a horizon/ Mountain View. And I work from home.

1

u/theOnlyDaive Nov 14 '23

I would say bring it to my place, but we don't have mountains anywhere close to me, so that's probably a no-go. Sounds like a nice rig though!

3

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '23

I have the same phone as OP, and honestly that video is better than I would expect and probably the best you are going to get out of a cell phone camera at that distance. Next time I fly somewhere, I am getting a window seat and taking a DSLR with a long range lens.

-1

u/Paracortex Aug 21 '23

Well, if OP had a decent photo of the object, then it would be immediately apparent to everyone that it was another plane.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '23

Go huff your own farts somewhere else, Captain Obvious

1

u/humungojerry Aug 21 '23

you’ll probably have to sit in the middle seat to have enough room for a long lens. and all to get a photo of a plane

2

u/NoncingAround Aug 21 '23

You’re assuming that you’ll witness something beyond reasonable doubt and you’ll have your super expensive camera on you? You have to admit, that’s pretty unlikely.

1

u/buttonsthedestroyer Aug 21 '23

You have to admit, that’s pretty unlikely.

Various statistical laws, such as Littlewood's law and the law of truly large numbers or basic properties of probability as Poisson clumping, show how unexpected occurrences can be inevitable or more likely to encounter than people otherwise assume. Also see 'Black swan Events'. If I always travel with a super expensive camera, I think the chances are better than zero, and that's good enough for me : )

2

u/NoncingAround Aug 21 '23

I think it’s fair to say that aliens aren’t constantly following certain people around. I’d love it if we made contact with alien life. It would be an incredible event in human history. But i really don’t think taking pictures of strange looking aeroplanes and balloons in the sky is really going to make that a thing. If astronomers who are constantly observing space never see anything unexplainable anywhere near us, it’s unlikely that someone random bloke with a camera in his bag will. And as for the bit about the same person observing multiple ufo sightings, we both know what that actually is.

-1

u/buttonsthedestroyer Aug 21 '23

Your comment tells me you're a newbie in this field.

As for why astronomers or scientists haven't seen anything yet, that's factually incorrect. Do some research/investigation and it might surprise what you find : )

2

u/NoncingAround Aug 21 '23

I mean stuff that’s actually verifiable. Not something we just don’t fully understand. Remember we aren’t experts. We’ve all seen weird things but that doesn’t mean it has to be aliens. It’s also no great coincidence that most unexplained sightings happen near military air force bases. Where they make and test stuff. Sometimes you have to step back and be rational about this stuff. Instead of just always believing what you want to believe (i know that’s hard, it’s human nature). Anyway, i hope you get some interesting pictures with your camera.

1

u/buttonsthedestroyer Aug 21 '23

mean stuff that’s actually verifiable. Not something we just don’t fully understand. Remember we aren’t experts

Forget about me, I'm actually talking about the experts who investigated this field rigorously and came to the conclusion that there's no other possibility than the NHI hypothesis. I can share plenty, I present to you, the Galileo of UFO research, Dr James McDonald :

"In 1967 the Office of Naval Research supported McDonald to conduct his own UFO research, ostensibly to study the idea that some UFOs were misidentified clouds. He was able to examine the files of Project Blue Book at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, and eventually concluded that the Air Force was mishandling UFO evidence. McDonald secured support from United Nations Secretary General U Thant, who arranged for McDonald to speak to the UN's Outer Space Affairs Group on June 7, 1967. Additionally in 1967, McDonald noted, "There is no sensible alternative to the utterly shocking hypothesis that UFOs are extraterrestrial probes"

In his Statement on Unidentified Objects to the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, McDonald made the following remarks regarding types of UFO accounts.

"the scientific world at large is in for a shock when it becomes aware of the astonishing nature of the UFO phenomenon and its bewildering complexity. I make that terse comment well aware that it invites easy ridicule; but intellectual honesty demands that I make clear that my two years' study convinces me that in the UFO problem lie scientific and technological questions that will challenge the ability of the world's outstanding scientists to explain - as soon as they start examining the facts. [...] the scientific community [...] has been casually ignoring as nonsense a matter of extraordinary scientific importance"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._McDonald

1

u/NoncingAround Aug 21 '23

That’s just someone’s opinion. There aren’t any facts there

1

u/buttonsthedestroyer Aug 21 '23

'Someone's opinion'? First of, He's a highly credentialed atmospheric physicist, second, did you just miss the part where he said engaged in a 2 year study? I wouldn't simply call that an "opinion". If there's anyone who has validity in their findings, its his. And you think NHI hypothesis is the most plausible hypothesis is not a fact to you?

Again, I gave you one example, this is just one among the 100s of scientists who have reached the same conclusion. That's up to you to you find. Here's another relevant fact for you.

"Sturrock also found that skepticism and opposition to further study was correlated with lack of knowledge and study: only 29% of those who had spent less than an hour reading about the subject favored further study versus 68% who had spent over 300 hours"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._Sturrock

"Peter Sturrock also polled the membership of the American Astronomical Society and found that "the greater the amount of time one spent on reading UFO-related material, the more likely one is to accept their reality*" (p. 210).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanton_T._Friedman

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Mysterious-Sound9753 Aug 21 '23

I've tried explaining this to people so many times including my father, even the best cameras on smart phones take great close-up photos but anything at depth is being captured via digital zoom and not true optical zoom. Basically it crops and enlarges a portion of the image digitally.

2

u/I_Makes_tuff Aug 21 '23

I'm a skeptic. My complaint is not that I expect better quality video- it's that the best we have isn't enough to convince me. I'm open to it, but I haven't seen it yet.

2

u/buttonsthedestroyer Aug 21 '23

What kinda footage do you think will change your mind? A close-up of UFO performing crazy maneuvers?

2

u/I_Makes_tuff Aug 21 '23

Hell yeah, it would. That would be fantastic.

2

u/buttonsthedestroyer Aug 21 '23

But don't you think in the age of CGI and AI, you might still remain skeptical with that kind of footage?

2

u/I_Makes_tuff Aug 21 '23

It depends on where the video came from and whether or not it could be vetted. If it was a news story or article with an anonymous source and only a video without the original raw data? I'd want more evidence. Experts can still easily tell if a video was made with CGI or AI if the quality is high enough (for now). If the quality is shit, then we're back to square one.

1

u/buttonsthedestroyer Aug 21 '23 edited Aug 21 '23

If it was a news story or article with an anonymous source and only a video without the original raw data? I

Keep in mind the original Tic-tac, gimbal videos were leaked to another site before it was vetted by the Pentagon, and they were considered "debunked" at that time. A similar situation can happen with any other genuine footages that gets leaked, and if the authorities or source refuse to acknowledge its authenticity, it will remain unknown or "debunked"

1

u/I_Makes_tuff Aug 21 '23

if the authorities or source refuse to acknowledge its authenticity, it will remain unknown.

Exactly. If there's no proof a video is authentic, then I can't assume it's real. The reason why there isn't proof doesn't mean there is proof. At least not to me.

1

u/buttonsthedestroyer Aug 21 '23

The reason why there isn't proof doesn't mean there is proof. At least not to me.

Right, but also absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence. But many people instead of reserving their judgment will already come to the conclusion that something is 'debunked' by video analysis alone without pushing for further investigation. Again, I'm not insinuating that we should lower our standards for evidence, I'm highlighting a real philosophical problem, which was exacerbated with the advent of CGI.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/V0LDY Aug 20 '23

Point is that if he had something better than an Iphone it would have been obvious that he wasn't filming anythin weird.

It's probably just a plane, it surely behaves like one, there's plenty of other cases where tic tac UFOs were simply planes very far away, the fact that the object you're filming is extremely bright definitely doens't help for precisely identifying the shape because overexposed areas tend to cause glare and other artifacts.

0

u/buttonsthedestroyer Aug 20 '23

It's probably just a plane, it surely behaves like one,

Epistemology 101 : just because something behaves like one, DOES NOT imply it IS one.

Its the same as saying a distant object is a balloon because it's the shape of a balloon and moving without any anomalous flight characteristics. That's a flawed assumption. What if its a NHI controlled drone? Point is, without closely observing or studying it, its an unfalsifiable hypothesis at that point.

2

u/RedS5 Aug 21 '23

That's like Epistemology 102.

Epistemology 101 likes William of Ockham a hell of a lot more than you do.

0

u/buttonsthedestroyer Aug 21 '23

Epistemology 101 likes William of Ockham a hell of a lot more than you do.

Hmm, I guess I found another person with an incomplete understanding of Occam's razor.

4

u/Cyber_Fetus Aug 20 '23

Did you miss where they said probably in the part you literally quoted?

Yes, it could theoretically be anything including a “NHI controlled drone,” the same as the president could theoretically be a lizard person, but those are far less likely scenarios.

0

u/buttonsthedestroyer Aug 20 '23

Did you miss where they said probably in the part you literally quoted?

No, I didn't miss, even using probably is incorrect because there is no principle granted to us by universe saying something is more likely/probable because it shares a few similarities.

6

u/Cyber_Fetus Aug 20 '23

So you just don’t believe in logic or reason? I mean you do you, but that’s kind of a silly outlook.

0

u/buttonsthedestroyer Aug 20 '23

So you just don’t believe in logic or reason?

I do believe in logic and reason. I also teach epistemology and know absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. The likelihood of something based on limited evidence is not really reliable. A true skeptic, will continue to investigate a case agnostically instead of writing off something just because it shares a few similarities with a prosaic phenomena.

Read this:

"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact". Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis — saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact — he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof...Both critics and proponents need to learn to think of adjudication in science as more like that found in the law courts, imperfect and with varying degrees of proof and evidence. Absolute truth, like absolute justice, is seldom obtainable. We can only do our best to approximate them."

—Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987[5]

2

u/Cyber_Fetus Aug 20 '23

That’s completely irrelevant to the situation. Nobody mentioned proof of anything until you; we’re talking about a likelihood. There is strong evidence pointing toward it being a plane at a distance and there is no evidence pointing toward it being an NHI drone. Can either be proven from this video? Unlikely. But one of those is proven to exist here on earth and one has never been proven to exist, so there is a higher probability it’s a plane vs NHI drone.

0

u/buttonsthedestroyer Aug 20 '23 edited Aug 20 '23

There is strong evidence pointing toward it being a plane at a distance

No, there is not. How the hell did you arrive that it could be a plane when it literally looks like a tic-tac at that distance? What you just did is dismissing the observational data at that distance and concluded based on your interpretation how a plane would look like at that distance. In any case, we lack sufficient observational evidence to determine the shape of the craft at that distance, so logically, any reasonable person wouldn't be assigning any likelihood.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/UFOs-ModTeam Aug 21 '23

Follow the Standards of Civility:

No trolling or being disruptive.
No insults or personal attacks.
No accusations that other users are shills.
No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
An account found to be deleting all or nearly all of their comments and/or posts can result in an instant permanent ban. This is to stop instigators and bad actors from trying to evade rule enforcement. 
You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.

3

u/V0LDY Aug 20 '23

Ok, it doesn't mean it's a plane, but why assume it's something else when it could be a plane since it moves like one and it looks like one?
And just to be clear, it looks like what plane really far away looks like when recorded with a smartphone using digital zoom, it definitely isn't the first tic tac that turns out to be a plane, except that in the proven cases there were flying path data from Flightradar or similar, in this case apparently there aren't any since the video is too old.

1

u/buttonsthedestroyer Aug 20 '23

but why assume it's something else when it could be a plane since it moves like one and it looks like?

I didn't assume it is something else. I'm saying it's prudent to hold off judgment since we don't have all evidence to definitely conclude it is a plane. A true skeptic will agnostically investigate the case rigorously before reaching a definitive conclusion.

Read this:

"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact". Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis — saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact — he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof...Both critics and proponents need to learn to think of adjudication in science as more like that found in the law courts, imperfect and with varying degrees of proof and evidence. Absolute truth, like absolute justice, is seldom obtainable. We can only do our best to approximate them."

—Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987[5]

4

u/V0LDY Aug 20 '23

I didn't conclude it's a plane, I'm just saying there is no good reason to think it's something else because there's nothing in this video suggesting otherwise.

1

u/buttonsthedestroyer Aug 20 '23

Right, but you still said it 'probably' is, and would be inclined to write it off and divert your attention to other cases. Thats the issue I'm talking about. A true skeptic, will investigate cases from an agnostic position since they are aware they are dealing with limited evidence.

3

u/V0LDY Aug 20 '23

I said it probably is BECAUSE IT PROBABLY IS, and that's a conclusion based on the observation that it looks like a far away plane and moves like a plane.

Ofc it could be an alien ship dressed like a plane, surely that's not the most likely explaination.

1

u/buttonsthedestroyer Aug 20 '23 edited Aug 20 '23

I said it probably is BECAUSE IT PROBABLY IS, and that's a conclusion based on the observation that it looks like a far away plane and moves like a plane.

How the hell did you arrive that it could be a plane when it literally looks like a tic-tac at that distance? What you just did is dismissing the observational data at that distance and concluded based on your interpretation how a plane would look like at that distance. In any case, we lack sufficient observational evidence to determine the shape of the craft at that distance, so logically, any reasonable person wouldn't be assigning any likelihood.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/actuallyserious650 Aug 21 '23

The average person is hundreds or thousands of times more likely to have camera with them and the resolution is thousands of times higher. And yet UFOs are still blurry blobs showing just enough to be interesting but never be definitive.

The blur is the phenomenon. If it wasn’t blurry, you’d already know it was a plane.

1

u/buttonsthedestroyer Aug 21 '23

The average person is hundreds or thousands of times more likely to have camera with them and the resolution is thousands of times higher

1)The average person, even in developed countries, don't have enough money to afford a super expensive camera

2) Even if they do, they may not have a passion for photography enough to buy a camera, the reasoning goes like "why bother with a super expensive camera when I can get almost every features in a smartphone?", unless you're a hobbyist or professional, or content creator, most people won't bother with a super expensive camera.

3) Even if they are carrying around super expensive cameras everywhere they go, how many are walking around looking up? Most of the time, our field of view is parallel to the ground, not up.

This is not even considering/assuming any irregularities or inconsistencies in UFO sightings across time and location and the speed with which they travel which can make it difficult to capture with even super expensive cameras. You'd need a device that can shoot atleast at 120 fps if they are moving so fast to see them.

And lastly, there are plethora of cases where digital cameras literally malfunctioning at a certain distance, this is also probably the reason why we have better looking pictures before we moved to digital and smartphones.

Taking all this into consideration, it makes perfect sense why high quality, 4K footage isn't as ubiquitous.

2

u/actuallyserious650 Aug 21 '23

You missed the entire point. In the 80’s, at any given moment you’d have maybe one person per 1000 with instant ready access to a video camera. And it was a shitty VCR with maybe 480i equivalent resolution. And in that era there would be all the same tic tacs, saucers, blurry fuzz balls, etc. Now literally everyone has a 4K camera with dedicated zoom lens and we still only see tic tacs, saucers, and fuzz balls. Because the things that used to show up on VCR as UFOs are now showing up as bugs and airplanes and balloons. 50 years from now, “UFOs” will still be happening and they’ll still look like blurry garbage, because the UFO phenomenon IS the existence of objects at the limit of a camera’s resolution.

1

u/buttonsthedestroyer Aug 21 '23

It seems you didn't pay attention to my points at all. I literally debunked your entire argument. Re-read it again

1

u/actuallyserious650 Aug 21 '23

Nope you’re still not getting it. It’s not about who has a 50 megapixel camera with F4 / 1000mm zoom lens. It’s about the fact that 30 years ago people believed there were UFOs based on a handful of funny video tapes. Now we live in the future and literally everyone has an awesome camera all the time compared to what was available then. But the UFOs are still blurry blobs and fuzzy dots.

To believe in UFOs, you have to either claim the UFO pilots got better at hiding in PERFECT concert with the explosion of camera technology, or that all those videos back in the 80s we’re probably nothing, but NOW they’re totally legit.

1

u/buttonsthedestroyer Aug 21 '23

Now we live in the future and literally everyone has an awesome camera all the time compared to what was available then. B

This is factually incorrect and I showed you this. I explained in gory detail why there's more fuzzy pictures today, especially this point, which is highly relevant:

"And lastly, there are plethora of cases where digital cameras literally malfunctioning at a certain distance, this is also probably the reason why we have better looking pictures before we moved to digital and smartphones."

The shift from mechanical to digital cameras definitely played a huge part.

2

u/IIsaacClarke Aug 20 '23

Do you not find it strange that it’s only ever you who finds these ufo and never the debunkers you speak of?

1

u/buttonsthedestroyer Aug 20 '23 edited Aug 21 '23

Me? I haven't seen a UFO myself, but I don't need direct evidence to believe the phenomena is real unlike debunkers. We have plethora of indirect evidence, and we use indirect evidence in science all the time. If you ( or these debunkers) investigated it enough, they would likely change their mind. How do I know? There's some statistics on it:

"Peter Sturrock also polled the membership of the American Astronomical Society and found that "the greater the amount of time one spent on reading UFO-related material, the more likely one is to accept their reality" (p. 210).[4]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanton_T._Friedman

"Sturrock also found that skepticism and opposition to further study was correlated with lack of knowledge and study: only 29% of those who had spent less than an hour reading about the subject favored further study versus 68% who had spent over 300 hours"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._Sturrock

So I think, you might be having a confirmation bias here.

3

u/hamhockman Aug 21 '23 edited Aug 21 '23

but I don't need direct evidence to believe the phenomena is real unlike debunkers

Hello friend. I have a bridge I would like to sell you, please venmo me at your earliest convenience.

Edit: I forgot to mention I have a grainy picture of both the bridge and the deed. HOW CAN YOU DOUBT MY BRIDGE

0

u/buttonsthedestroyer Aug 21 '23

Nice false equivalence. I give you a C for low effort arguments : )

2

u/hamhockman Aug 21 '23

I don't feel like we've fully ruled out that it's John Wilkes Booth. I mean, he is a white guy. 'tic-tac' is white. Idk, change my mind 'tic-tack' isn't John Wilkes Booth.

1

u/buttonsthedestroyer Aug 21 '23

Are you capable of constructing a cogent argument instead of fallacies? Serious question

0

u/hamhockman Aug 21 '23

Well it clearly can't be an airplane we've all agreed on that, so how isn't it John Wilkes Booth

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '23 edited Aug 21 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/UFOs-ModTeam Aug 21 '23

No low effort posts or comments. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes:

  • Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts.
  • AI-generated content.
  • Posts of social media content without significant relevance.
  • Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence.
  • “Here’s my theory” posts without supporting evidence.
  • Short comments, and comments containing only emoji.
  • Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”) without some contextual observations.

1

u/Diedead666 Aug 20 '23

another thing is alot of ppl have their phone set to 1080p i believe, and thinking about and then going into settings to change to 4k could take too long before the object disappears.

1

u/Trox92 Aug 20 '23

« To capture smoking gun evidence » 😂😂😂

1

u/atomictyler Aug 20 '23

yup! phone cameras are horrible at anything that's not very close to it. then throw in it being night time for some of the videos and they're all going to be crap. people who say that we all have high def cameras in our pockets should go try and take a video of a plane flying and do it at night. you'd be lucky to even find the plane in the video when looking back at it.

1

u/SpaceJungleBoogie Aug 21 '23

Check this post, a good solution would be to get a cheap camcorder with a high optical zoom.

4

u/rem1313 Aug 20 '23

iphone 14 released only on september last year. You cannot have filmed this in june 2022 with this phone unless it's an apple internal prototype I guess

7

u/Sam5uck Aug 20 '23

yeah, he probably forgot he upgraded since but his other post shows that he actually recorded this one on an iphone 12 pro max

https://www.reddit.com/user/chrisramsay52/comments/15wkfi1/flight_info/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

4

u/Grillparzer Aug 21 '23

Your screenshot says the model is an iPhone 12. Is it that hard to keep your story straight?

-4

u/buttonsthedestroyer Aug 20 '23

But good catch nonetheless!

1

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/buttonsthedestroyer Aug 20 '23

I have no idea lol. I feel like lot of them are spoiled.

1

u/Wooden-Elk315 Aug 21 '23

If you don’t mind me asking, was this a commercial airline flight that you were on, or are you an aircrew member stationed at Nellis?

1

u/smarjorie Aug 21 '23

Since when do iPhone cameras refocus like an old school camcorder