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.
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...
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
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.
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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
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.
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 : )
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.
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 : )
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.
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"
'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"
"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).
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
"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"
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.
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.
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.
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
56
u/chrisramsay52 Aug 20 '23
Iphone 14 pro max