UFOs and the Security State

[DaveM]

This has always puzzled me. With security cameras at practically every corner these days, wouldn't someone have captured some good ufo footage by now? And I don't mean the fake BS that someone has spent time developing, trying to fool people with. Maybe the police or other security fronts have gotten footage, but we will never be privy to it.

 

[Steve Zalewski]

September 5, 2013
First of all most security cameras are not aimed at the sky, they are aimed to either cover a large ground area, say a mall parking lot, or they can be remotely controlled to zoom in on say someone who may be up to no good from a distance.

Secondly, most UFOs are larger then a star but smaller in size then a full moon. In addition, nocturnal lights are usually faint, and cameras even then would have difficulty getting an image.

See: Thornton Page, "Photographic Sky Coverage for the Detection of UFOs," Science 160 (1968): 1258.
Referenced in UFOs A Scientific Debate page 10. ISBN 0-393-00739-1

Steve Zalewski,
Syracuse, NY

 

[DaveM]

That is my point. A security camera covering a large area or field might pick up a landed ufo . I wasn't thinking of a camera pointed up to the sky. The idea is... there are thousands of cameras directed in any manner of ways. Not a one has picked up any strangeness? I guess Robert Bigelow is wasting his time and money then.

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

All security cam footage I have ever seen is of a very low quality. I cannot imagine it'd be at all useful in this context.

I like what J Allen Hynek said in "The UFO Experience" with regard to the question of why there are so few good pictures and video. He stated that the lack of photographic and video evidence should not be seen as a reason for the dismissal of the phenomenon but rather as a part of the phenomenon. In other wordrs, it's a part of the mystery.

 

[boomerang]

I tend to take the Woo Road on the issue of high quality photographic evidence of UFOs. This phenomenon is both real and in almost total control of its interaction with our perceptions. It leaves limited physical evidence in its wake, but on its own strict terms.

 

[Randall]

I tend to take the Woo Road on the issue of high quality photographic evidence of UFOs. This phenomenon is both real and in almost total control of its interaction with our perceptions. It leaves limited physical evidence in its wake, but on its own strict terms.

UFO technology also seems to be adaptive. Reports of cloaking ability weren't prevalent until the Modern Age of Ufology, and they seem to have been increasing proportionally to our ability to capture images of them. Also, the sheer number of fake videos makes it next to impossible not to wonder if some percentage of them aren't intended to create noise, frustrate researchers, and perpetuate skepticism and ridicule. At some point I think we need to stop playing the disclosure game with the powers that be. We should focus more on our own resources, and move forward on our own terms.

 

[Ignorant Fool]

UFO technology also seems to be adaptive. Reports of cloaking ability weren't prevalent until the Modern Age of Ufology, and they seem to have been increasing proportionally to our ability to capture images of them. Also, the sheer number of fake videos makes it next to impossible not to wonder if some percentage of them aren't intended to create noise, frustrate researchers, and perpetuate skepticism and ridicule. At some point I think we need to stop playing the disclosure game with the powers that be. We should focus more on our own resources, and move forward on our own terms.

Using Youtube as a disinformational tool to garner potentially massive exposure for fake videos sounds plausible.