I never said it was a mobile phone
Yes it was in Zimbabwe in the mid 90's. What was their idea on debunking? I might have a look for it.
Well I am into into astrophotography so I do have some idea and no I wouldn't expect one of them to catch something as the chances while not impossible are astronomically small. Given that there 10's of millions of planes flights a year and that's just 1 year, over 100 million over 10 years and look how rare those style of shots are. Assuming UFO's are real, unless you think UFO's are making 10's of millions of flight a year we shouldn't expect someone with nice kit to by fluke get a perfect shot of them. The chance of someone being in the right spot at the right time with the right kit are astronomically small. Far smaller then catching a plane and that's hard enough. While UFO's are real I am not convinced they are alien but lets assume they are for arguments sake. What if they are only visiting in 10's or 100's of visits a year? How would someone by fluke be expected to catch a good photo of them without flight plan compared to the 10's of millions of plane flights and how hard it is to see them.
Nonsense you can spot an aircraft at cruising altitude with the naked eye, they're not hard to see
Cheers, I'll give it a watch after I've seen the Ariel film.
I am not arguing over nothing. You think the video proves something that it does not in relation to the person you quoted. No one is denying you can tell they are planes. The reason we can tell they are plans is what you seem to not understand.
Do you know about the difference between looking at a familiar distinctive shape that is blurred and lacking in detail and telling what it and looking at a none familiar, none distinctive shape that is blurred and lacking in detail and telling what it is. The best real world example I can give you is looking at CCTV. If you are not familiar with the person often you will see a blurred mess and it will be impossible to identify the person. Yet someone that is very familiar will be able to tell who they are looking at. This rule applies to objects high in the sky the brain fills in the gaps and based on it being familiar with the object. Yes you can see a aircraft at cruising altitude but the only reason you can tell what it is, is due to the distinctive outline and its a familiar shape so your brain can resolve it. Looking at a none distinctive outline that is not familiar is an entirely different ball game. You likely wont be able to tell what is it in that last case.
For what its worth Mr Sexy, your video/images proved the point you was trying to make to the poster you were replying too, and I cannot work out why Mr Pottsey is trying to say, well I can, but it has nothing to do with your original point.
The fact a 3 year old can tell what they are is irreverent. The point is anyone could show a blurred part out of focus pixelated and full of artifacts mess of a photo with zero details just a black outline and we could still tell they are planes beacuase the shape is so distinctive.
What has being able to tell they are planes got to do with anything? We where talking about taking decent photos/videos that are not pixelated and don't have artifacts in. As per the quote. Your the one that called BS on that statement and went on to post this pixelated photo/video as proof of how you can take decent photos/videos of objects in the sky without being pixelated. I really don't see how this disprove the person you quoted. If anything this proves everything they said is correct.Good grief do you ever give up
They are planes, everybody can see they are planes but for some reason you want to argue about it
What has being able to tell they are planes got to do with anything? We where talking about taking decent photos/videos that are not pixelated and don't have artifacts in. As per the quote. Your the one that called BS on that statement and went on to post this pixelated photo/video as proof of how you can take decent photos/videos of objects in the sky without being pixelated. I really don't see how this disprove the person you quoted. If anything this proves everything they said is correct.
Its not really weird, what is weird is you think that is a decent photo/video which is not pixelated and without artifacts. At a guess I would assume the other person looked at it on a small mobile phone screen rather then on a good quality larger screen. It doesnt matter what he thinks as the proof is in my post that your wrong. Your video/photo proves how hard is to take decent videos of flying objects without it being pixelated and without artifacts. Your photo/video proves that if the object is not distinctively shaped its next to impossible to take a decent video/photo and tell what it is if its flying high and fast.Weird how the person agreed with me
You might want to read #1768 you never said anything about identifying planes in the post I quoted. Remember when you said and I quote you "You need to read #1767," We are clearly talking about being unable to take a decent video and how its near impossible to not get a none pixelized video unless you have specialist equipment. In the way you wrote your post it means you think you can take decent video that is not pixelized as you called that statement bull. Then you promptly posted a video on none specialist equipment that proves him right. Then acted as though your photo/video proves him wrong despite the fact your photo/video is not decent and clearly pixelized.I didn't say that, I said you could identify a plane and it's a plane (actually several planes).
You're the one spouting about pixels.
Honest you don't half go on and on about something I never said
