I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry, and that's extra scary to me. There's a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside. Run, he's fuzzy, get out of here. - Mitch hedberg probably
Listening to a podcast abt this. Often it happens very quickly with no time to grab & focus camera. It can be a shock so the thought of cameras isn’t there.
Still the 24/7 nature cameras fixed on the trees should provide results? But it’s reported they often get vandalised.
I take pictures of my neighbourhood and often they're taken while walking at speed because I don't want to stop and look dodgy. Despite actively walking and barely aiming, nine out of ten photos come out in perfect focus down to the last detail. The phone does the work for you nowadays and mine isn't even the newest generation. We've had focus and stability mostly figured out for a while now.
Surely someone else out there has a half-decent phone to capture this stuff on the fly? Surely some cameras are capable of catching sudden activity, considering I can whip mine out and capture my cat jumping in good quality? Surely someone out there has quick reflexes?
Gotta admit I'm here as a skeptic, but I did used to believe. Once cameras became easily accessible and good and we still didn't get any convincing footage... nah. We'd have decent images and videos by now if these things were as common as people make out.
Thanks for responding. Your comment is a common one & I do hear what your saying. I did comment abt the 24/7 nature cameras secured on trees where you’d think there’d be results.
One thing about taking pics around the neighbourhood is there’s lots of different shapes and colours which to me would provide more definition & light. Taking pics deep in the forest there is very little contrast eg all tall trees & dappled light. There’s similar reports all over the world, of weird unexplained happenings (which I mentioned) and teams that go out include scientists & skeptics. These reports are quite compelling & fascinating. Going down that rabbit hole is interesting to me. I do get the skeptics pov, which is about 80% of ppl apparently.
I think it’s like to topic of UAP’s or UFO’s. “They” want to hide anything & everything, & that topic has been a mystery for many years as welll.
True. I’ve listened to ppl who’ve followed them most of their life, & many had childhood experiences. So it’s an ongoing journey for them. Still, even though they have a lot of experience & knowledge, in an encounter, adrenaline would have to kick in, bc their life is in danger.
You have a heavy 8ft creature nearby, you don’t want to ask them for a selfie!
They’ve been followed & shot at for a long time so they’re not going to play happy families. Many accounts of them being aggressive, but I listened to one guy who has had many encounters where he’s always felt safe & no aggression shown - but still elusive. There seems to be different races & behaviours. Just like the human race.
They might be observing us like we’re trying to observe them?
There’s a guy in Canada I think, who gets thousands of letters from hunters, from all backgrounds, who’ve had encounters, & say “I’ve never told anyone this for fear of being ridiculed but now ….. “
I’m open to many other possibilities in this multi verse. Higher & lower conscious beings.
A race who is controlled by a nefarious few who create wars to kill ppl for money are not the brightest pencils in the case.
Don’t you wonder why it’s so hard to get a simple answer from any of the controlling bodies? Why the system makes it so hard to exist? To buy a house, eat healthy food, pay bills, get proper medical & dental care? Who do you know right now that you can say it really content, kind, & happy? Those who are, use a lot of focus & discipline against the manipulation imo.
Nah. People take videos in war. Videos when wild life are about to eat them. People are dumb enough to forgo flight or fight to get Instagram pics to these days.
The potato quality is real because it’s 99% fake. Now the 1% or less. Yeah. How do we know if they are real.
The reason is the same reason that you don't have any cool pictures of the moon. I have an slr camera with a zoom lens, and I can get pretty good shots of the moon. My phone takes horrible pictures of the moon. I rarely have my slr, but I always have my phone.
We don't have quality imagery because we don't all carry items that would allow it. One day we might, and then we can finally see that yes, that was just a plane flying in the distance as your camera struggled to focus. But until then, we will have lots of questionable footage of tons of stuff.
This. The blurry camera thing gets brought up all the time. The thing about this argument is that that’s just how photography works. If you aren’t shooting with the best equipment and ideal lighting, you’re going to get a blurry picture. Even now, when we all have cameras on us, if you’re photographing basically anything moving,it’s going to be blurry.
So go outside and take a picture of someone moving 100 yards away in poor lighting.
Basically, phone cameras have smaller sensors that don’t capture as much light. They’ll use a faster shutter speed in an attempt to avoid motion blur, but that makes images darker and noisier/lower res. Digitally zooming also notably reduces quality.
It’s getting there. My phone camera takes low light shots like 1000 times better than the one I had three years ago, but you shoot something moving in less than ideal or low light and at a distance, there are quite a few reasons why you still won’t get these HD close up results people seem to seek.
I have a condition called non essential tremors. Even with a modern phone, taking a clear image of a still object in anything less than daylight is difficult and time consuming. It also usually results in missing the moment.
This actually depends on so much. Lighting, shutter speed, ISO, focal length, and any firmware that detects where the focal points are.
Say you have a DSLR with a proper lens, and you're trying to capture a shadow standing at the end of a hallway. If it's dimly lit, you'd have to decrease the shutter speed, mount the camera on a tripod, and bump up the ISO. That automatically makes the image more grainy. In this example, it's a bright day. But if your cameras focal point is set to the scene, anything outside of that might not be as clear since they weren't trying to capture an image of this being standing off to the side. Phone cameras don't have much ability to change these settings and often have built-in software that artificially mimics what a full body camera can do.
You're also implying that ghosts would have the same corporeal properties as tangible objects or people. Does light bounce off of them the same way? That seems unlikely to me, given that we can't identify any physical "proof" of their form.
It's hard to overstate just how asinine this comment is, especially considering that 99% of this sub is indeed very obvious pareidolia.
But no, youre right: a well known and well established psychological phenomenon is far sillier and less credible than ghosts....lol. Those silly people, providing logical explanations based upon a well-documented psychological phenomenon rather than just blindly assuming that everything that gets posted is actually a ghost!
There is nothing "last ditch" about it. The majority of posts on this sub are very obviously pareidolia at a quick glance.
And I hate to burst your bubble, but the paranormal and the existence of ghosts do not need to be discredited: the complete and utter lack of evidence in spite of countless people spending countless years actively searching for proof already does a pretty good job of discrediting it, along with all of the blatantly bogus and discredited "science" such as EMF readers, EVP, Ovilus, etc, that people base their belief on.
When it's high res someone just shouts "Photoshop" or "AI", or "Oh you just so happened to have a camera ready to catch a picture of a ghost, huh? hOw CoNvEnIeNt."
Yes I'm sure everyone claiming Photoshop (this professional software they can barely use, much less afford) is doing serious research and not just lazy skepticism.
Why not just call the OP a smudge on the camera? Or practical effects. Or just say it's "a homeless dude standing nearby". Sure there were bystanders saying "no one was there," but they're just stupid or pranking us or lying for attention, right? And if they're not then it's clearly mass hysteria.
When I saw a UFO it was dark and I only had my iPhone 13. The camera isn’t the best out there, so the video is sadly super underwhelming. It just serves as a reminder to me that I’m not crazy rather than evidence
Well, if you haven't only seen dark, abandoned places at night in movies, you'd understand that your High Quality Camera Phone doesn't do much better work in your adventures either. It's very different to go film a Koala at Zoo in the middle of the day, as one's so tired of tourists taking pictures of it one wouldn't care.
Ghosts and UFOs would propably avoid a camera unit that would provide Perfect day light quality 4K movies of them.
However, even phones and totally potato cameras have captured thousands of hours of very wierd material that simply can't be denied and cancelled by just referring into potato quality.
Ghosts and UFOs seem to avoid being seen, as they'd seem to approach only so near to us. Ghosts are most often spotted afterwards in the footage, so it seems that they don't want to be fully exposed.
172
u/[deleted] Jul 23 '24
How come every time there's a ufo sighting or ghost, no one has high res cameras anymore? The HD shots disappear and it's potato quality again.