Chariots of God (Scripture & Photo Examined)

well, obviously it's not a fish. it's also not a spirit, human or otherwise. it's a bug, streaking do to slow shutter speed, and it just appears to have something resembling a human face.

the question was,

quote:

---

are you convinced by these photographs? why or why not?

---

i take it you are not? why aren't you convinced?i'm not saying i am, i want to know why you're not.

that's right -- my glass is too good, my camera too high quality, and my skills in rejecting images that have dust or water spots too great. i would make a terrible spirit photographer.

well, let's be clear. you're discussing blurry, smudgy pictures of photographic artifacts. the question is why do you think those photos aren't spirits, but yours are?

that's neither here nor there. maybe they are, maybe they aren't. the question is whether these pictures are pictures of spirits. which is why we have a lot fewer photos of bigfoot, nessie, and UFOs today. better cameras are around and more easily accessible. they do things like autofocus with increasingly accurate precision and speed, so you don't get blurry photos as often, and have better high ISO light gathering abilities do you can use faster shutter speeds in the dark so you get less streaky, smeary action.ask yourself this. if "the better the equipment, the better the photograph" why are all your photos you've presented absolute shit, shot on absolute shit cameras? why no images shot on professional dSLRs?i'll give you a big hint: the same phenomena shot on professional dSLRs has already been shown in this thread, by me. it doesn't look the same, and many of the artifacts you're reading faces into are the product of very awful camera gear.

how do you know they aren't real? what method are you using to discern that they are not real?

they're not dolls, though.and the girls, of course, claimed to have interacted with the faeries.

no doubt they are, but i was talking about UFOs (unidentified flying objects), not aliens. they are not the same thing, which is kind of the point. better cameras = fewer unidentifiable things in photographs. show me a recent one. why are they easier to get on shitty camera gear? this is the reverse of my professional experience, which tells me that better camera gear makes it easier for me to capture a wider variety of subjects. the one that looks like a fish?

well, i asked for a UFO, not an alien. and, uh, that one's a well known hoax:

quote:

---

April 22, 2011 Update!

​

Rt.com (Russia Today) has reported that the dead alien found in Siberian Russia was nothing more than a hoax. The supposed alien corpse was two feet high and badly mutilated, found partially buried in the snow by two Russian men. Because the body was so humanoid in appearance, a news paper editor to whom the story had been submitted called the police, fearing that it was the body of an infant or a young child, instead of the body of an extra-terrestrial.

​

Upon being confronted by the police, who took the report seriously and began investigating, the men who found the dead alien admitted to it being fake. They said it was chicken skin that had been stuffed with bread and painted alien colours. The men were not charged with any sort of crime, as creating a hoax is not a crime, however they were apparently reprimanded for their actions, which caused a police investigation. Furthermore, the crash landing that some believed the alien body to have come from, are now said to be bombing testing that had been taking place at a near by Military testing range.

​

While there is proof positive that this particular incident is not, indeed, a real alien , one should not consider it proof negative of extra-terrestrial life.

​

Dead alien found in Siberia, 2011 — Update! | Latest UFO sightings

---

i mean, not that i've seen. they're re-purposing EMF scanners, and using consumer grade audio and video recorders at best. my camera is one of the three nearly identical ones in this picture (not the white lens): it's many pounds heavier, several times larger, and way more professional. this is the image i was shooting at the time (the full frame, no crop) that hill is almost exactly a mile away from the lincoln memorial (as the crow flies), and my lens is at 200, or just barely wider. i could look it up when i get home if you're really interested.the point is, if there was a giant alien spaceship a mile overhead, you bet your ass i could get a could get a clear picture of it. the thing is, photography gear is becoming more and more accessible for the amateurs. plenty of people have reasonable quality dSLRs these days, and even the camera-phones in everyone's pockets are quickly becoming very good. well, as good as they can be, considering. why are these ghost images always shot on potatoes?well, i see a barrel-eyed fish.

i think you missed a subtlety of the above gear-porn picture.i showed up to that particular hill between arlington national cemetery and the iwo jima war memorial, and not only ran into a ton of photographers with professional equipment (not pictured are upwards of twenty or thirty other cameras on tripods, in less optimal spots because we showed up early to get the good spot) but i was there with my friend who has the same camera and lens as me, and we ran into another photographer with the same camera and lens as the both of us.it's more common than you might think. no, i wonder why none are. why every image captured is some blurry, grainy, compressed, horrible image, shot on a camera that was outdated 10 years ago.and the question's mostly rhetorical. the answer is that it's harder to read into blurry, low-detail smudges and oniony bokeh when your good optics are making smooth bokeh and sharp images, and your sensor is outputting high res, detailed raw data.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

well, artifacts of various camera and lighting conditions, generally involving particulates or bugs.the bit with the photoshopped face? that's a hoax.it's kind of like the nessie fin photo, supposedly "enhanced" by JPL or whatever, which is much less impressive without the blatant fakery:

no, i'm claiming this one was photoshopped: because it obviously is. you even agreed in Message 959. i'm not saying it is a fish. it's obviously not a fish. i'm saying it looks a lot more like one than a human. the point is that you can see what you want in a blurry, pixelated smear, shot with a low shutter speed. i know it behaves exactly like a flying insect, shot with a slow shutter speed.

professional, they regulate access a bit. college? college is incredible. like, it's a line of 400 f/2.8s ($10K in glass!) from one endzone to the other.

so does anything with a longer shutter speed. like, say, for instance, an insect.what you don't get is a sharp image on the leading edge of the motion (unless a strobe went off, and you're using rear-sync). meaning that it's literally impossible for that to be an image of what it looks like.

i don't. besides, it wouldn't help you -- it takes very sharp pictures of things very far away, in lower light, without blurring stuff.to make these spirit pictures, you have to take something fuzzy, close up, on low quality gear.