Why no *attempted* imagery of major UFO experiences?

Edward Current

Senior Member
Perhaps thousands of people have had a major, life-changing UFO experience, where they claim to have witnessed a craft taking up a large part of the sky, maybe hovering, suddenly accelerating off without a sound, etc. I encounter these people almost every day on Twitter, and their accounts can be very compelling. (Here's a YouTube link to a caller on a radio show describing his experience, and here's his description on Twitter.) Meanwhile, skeptics are incredulous of such extraordinary claims without the commensurate evidence. The response to "too bad you didn't get a picture" is usually a variation of one of the following: (1) I was too stunned; (2) it didn't occur to me; (3) it happened too fast; (4) a picture of what I saw wouldn't have turned out regardless.

But one thing I haven't come across is an attempted picture of such a major experience. No one has ever shown me an image and said, "I shot this when the craft was hovering 70 feet overhead — unfortunately, you can't see the anti-gravity machine in the picture, but trust me it was there."

Has anyone heard of such a thing? An experiencer who, rather than justifying why they didn't take a picture, did take a picture — it just doesn't show what they saw?

Every day, people take millions of photos of novel or weird stuff that they come across. For example, twin tornadoes forming and touching down (Twitter link). And there's no shortage at all of videos showing distant lights and blurry dots. Just not those up-close, astonishing, life-changing appearances…even in attempt.

Perhaps on some level during the experience, the mind realizes that it's imaging something that isn't in "meat space." The situation is fundamentally different from walking around at a restaurant coming across a soda machine that won't stop spewing ice, or whatever. Instead of being an otherwise ordinary waking state, it's something else. And, even though the experience may have been triggered by real lights or shapes in "meat space," the extraordinary aspect — the filling in of details — is subjective and exclusive to the experiencer. And, on some level, the experiencer knows this. They may even subconsciously realize that photography could falsify the account's extraordinary aspect, spoiling the magic.

Regardless, in an age when everyone seems to be always recording, witnessing a giant triangle or saucer in the sky is the one time people are committed to being in the moment.

There are more trivial explanations for cases, including that the incident happened before cell phones.
 
Last edited:
A question recently asked of me in connection with a series of life stories was, what picture do you wish you would have taken when you had the chance?
Of course there are many. Dusk on the Inland Sea of Japan, St. Elmo's Fire, a "forest" of waterspouts in the Gulf of Mexico come to mind. But most of those moments a photograph wouldn't have captured the awe the eyes can take in.

So for the story I wrote a satire about not taking a picture of Sasquatch. I went on at length about wanting perfect angle and perspective, along with items for visual scale. In the story I went as far as having Sassy (as I called him) pour some coffee from my thermos into a cup, so people looking at the picture would know it was real. He spilled the coffee and burnt himself, causing him to rush me and take away my camera before disappearing into the woods.

The goal of the satire was to address (humorously) the point you make about people not taking these pictures, and suggesting that they must be simply trying to get the perfect shot, as an explanation for why they didn't take any shots.

Of course there are those who take really bad pictures of whatever the claim is. Like a dark sky with a blurry light, or a brownish blob in the bushes.
Or it is a probable fake. The perfect saucer over the trees (where no one would have any reason to be pointing a camera in the first place).
There's never something in between. It's either a crafted fake, or an indistinguishable fuzzy light.

To me this suggests that when people see something strange, they mostly don't really decide what they are looking at until after it is gone. The "It was an alien, or Bigfoot, or whatever" is something they decide after reflecting on the experience. The "image" that they have in their mind is formed in their mind while they are describing it from the scattered inputs from the experience. Grabbing their phone or camera and getting a picture doesn't occur to them, because in the moment they don't really know they're seeing anything fantastical.
 
If I had to take a guess, one of the possible reasons is that people that take good pictures of their experiences end up realizing it wasn't what they thought it was once they actually review the picture, so they then forget about it and/or never talk about it.

So, you mostly end up getting the reports of people that just build up their story based completely on memory or from images that are bad enough that it's really hard to realize what it is, so their brain fills in the details.

Another thing to note, sometimes the pictures you take with your phone are awful compared to what you are actually seeing. I know I've attempted to take pictures of the moon that just ended as a little white circle or a bright star that just turned into a pitch-black picture. So, some stories that come with images of a small far away object could be classified as "attempted pictures", where the person seeing the object might have been seeing more than what the camera captured.
 
Agreed, @Calter. I’ve taken a multitude of photos of various oddities and none of them showed what I was seeing; usually showing nothing at all.

I tried taking multiple photos and videos of a large, stationary, black cigar shaped object hovering over a valley about 5 miles away. I even marked my position and framed my photos with a nearby utility pole. When I looked at the photos, there was nothing visible except some slightly discolored pixels. The phone had literally decided the object was noise and edited it to blend with the sky.

Much to my surprise, the object suddenly dropped and became a massive bird, probably a California Condor, which had been riding the thermals above the hill between me and the valley. It was only a half mile or so distant while hovering and only 200 yards at it’s closest approach. Beautiful. I watched it for the 30 seconds or so that it took to move out of sight. It didn’t even occur to me to try to photograph it once I knew what it was.

So, we have our brains, which interpret what we’re seeing, vs. cameras which interpret what they’re recording. There’s a lot of interpreting going on.
 
Instead of linking outside of Metabunk can you provide excerpts / screenshots of these cases / images?

In answer to your main question there are many examples of *attempted* capture on film/photo, they're just always a bit too far away, or didnt' "come out right" etc. To name just two see contactee Stella Lansing's 1967, 8-mm film, or South African Elisabeth Klarer's supposed 1956 photos of Akon's scout ship - the alien being she claimed to have had a child with.
 
Another thing to note, sometimes the pictures you take with your phone are awful compared to what you are actually seeing. I know I've attempted to take pictures of the moon that just ended as a little white circle or a bright star that just turned into a pitch-black picture. So, some stories that come with images of a small far away object could be classified as "attempted pictures", where the person seeing the object might have been seeing more than what the camera captured.

When I was in college, a B-24, B-25, and B-17 in transit between air shows did a couple of loops around town before heading off. I had enough time to be like "what's that sound," run outside, see what was going on, go back inside to get a camera, and wait for their next pass. The only one I got was the B-17. In the picture, you can barely tell it is an airplane and not a bird, let alone what kind it is. I'm not at all surprised that people's supposed UFO pictures are of poor quality in that regard.
 
When I was in college, a B-24, B-25, and B-17 in transit between air shows did a couple of loops around town before heading off. I had enough time to be like "what's that sound," run outside, see what was going on, go back inside to get a camera, and wait for their next pass. The only one I got was the B-17. In the picture, you can barely tell it is an airplane and not a bird, let alone what kind it is. I'm not at all surprised that people's supposed UFO pictures are of poor quality in that regard.
Conversely, I was in my backyard when a U2 flew low over my house. I was like "what the heck", then I took 11 photos because I had a camera.

U2 - 12 images.jpg

2023-01-23_10-41-35.jpg

While it's quite understandable that people are not always going to be able to do this, it's not understandable that it would never happen.
 
It's the apparent discrepancy between the UFO stories from the time before it was understood that pretty much everyone had a camera on them at all times (smartphone)

Then: "A football field sized UFO with many flashing lights hovered over the road for several minutes, if only I had a camera" vs
Now: "I recorded this tiny white tictac on my smartphone and no I won't tell you when/where it was so you can work out the flight number."
 
Few weeks back: Wake up to noise. Run to bedroom window. Black helicopters. Grab camera & snap.

Easy. You don't even need to be particularly awake. That photo was taken before I'd even remembered that that day was Zelenskyy's visit despite it having been all over the newspapers I was that woozy.
 
I think there are a number of reasons and even if one does try to take a photo it may not work.

One, in my case, is generational. I just turned 60, so in the US I'm technically the last of the "Boomers" (1946-1964). I took all kinds of pictures in my youth on through the early '00s on a CAMERA. To this day, the idea that my phone is also a camera is still not totally ingrained in my head. I've taken 1000's of photos with my phones and have gotten better at remembering it's also a camera, but I still don't always think about there being a camera in my pocket.

And this is a hell of a U2 photo @Mick West! I'm assuming this is not taken with a phone camera? Landing wheel down, he must have been doing touch and goes at McClelland? When I lived down the hill in Chico, the U2 would come up for touch and goes and there is a unique rumble it makes when taking off.
1708361269826.png
 
And this is a hell of a U2 photo @Mick West! I'm assuming this is not taken with a phone camera?
500mm lens on my old Canon 7D. It was on the table in the backyard. Not something everyone has, but also not something that nobody ever has.

The photos span 16 seconds

And modern phones are quickly getting there in terms of zoom. The S20/21/22/23 etc could probably do something quite similar, and even the iPhone 15 Pro Max.
 
I saw a UFO yesterday when I was out for a walk a seemingly black cigar shaped thing moving silently across the sky above rural farmland, luckily I have 700mm of lens and a 45MP camera (and these images are heavily cropped)

1708363024916.png

and exposure adjusted correctly and a different angle captured at 20FPS

1708363066534.png
 
Back
Top