Someone recently asked- *”Why did there used to be so many clear photographs of UFO’s until mass-produced phones with digital cameras’ came along…”* – and, of course, the standard answer most usually comes out as: as long as cameras were crappy, photos of birds and planes etc. could be passed off as UFOs/’alien craft’ but nowadays with hi-res cameras they show up as the birds, planes, etc. that they always were, *etc, etc…*
I’m a CE2K experiencer, sustained duration encounter – 25 minutes at a distance no further than 300 feet – I know at least *some* of these things are physical and exist, so how come people these days have such hard times capturing them on camera?
When you set aside the obvious, that degraded and damaged looking footage is basically easier to mask CGI and physical prop work – you’re still left with this basic problem that there are literally billions of mobile, personal cameras out there in the world today. Take it as granted that sightings of genuine UFO’s are likely as not anywhere near as common as Ufology likes to make out they are and that most reported sightings still concern only far distant objects briefly observed heading somewhere, so only a point of light even if captured on a great camera – you’re still left with a statistically enormous number of cameras being out there in the world.
Sooner or later someone has to capture something – so why does it always look shit when they do.
Is there some form of inherent problem with the digital camera…?
Turns out, there is: it’s called a [Charged Couple Device](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device).
I think it was the old Gerry Anderson TV show Thunderbirds that first introduced the idea of camera blocking technology – at least as far as I was aware growing up. Each of the Tracey boys fantastic vehicles had a little silver doo-hicky on them (kind of shaped like a modern satellite dish receiver) that stopped cameras taking pictures, which even as the kid I was when that show originally came out I found kind of hinkey by the fact cameras back then were optical lenses – unless you was shining something like a lazer at one you couldn’t really effect old-fashioned film….
I had no idea how you were supposed to do that with something resembling a satellite dish but, in principle – if you could direct sufficient focused light at an optical camera lens you could – in theory – over-expose the film behind it.
Spool forward a few decades – in 2006 [Georgia Institute of Technology](https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/us-scientists-invent-digital-camera-blocking-device/s2/a51901/) came up with exactly that same idea when it comes to digital camera blocking, just using a camera equipped with the equivalent of facial recognition software to identify and target a digital camera and a relatively low-powered light emission source to overwhelm a digital cameras CCD chip.
It’s safe, its so low powered it can’t hurt the person holding the camera – and it worked…
Almost 20 years ago.
So how far is that same technology advanced here in 2024….?
Now, when we get stories of alleged “foreign” Drones overwhelming US Military bases, weapons and nuclear facilities – I can’t help think: you don’t need to shoot the fuckers down, you just need to blind them – and a sufficiently powerful quartz halogen (these days LED) lamp is a lo-tech but very efficient way of blocking cameras, no matter how manoeuvrable the drone It’s mounted on is supposed to be. Blind it and it can’t see shit.
Equally, target recognition hardware and software is so commonplace these days, chances are you actually have some of it in your home.
Own an[ Xbox Kinect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinect#Technology)…? Then you have in your own home a machine that can’t only just see you in the dark, it can recognise your face, read your heart rate and track your skeletal joints so as it can anticipate where you’re going to move next – imagine the military’s capabilities using just the same, civilian available technology…
Drones aren’t that much of a problem. Even a single civilian Xbox can cope with multiple targets simultaneously.
Viewed from the other end, when it comes to UFO’s – could they actually block digital camera devices…?
Well, we can – it’s kind of the point, and its not new technology, its actually a couple of decades old – so the probability even only moderately advanced alien technology probably can at least match our own poultry efforts.
So – the next time someone trots out the usual, by-rote answer with regard to picture quality of UFO captures in comparison to digital camera technology profusion: point out the fact, camera blocking technology exists, it’s not even particularly high-tech and we ourselves – and our aircraft technology – have the capacity, if not the actual capability, to block digital camera technology.
Realistically, why couldn’t a UFO….?
I hope something of use to someone.
Sources:
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled\_device](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device)
* [https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/us-scientists-invent-digital-camera-blocking-device/s2/a51901/](https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/us-scientists-invent-digital-camera-blocking-device/s2/a51901/)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinect#Technology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinect#Technology)
by G-M-Dark