By Zardoz

aublienon, I realize the quality has in fact increased--in terms of megapixels and whatnot. I don't think that can compensate for technically superior photos. Which is what UFOs--again, under the assumption they exist--would necessitate in order to get clear evidence.

There's a couple of factors that negates the ubiquity of cameras. As I said before, virtually all cell phones have a wide angle lens, which will make anything in the sky (a UFO, say, the size of an airplane) look super tiny. This is not a trivial point. How to compensate for that? Zoom lens of course, but a good zoom lens is "not" something people have on their person a lot of the time. And if we're talking video, you'd need a decent tripod or the camera shake will be such that the video will be useless or a photo would be blurred. And all this during the night just makes everything a hundred times more difficult.

I contest the idea that the average person with non professional gear (myself included) have the technical ability to get a good shot. It's not as easy as you're assuming. Here's a test anyone can do: birds have long been considered one of the hardest photography subjects. They're small, they move fast, but you can't get too close or they fly away. So you need a good zoom to shoot birds. If we can put UFOs on "at least" the difficulty level of shooting birds, I think that could go a long way to explain the skill level needed to get a good shot.

And there's a whole other aspect to validity. Along with the rise in cameras is the ubiquity of photo and video editing. Even on my crappy work laptop I can "make" a UFO photograph. And there are tons of these fakes--photos and videos. The problem for anyone with a great photo is that it will simply be dismissed as faked by Photoshop. So yes, we can share the photos easily, but if they're assumed fake from the get go (as they should be) but never move past that stage, so what?

Source: dark-shadowy-line.blogspot.com