Odd That Photos Of Ufos Are Always So Indistinct

[Canary42]

Latest sighting photo hardly proof of UFO existence IMHO.

Question: Why can't folk ever take in-focus fully-defined pictures of such objects ?
Answer: Because they don't exist.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/moment-student-large-ufo-devon-seafrontc-142649856.html

[jno]

a friend sent me a fuzzy photo of an object over the south coast last week. It turned out to be the Goodyear blimp. It was fuzzy because she grabbed her camera in a hurry before it went behind the trees.

It does exist, though, indistinctness isn't necessarily proof of non-existence

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/19412141.can-see-goodyear-blimp-sussex/

[gingejbee]

C'mon people, get up-to-date. The new term for a UFO is a "UAP" - an unexplained aerial phenomenon. Do keep up!

[Canary42]

/// The new term for a UFO is a "UAP" ///

That's just like renaming Windscale as Sellafield because the former got a bad press. The same will happen here.

[Atheist]

Brief sitings, especially of moving objects, wouldn't really produce good clear photos. Good clear photos are dismissed as obvious fakes, because they are 'too good'.
There are quite a few 'good' photos; probably even more in military files.

[10ClarionSt]

Whenever I see, or hear, of anything like this, I think of one thing that was said about UFO's, (can't remember who said it though. Sorry!) and that is:
When you have exhausted all possible explanations, look at the US govt.
There are things going on that we don't have a clue about. We don't know what our govt gets up to with research and development. We just don't. What about stealth drones? Do you think they be working on, or using, stealth drones? I'm just askin'. Yer know?