Posted by ( karl ) on August 25, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Ok, here’s the deal, Leslie.  It is not too difficult to take a photo of an airplane that shows substatital detail, like the engines. windows, even the lettering on the fuselage, pretty much regardless of the distance.  I have yet to see a UFO photo that was not blurry and indistinct.  If you have any good photos, please send them to Aaron to post in the blog, we would all love to see them.

I am more than willing to concede that they may not have any distinct detail (i.e., a smooth surface), but at least can we see some sharp (in-focus) edges?  Or perhaps the propulsion mechanism is of a nature that it creates a distortion around the object; howver, this doesn’t seem likely as it would be symettrical.  That is, they would not be able to observe us very well either, so what’s the point?  I am also open to the possibility that these phenomonea are “windows” into another dimension (kind of like “the tearing of the veil” symbology when Christ departed in spirit).  However, the UFO fanatics seem to regard that these are likely “alien” craft, which sort of implies to me that they mean physical objects, which again begs the question of some defining evidence.

Now, when you make claims of being able to “call” them to appear, especially then do I expect you to produce something better than a blurred “Baby Brownie” image.  If anyone has good evidence, then they are keeping it all to themselves.  Certainly I have never seen anything in the media that has cause me to think much more than, “Interesting....” If you have something better, show us what you’ve got.  Otherwise, I have to relegate you to the same out-bin as the bigfoot “enthusiasts”, generally amusing but NOT CREDIBLE.

I am more than open to the possibility, but I do not mistake “openness” with “certainty”.  And I am not saying that the photo is a fake, I am simply saying that it really does not qualify as “evidence”, any more than does the young boy’s claim.  If you cannot concede that the paranormal attracts a lot of “lunies”, then you are certainly one of them.  This also is no evidence that these phenomonea are not real, but it certainly does cast suspicion upon all claims, unfortunately, and it raises the bar on what can be considered as “credible”.

Stop being testy, and show mw something that makes me say, “Now this is REALLY interesting....”

Posted by ( karl ) on August 21, 2008 at 11:54 am

Give me a break.  If you “frequently” see them during your “initiatives”, then it isn’t too much for the rest of us to ask that you produce some credible evidence.  You have the opportunity, you have the expectations, yet you have no credible recording instruments and, apparently, no knowledge of scientific methodology.  If you want to be taken seriously, go to school.

Posted by ( Two Feathers ) on August 10, 2008 at 10:52 am

While I don’t think Mr Middleton has an agenda, MUFON does not accept any digital potography as proof of anything. It is much too easy to manipulate and the sophistication of programs to create false images becomes more advanced all the time. Neither of MUFON’s highly qualified photo experts will even give a second look to anything in digital format.
This image should just be considered a testament that either someone saw this item or they chose to create a hoax to make others believe they did, nothing more. Therefore, the discussion of the authenticity of this image is irrelavent.
Mr Middleton will likely assign a well qualified investigator to this case and have OPTICAL photographic equipment available and have this “group” reproduce their alleged ability to make these items appear.
These claims have been made before and each time, the ability to “call” ufos has been disproven.
One must also remember that most MUFON members, investigators and leaders are the biggest skeptics of all.  They want undeniable proof of the phenomenon and do not want to sensationalize . I applaud Eddie Middleton for releasing this image and allowing public debate and input on this forum.
I would think that this case will be soon called what it likely is. In my experience when something appears too good to be true, it always is. As a former Tn.MUFON state director, I say “well done!!”

Posted by ( docisaac ) on August 08, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Okay, that’s a bit better. It’s actually a pretty good photo, even if it turns out to be hoax.

My only question has to be with the fact that I refuse to believe that if aliens have visited the earth, they would sit on a spaceship and fly around a bit. If they have the intellectual capacity of our own species, they may be just as curious. I would expect them to land somewhere. Especially in the age of streaming video and everyone can edit anything, you think we’d find more “evidence” of ground-landers.

... Actually, that could be an interesting content for further discussions, Youtube. We have to assume most of it will be amateurish or viral or poor comedy, but there’s got to be some “witness encounters” in the muck.

Posted by ( karl ) on August 08, 2008 at 2:15 pm

It’s really hard to comment on such flimsy “evidence”.  One would like to think the photographer is honest, but who knows what his motives?  It is certainly not an “elaborate” hoax; I mean, is this a bug spot, or what?  Was the original a digital image subject to easy retouching, or film with a potential defect in the emulsion?  Can we know?  Why don’t these people ever have a good SLR that can zoom in and still get a high quality image (especially if they are “initiating contact")?  I would be very interested in seeing evidence that can stand up to scientific scrutiny, but these people never seem to understand scientific principles enough to produce it.  Get CSI to look at it, they can extract the fingerprints from the cockpit window and DNA from the door latch and tell us whether it is human… right!