From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:57:07 -0000 Fwd Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:59:44 -0500 Subject: Re: LMH Site On O'Hare UFO - Shough >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul> >To: ufoupdates.nul >Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 23:13:54 +0000 >Subject: Re: LMH Site On O'Hare UFO >>From: Peter B. Davenport <director.nul> >>To: <ufoupdates.nul> >>Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:19:17 -0800 >>Subject: Re: LMH Site On O'Hare UFO >>>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> >>>To: <ufoupdates.nul> >>>Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:34:09 -0000 >>>Subject: Re: LMH Site On O'Hare UFO ><snip> >As I have said elsewhere in other contexts about other cases, >in-depth analysis and discussion of photos is an utter waste of >time unless and until the witnesses (photographers) come forth >and testify so that their stories and their credibility can be >evaluated. Disinformation or not (and I don't totally rule that >out) the principle should be no identified witness testimony, >no credibility, no wasted time debating what cannot be resolved >without the witness testimony. Something has already been resolved. Photo #2 (at least) is an obvious scam for the no-brain reasons I pointed out. This saves time. Now you don't have to bother waiting or looking for "witness testimony". Pointing out that the weather and lighting conditions in these two supposedly simultaneous photos were grossly inconsistent, and that they were in one case grossly inconsistent with the sunset time and conditions of the event, was not an "utter waste of time" but on the contrary saves time that can be better spent. Ditto for Peter reporting their inconsistency with the object seen by his known and identified witnesses.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp