UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Mar > Mar 11

UFO Photos The Future

From: Dave Haith <visions.nul>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 19:16:08 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 06:14:14 -0400
Subject: UFO Photos The Future


>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers - <UFO-UpDates.nul>
>Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 09:12:41 -0500
>Subject: Flying Saucer's Famous Landing

>Source: The News Shopper - London, UK

>http://tinyurl.com/2wmt3w

>7th March 2007

>Flying Saucer's Famous Landing
>By Linda Piper

<snip>

>"This thing had landed in the road."

>He added: "It took up the whole width of the road and overlapped
>onto the pavements.

>"It wasn't on the ground. It had about eight massive suckers.

>"The centre was still, but the outer rim was spinning slowly and
>it had white lights flashing, like a camera flash."

>He said there were about 30 people watching it and they could
>hear it humming.

>Mr Maynard recalled: "It had what looked like windows, but the
>glass was concave and moulded together so you could not see in.

>"A couple of us went forward to try and touch it, and it began
>to spin faster."


Hi Listers,

Consider this amazing multi-witness case and Greg Boone's recent
posting in which he wrote: "Phoenix Lights, yadda yadda yadda.
Did anyone of the thousands of people who were there take a
picture of a solid object or not? What's with these mass
sightings where no one can take a decent picture or video?"

It's got me wondering - is it just a technical reason why with
all the close encounters in the last 60 years, we still don't
seem to have any really convincing close-up photo evidence?

I have heard stories of UFO witnesses with cameras who
'forget' to take a picture or others where the pictures
unaccountably turn out blank or fogged.

So I guess there's a possibility that 'they' don't want us to
photograph them.....

But the main reason it seems to me that we don't get good
evidence is that folk don't have cameras handy or the equipment
they do have, is inadequate.

Or of course the UFOs are too far away for the pictures to mean
much.

What I'd be interested to hear from other Listers is 'When do
you think technology will produce the kind of cameras and camera
ownership necessary to produce such a mass of evidence that the
physical reality of this phenomena will be hard for even the
mainstream press, to deny?'

Already almost everybody carries a camera phone but so far the
definition from them is pitiful. Will that change? And if it
does can we expect this to be the factor which brings the wall
of denial, tumbling down? What kind of evidence do you think it
would take?

If, instead of fakes, there had been hundreds of top quality
photos of the O'Hare disc for instance, would that case have
proved to be Ufology's 'smoking gun'.

I know Ray Stanford told us on SDI radio that he has remarkable
photographic evidence which he promises to release at some
stage.

But what really will it take for the dam to burst?


Dave Haith




[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com