From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 13:15:58 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 11:09:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Detailed UFO Caught On Camera - Maccabee


>From: Michael Stimson <Michael001.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>,
>Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 14:31:37 +0100
>Subject: Re: Detailed UFO Caught On Camera

>>From: Katharina Wilson <K_Wilson.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 14:13:08 -0500
>>Subject: Re: Detailed UFO Caught On Camera

>>Source: NowPublic.Com - Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

>>>http://tinyurl.com/23st9r

>>May 21, 2007

>>>[Images at site]

>>>Posted by DanB

>>>Detailed UFO Caught On Camera

>>I've read three different blogs (with pics) regarding this
>>object. On a couple of them they said they had done an analysis
>>of one of the enlargements and they believed that it was
>>PhotoShop-ped. Just an FYI.

<snip>

>If you take an aeroplane for example, they have numbers on the
>tail to identify them. Maybe even USAF on wings, or the circular
>targets on UK aeroplanes. Why would an alien craft need to have
>symbols or any kind of identification? Who would recognise it?
>If one crashed, are Martians going to turn up and take ownership
>of it?

>For this reason, I think the most recent UFO photographs, whilst
>impressive, are hoaxes. There's no reason for them to have
>identification on the craft unless they're going to be picked
>up.

My first impression on seeing these pictures and reading the
story attached was this:

Are we to believe that this photographer is the first person, in
60 years, to get close enough to a UFO of completely unique
shape, to take daylight photos (even from "underneath") that
show the construction details?

My answer to myself: I don't buy that!





Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/