UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > May > May 28

Re: Detailed UFO Caught On Camera - Tarbell

From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 22:03:44 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 08:23:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Detailed UFO Caught On Camera - Tarbell

>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 13:15:58 -0400
>Subject: Re: Detailed UFO Caught On Camera

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


>>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

>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!

It has been interesting observing the reactions to these images
on various UFO websites/forums. It often takes the form of open
ridicule, not only of the images themselves, but of anyone who
would take them seriously. But curiously, none of these
responses have included any convincing evidence of fakery or
inconsistency in the images themselves. The closest I've heard
to an objective argument along these lines is a possible depth
of field anomaly in one of the early "Chad" images.

I reiterate my belief that these are hoaxed images, and I agree
with both Michael's and Bruce's points above. Nevertheless I
suspect that most of my (and many others) basis for this belief
is subjective at best, and at worst indicative of an inherent
bias that is filtering out data that is too 'weird'. If the
O'Hare object had been described as looking like a giant
electric toaster, would that case have been taken as seriously?
And if not, why not?

Another lesson from this 'incident' -or a previous lesson made
more clear- is that digital images and video have essentially
zero evidentiary value. Posters cold off the street were able,
in the space of a single afternoon, to generate quite believable
*video*, never mind still images, of 'craft' that were virtually
indistinguishable from the originals above, using tools *less*
capable than top-shelf rendering engines such as Maya and 3DS.
Is it not time to acknowledge that the UFO imagery 'banking'
system is awash in virtually flawless counterfeit currency?


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



[ Next Message | Previous 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