From: "Steven J. Powell" <sjpowell@access.digex.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 05:42:53 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 09:53:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Code of Ethics/Film Analysis

> From: "Jerry Cohen" <rjcohen@li.net>
> Subject: Re: Film analyses
>
> >> We actually have come a long way it just seems like we haven't
> >> because we don't have THE answer.  We now have the technology to
> >> properly analyze photographs and films and in the last few years
> >> we've determined that two long-standing items (one photograph and
> >> one film) >were actually ordinary objects filmed/photographed in
> >> extraordinary circumstances.
> - - - - -
> JC:   Steven, I wasn't aware of this. I must have missed this on
> another of your threads.  Could you possibly supply the names and
> dates of the photograph & film, what firm did the technical analyses,
> what were the ordinary objects that were misinterpreted and how I
> might obtain a copy of this report?

It wasn't on any other thread, just a mention here.  I don't remember
the details but when I get some time I'll look it up.  The film is one
that has been around I think since the 60s.  It shows a silvery
disk-like object slowly moving above a ridge line, bright sunny day, I
think shot in California.  Only a few years analysis showed it was a
small plane.  The photograph shows an odd looking small object
apparently hovering a foot or two above a field.  Analysis showed it was
actually a road sign photographed from a moving vehicle.  I think this
was covered in a JUFOS paper.

--

Thanks, take care.
John.

([]][][][][][][][][][][][][][])
[                             ]
[  sjpowell@access.digex.net  ]
[                             ]
([]][][][][][][][][][][][][][])