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

Re: UFO Photos The Future - Boone

From: Greg Boone <Evolbaby.nul>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 09:38:10 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:25:55 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Photos The Future - Boone


>From: Dave Haith <visions.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates <UFOupdates.nul>
>Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 19:16:08 -0000
>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?



Hi Dave!

Isn't it an honor and privilege to be able to participate on
Errol's List?

Dave, my take on the photographic evidence that leaves much to
be desired is the same in regard to this field of study in
general.

There are two points to focus on here.

I was at a friends house a while back and he showed me pics of
his wedding. Mind you, the photos were taken by his sister if I
recall in the same church the family had been part of for almost
100 years. Everyone at the ceremony were family and friends. All
familiar and in a familiar setting. Most of the photos were
blurry, not centered, fingers in the way on the lens etc..
Recently a cousin of mine took pics of a family gathering in a
house our family has owned for over 100 years. All family
members with an advanced digital camera with auto focus. Most of
the pics were blurry, off center, etc.

I had realized with my first example of my friend's pics that
the average person, even with the best camera equipment will
still take lousy photos of the most familiar objects and
environments so when something as unexpected and unconventional
as a UFO sighting occurs it's a miracle if they get the sky in
the pic. I've seen this so much in regard to bad photographers
I've concluded that we should add a new designation to our
species called homo sapiens nonphotographicus or some such.

Now the second point is something I've been saying more of
recent. That is that the proof of the pudding, the biggest
evidence regarding UFOs is the fact that no matter how many
people are present at a sighting, abduction, etc. the conclusive
evidence is always elusive.

Sure we've got eyewitness testimony, trace cases, radar pick
ups, every kind of circumstantial evidence by the truck
load_except_ conclusive physical evidence and government
disclosure. We have more proof of ghosts than UFOs.

There are plays on words here in the evidence, proof game.
What's proof in the lab isn't always proof in the court.

That defines the entire phenom right there that it's still
jusssst out of reach, jusssst out of focus, jusssst one hair's
breadth from something you can put a fork in yet it continues to
happen on a global basis.

It's not because something isn't there. These people have been
proven not to be pathological. Hallucinations don't leave ground
prints, burn marks, radar pick ups or photos.

The bottom line here I best illustrate with the fictional
characters of the Cheshire Cat and Sisyphus of ancient Hellenic
mythology.

Sixty plus years of fishing into ufology and no catfish on the
plate all dipped in cornmeal and fried just right. It ain't
cause there aren't enough smart people researching. Ufology gets
bashed by it's own blaming ufologists. Ufologists aren't the
problem, just human nature and all our foibles. We need to stop
beating ourselves up and just do the homework.

No dam will burst. If it was going to it would have done so long
ago. Even if the dam did burst, I have a suspicion that even if
that dam burst on international tv the next day we'd have
totally forgotten about it and would be discussing some remnant
of the event, wondering what those lights in the sky on tv were.

I suspect if someone walked on the evening news with an alien or
whatever with a panel of scientists, it would be forgotten in
seconds and we'd be right back where we started from.

Maybe we don't want an answer. Maybe we can't contain an answer.

Maybe this is a phenom that eggs us on to imagine more and study
more
and communicate more.

I'm totally comfortable with that.


Best,

Greg





[ 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