From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 12:31:00 -0400 Archived: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 12:56:34 -0400 Subject: Re: Hawaii UFO 1990? >From: Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos<ballesterolmos.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:37:41 +0100 (BST) >Subject: Re: Hawaii UFO 1990? >Regarding the alleged UFO photo in Hawaii posted by Roy Hale, it >is not infrequent that pictures taken through car glasses or >house windows show reflections from interior light fixtures, >like the daylight, 1995 Vi=F1a del Mar (Chile) or nighttime, 2000, >Romerike (Norway). >In all these cases there is one thing in common, no one around >the photographer saw anything strange at the time of the >photography. I would also add a second, many times when this >light effect is found, the photographer uses it to spin a tale. >I thought things like these belonged to the ufology of the >1960's, but funny how time slips away. Roy says his friend told him "he was outside and not in a car and he did not see any bright object when shooting". An unopposed opinion on this list has been that photos are not worth much without corroborating evidence from other sources. It is somewhat amusing now to see people scrambling to minimize the relevance of the photo by ignoring or discounting the above information from the photographer. Besides amusing, it is also a bit disconcerting that such a principle is so easily put aside when an anomaly in a photo and the accompanying comments smell up the comfort zone. The reaction was that the anomaly has to have been a reflection, so the picture must have been taken from inside a car or a house through some kind of glass. For this suggestion to be taken seriously, it needs to be reconciled somehow with the conflicting evidence. The only way to do this is to say that the photographer has a bad memory or is lying, or that Roy is putting us on. But that is a slippery slope leading ultimately to disbelief in any observational evidence. Even though the reliability of photographic and/or observational data can be questioned, we should recognize that incorrect interpretations just add variability to the overall data set. Reducing the false alarm rate to zero to minimize variability also ensures a much reduced rate of including the real phenomenon. William Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp