Re: The Crop Circle "Scientists"

Cliff: There's no doubt that you speak truth about most consumer
photographers.  I have also been very vocal about the claims made by
such people when it comes to flash photography resulting in all kinds of
film anomalies, whether emulsion film or digital "film."

However, let me point out a site that features daylight photos and a
video of an alleged red "orb" that seems to be "out there" and not
dependent on flash.  Go to ufotheatre.com forum and click on the "Red
Orb" post which includes an mpeg video of the moving "orb."

Your opinion will be appreciated.  Mine is an "I don't know since there
are many examples of such and other anomalies."

Re: Jeff Rense, you're also right about any endorsement by him of
anything.

e.l.
-----------------------------------------------------
Re: The Crop Circle Scientists   
Group: alt.alien.visitors
Date: Sun, Jun 29, 2003, 9:11pm (EDT+5) From: cliffsmith23@ntlworld.com
(Cliff�Smith)

Please take a look at one of the sites you've referenced, namely:
http://www.deepeningcomplexity.com/crop_circles.htm Look at the photo
about half-way down the page, purporting to show "balls of light". This
shot is entirely typical of "energy orb" photos, i.e. taken at night,
outdoors using a flashgun. See the following for further examples:
http://tinyurl.com/fknt 
http://tinyurl.com/fko0
http://tinyurl.com/fko3
and especially here:
http://tinyurl.com/fkol

These "orb" photos are very easy to reproduce. Simply take any camera
(film or digital) with a built-in automatic flash, and take a photo
outside at night in a light rain or snow shower, or when there is dust
in the air (such as in a field of wheat). The flash reflects off the
droplets/flakes/particles in the air, and voila: your very own "orb"
photo. As with the vast majority of photographic "evidence" of
paranormal phenomena, the explantion is simply this: while camera
ownership is now almost universal, the majority of people have little or
no understanding of how their camera works, and are incapable of
correctly interpreting any anomalies on their photos. With the advent of
popular digital photography and the ease with which digital images can
be posted to the Internet, we can expect to see vast proliferation of
such spurious "evidence". This raises the question: if your "qualified
scientists" are so easily taken in by a such a simple photographic
phenomenon, how much credence can we put in the rest of their opinions?
I'll refrain from ad hominem remarks about a book endorsed by Jeff
Rense. I'm sure others here will not be so restrained.