Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1998 -> Feb -> Here

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 22:30:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 07:52:34 -0500
Subject: Re: 'UFO Sphere/Orb' over Brooklyn, NY


>From: "Tom Burnett" <burnettc@gte.net>
>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'UFO Sphere/Orb' over Brooklyn, NY
>Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 08:52:19 -1000


>I'm not sure of the significance of this thread.  If you say you
>saw an anomaly and photographed it, then you did as far as I am
>concerned. I think you can be taken at your word. Even so, if it
i>s not lens flare, it is not identifiable as anything either
t>errestrial or extraterrestrial so what is the point? Everyone
>agrees that there are unidentifiable lights in the sky, and the
.>fact that you and millions of other people have seen and
>photographed them is interesting.

>But the discussion has digressed to the point where people are
>suggesting that UFOs intentionally spoof camera optics to mimic a
>natural camera phenomenon while appearing as something else to a
l>ive observer. Is it that two sets of photons are on the same
>path but one set enters only the camera and one set enters only
t>he observer's eye?  As my english professor used to state so
>eloquently:  "How do it know?" >

>Has it come to the point when everything anyone sees is an ET
>craft?  And if it happens to look exactly like an airplane or a
>falling star, or a black helicopter or a lens flare, does that
>merely mean that the ETs have nothing better to do than defy the
>known laws of physics for the purpose of creating optical
>illusions on the off-chance that a UFO investigator with a camera
>might be looking up?????

>Apparently so. I wasn't a skeptic when I joined the list. I
>wanted to learn things I don't know, of which there are a LOT.
>But I am starting to become convinced that no one knows much of
>anything and either make up explanations for everything they
>don't understand, or claim that they HAD all the evidence but the
>MIBs stole it in the middle of the night.  It's B.S.! >

>IS...... NOT....... What difference does it make? What is proven
>one way or the other?  Nothing!  It is not evidence of ANYTHING!


BE A SKEPTIC!!!!
And understand that here you see the workings of an investigation.
In the ufo "business", since UFOs/ET/Alien Flying Craft(AFC)
DON'T EXIST acording to the "straight" world, the witness is
always guilty until proven innocent (because no sane witness
would report something that is impossible...obviously <g>).

Alex says he saw saomething.  Then he took a picture of it.

If you believe Alex....you don't need the picture!  His report is
goo enough.   If you don't believe his report is accurate (maybe
he honestly misidentified something.... or maybe he made the
whole thing up---a hoax), then you have the picture to "prove"
something was there.... Or was it?

So now we have counter proposals to explain the picture (I note
no one has yet proposed an explanation for the sighting
itself...like, for example, ball lightning..... but that would
just be explaining one unknown with another).   Could the picture
show the object he saw?   If not, it certainly  wouldn't be the
first time that someone saw (A) and photographed (B) by
accident...as Bob Shell has pointed out.  In fact, quite a number
of photos/videos/etc.

I have looked at have shown things which are not consistent with
the witness testimony.

Anyway, I have (and another person) have proposed that the other
pictures be posted.   It is possible that the other pictures
contain images that cannot be flares.  Also, Bob has suggested
learning about th camera so we could determine whether or not the
iris would,. indeed, allow a flare like that image.

So, suppose we conclude it is a flare?   That means the testimony
must stand on its own and we have only the witness (Alex) memory
for the description of the object he saw.  POINT:  WE CAN'T
SIMPLY REJECT THE SIGHTING EVEN IF WE CAN EXPLAIN THE PHOTO
IMAGE....unless we can prove that Alex is a (mean, nasty,
probably CSICOP member) hoaxer!!!!

As to whether or not the sighting could be a misidentification
of some wierd thing or if it is definitely ET/AFC related...that
argument mus be based on the testimony/


ON THE OTHER HAND:  if the flare theory is rejected... then I see
no other explanation than that Alex photographed what he saw.
Now the argument would switch to whether or not the photo is of
an ET craft (AFC).   (Or could it be a mental projection..
whatever that is... or some other bizarre phenomenon... just as
unknown as UFOs).

SO, you ask, what is the payoff?  WHAT IS PROVEN?
About the only thing we can get out of the photo
argument is the possibility that we have an actual photo
of one of the light balls that have been so often reported
by witnesses...who didn't have cameras handy!  This would
be a valuable payoff.

At the very least we appear to have a sighting of something
wierd.   It may or may not be earth shaking, but it could be
another nail on the coffin of the skeptics.

And the appearance of the helicopter.... how many times have I
heard of that? (let me count the ways).