What would it mean if we had good evidence?

[newyorklily]

I've been working on a case of a UFO found in a photograph over Manhattan. Roger Marsh wrote about it here

What do you think would happen if we had photographic evidence that UFOs were real? Do you think it would change the skeptic's mind? Do you think people would begin to look at the phenomenon (and the world) differently?

[Doc]

Skepticism and cynicism often run hand in hand. Some people think everyone is always pushing a hoax. They can't tell or don't want to see the difference between reporting, discussing, investigating and promoting. They will always see it through the lens of their own cynicism.

[calikid]

I've been working on a case of a UFO found in a photograph over Manhattan. Roger Marsh wrote about it here

What do you think would happen if we had photographic evidence that UFOs were real? Do you think it would change the skeptic's mind? Do you think people would begin to look at the phenomenon (and the world) differently?

I think we already have good photographic evidence.
But in this age of "Photoshop" that we live in, there will always be doubt.

I do recall some "experts" saying diamond shapes were an artifact associated with the camera mechanism some years ago.
Not sure if that hold up with digital cameras (as was used here) also.

I was not clear on the story, were any actual witnesses to the object? Or was the object solely discovered later on the photographs?

[Chris]

Skepticism and cynicism often run hand in hand. Some people think everyone is always pushing a hoax. They can't tell or don't want to see the difference between reporting, discussing, investigating and promoting. They will always see it through the lens of their own cynicism.

I think it runs even deeper then that, Doc.

Some people use the pseudo-intellectual position of cynical commentary as a posturing of "I'm better than you because I'm such an intellectual." They use it to try and silence the opinions of others while attempting to make it look like true discourse.

Mostly what they are trying to do is to call attention to themselves at the expense of others. If they tried to engage in an actual discussion they would be exposed for what they really are - frauds.

[noot]

We already have good evidence. It consists of the testimony aggregated over the course of the last 65 years and presented in the works of such researchers as Rich Dolan, John Mack, Don Keyhoe, Stan Friedman, Dave Jacobs and others. In a court of law such eye-witness testimony can earn a defendant the gas chamber. In the Ufer world it earns snickers and jeers.

[Doc]

I think it runs even deeper then that, Doc.

Some people use the pseudo-intellectual position of cynical commentary as a posturing of "I'm better than you because I'm such an intellectual." They use it to try and silence the opinions of others while attempting to make it look like true discourse.

Mostly what they are trying to do is to call attention to themselves at the expense of others. If they tried to engage in an actual discussion they would be exposed for what they really are - frauds.

Debunking with snark is a very effective position. If you play it right, you can never be wrong about anything. And You don't have to do any actual work. You just crap on the people who are trying.

[Lee]

Fascinating report, Lily! Thanks for sharing it.

I was actually shown those images by 11A when we met in December. Like most people, my initial impression was that we were looking at a sheet of newspaper. However image number three clearly rules this out, as the object appears to move behind the building! Meaning, if it is a genuine object it is quite large. The third image also rules out the possibility of a lens artifact, from what I understand.

I wonder if you had a chance to meet with the witness, visit the sighting location etc? If you did, and could provide the original unedited images to 11A and Marvin for them to asses the exif data that would be great. If the images still look genuine it might be worth trying to track down the photo location so that we can get an estimate of possible size.

[Doc]

It sounds so far as if there may be something to this one. Here's hoping.

[newyorklily]

Fascinating report, Lily! Thanks for sharing it.

I was actually shown those images by 11A when we met in December. Like most people, my initial impression was that we were looking at a sheet of newspaper. However image number three clearly rules this out, as the object appears to move behind the building! Meaning, if it is a genuine object it is quite large. The third image also rules out the possibility of a lens artifact, from what I understand.

I wonder if you had a chance to meet with the witness, visit the sighting location etc? If you did, and could provide the original unedited images to 11A and Marvin for them to asses the exif data that would be great. If the images still look genuine it might be worth trying to track down the photo location so that we can get an estimate of possible size.

I didn't meet with the witness. He spoke with someone who knows photography. I know Manhattan so I was easily able to pick out the location. The roof that the object is over is 1 World Financial Center. So, we already know that this object was over an area with quite a bit of security.

[newyorklily]

It sounds so far as if there may be something to this one. Here's hoping.

Yes. My State Director conducted the photo analysis for the case. I tracked down the locations, estimated sizes and ruled out mundane objects. We both came to the same conclusion that this is an unknown object. I'm told that the case is going to be in the February issue of the MUFON Journal.