posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 01:09 PM
Contrary to what you might think, not everyone carries a camera phone with them everywhere they go. I sure don't...these things are huge and a pain in
the ass if you don't have pockets, for one thing. The only time I have the stupid thing on me is if I'm running errands or expecting a
call...otherwise, that puppy stays on the kitchen island.
I get that we all want footage and photos for posterity, too...but most sightings are extremely short in duration; a few minutes at most. And if you
peruse reports on MUFON, people consistently describe their minds working to understand what their eyes are seeing. At first, they try to identify it;
is it a plane? Helicopter? Balloon? That in itself is a process; it can take time to triage what you're seeing. By the time people realize they're
looking at a UFO, the experience is often over within a couple minutes after. Many of them state very clearly that they wanted to make a run for a
camera but we're afraid they'd come back and the object would no longer be there. Many others state that they were so gobsmacked by what they saw that
taking a photo never even crossed their mind.
You express derision for drawings of UFO sightings. Are you aware that police investigators routinely rely on composite sketch artists to produce an
image of a perpetrator based solely on the memory of an eyewitness, in the absence of photos? Those sketches catch people; they're eerily accurate.
Our legal system weighs heavily on eyewitness testimony as well...no pics or vids; just a person telling what they saw. If someone murders a person,
and the evidence points to that, and there are zero photos or footage of the crime; the only way they found the perp was visa a composite sketch and
an eyewitness testimony, and this murderer was found guilty and given the death penalty...would you be OK with that? Would you feel the perp they got
was actually the right person, even though there was no photos or physical evidence?
If the answer to that is yes, then eyewitness testimony of an unknown object in the sky, sketches or anything else they can provide to describe what
they saw should be weighed just as heavily as a photo or video. Photos are not proof of anything. They are evidence. So is eyewitness testimony, in
whatever form it happens to be presented. I think the lack of distinction between evidence and proof is the source of a lot of the frustration in the
UFO community in general. We've got gobs of evidence...compelling evidence in fact...but unless an ET craft lands right in front of us and a bank of
cameras is there to record it, we have no proof at all.
Have you ever personally had a sighting? It sounds like you haven't. If you had, you might have a better appreciation for the lack of photo evidence.
Mike Tyson said it best: everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.
I think you're doing yourself a disservice by taking such a narrow approach. We can all learn from each other if we care to take the time. I would
love nothing more than to see clear, stark photos or footage of one of these sightings. But I'm certainly not going to dismiss detailed eyewitness
accounts, complete with sights, sounds, smells, sensations and complex descriptions, simply because they don't come with photos. When we narrow our
focus like that, we miss out on a lot of information. If you look at recent sighting reports and see that numerous people from various areas described
the same sort of object on the same date, behaving the same way, how can that possibly not be compelling?
It sucks that we don't have smoking gun proof. It does. But there is a wealth of information out there that we can learn from. And if you see a UFO
and can't get photo evidence, I'll be just as interested to hear your story as I would be if you had a perfect pic of you standing right next to an ET