posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 05:03 PM
I agree we're dealing with a much less then definitive source, but when thats all we have to go by, then really thats all the evidence or data that
I go thru this alot with the UFO stuff I work with on almost a daily basis. Essentially people want their photos to be genuine unknowns, and despite
what examination says, people will always believe what their heart tells them, because they want to.
The bottom line is more resolution of an already poor quality and printed image isnt really going to get us anywhere new. Are the hallmarks pointed
out a result of poor quality? I dont personally think so, but stranger sh&*t happens. As a rule I dont usually examine data thats not direct from the
source, and a fairly good quality. But seeing as a Moderator asked me to come in and look, well, Mods help us all so I certainly dont mind helping
them when asked.
From the quality of data presented here, I have to stick with what inconsistent information it shows, and point out some very unlikely senarios that
would have to occur for this to be a genuine article. At present time with present quality data, it's not holding up. At the very best, highly
If anyone makes any sort of higher end data available, let me know. I'll be glad to go thru it again. I'm back on the other side of the fence with
the "aliens" if ya need anything.