posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 08:55 PM
Going in the Door-- please understand that this is NOT a "disagreement", or an "argument" with, your statement, as it is as valid as any other.
These pictures, indeed,"could be" a lot of things, but, I believe they are what they are, owing to the credibility of the photographer/witness. More
specifically, I find it hard to believe that a Command-grade USAF Officer with a substantially good record and fine career as a fighter pilot would
suddenly desire to perpetrate a Hoax. Secondly, we must begin to understand at some point, providing that what we are seeing is of off-planet origin,
that what we are witnessing may represent a technology we are not capable of reproducing, or even imagining, at this point in human history and
science. Yet, at the same time, I believe that Science is, at least, approaching the possibilities; possibilities that would explain why these, and so
many other, pictures are "fuzzy". To be brief, chalk that up to a combination of "nerves" and the limits of our present photographic technology.
Seagulls? Weather Balloons? Unconventional Military Aircraft? Optical Illusions? Earth Lights? Oh, I am absolutely sure that these will explain 90 or
even 95% of "sightings". That doesn't interest me. Whats DOES interest me is the 10% proved to be "none of the above". Skepticism is fine,
provided it isn't self-serving and doesn't toss the baby out with the bath water. Educated and well disciplined skepticism is one of the two driving
forces of scientific research. It has it's place, as does any other form of advocacy.