Originally posted by Areal51
And it further deepens the mystery as to why she has yet to consult any CGI/imaging professionals to give commentary and analysis of the available evidence of this increasingly frustrating case.

I think it was an honest mistake... a big one, but honest. I'm sure she also jumped the gun without verifying everything because of the "star" witness she interviewed who claims to have seen the "drone" in Sequoia National Park in 2005.

[edit on 27-5-2007 by kronos11]

Originally posted by Areal51
For the record here is the complete statement made by Linda Moulton Howe on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory last night May 25, 2007 regarding the YouTube video posted by "saladfingers123456":

Area51, thank you so much. I wonder how people can get away with saying "Linda did NOT say she thought video was real. She said it looked like it could be real to her." when they read this quote. I don't need to criticize Howe for this any more and have no intention of bringing it up independently again. I agree with people who say, well, okay, so she made a mistake. It's not like this is her entire career. But it also shows up a serious problem in the field that needs to be addressed: the credulous acceptance of unscrutinized data to bolster an argument. It also shows another problem. If people accept an admitted up-front fake as evidence, what can an intentional hoaxer accomplish? Answer: A great deal.

Originally posted by RedStar11
Here is another pic of the drone.

That picture is from the Saladfingers123456 video.

Don't you read the pages whose links you post?

This is getting murkier and murkier.

Just a humble member suggestion, but i suggest that the mods edit the first post of this topic and do what they did with the O'Hare topic. Post up the images we already know of and what the main consensus on them is.

That way, if people spot an image and go 'oh, it is a new image of the drone' they can check the first post before they make a song and dance about the picture they found.

Investigators should attempt to prove that this potential UFO sighting is a hoax, or at least consider the sighting a hoax at the onset of their investigation. here's why...

1. the two drone images differ
   
2. what did the expert image analysis reveal?
   
3. the photographer would not reveal location
   

Originally posted by schuyler

I wonder how people can get away with saying "Linda did NOT say she thought video was real. She said it looked like it could be real to her."

Nobody is "getting away with" anything... I asked Linda personally if she said she thought the video was real and she told me she did not in an email response.

Now that I have read this direct quote, I see she actually did make the comment "it's not CGI". OK, now I know Linda Moulton Howe got fooled by an obvious CGI video.

That lends itself to the fact a few of us spent the week trying to help her understand all the images are CGI to no avail. That's just the way it is, I accept that and will peruse her reports with this new information accordingly going forward.

Originally posted by schuyler
I don't need to criticize Howe for this any more and have no intention of bringing it up independently again. I agree with people who say, well, okay, so she made a mistake. It's not like this is her entire career. But it also shows up a serious problem in the field that needs to be addressed: the credulous acceptance of unscrutinized data to bolster an argument. It also shows another problem. If people accept an admitted up-front fake as evidence, what can an intentional hoaxer accomplish? Answer: A great deal.

I could not agree more with your statement above. As I mentioned earlier, myself, David Biedny and Jeff Ritzmann spent the best part of last week emailing back and forth with Linda on this issue. Take from that what you will.

I think the issue of CGI corrupting "UFOlogy" is just beginning and it's going to tarnish the reputations of many people who don't understand the technology before it's run its course.

That being said I believe Linda deserves a "pass" on this one based on her outstanding achievements and effort over the past 20 plus years.

Springer...

Originally posted by BO XIAN

I don't mind giving her the freedom to fail, to be wrong on occasion. I happen to be human myself. More power to you, if you don't have that problem.

I don't recall what she said on the program about the constructed video. If the thought it was authentic--she goofed.

I'm still convinced that typically Linda is a rather thorough researcher and has demonstrated a lot of integrity in the lengths she goes to verify facts. I don't know what happened with her and the constructed video. Doesn't make me throw out the baby with the bath.

At first I was willing to give her a pass on her mistake. I even emailed her about it asking her to remove it from her website because it was a fake video. I did not want the investigation into this case to be tarnished. But after listening to her time on C2Cam I was not happy at all. I did not like the fact that she never talked about Chad or Rajinder who are the most important witnesses. It seemed she had an agenda to try to make this into a government conspiracy with the white trailers. She used the fake video as more proof of the conspiracy. Her entire two hours was completely void of scientific analysis. That really bothered me. She spent way too much time discussing lesser topics like bogus weird creatures and cattle mutilations in third world countries.

So my conclusion was that she completely wasted a golden opportunity to further the investigation into this case. Very disappointing.

I still assert that the woman she interviewed in Calif was an authentic observer relating her experiences truly as she perceived and remembered them. I'm thankful Linda bothered to talk to the lady for 2-3 hours on the phone and get as much detail as possible from her.

I also believe that the different versions of the craft are a type of verification, to a point . . . as are the sightings at different locations.

Yes, I too thought that Shirley was genuine. But what do you make of the park ranger who claimed the object was normal? Linda tried to insinuate that he was part of a government conspiracy. I don't think so. I think he was simply mistaken and jumped to a conclusion just as Shirley had thought that it was simply new technology.

I see that Linda Howe as ammended her website regarding the saladfingers' video. However, she still has the Birmingham photo posted front and center with the caption:

Odd, aerial object above power poles near construction site
in May 2006, in Birmingham, Alabama. Photo by Mr. Smith.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the impression I got on this thread is that the Birmingham photo hasn't been so much debunked as it has been outright dismissed due to its being an obvious fake.

These two sequential oversights (cgi video, photoshopped photo) have left me less than impressed with someone with years of experience as an investigative journalist. I'm a former long-time fan of Linda's, so I know how cynical it sounds to suggest that her inserting herself in the middle of this case and promoting - carelessly and unknowingly - falsified evidence (not once but twice) may have been motivated by the desire to raise her profile (which translates into webtraffic and book sales). Nothing wrong with trying to make a buck, but it's all a very dicey proposition when one's veracity is an integral component of one's field of study.

Just to put the criticism in perspective: imagine a scientist submitting a paper to a scientific journal with evidence not analyzed, evidence that even a layman could easily discredit. What effect would that have on that scientist's reputation in regard to his or her peers? Are our standards in the field of ufology so low as to make this an unfair analogy? I do like Linda Howe, and I appreciate the work she has done over the years; however, I can no longer take someone seriously who is this careless, and having said that, I'm dropping the matter.

I dont have to put them in photoshop to see that the object is not in the middle of the picture, why would you take a picture from a object half the screen away from it?

To give it some scale, by including other objects in the vicinity. It looks to me like the object is about 6-7 feet in its longest dimension.

Thomas

Originally posted by yuefo
What effect would that have on that scientist's reputation in regard to his or her peers? Are our standards in the field of ufology so low as to make this an unfair analogy?

It would ruin his rep, period. Yes, ufology standards are not only low, they barely exist. In some cases, they are in reverse. By that I mean it's difficult to be a skeptic on forums such as this one. As soon as you say, "That looks fake to me." someone is bound to jump up and say, "Who made YOU an expert?" and off we go. And in some sense, they are right. Unlike in academia, there is no recognized path to expertise. there is no course of study, no examinations, no milestones to be passed, no recognized body of professional literature, no established peer groups, I think one peer reviewed journal, though that begs the question. What peers? This list goes on. You can't point to your PhD from a recognized and accredited institution of higher learning as evidence you have met minimal standards in the field.

As a result, when you point out that Billy Meier's wedding cake UFO was made on the base of a grain can lid, which was found and photographed on the property, and which measures EXACTLY the same as the UFO, there are still people who refute this analysis. Then the Meier folks say well, actually the grain can lid manufacturer got the design idea from looking at pictures of the saucers and manufactured their lids to look just like them, and people believe that.

There are some really good cases out there that have never been debunked, but we don't concentrate on them because we have to wade through the rest of this. It's hopeless at this level.

I dont know if anyone noticed or mentioned it or even if its valid but the Youtube Video of this supposed 'craft' was made in the UK, see the road markings? We drive on the left hand side in the UK and that Vid was made, at the very least using a UK site.

Originally posted by realyweely
We drive on the left hand side in the UK and that Vid was made, at the very least using a UK site.

I dunno if that follows. I have hundreds of digital pictures of the UK in my collection. The video is CG. Just use a picture of the UK site and run the CG over it. The only part that moves is the craft, er, I mean iron. If it's fake anyway, what's the point? It's not as if saladfingers went out to the UK and took real pictures; it's fake.

Originally posted by realyweely
I dont know if anyone noticed or mentioned it or even if its valid but the Youtube Video of this supposed 'craft' was made in the UK, see the road markings? We drive on the left hand side in the UK and that Vid was made, at the very least using a UK site.

It was made as a hoax on purpose... that has already been confirmed...

The video is fake and the artist said so himself. There is really no need to analyze it...

I LOVE the iron! That's EXACTLY what "Ufology" needs, a SENSE OF HUMOR!

In my opinion (and the opinion of several world class psychiatrists), those who lack a sense of humor are sick, ill, mentally not right.

There are MANY paraphrenics who feed their disease in "Ufology" and they are pretty easily spotted because they have NO sense of humor according to the doctors.

Be that as it may, our man Saladfingers is a CHAMP!

Springer...

Art Bell said that someone had a program that could tell that the picture was photoshopped somehow. He asked the audience if there were more out there who could analyze these pictures further.

I dont think those pictures look like outer space stuff. It looks too home made to me, but who knows.

My gut feeling tells me somebody right here on earth got real creative and put this contraption together.

I think one key element to the park ranger being dissed was the fact that he did not even look up toward the object.

His responses came across to the witness as pre-canned, scripted, as well.

It is plausible that a park ranger in the area would have been briefed on how to respond. He is dependent on the government for his livelihood, after all.