reply to post by Siddharta
Sorry for the long post but there's a lot to tell you....
I'm firmly in the hoax camp on this case. That doesn't mean I would ignore strong evidence like a named photographer with high credibility indexing
but short of seeing a drone myself I'll always be very suspicious due to all the funny business this case has generated. So, on the drone case I
don't agree that I'm between the chairs.
As far as ATS vs. OM - there I am between the chairs. I don't question other people's perceptions though. Like I said, I'm fairly new and probably
haven't been around long enough to find out for myself.
Hmm, that one's weird cause it's completely out of my control, really. The guy says he wants to do the analysis and then he ignores emails. I get
the impression he's just very, very busy and maybe finds the case interesting and also doesn't want to be impolite. I've given him plenty of
chances to bolt for the door with no ill feelings.
1. He didn't find any earth shattering new evidence. Everything he found has been debated and discussed already.
2. If he does come forward, the DRT will use him to prop up their case and they will pick and choose what to highlight. You know this is the case.
They will say "photo expert challenges CG assertion" and ignore the rest of his analysis.
3. Really the only thing he offers is insight into the mind of a hoaxer when it comes to faking photos. He found the photos to be deliberate in their
staging, making use of well known and written examples on how to convince the eye. The timing of some of the photos indicate the witness waited until
the scene was set to convince?? He doesn't buy it and I don't either.
Seeing as how he's a free resource, I offered him plenty of wiggle room to quit and even made a hell of a case that doing so would probably be the
intelligent move given all the crap he'll take. I asked him how much he would charge for a proper, written analysis on the theory that if the DRT
wants to push the issue they can pay him. He declined.
My last conversation with him was when the OVNI article came out and he told me he knows David and this Caplin guy from the photo. At that time he
said he still wanted to participate in future analysis of this case and any others I have, that he's finding it fascinating and so on.
I emailed him to point out one last time the possible weirdness that could occur should his name be attached to an analysis which asserts the drones
are not CG and asked him how he wanted to go about doing it (did he want me to do the heavy work and just approve it or what). That was almost a week
ago now with no response.
So, like Brad in 12 monkeys, Le Expert is being a bit flaky and there's nothing I can do about it. I honestly don't think his work will make one bit
of difference in this case and I don't want to see it misappropriated and exploited by Drone Inc. anyway. I also do not want to fire up a CG vs model
debate - something I don't think we can avoid.
I think it's better to stop giving this case attention it doesn't deserve and move on. Fools will always hang themselves given enough rope. Has
anyone else noticed that new witnesses pop up whenever the discussion dies down?