Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Regarding the first image...i haven't shrugged it off. I have considered your statement, and am currently still looking into it. From the
perspective of the whole "moonpigeon" thing.
This is the 'bigger picture' that's worth bringing other people into the discussion:
What is the range of 'normal' (prosaic) visual phenomena associated with astronaut space missions?
Until the 'ordinary' can be categorized and recognized, filtering out the candidates for 'extraordinary' is a hopeless task.
It's why UFO-promo sources make sure NOT to provide 'context' of pretty pictures they present, in order for viewers to be unable to make even the
simplest discrimination between 'normal' and 'abnormal'.
This current example is a good one for this dynamic. There are dozens of others, stuff falsely posing as 'true space UFO pix' all over the Internet.
How is a genuinely open-minded and curious reader to determine what he is NOT being told by the UFO-promo folks?
Tex, the answer to that question is NOT "ask Jim Oberg". There has to be a general approach of wider applicability. Let's figure one out.
Anybody want to help? Or is the current morass of misinformation comfortable?
|