posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:52 PM
"I wanted to take a picture but the display wasn't working right. The images had stripes and pressing the trigger didn't do anything.
Only when the object was already pretty far it worked, I shot the attached picture and then, seconds later, the disk was covered in clouds once more
and I never saw it again"
Suggesting that, the guy was constantly pressing the button but nothing happened and it was only when the craft had reached a certain point the
camera actually managed to capture an image... That actually lends some credence to the guys story, not detracts from it, so quite what the point
about it not being central in the frame is, I am not sure..
If it is a hoax, the guy has done his background work well. The description of the hum and other details, such as interference with electrical
equipment, sound like a classic , *old school* UFO report.
That part of the report is interesting culturally. Those sort of details are not that common with modern sightings. It suggests that, either the guy
is genuine. Or, he has based the hoax on rather old material.
Hoaxes tend to play on the current zeitgeist for their authenticity. That is, they conform to the latest mode of thinking and evidence, but expand on
it in a way that, is mean to offer you a glimpse of that which you really want to see.. With this picture you really don't get that. As pointed out,
it isn't centre frame, and it isn't that detailed.
There again, that could also be the mark of a true Trickster, not just a hoaxer. Someone who seeks to tantalise rather than offer a solution. Ergo, if
it is a hoax, it is a considered one, not just a, spur of the moment, scam.
There is also, within German culture, a specific sort of respect given to those who manage to perpetrate *convincing scams*. Maybe one of the German
contributors would remember the name for this, as it slips my memory right now. Again, given that cultural background it could, indeed , suggest a
For now, I shall keep an open mind towards the image. To my mind it reads like a classic case from a 60s/70s UFO book, the only difference being the
invention of the mobile phone camera, has granted the witness, something tangible to show as evidence.
Another mark against i being a hoax is that. Anonymous hoaxers don;t tend to offer so little. The Surgeons Photo of The Loch Ness Monster is a classic
example as were the MJ12 documents. The anonymous hoaxer usually provides something that challenges the fundamental precepts of thinking on a given
subject with something that is truly, startling.
In this case, that simply isn't so. It is intersting yes, but it certainly doesn't scream.
"Here is the evidence you all seek"; as did the aforementioned Surgeons Photo and the MJ12 documents.
Again, that would point to the person who reported this, if it is a hoax, having a very deep and subtle understanding of what goes to make a decent
As for the remarks about it being photo shopped. Look if we are to question the veracity of every image that has been edited, be it film or photo, we
are moving into an area where you can, legitimately, challenge virtually every image in the media. I suspect many of those who cry photo shop every
time they are presented with a purported image of a UFO. Are of the opinion that you are a member of the "Tin foil hat brigade" should you question
the validity of the images you see in the news on TV.
That's called, having your cake and eating it...
So yes, could be a fake, but an interesting *old school style* sighting ,brought up to date, by the mobile phone cam...
[edit on 11-3-2009 by FireMoon]