Originally posted by Superiorraw
reply to post by TwoPhish
I'm a bit perplexed at your outcome to all of this and your conclusion,. as far as I am aware I havent directed any ill words to you only offered my
own opinion on the images presented in the thread.
from what I gather you still think Miss Hartigan witnessed a geniune ufo and captured it in these 5 photographs?
If my questioning is right I'd like to propose to you a series of questions, which i'd be greatful for you taking the time to respond with your
opinion of it.
1. What is your thoughts on the witness statement to say that she was outside the vehicle when the photographs are taken?
2. What is your thoughts on the reflection theory being offered?
If the images offered to us show a reflection current with photography through glass, surely if you dont believe this explanation do you have any
other explanation as to why the image has those discrepancies?
3. If you do still believe there to be a ufo in the picture, where exactly do you think/believe it is?
4. I'd like to ask that you summarise the key points of her witness statement and then re-read and review the evidence offered by her to the media
and to us as a community. With any 'spectacular' claimed event all we can do is work from the evidence offered first and pair that with the
It always looks bad doesn't it, when the statement offered doesn't fit the evidence? I do happen to agree with you on the 'event' that you do lose
some element of remembering where certain things are, that is to say you get 'caught up' in the excitement.
I've done my level best to be polite in this thread and been as open and polite to you as a fellow forum contributor. I would ask that you review my
questions seriously and respond in your own time.
You have been very kind. Most have. I just don't like being called "wrong'...at least, when there is an element of room for this to totally turn
around for Fiona with some professional explanations.
It's fine that some are calling this a hoax. It might be. The key word is, is "might". And while we still have a 'might' in the making, no one is
absolutely positively 100% correct. Not at this juncture so.....we need to still allow differences of opinions to bandy about. If we took this
slam-dunk approach to every UFO report then, we could explain them ALL away and then, NONE would ever exist.Crazier things have happened especially in
UFOlogy (see: Ed Walters)
As to your questions:
There is a GREAT chance of her being exactly where she stated. Outside the car. Someone (about 10 pages back) explained how that is possible given
what appears to be reflections.
Lights, whether natural or artificial can play tricks. And as far as cameras, I am not related to Kodak so I don't know for certain what a photo can
accidentally capture either.
We haven't even concluded WHAT that reflection was of. I thought it was another vehicle. It might be, Who knows? But, yes, I totally believe she was
outside her car.
I believe the UFO, that originally caught her attention is that black 'smudge'. She was then distracted by possibly ANOTHER object
however...........in the excitement it COULD'VE been, just the light and something flying by.
This whole time I've been saying, even though she MAY be wrong about the second sighting that does NOT negate her first one. But people want to
dismiss that one too. So be it. And while they were doing that, they weren't calling her a liar. No. They were calling her confused and THAT...really
got me. You can't be confused about the whole entire incident.
There is also a possibility that she DID witness a second one too (and who knows....maybe the damn UFO beamed her backwards *smile) and she captured
the lamp post instead. Again, who knows?????
I think she's been rock solid and hasn't wavered too much. I believe (not sure) she IS allowing the possibility that the second UFO might have been
something naturally whizzing by (in the heat of her excitement) now that she's reconsidered the lamp post conundrum. I'm not sure. But other than
that, what she's said to the media and on here (although not too much) is consistently consistent.
I just wished I had this case to work on. I love challenging cases and this, is one of them.