posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:02 AM
reply to post by gortex
The problem with eyewitness reports is they are notoriously unreliable , the object in the picture isn't doing 200mph nor does it appear to be
hovering at 1500 ft , maybe he caught it as it was descending into the woods but what did it do after that , did it take off again or stay there ...
he doesn't say .
I agree with this - it boils down to a photo of an object and the claims of a guy who we assume was known to the LIFE staffer or the Editor who
approved its publication. I was hoping someone might recognise the object as something specific.
It struck me as unusual to have this random image and vague (no location, no series of images, no time) write-up buried in the LIFE magazine. The
magazine didn't have a habit of printing UFO images and, when they ran a ufological story, it was topical and extended to a few pages.
In this case, Pfeiffer isn't identified to the extent that it would help his business. The mention of the Condon Committee isn't central to the
reply to post by xpoq47
Well, it appears Major Quintanilla knew who this guy was and didn't try character assassination. Based on that, the default seems to be giving the
witness benefit of the doubt. LIFE personnel also apparently considered him a reliable source.
We can only speculate how, or if, the LIFE staff verified Pfeiffer's story. Maybe they did as it would lend some reason to printing the story?
Another thought is that perhaps the original image was of a good enough quality/ resolution that it was apparent the object wasn't a hot-air balloon.
A good look through the Condon Report
showed no mention of Pfeiffer or his photograph. Likewise,
Project Blue Book
drew a blank.
Perhaps it was just a slow news week and they had a page to fill up? We can give them the benefit of the doubt and yet I suspect there's no more to
be learned in the story.