reply to post by Springer
I'll add to this a little, as I have spoken to SHOOTER quite a few times during the course of all this, and I'll be blunt:
Frankly SHOOTER thinks a lot of what has been said here is absurd and ridiculous, from her being maligned for using a point and shoot camera, to
"goat sweat", to many of the other absurd statements, such as calling her a "fraud".
Mark is correct. She is highly successful, obviously don't need or want capital gains from this, and is well known and respected for her art. She
already (unlike many in this "field") already has personal accomplishments and big success.
She doesn't know what to make of the photo. I don't either. But after all, my work on it has been called "shoddy" by a recent poster - when in
fact I've had a longtime well respected, major research group tell me they were highly impressed by it. No one thinks it's "shoddy" when you
expose a hoax, as I have done here on this very forum more times than I can count. Everyone seemed just fine with that.
But say you don't know? That seems unacceptable for some individuals around here. Good for them. My answer is do your own month long examination,
write a full detailed report, and post it publicly here - with your full name on it, and not some ambiguous screenname so many hide behind when
chucking their uneducated rocks.
I'll make one last note here on this subject: I said I didn't know what this UO is. Many here have made the claim that they do know
is. However none, not one, has proved their case beyond any question. They are effectually making the claim, not me, and not the shooter.
it's upon them to concretely prove it - as I have done on the myriad of hoaxes here.
See how that works? Welcome to UFOlogy.
I'm highly disappointed that folks here did not see the subtleties of this photo, and miss a genuine opportunity to look differently at UFO visual
data. Yes, visual data can only tell us so much and no one should be betting the farm on any photo or video. But there's interesting things here if
you actually look and use careful consideration.
In the spirit of true scientific method (which UFOlogy claims to do but rarely does), this photo will be going to other analysts to examine. I am by
no means the final word, and my work on it is still in the preliminary stages. This stuff doesn't happen overnight. It's called work.
Whatever this photo represents in the end, there's something to be learned here - when a truly interesting photo does come up - many of you will eat
each other alive trying to grab the brass ring of an answer, with every bit the venom laced exchange that true believers will race to call something a
"real" UFO. At that point, it's not a battle of trying to draw out datasets, it's about ego one-upmanship and utter disrespect while wearing the
convenient masks of anonymity.
As a byline point to make? This is exactly
what the phenomena tends to do: cause chaos and infighting. I saw this coming from the get-go, and
told Mark so from the very beginning. This is all very typical if again, you look at what surrounds the paranormal community and the phenomena
And to that end, it is of no mystery to me why so few people want to present their data to the public - and in the end throw it away and forget it.