Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

Explanation: Regardless that it itself is not yet identified ... ATS has identified several properties the anomaly has ...


Aproximate size ... it IS small [ie less than 1meter cubed] and close to the camera [ie less than 50meters away]!

It IS reflective!

It IS airbourne with no visible means of propulsion or support!

It IS there!

Personal Disclosure: This ^^^ seriously narrows down what it can possibly be!

reply to post by jritzmann


I've really appreciated your analysis and reading through the twists and turns of this thread.

My question is to size - I've heard various things on this thread and I wanted to be clear on your current opinion.

Some are saying it is within 50 meters or closer, and that the object is not very big, like around a meter cubed or so. (I'm more familiar with the feet/yard system, but I'm trying!!)

At this point, given what you've done with your analysis, how far out and how large to you think it is? (Assuming its not a weird camera artifact, as I've also seen mentioned...)

Thank you so much.

peace,
AB

reply to post by AboveBoard


Difficult to tell without on-site measurements to stationary objects (which is how I prefer to handle that issue of scale)

Close and small? Great - so where's the consistent shadow on the ground.

Approx 164 ft away and the UO at 3ft? I'd like to see a 3ft object come up that large at 164 feet away, and take into consideration F.O.V.



No, I'd say I disagree with that. One thing I can say is I know distance haze when I see it. And I see it here. That one single thing (a *lack* of distance or atmospheric density), has dethroned UFO photos by showing it's a close object and pretty small.

This? It's not a mile away or anything, but I'd say it's substantially past the large cropping of rocks there on the left. How big? Difficult for me to say with certainty - what I can say with certainty is it isn't some small thing closer than the dropoff - it's got enough air between it and her to maintain the appropriate density with the rest of the shot.

I know it's not the definitive answer you're looking for but for the time being it's the best I can say. There's so much more to do. My time with this shot is still very young.

Originally posted by jritzmann
Difficult to tell without on-site measurements to stationary objects (which is how I prefer to handle that issue of scale)
Close and small? Great - so where's the consistent shadow on the ground.

Depends on how close it is, the nature of the terrain and also the nature of the object - if it was quite close, the area might be out of shot and if the terrain has low areas any shadows may be obscured. If the object was somewhat transparent, then there may be not much of a shadow..

Approx 164 ft away and the UO at 3ft? I'd like to see a 3ft object come up that large at 164 feet away, and take into consideration F.O.V.

Those are fairly simple calculations, but they rely on knowing (not guessing at) a variable or two..

One thing I can say is I know distance haze when I see it. And I see it here.

Yes, so do I - it's definitely there in the distant scenery.. That's because it is safe to assume that scenery *is* actually distant. In anything else, I'd be most interested to know how you can discern haze from the natural colour/brightness of the item. If it was pale blue/white and/or semi transparent plastic bag (and a lot of plastic bags are like that, especially in Greece/Crete) then making rash assumptions .. is a little rash. But if you can back this claim up with some actual numbers/cites or a precise description of how you determined it could only be haze.. well, I'd like to learn this new technique... Elevenaugust earlier showed how the opposite theory can work, but he, like me, knows you can't use that method on closer, light coloured objects.

That one single thing (a *lack* of distance or atmospheric density), has dethroned UFO photos by showing it's a close object and pretty small.

Yes, it works in that direction. ONLY. As I and others pointed out earlier. The natural colour/contrast of an item cannot overcome the addition of haze, so if it is dark/contrasty while distant objects are haze affected, then it clearly cannot be at those distances. But it doesn't work the other way!!! If an object is already light coloured, there is no simple way to determine if the colour is the *actual* colour of the object or if it has been added by the haze.

My time with this shot is still very young.

Seriously? Especially given the time that has elapsed, the information already supplied and the fact that more information is simply not available? What else can you or anyone throw at it?*

As I said earlier, often there simply is not enough information to make any determination whatsoever.


* - maybe someone could throw a few different coloured bags around in front of a similar camera in similar lighting, to see if that 'must-be-haze' theory stands up, but I'm dead certain it won't... I could check what I have in my bag collection..

But frankly I'd rather spend my time on more worthwhile endeavours.

reply to post by CHRLZ


Out of curiosity, in terms of UO/UFO pictures which other one/s would be more worth his time in your opinion? I admit I am maybe biased in this instance because I give Jeff a lot of credit (credit that is earned in my opinion) but I still think this is a picture worthy of investigation. The fact that we have gone this far and long without any kind of conclusion lends to its credibility, not detracts from it I think.

reply to post by jritzmann


Thank you - that was exactly the kind of reply I was looking for. It is really easy to start feeling my eyes glaze over with all the different theories, and as I have no expertise in this area, I am easily confused. I wasn't really looking for anything specific, just checking back in with you to see where you were at with those ideas. I'm open to either a mundane or an extraordinary answer, but honestly, without more information, imo the best we can come to is "UO." I haven't seen a definitive "aha! that mundane answer covers all the parameters!" post yet, as I see it, though I know others are convinced. But again, I'm no expert...

Most appreciated!

- AB

Originally posted by sputniksteve
Out of curiosity, in terms of UO/UFO pictures which other one/s would be more worth his time in your opinion?

I'm still waiting for a *truly* decent one - namely something taken on a half decent camera by someone who knows how to use it (in this case I think it was a reasonable camera, but it was used very casually and obviously not focused or zoomed into the object, which wasn't even seen by the photographer..), *and* where it exhibits characteristics that are clearly non-terrestrial. Frankly, despite the far better camera technology that is around these days, if anything decent sightings are getting rarer..

The point I was trying to make is that this image has gone nowhere from day one. A few possibilities have been submitted and at least a couple of those seem quite likely to me, eg the plastic bag..

I admit I am maybe biased in this instance because I give Jeff a lot of credit (credit that is earned in my opinion)

I'm genuinely not trying to be smart here - but is your opinion a good guide? Do you have much experience in photography from an investigative p-o-v? I'm no forensic specialist but have spent most of my life playing with cameras and imaging and also looking at real forensic analyses and developing my knowledge as far as I can. And there are things in Jeff's analysis that simply aren't correct - this haze business being one of them. Steve, do *you* think that the only possible way for that thing to have that colour is for it to be distant? Or could it simply BE that colour? This relatively basic issue is a pretty important one, and I cannot understand how Jeff can possibly say it is definitely distance haze. And I'm not alone in thinking that way. And unless he can back that up, I think that you need to be careful about giving out your credit!

I still think this is a picture worthy of investigation.

That's fine, and I invite all and sundry to proceed! But I did point out that I thought it was going nowhere a looong time back, and since then, have you seen any new and useful developments? Are we any closer in knowing than we were on day one? I'll keep watching.. but I think if I was to make a bet, my money would be quite safe..

The fact that we have gone this far and long without any kind of conclusion lends to its credibility, not detracts from it I think.

I'm not following that logic, sorry. Can you explain what you mean by 'credible'? I don't think anyone is disputing that it is a non-faked image.. If you just mean it's unidentified.. well, I think that's pretty much evident and not in dispute. If you mean that it is definitely something truly extraordinary, ie *not* a plastic bag or bug.. well, I don't think they have been excluded.

I can post dozens of images of mine that include 'things' (usually birds or bugs, admittedly, not many plastic bags..) in the sky, and there is simply no way that I, you or anyone could positively identify them. They don't have sufficient resolution and I didn't take note of them when they were taken. Being less easily analysable doesn't make them more noteworthy.

Don't get me wrong, this image is interesting, but it does not, imo, warrant agonising hours in Photoshop, or lots of deep analysis, especially if processing is not justified, or the analysis is simply not correct.

BTW, I'm happy to demonstrate my point about haze with some images (if asked nicely), but I'm hoping my explanation is self-evident..

Originally posted by CHRLZ
But frankly I'd rather spend my time on more worthwhile endeavours.

Fantastic - then if this is not a "worthwhile endeavor" for you - why is it you're here to refute everything I say that I'm gleaning from this shot? I told everyone my opinion. You don't agree with any of it. Great. So where's that end for you? To "break me" or refute til I bend to your opinion? You'll have a long wait.

The object is highly reflective (whatever it is). The specular highlight shows that. If it's throwing the highlight that it is, then it stands to reason reflections would also fall in line - and they are significantly lighter in tone than they should be based on the specular highlight displayed, and fall in a progression with what's displayed in the rest of the shot that seems consistent with haze or atmospheric density.

I don't know what the object is made of. I'm going off what I know about light, shadow and reflection properties. Who knows what properties an unknown object can show - but I only have known comparative objects and textures to compare so that's what I'm stuck with.

No one is hanging a belief system on this photo. There's only so much it can tell us. (Haven't I said this, oh...about 10 times here?) I'm far more interested in the finer things that no one here has even mentioned that make this interesting to me. Whatever it is, it's been thrown into the "phenomena" bag - and so that's the point. The effect it's had. The minutiae it presents and what odds there are of such a display being too much to ignore in the context of "UFO". Many questions asked here in this thread haven't really been productive questions. It's been back and forth eating of one another for no other reason than ideologies are being challenged.

Stay around the paranormal field long enough and you'll see why that's so damned interesting.

But all this is superfluous to discuss with you since you already know better. Next time maybe Mark will call you?

Originally posted by jritzmann

Originally posted by CHRLZ
..I'd rather spend my time on more worthwhile endeavours.

..if this is not a "worthwhile endeavor" for you - why is it you're here to refute everything I say..

I'm simply here to add MY expertise. Why the exaggeration? - I haven't refuted everything you say. I've been quite specific about my opinion - especially on the haze issue. I invite others to chime in - notably, elevenaugust and others have already done that.. and seem to agree with me.

You don't agree with any of it.

That's not correct. Please don't misrepresent my position.

Great. So where's that end for you?

? Hopefully it 'ends' with the readers having correct information and useful analysis. Would you not agree that errors and misinformation need to be corrected, no matter WHO makes them?

To "break me" or refute til I bend to your opinion? You'll have a long wait.

? So, even if you are wrong you won't admit it? BTW, as I've said many times - I like being wrong (I learn new stuff!) and I'm happy to admit it when it happens - it does, occasionally.. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, because I don't take it personally when people question my expertise or point out an error. Feel free to check my record, eg examples like this one at BAUT, or here, here and here, 3 of many examples on just one thread here at ATS..).

The object is highly reflective (whatever it is). The specular highlight shows that.

I agree that part of it is. The part that is reflecting seems to be appropriately angled towards the sun which is obviously at about 45 degrees up and right.

If it's throwing the highlight that it is, then it stands to reason reflections would also fall in line - and they are significantly lighter in tone than they should be based on the specular highlight displayed..

Why does that follow? Please be specific - how much lighter 'should' they be and how did you determine that? Yes, the part angled to the Sun reflects, and the rest could be a very light colour from both reflected and transmitted light - indeed that's exactly what a light coloured plastic bag would do. Especially in this environment, with a bright sun, bright blue sky, and very light ground reflecting lots of light upwards to reduce any shadows.

.. and fall in a progression with what's displayed in the rest of the shot that seems consistent with haze or atmospheric density.

But the fact that it 'seems' consistent with haze doesn't mean it IS. Your own choice of the word 'seems' shows that you know this. Even assuming I accept that the light colour of an object must be haze (which I don't), to properly determine what might be haze and what might not, do we have anything in this image at what might be a comparable distance to the object, upon which we might base any assumption? Not really. The only KNOWN things that are obviously haze affected are:
1. The hills in the distant background. It's just my opinion of course, but they do strongly appear to be very distant - if the object was at that sort of distance from the camera, it would be monstrously huge. (If anyone wants the math, let me know..)
2. The sea. Which is not very useful as a guide because it is already very blue/cyan, making it difficult to determine the 'haze content'.

But let's check the R/G/B levels in the object anyway (I'm just using the initially posted jpeg, RAW figures might be a bit more accurate) - the lightest (non-specular) areas seem to be in the order of 138/181/212 (Eg, coordinates 2249,351 and 2299,355). Compare the colour of the nearby sky in that area, say 2204,313 - which is 158/188/216. In other words, the sky colour differs only by being a tad brighter and having more red in it - quite consistent with the object being largely reflective/transparent. The reduction of red could easily be from its natural colour/reflectivity and the nature of its light transmission characteristics.

In other words - yes, it *could* possibly be haze that caused the blue/cyan colour, but if it *is* haze affected, the object must be very large - which then begs the question of why it wasn't noticed.. A nearby bug whizzing past, or a piece of uninteresting wind-blown litter, yes...

But there is absolutely no reason to dismiss the simplest possibility - namely that the object simply IS that colour!

[continued below]...

[continued from above..]

I don't know what the object is made of. I'm going off what I know about light, shadow and reflection properties.

And I'm simply disagreeeing with some of that, and providing my reasoning. Hey, I've even found a couple of plastic bags to experiment on - maybe I can get motivated to actually do some tests. But if only one or two folks are interested and you aren't ever going to admit an error, why should I bother?

There's only so much it can tell us.

Indeed.

I'm far more interested in the finer things that no one here has even mentioned that make this interesting to me.

And those are?

Whatever it is, it's been thrown into the "phenomena" bag - and so that's the point.

Is it? Lots of dreck gets lots of attention here, even after being well and truly solved or in some cases proved as hoaxes.

what odds there are of such a display being too much to ignore in the context of "UFO".

I'd love to know how one calculates *that*. And if those odds are based on incorrect analysis or the strong desire for something to be out of the ordinary, then we aren't talking good science...

But all this is superfluous to discuss with you since you already know better. Next time maybe Mark will call you?

Is that sort of comment really necessary..? - how about just refuting - or accepting - the information instead?

Do you still claim that the only explanation for the colour/brightness of that object is distance haze?

BTW, are there any other lurkers here with imaging experience - Armap? Depthoffield? Phage? (Bear in mind I don't hang at ATS much these days - there may be others I've missed for which I apologise.) I would very much welcome other informed opinions/debate on the topic of determining distance by haze, and in particular whether it can be usefully done in this instance, given the more comprehensive comments here..

What if?

Ok here is a theory that might explain all of the UFO sightings and rumors. Maybe, just maybe, the governments of the world have decided to perpetuate the UFO stories on purpose. Maybe they created the UFOs through movies, media, government fake coverups and rumors to explain what will be coming soon. If you read the Bible it says that in the last days there will be signs and wonders in the Heavens. It also talks about rapture where many, many people will just suddenly disappear. So, what if the the governments are using UFO's as a future excuse when people disappear? What if the Bible IS true. So far it's been pretty accurate when it comes to predictions. All of the signs have come true that lead up to Jesus returning. If you read Ezekiel, Daniel and Revalation you can see that we are living in the times that they describe. The governments are preparing our minds for control when the disappearances happen. What would you tell the world when the rapture happens? What lie would you have to tell to explain where people went? Mass alien abductions? That would seem logical to people who don't believe the Bible especially since we have been indoctrinated for years to believe that aliens exist. The Bible also says that Satan has been cast to Earth. Satan has power over men who don't follow God. He also has power to do wonders and miracles in the Earth. He could easily create a light in the sky or make someone believe they have been abducted through a dream. He is the great deceiver. Maybe it's a great lie that he has created so that people will follow when the time comes. When people disappear a leader will come forth to soothe the world. He will organize a one-world government to take care of those who are left. This person is known as the Anti-Christ. People will follow blindly because they will need direction after all the chaos the disappearances cause. Could this be the explanation for UFOs and aliens? All of the rest of the conspiracies regarding UFOs are man made. People see and hear about strange phenomena and start to believe. Then their minds create fantasies to share with others for self-important and selfish reasons. Everyone loves to be right and be the one to "educate" everyone else as to how much they know. What if it was all a lie? What if they were totally deceived? It also states in the Bible that in the end times men's hearts and minds will be hardened toward God. That is the doorway that Satan needs to control hearts and minds. Think about what the Bible says about the end times and then look around you. It's now. Step outside yourself and your fantasies and think about it. I would be interested in your comments. Please be respectful as I will be to you. We are all free to make up our minds and believe whatever we want. There is no need for hatred towards complete strangers. This is my first post. Be kind.

reply to post by RealTruthIsObvious


Not sure you'll get that debate in this thread... I think you may find some that think that way though, and there is a section where such things can be discussed in greater detail.
I respect that you believe that way, for my own contribution to your theory I will just reflect your own words back to you...

Then their minds create fantasies to share with others for self-important and selfish reasons. Everyone loves to be right and be the one to "educate" everyone else as to how much they know. What if it was all a lie? What if they were totally deceived?

I wish you well.

reply to post by OmegaLogos

On page 1, I had a gut feeling and that mirror.
On page 61, I thought you had solved this and I'm still not convinced you didn't, or near enough for me.
Are you still thinking the same as you thought back then?
Where you could see the car, I could see the mirror, but I can't see why it couldn't be a droplet of water or some kind of fluid. Goats have body fluids and so do people, I really didn't want to say that but it's true so I feel that was ruled out a bit quick.

Originally posted by CHRLZ
[continued from above..]

I don't know what the object is made of. I'm going off what I know about light, shadow and reflection properties.

And I'm simply disagreeeing with some of that, and providing my reasoning. Hey, I've even found a couple of plastic bags to experiment on - maybe I can get motivated to actually do some tests. But if only one or two folks are interested and you aren't ever going to admit an error, why should I bother?

Because you can duplicate one effect doesn't prove anything, other than it *can* be done in other ways, which we already know. If you can chuck a blowing bag in the air and get all that is displayed here? You go for it.

Other than that, when referencing other interesting points, is replied by you with "And those are?" Says to me you glossed over or didn't read the theoretical area of the report I wrote, and so any interaction past that is pointless.

I'm not sure how anyone can claim "erroneous" when I don't know what it is. I'm simply giving an educated opinion of 26 years of doing this sort of work for a living, and in tandem with this loosely defined field.

For the absolute last time, I don't know what it is, I know what I see displayed here, which is not consistent with any blowing bag, bird etc that I have ever seen photos of. To me, it doesn't add up. If it does for you, great - but I see no reason to argue with some anonymous individual on the net when I can interact with established people in the imaging field who are willing to examine it objectively.

The idea that I want it to be something it isn't is equally absurd given my history here being called "debunker" to "government agent". So, try another angle.

reply to post by jritzmann


Does the 'anti-structure of the paranormal' angle (from first page) fit in terms of HER life being changed in some way? If I understand correctly (and I probably don't) the theory states the paranormal happens in areas of boundary and change in a person's life, and would result in some sort of significant personal growth or change in the way they relate to the world - or is the personal change part not neccessary? How has her life been changed by this (apart from being made aware of the level of debate that takes place on these forums and probably just resulting in an urge to stay away)?
I ask because it seems such a tiny inconsequential anomaly, unlikely to produce any real challenge to her concept of reality, but maybe she sees it different?

reply to post by delusion


The anti-structural elements are what is in place in the midst of a paranormal event (think structure in anti-structure - a consistent of an inconsistency). "Personal growth" of any kind is unknown to anyone but the shooter. That's not something anyone outside can really qualify.

It can also have effects like affirmations of one sort or another, and creative bursts.

Think about it this way: A Bob and Kate buy an old home. They love them home, and see it's potential. Currently they live in a luxury condo where everything is taken care of. They move in for a few weeks and notice nothing unusual, and then begin the long process of renovation - and weird events start to transpire. They see movement out of the corner of their eyes, figures walking in the hallways, and start hearing voices speaking when no one is there but them.

The immediate voice from the ghost hunters is that the ghosts are disturbed by the renovation and don't want their house messed with.

Anti-structure says the phenomena begins when life goes out of routine. Bob takes off work to knock out a wall, Kate exhausts her savings and now walks precariously with bills week to week. There are scadloads of workers in the house doing work. Bob and Kate have not slept well due to their house being in disarray for weeks. Normal life is disrupted in spades, and now stress has also entered the picture.

Bob and Kate take notice of the odd phenomena and call "investigators" - more anti-structure (people in your house trying to acknowledge "ghosts"), and the investigators get some interesting data. Nothing earth shattering, but suggestion that something is indeed going on, and this is not some figment of Bob and Kate's imaginations.

They suffer through odd crap and money issues and end up with a beautiful home, they survive it financially, and go back to routine life.

The paranormal events cease.

When you see this time after time, you note that the consistencies aren't "what do the ghosts look like", or "what do the voices on the EVP say" but rather that out of routine, in a new place, in a remote area you would never normally be, etc - these are the common traits.

Now, how you react to the paranormal is another story. Say Bob and Kate take note of it, and become engrossed in learning more about it. They have multiple teams in to investigate. They stop midway with the repairs because they wanna know more about the activity in the house. Finances are dwindling. Sleep is off kilter.

And then you enter into my favorite statement about the paranormal: "the more you give, the more you get". The further you poke, the less routine you are. The more you go out of your way to investigate - you meet new friends...I could go on and on.

And the hardest part to understand - none of this means ghosts, UFOs or any other phenomena isn't "real", It doesn't mean it's all us. But, we need to stop looking at a microscopic level of paranormal instances and start looking at situations that surround it. It's all so much more complex than any post on a message board can cover.

If nothing else, in your own poking around-start asking questions about the person's life having the experiences: their current routine, the nature of their living conditions, etc etc.

For instance, George Hansen had told me one time that apartment and condominiums tend to have more activity than stable single family homes.

Now, I want you to tell me why you think that is.

Originally posted by jritzmannBecause you can duplicate one effect doesn't prove anything

So rather than simply admit error about the distance haze, this is the nearest you will go to conceding that claim was wrong? OK, I'll take it.

If you can chuck a blowing bag in the air and get all that is displayed here? You go for it.

I have to 'get all that is displayed here'? So now any demonstration I might try will be rejected because it is not close enough? Who judges that criteria? Those who really want it to be something extraordinary?

Says to me you glossed over or didn't read the theoretical area of the report I wrote

That's a rather interesting reply, from someone who edited out and refused to answer my very simple question:

Do you still claim that the only explanation for the colour/brightness of that object is distance haze?

Also, here's what you said earlier:

the finer things that no one here has even mentioned that make this interesting to me.

I took that to mean that NO-ONE has mentioned these finer points, which is why I asked you to elaborate. Are you somehow excluded from 'no-one'? Did you leave out the magic word 'else'?

As above, I've been quite specific about what I dispute, and you have not yet addressed that.

interaction past that is pointless.

Yes, it surely is, if it is not addressed properly and errors are not addressed in good faith.

I'm not sure how anyone can claim "erroneous"... when I don't know what it is.

If you post erroneous claims, and you did, then I think it is appropriate for them to be called out. When did I say your 'error' was not knowing what it is? Again, stop misrepresenting me.

I'm simply giving an educated opinion of 26 years of doing this sort of work for a living, and in tandem with this loosely defined field.

That doesn't mean you won't make mistakes. I suspect I'm older than you, and I've been working in and around photography and imaging since ~1975 (you do the math..), and I still make errors - perhaps you can point one out? There's lots of my stuff on the web - I'm always Chrlz or chrlzs.

And Jaime Maussan has made a living out of what he does for many many years too. So, your point is?

Originally posted by jritzmann
....

For instance, George Hansen had told me one time that apartment and condominiums tend to have more activity than stable single family homes.

Now, I want you to tell me why you think that is.

Well I see where that's going...
Would that imply paranormal activity in higher proportions around travel departure points, subways (maybe too routine, but they can be 'unstable' places), or particularly international airports (big trips, big changes). Especially with regard to the people who get stuck at them when flight's are delayed, stuck in a highly unstable limbo between worlds.
Ooh, hospitals...
Like in Lars von Triers The Kingdom, or Garth Marenghi's Dark Place (too radical for it's time, just now getting the recognition it deserves after its genius was suppressed).
Sorry, off topic...

reply to post by CHRLZ


What is it exactly that you want me to say? That I could be wrong? Everyone can be wrong, me included, which I have said as well through this thread...so what's your point other than constant one upmanship here?

You're older than me? Really? Are we going to that? Seems rather juvenile.

"If you post erroneous claims, and you did, then I think it is appropriate for them to be called out."

I gave my opinion because I was asked. Stop misrepresenting that as "claims". I note that you avoid the fact that 99.9% of all the evidence presented to me from here I've I.D.'d as fakes. Yet you presume to take me to task because of something I don't know?

People never cease to amaze me.

I explained my take on the density haze, and that's my take. Don't like it? Great, as I said - next time you can do the work when Mark asks you. He will ask you won't he?

Right now all I see is me answering someone who consistently marginalizes my answer with more questions, misrepresentations and assumptions who now seems intent on picking a fight over a topic you said previously wasn't worth your time.

This seems more a personal issue for you, so I won't be responding again to some anonymous online facade and wasting my time. My report stands as it is, and I stand by it. You can "talk" to thin air, I'm no longer listening.

reply to post by delusion


You're right on it. O'Hare airport? One of the most congested and hectic airports. If indeed the sighting there was indicative of the phenomena we're interested in - is it surprising? Nope.

All I can tell you is to start asking different questions about paranormal accounts - rather than chase your tail with pointless arguments over ego driven, minutiae that serves nothing but to derail you, as we've read.

That too, is all part of it - the hoaxers, the haters, the infighting. It too is what surrounds the core and serves as an escape hatch. Who wants to discuss a piece of evidence when everyone has been soured and disgusted by personal attacks and nonsensical garbage you've seen right here? You can answer questions as best you can, and it's not good enough, you just get pelted with what you didn't answer or things that don't need to be said to be understood. Get the idea? That's how it rolls by in plain sight.

Now the problem is how to define "paranormal" vs say black budget aircraft we've not seen. The answer should be what surrounds it, but can we rely on that solely as a point of discernment? I don't know. There's a hell of a lot I don't know, but gotta start somewhere.