posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 10:10 PM
A photograph in and of itself proves almost nothing, especially today when access to a PC and just a bit of photographic software knowledge is all
that is needed to produce a picture that can't be determined to be fake with the naked eye, and sometimes even with analysis if the hoaxer is
especially skilled. The same can be said about video, although to a somewhat lesser extent since faking video is more difficult than faking a single
frame. But still, it isn't tremendously difficult.
It is the story surrounding a photograph or video that makes it believable above all else. Most of the time if you can establish that a witness is
lying that tells you right away that their photographs are certain to be dubious. Also, if everything checks out about the story given then there is
a pretty good chance that the visual evidence will be genuine as well.
To date I haven't seen too many crisp photographs that had an equally credible story attached to them. It appears to be a very rare occurrence.
Instead many of the seemingly good cases have pictures which are far off, indistinct, blurry. A few exceptions are the Belgium photograph from the
late 80s/early 90s wave that is very close up and sharp, the McMinnville photograph, the Trindade Island pictures, and best of all in my opinion, the
Lago de Cote aerial photograph. But ones of this quality seem to be rare.
[edit on 1-1-2009 by Wickerman1972]