It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
NBC News space analyst James Oberg - a longtime UFO skeptic - says the evidence that's come to light so far isn't all that compelling"...."It's just sad that we keep getting these reports which are of zero evidential value," he told me. "It's sad because there's a lot of strange stuff in the air that we do need to know."
Originally posted by Mechanic 32
My only problem with photographic evidence is that there is hardly ever photographic evidence of the same event with multiple pictures from different sources. If we had that, than the credibility is increased considerably.
Every picture is worth looking at however. Because once you start dismissing the "single photo events", you may be missing out on something that may very well prove to be true.
I am very skeptical of photographs when they first appear. It is in my nature, I guess. But I do look at them, and try to be objective in my views but I find it increasingly more difficult with each hoax picture that is uncovered.
But to say "UFO photos are a complete waste of time!", as in the title of this thread, I say no. That is not a correct assumption.
Originally posted by Prote
But to say "UFO photos are a complete waste of time!", as in the title of this thread, I say no. That is not a correct assumption.
Only because it is not an assumption.
Originally posted by Mechanic 32
The above post of mine, was only an opinion.
Originally posted by Mechanic 32
Okay, since it is not an assumption, does this mean that you are asserting it as a fact?
Is so, prove it.
Originally posted by Prote
Therein lies the problem. Calls for proof for something unprovable.
Originally posted by Prote
It's ok by me if you feel that UFO photos are worth any time and effort to scrutinise. I would not include photos as being a waste of time if it was one facet to a much larger story containing other evidence.
However, I specifically restricted the thread to UFO Photos to make the point. OnTheDeck stretched it further by adding other media into the fray. From the lack of support from members who feel that photo's are worth the trouble, I'd say, there is an important message here.
Gazrok, I would tend to agree but even if we agree that it isn't the be all and end all, is there a single historical image that CAN'T be explained? I would like to see it.
Has there ever been an image that PROVES a visiting, piloted craft?
If not, can someone explain to me how this benefits UFOlogy as opposed to harming it?
Originally posted by OnTheDeck
Gazrok, Prote's contention is that ufo photos are a waste of time.
Beyond "verifying" something for your own edification, photos (and videos) serve no other purpose...
Originally posted by OnTheDeck
We have decades of worthwhile photos and video, but what has come of it?