posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 03:52 AM
Unfortunately, the article mentions two things that will immediately be held as grounds for doubting:
First, the lawyer wishes to remain anonymous. I understand that there are perfectly plausible reasons to want to do so -- and indeed, he is not the
only "anonymous witness" cited in the article. However, the article also mentions that he (the lawyer) is willing to "sell" his footage.
Nonetheless, it is interesting stuff. I'm vaguely familiar with the other referenced incident, and I do see the similarity of the objects. I can only
leave it at that for now.