.......... another dozen.
Just knee-jerk responses for the moment; a little talk later.
Photo #1a: Picacho Peak, NM, 1967.
Photo #3a: Location unlisted, probably White Sands area [This is a Blue Book photo stolen by Allen Hynek with the only label being that it is a Nunn-Baker {mobile telescope} tracking photo. This would likely place it in the 1950s and taken while observing a night launch or during the Moon Watch program.] ... for what it's worth, I believe that the "UFO" is the pill-shaped light form rather than the large burst which seems possibly to emerge from it.
Photo #4a: St. George, MN, 1965.
Photo{s} #5a: Insert: Lake Urmia, NW Iran, 1978; and Shiraz, Iran, a few years later {John Timmerman was boggled by the shapes and that these came to him from Iran from two very different sources. This oddity overcame his immediate perceptual biases, though few others of his CUFOS friends.}
Photo #6a: Honolulu, Hawaii, 1974.
Photo #7a: Alberton, South Australia, 1967. { the lower picture is a blow-up of the central area.}
Photo #8a: Ipameri River, Brazil, 1966. {I've cropped the "context" out here --- sorry --- the object hovers over forest beyond closer water.}
Photo #9a: Some location in Norway --- as often happens, Allen Hynek is not tidy enough in his labeling --- 1957.
Photo #10a: Lake Baskatong, Quebec, Canada, 1978.
Photo #11a: King Mountain, NC, 1968.
Photo #12a: nr. Holloman AFB, NM, 1957.
soooooooo........ knee-jerks, doubtless abound.
I'm still not ready to launch into specifics on these things {though I'll be happy to respond in comments}. Instead I'm going to do a little introspection.
Somewhen, "somebody" has gotten into my head and told me what a UFO should look like. I'm not saying that this is automatically helpful or harmful, it's just reality. Some of these photos match that imprinted visual better --- well let's phrase it "smoother" --- than others. I'm not good enough at self-analysis to explain all this subtlety which has gone on, but part of it resulted in this: when I say "UFO" I have a definition personally-formed and not necessarily like the person's that I happen to be talking to.
That definition is not so vague as to be {for me} utterly unhelpful and useless, nor is it so precise as to restrict growth through analysis and synthesis. "U" is unidentified. That's a no-brainer for me. "FO" however says to me: "object in this sense means material --- not gas, liquid, nor plasma", and "flying in this sense means technology". When I'm reviewing a potential UFO case, whatever possible evidence is presented is subjected to judgment of whether that evidence seems to be coherent with observation of some solidly material flying technology [whether WE can do it comes later], or is readily congruent with such a technology.
I'm not looking to see if there's just something odd in the air; the witches on their broomsticks, or the would-be dragons, pterodactyls, and moth men can have their airspace --- I'll put them in a different file folder. I'm looking for technology --- technology tough to identify. Others are free to look for whatever they want.
So, when a picture shows up, my mind says: does it look like it might be flying technology that I can't identify? .... and then the other prejudices come in? Is it LIKE the great pile of other cases that I trust? Does it have radial symmetry or at least SOME clean symmetry? How's it moving? Can I buy its behavior in the air? All that happens at once without words. The mind settles down to take some calmer time with the case... but the explosion of prejudice has happened.
I'll put up some more of this later.
Peace and calm and wise minds, friends.
0 Yorumlar