If UFOs become invisible I suppose only the hoaxes will be left!

Actually, I think the phenomenon wants us to see it, so there is probably little danger of disappearance.

I’ve looked at what I can find on the net, and I still think it’s a Photoshop (or other image manipulation) job.

I studied the photographs, there are some flaws (why don’t we see these craft behind complex objects like clusters of leaves?).

My photoshop skills are pretty good, and with little patience, I’m sure this could be reproduced quite easily.

It stinks of disinformation. If it has ANYTHING to do with gov’t (and it may not, it may just be some idiot) - it could be some clever hoax to divert attention from whatever they’re really working on. As is always the case.

I have to hand credit to whomever perpetrated this; they have a lot of time on their hands.

;-)

That sort of “force field” appears around objects in lots of digital pictures when they are enlarged, epecially near sharp transitions from light to dark. They could also be artifacts of digital manipulaiton.

Do we have any pictures of “ionized force fields” from known objects that produce this effect to compare it to? That would be nice.

Why do the Heflin photos need this feature? No one ever claimed that it ran on “ionizing” principles, at least not as far as I know, so why is this “problematic?”

The 2nd photo series from Lake Tahoe indeed shows the “blurriness” required to indicate some sort of speculated electrogravitic ionization mechanism, as indeed the poster mentions.

http://www.nowpublic.com/ufo_over_lake_tahoe_same_as_chads_c2c_flying_cross

The earlier post was a “haha.” In this one, I tried to look at it as something more than a simple hoax. What I was lamenting is that many people look at this series of photos as some sort of path to revelation in the UFO subject. The best UFO pictures make at least a partial case to the skeptical (at least true skeptics) that there is something that deserves our attention.

To me, these “Chad” images are a distraction from more interesting matters, but possibly an example of disinfo muddying up things. If we weren’t supposed to see any experimental craft, there is little chance that we would have ever seen these pictures, let alone a whole new set a few weeks later. If they are faked, why would anyone do this, apart from a need for attention? The post addressed these matters.

Anything people don’t expect to see in a photo will have a tough time as an example of “proof.” The fact that now, almost any image can be faked makes it less likely that we will ever get an “authentic” picture.

I am impressed and excited, however, when these same technologies can be used to examine old UFO pictures. See the recent analysis of the Rex Heflin photos for one example. Heflin never hid behind an anonymous persona, which is a problem when we are presented with any photographic or video images.

Once again, thanks for reading and commenting!

thanks for the reply. i wasn’t trying to accuse anyone, i simply cut and pasted the only text i found on that page-

““HA HA HA HA HA!!
The sad thing is that some people will actually take this seriously.””

it sounds like there is an earlier post that explains the reasoning behind it. i must have missed it. i apologize.

this does make me wonder what will happen if someday some AUTHENTIC close-up, clear photos are taken.

i also do not understand a couple of the “some people believe anything” comments. this is no silver frisbee stuck into photoshop. this is probably one of the most elaborate cgi hoaxes to ever hit UFO circles. how is falling for that sad?

it’ll be intersting to see what happens next.