posted by RRRGroup at
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
While I'm sure that most of these (if not all of them) have practical explanations- one stuck out to me. The hook island sea monster. Only because I had just read this article -http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6333380It's about a sea monster spotted off the coast of New Zealand and seems to look similar to the hook island monster.
By Daniel Hurd, at Tuesday, December 16, 2014
I believe the Hook Island photos (there were at least two) were proven to be hoaxed; the photo used to portray the Black Knight is not of "the" Black Knight, but that of a generic piece of space junk; and those commenting on the story are correct about the article: horrendous, non-existent proofreading and fact-checking.
By Ron, at Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Hello,Concerning the Hessdalen lights and this most famous picture (and video), my co-author and myself have proposed an alternative hypothesis article (in English).So for those who it may concern: http://skepticversustheflyingsaucers.blogspot.fr/2014/06/the-famous-hessdalen-2007-picture-and.htmlRegards,Gilles
By Gilles Fernandez, at Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Perhaps these photos are evidence of infotainment in order to sublimate the increasing world events that could once be considered in their own right, abnormal.As in the worldview of those drawn to experiential anomalies, for both the skeptic and the believer in any old tale, or photograph as in the world of consensus, the bar is slowly perhaps imperceptibly has been slowly lowered.
By Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, December 17, 2014
"Concerning the Hessdalen lights and this most famous picture (and video), my co-author and myself have proposed an alternative hypothesis article (in English).So for those who it may concern: http://skepticversustheflyingsaucers.blogspot.fr/2014/06/the-famous-hessdalen-2007-picture-and.html"Gilles, a very good comment. Since the last 7 years, the blunders made by the researchers at Hessdalen have been very disappointing. We are not talking about reports made by the general public here, but observational data acquired supposedly under a scientific framework by trained people. In science, data verification for errors is an essential part of the process. Are they aware of their errors?I am hoping that they will be more rigorous in their approach otherwise they will lose all their credibility. Several years ago, the Hessdalen project was cited as an example as how the study of unidentified aerial phenomena should be made. I am still convinced that instrumental observation is the way to go in the study of unidentified aerial phenomena (in addition to a sociological studyof the human aspects of ufology). Best regards
By Rare phenomena lover, at Friday, December 19, 2014
Rare phenomena lover,Thank you very much for your comments and sorry to react a little late :)I agree, the goal of such "papers" at my blog is to avoid false alarms IF a true HP exists, false alarms due to several technical problems (artefacts, lens- flares, and so on) as more sociopsychological and Cultural ones.Again, TU very much!Best Regards,Gilles
By Gilles Fernandez, at Saturday, December 20, 2014
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile