Thursday, June 10, 2004
UFOs And Digital Camera Policy
In a short article by Rebekah Prole on digital photography (see Ref 1) and its role in Ufology, I noted what could be seen as a paradox. In the middle of the article Prole had this odd paragraph:
"These amateur ufologists love the haven of amateur UFO groups. These are exclusive groups that want to own ufology. They never share data and they exclude other excellent researchers from talks or presentations that might disagree with their pet theories. Not to be mixed up or confused with real UFO groups (rare as that is) that do an excellent job in the field of ufology. Which UFO group do you belong to?" Col 2, Para 3.
Then in her last paragraphs we find this:
"The real ufologist will get back to doing the real work. The amateur will simply get mad, refusing all data and continue to push their pet theories onto all of us." Col 3, Para 4.
Oh... then we have another odd comment "Without prejudice etc" and an odd "Disclaimer" that rabbits on.
The paradox you ask... well the only ufologist or group that has said or even been negative about digital photography has been AUFORN via their photo expert & representative George Simpson (listed in all press articles as "Australian UFO Research Network director"). If we used Rebekah Prole concepts or requirements to define amateur ufologist and UFO groups (as a function of their digital policy), then the only one that fails the test is AUFORN.
Why? Well this is why, these extracts were in the press/news for the general public and skeptics to grind over.
This international report:
""Australian UFO Research Network director George Simpson said a digital photograph was not considered acceptable evidence of a flying saucer."They cannot be verified. They are too easily manipulated on the computer and you don't have a negative."" (Ref 2)
And this local report:
"But the Australian UFO Research Network Victorian director George Simpson said a digital photograph was not considered acceptable evidence of a flying saucer. "They cannot be verified. They are too easily manipulated on the computer and you don't have a negative," he said. (Ref 3)
Using Rebekah Prole arguments, it looks as if AUFORN needs some updates and policy changes. Rebekah view - they are not real, amateur , exclusive, & exclude!
REF:
1. Digging Deeper - In search of Healthy Debate - Rebekah Prole - "To Digital Or Not To Digital" The Australian Ufologist, Vol8 No1, 2004, p34
2. MELBOURNE, Australia, Jan. 23 (UPI) Washington Times - http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040123-042813-4786r.htm
3. Herald Sun - "UFO picture a saucer wonder" - Kate Uebergang urban affairs reporter - 24jan04 - http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/
0,5478,8475447^2862,00.html
|
In a short article by Rebekah Prole on digital photography (see Ref 1) and its role in Ufology, I noted what could be seen as a paradox. In the middle of the article Prole had this odd paragraph:
"These amateur ufologists love the haven of amateur UFO groups. These are exclusive groups that want to own ufology. They never share data and they exclude other excellent researchers from talks or presentations that might disagree with their pet theories. Not to be mixed up or confused with real UFO groups (rare as that is) that do an excellent job in the field of ufology. Which UFO group do you belong to?" Col 2, Para 3.
Then in her last paragraphs we find this:
"The real ufologist will get back to doing the real work. The amateur will simply get mad, refusing all data and continue to push their pet theories onto all of us." Col 3, Para 4.
Oh... then we have another odd comment "Without prejudice etc" and an odd "Disclaimer" that rabbits on.
The paradox you ask... well the only ufologist or group that has said or even been negative about digital photography has been AUFORN via their photo expert & representative George Simpson (listed in all press articles as "Australian UFO Research Network director"). If we used Rebekah Prole concepts or requirements to define amateur ufologist and UFO groups (as a function of their digital policy), then the only one that fails the test is AUFORN.
Why? Well this is why, these extracts were in the press/news for the general public and skeptics to grind over.
This international report:
""Australian UFO Research Network director George Simpson said a digital photograph was not considered acceptable evidence of a flying saucer."They cannot be verified. They are too easily manipulated on the computer and you don't have a negative."" (Ref 2)
And this local report:
"But the Australian UFO Research Network Victorian director George Simpson said a digital photograph was not considered acceptable evidence of a flying saucer. "They cannot be verified. They are too easily manipulated on the computer and you don't have a negative," he said. (Ref 3)
Using Rebekah Prole arguments, it looks as if AUFORN needs some updates and policy changes. Rebekah view - they are not real, amateur , exclusive, & exclude!
REF:
1. Digging Deeper - In search of Healthy Debate - Rebekah Prole - "To Digital Or Not To Digital" The Australian Ufologist, Vol8 No1, 2004, p34
2. MELBOURNE, Australia, Jan. 23 (UPI) Washington Times - http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040123-042813-4786r.htm
3. Herald Sun - "UFO picture a saucer wonder" - Kate Uebergang urban affairs reporter - 24jan04 - http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/
0,5478,8475447^2862,00.html
|
