tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post116483806921891937..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Among the Best of the UFO PhotographsKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-1167291726580141932006-12-27T23:42:00.000-08:002006-12-27T23:42:00.000-08:00I'm no expert, right off the bat, but the scattere...I'm no expert, right off the bat, <BR/>but the scattered light information is confirmed, I believe, by the sky in the background of the photos themselves, as it is apparently quite overcast.Bob Kofordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739226809252915992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-1164916921884342192006-11-30T12:02:00.000-08:002006-11-30T12:02:00.000-08:00Kevin:The nice thing about the Trent photos is, as...Kevin:<BR/><BR/>The nice thing about the Trent photos is, as you say, that they are one thing or another - real, and representative of a craft of some kind (whether it's ET is another question), or fake, the result of a hoax. While some "younger" UFO types don't seem to get it, Dick Hall pegged it absolutely right in an interview with him - for something like this, when there are no obvious signs of fakery in the photos (that's the Colorado Project talking, not some ufologist), then credibility if extremely important. I never met them, but everything I read about the Trents indicates that they were well respected in the community, never profited to any real extent from the photos, did not seek publicity, and were basically as honest as the day is long. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't have faked photos - it just means that it's unlikely. Given that, the burden of proof is on those asserting that they did to show how, and why, which, as far as I can tell, they have singularly failed to do.<BR/><BR/>Best regards,<BR/>PaulPaul Kimballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08804735930733797952noreply@blogger.com