Yes, you heard that correctly — “Loch Ness” and “UFO” in the same sentence.
The photograph is below, with a close-up (both via the Huff Post):
Here’s the analysis — someone with obvious experience in photography and these sorts of “effects” on photos. Quite interesting.
This is the sort of thing the UFO community should be endorsing and doing — it would demonstrate seriousness with respect to separating the mistakes from the truly anomalous. Here’s the “About” page to this debunking site. It’s not about blind zealotry.
What sitings, if any, do you consider to be of the anomalous variety?
Things like Roswell seem obviously government. “Lights” sitings seem to be mostly drills; possibly psychological warfare. I’ve never read enough of the UFO literature to look into the really bizarre ones though. Hoping you could point me to some.
I find the older photographs much more interesting and compelling because of the lack of ability to fake images back then. In terms of cases, the Malmstrom AFB case has to be at the top of the list.
Let’s see them debunk this!
https://video.fsan1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hvideo-xaf1/v/t42.1790-2/11656790_500737340075662_2109122944_n.mp4?efg=eyJybHIiOjMwMCwicmxhIjo1MTJ9&rl=300&vabr=89&oh=a7a22c0dff82204a292e15ec5b2b9dee&oe=55959520
The link leads to a Facebook error message.
My link was to a video that must have gotten pulled. Here it is via youtube. Let’s try it again…
Let’s see them debunk this!
https://youtu.be/AK77jm_mDLY
That was awesome — now if that UFO would take my neighbor’s dog, all would be right in the world! 🙂
That was quite possibly the funniest thing I’ve ever seen! Seriously it WAS more convincing than the child mummy alien photo.
All they need is a nephilim ( what’s the singular of nephilim?) driving the ufo.
LOL – naphil or naphila (this reflects my view that the term comes from an Aramaic noun; the second is in the absolute state; the first is the lemma).