UFO over South Africa on Google Earth

There have always been unexplained UFO pictures that are not fake, although faking is a lot easier to do now. I don't know what these are: Hi McGuffin! I could'nt agree more buddy! And in my kak-handed way, is what I was trying to convey. Cheers.

Hi McGuffin! I could'nt agree more buddy! And in my kak-handed way, is what I was trying to convey. Cheers. Here's a website of the "best UFO photographs ever taken". I know which ones are fakes or probably fakes and which are real unknowns, but it would spoil the fun for everyone if I went through all of them. http://www.ufocasebook.com/bestufopictures.html

Here's a website of the "best UFO photographs ever taken". I know which ones are fakes or probably fakes and which are real unknowns, but it would spoil the fun for everyone if I went through all of them. http://www.ufocasebook.com/bestufopictures.html Thanks for that McGuffin, but I am already a frequent visitor on that site! Here's another good one,...but I expect that you'll already be familiar with it! http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/view/older.htm Cheers buddy.

Thanks for that McGuffin, but I am already a frequent visitor on that site! Here's another good one,...but I expect that you'll already be familiar with it! http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/view/older.htm Cheers buddy. The e-mail is on its way 1963 he will contact you.

But, I believe that the older ones have exponentially more potential for non-fakery! I agree on this, there is some old photographs that have a lot more potential than the vast majority of the recent ones to be real UFO (not aliens but UFO) The one you posted is the most known of it's kind, Robert Sheaffer document pretty much proves that the photo can be a fake although it's doesn't really prove that is not genuine either. I'll quote some interesting points of it. There exists no factual basis for rejecting the following hypothesis: At approximately 8:20 in the morning of May 11, 1950, a smal... [More]

In Ufology, to get to the really good stuff, one has to wade through a lot of fakes, hoaxes and misidentified conventional objects, but it's always been that way. Maybe 80-90% of cases will go out the window because of that, but then we are still left with incidents that no one has ever been able to explain--of incredible things reported by credible observers, as Gen. Samford put it back in 1952.

In Ufology, to get to the really good stuff, one has to wade through a lot of fakes, hoaxes and misidentified conventional objects, but it's always been that way. Maybe 80-90% of cases will go out the window because of that, but then we are still left with incidents that no one has ever been able to explain--of incredible things reported by credible observers, as Gen. Samford put it back in 1952. Don't you think that after all these years we should have something better to go on than purportedly credible reports from purportedly credible observers? The fact that we really don't have anything b... [More]

Don't you think that after all these years we should have something better to go on than purportedly credible reports from purportedly credible observers? The fact that we really don't have anything better than this seems to indicate that it isn't really what many people want it to be. Even back in 1947, there were photos of something unknown flaying around that truly puzzled the military, like these from Newfoundland--the cloud-cutter UFO that left a strange vapor trail. The standard explanation was that it could have been a low-level meteor, although something about that theory didn't sound ... [More]

Are there are thousands of similar cases out there delivering the same degree of not very much at all. It is enough to keep the dream alive though, I'll give it that.

$100 says google put it there. Google is known to mess with people.