You’ve become a parody of the typical wannabe "debunker” type that Stanton Friedman loves to mock so much. Look at his breakdown of their empty-headed “fake skepticism” tactics, and then compare them to your own behavior here:
“I’ve often pointed out that the four basic rules for debunkers, no matter what the subject, are the same. That is:
1)
Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind’s made up. (check)
2) What the public doesn’t know I’m not going to tell them. (you don't have any inside knowledge so this doesn't apply)
3)
If you can’t attack the data, attack the people. (check)
4)
Do your research by proclamation, investigation is too much trouble.” (check)
Unlike yourself, I’ve actually done some reading up on the Hannah McRoberts case. In fact I only bothered with it because at the time I thought that your pleas for a legitimate UFO photograph were genuine, and not just a duplicitous and disingenuous ploy - which is now clear to everyone here.
Dr. Richard Haines published a 19-page scientific analysis of the photograph in Dr. Peter Sturrock’s respected 1999 book on this subject, “The UFO Enigma.” I highly recommend Dr. Haines’s analysis to anyone who wants to see how a proper empirical analysis is conducted by a highly respected NASA research scientist – and anyone who wants to question his standing as a scientist can eat dirt
here. All of his findings are consistent with a legitimate anomalous object in that photograph. Here’s a link to his analysis of the Hannah McRoberts photographic negatives and the related data:
Analysis of a UFO Photograph. By Richard F. Haines | Camera | Exposure (Photography)
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go have a good chuckle at how perfectly you fit the criterion for Stanton Friedman’s caricature of a typical intellectually dishonest and analytically bankrupt wannabe “debunker,” lol.