Hi guys, I know that we have an excellent thread on UFO photo's already... but that is UFO photos in general. Some of the greatest pieces of 'UFO Proof' are showcased on there among some of the more 'less-convincing' and the 'downright fakes'... we love to find them and deposit them on that thread for all to discuss and register our own opinions on their validity. It is great fun and of immense interest to students of the ETH and generally inquisitive folk alike... but we are also aware of the disgusting amount of despicable chicanery that abounds this valuable field of ufological study which is only ever going one way, and that is real skilful progression that has 'and is'.. making confirmation of legitimacy damn near impossible today! , and therefore it is a sad fact that , if any... it is only the 'older photographs' that can be taken seriously. To wit, the point of this thread is to ask just what happens when we are of the consensus that we have found what we were looking for in the first place? ... a genuine photograph that can't be passed off as being hoaxed in any way, that has been declared a genuine picture of 'an unidentified flying object' that cannot be identified in any way as being of a prosaic nature... and therefore by any laws of common sense, science or any other nomenclature you care to use , must be the 'extraordinary evidence' that 'extraordinary claims' require. [Carl Sagan]. ... In short, if there is just a single picture that passes all of the criteria set by the scholarly UFO sceptics ... then surely the principle of parsimony has to apply no matter the previous reservations of the inquisitor! [after all, it is.. the scientific way!] ... In other words, "why do you still rebuke and deny the existence of UFO'/Flying-Saucers when you cannot debunk the smoking gun that is on general display for all to see? ... Why aren't you all 'tinfoil hatters' yourselves? ... why do you believe that it is acceptable to declare 'hoax or misidentification' by proclamation without the slightest shred of scientific [or even skilled] evidence to back up your declaration? ... for instance, why won't you explain why this 40 year old photograph of a classical flying saucer is not proof of their actuality? ... Here is the detailed analysis performed by an expert team led by Professor Richard F. Haines, Editor of the Journal of Scientific Exploration... Analysis_of_a_UFO_Photograph_by_Richard_F._Haines.pdf (fenomenum.com.br) ... In which the conclusion of this thorough and exhaustive endeavour is ... Abstract - This report reviews various investigative activities and analyses surrounding a photograph of a purported unidentified flying object (UFO) taken on October 8, 1981, at about 11:00 AM, local time on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. The evidence consisted of a single frame of 35 mm colour film which showed a sharply focused disc-like object against a clear blue sky with wooded mountain peak nearby. Analyses of the original negative included micro-densitometry, computer enhancements, and other measurements intent upon showing a support thread, atmospheric disturbance, or other evidences of a hoax. ... In other words, A Genuine Photograph Of A Flying Saucer! ... Over to you.? Cheers.