By Linda Piper

"This thing had landed in the road."

He added: "It took up the whole width of the road and overlapped onto the pavements.

"It wasn't on the ground. It had about eight massive suckers.

"The centre was still, but the outer rim was spinning slowly and it had white lights flashing, like a camera flash."

He said there were about 30 people watching it and they could hear it humming.

Mr Maynard recalled: "It had what looked like windows, but the glass was concave and moulded together so you could not see in.

"A couple of us went forward to try and touch it, and it began to spin faster."

Consider this amazing multi-witness case and Greg Boone's recent posting in which he wrote: "Phoenix Lights, yadda yadda yadda. Did anyone of the thousands of people who were there take a picture of a solid object or not? What's with these mass sightings where no one can take a decent picture or video?"

It's got me wondering - is it just a technical reason why with all the close encounters in the last 60 years, we still don't seem to have any really convincing close-up photo evidence?

I have heard stories of UFO witnesses with cameras who 'forget' to take a picture or others where the pictures unaccountably turn out blank or fogged.

So I guess there's a possibility that 'they' don't want us to photograph them...

But the main reason it seems to me that we don't get good evidence is that folk don't have cameras handy or the equipment they do have, is inadequate.

Or of course the UFOs are too far away for the pictures to mean much.

What I'd be interested to hear from other Listers is 'When do you think technology will produce the kind of cameras and camera ownership necessary to produce such a mass of evidence that the physical reality of this phenomena will be hard for even the mainstream press to deny?'

Already almost everybody carries a camera phone but so far the definition from them is pitiful. Will that change? And if it does can we expect this to be the factor which brings the wall of denial, tumbling down? What kind of evidence do you think it would take?

If, instead of fakes, there had been hundreds of top quality photos of the O'Hare disc for instance, would that case have proved to be Ufology's 'smoking gun'.

I know Ray Stanford told us on SDI radio that he has remarkable photographic evidence which he promises to release at some stage.

But what really will it take for the dam to burst?

Dave H.

Source & References:

The News Shopper - London, UK
http://tinyurl.com/2wmt3w