Before I comment I would just like to state that I have only viewed the video and only read the following objections posted by StevenCalder and I entirely agree with Sanio: “Be suspicious of anonymous reports. Note oddities in the case; here, a daylight sighting of a huge craft in one of the most crowded cities in the world, but no witnesses until after televising the video.”
HOWEVER, there are some things about Klass' reporting of Sanio’s objections that, on face value, seem incongruous. For example Klaas states:
“…as the cameraman panned (seemingly) to follow the motion of the UFO there was expected smearing of the imagery of the apartment buildings in the foreground. But there was no corresponding smearing of the UFO imagery. “This indicates the UFO wasn’t in the video when the camera was shaking, but was added later,” according to Sainio.”
Well that is just plain incorrect. There is obvious pixilation of both the UFO and the buildings as the camera pans. Even the term “smearing” shows that the author (Klass) if not the investigator is not particularly familiar with common terminology used in photographic analysis.
It MUST be noted that to obtain the same degree of altering pixilation seen on both buildings and the UFO similarly would require an incredible amount of time and effort to produce - and Sainio seems to acknowledge that “…considerable effort was required by the hoaxer to superimpose the UFO imagery on the background.”
Note however the use of the word “was”. THAT is a categorical. A truly scientific investigator would NEVER use such a term. Scientists are very careful and precise in their use of language. They NEVER (if they can help it) use terms that the evidence does not warrant, yet here we have Sanio using the term “was required by the hoaxer” instead of the more correct terminology such as “would have been required by a hoaxer”. There is a world of difference and it indicates that Sanio had his mind already made up even while he was supposing to investigate this film.
I know that this will seem like “nitpicking” or playing with language to achieve the result one is aiming at - but believe me, I am a trained scientist and peer-reviewed published author in scientific journals and EVERY editorial comment I ever got in reply to my early submissions was to ALWAYS point out the very things I point out above. Editorial boards of scientific publications are fully aware of the critical nature of language use and semantics in such matters and if it is pertinent to them - it really should be pertinent to us as all.
Klass further contends:
“Another indication: as the camera pans, the viewing (aspect) angle to the buildings changes slightly (1.6 deg.) and should change similarly with respect to the UFO, but it does not, according to Sainio. This is difficult to detect because of the wobbling motion of the UFO.”
Now what on earth does this objection actually mean? I think that Klass has not quite understood what Sanio was actually saying. We have no way of knowing from Klass’ assessment what Sanio actually meant. The ONLY way to resolve the issue is to view Sanio’s original research. Does anyone actually know where we can do that…a link perhaps…
Finally Klass states:
“A third indication of a hoax: the altitude of the UFO, measured relative to protuberances of the nearby building, changes differently than it should if caused solely by camera “bounce” during panning.”
Now Klass does not attribute this objection to Sanio. Has Klass made it up for himself? Again we can not know until we have viewed Sanio’s original report.
So we see that what we REALLY need to do is go back to Sanio’s original report on the matter. Klass is clearly not quite accurate in his reporting of Sanio and moreover we cannot be sure if he has not even added an assessment of his own.
Thus we should NOT take this article seriously UNTIL we see the original research.
Now I DO note that Astrophotographer has referenced other links articles? I will need to look at them before making a further assessment.
