These pros are at least in time verifiable. Additional pictures are available by clicking here.
1) Dr. Reeds Story matches descriptions of terrain.
2) The "obelisk" matches eyewitness UFO reports of Washington State before, during and after the time of this alleged case. This is as reported to and from Washington UFO Watch.
3) The photos are on 35mm negatives and print film formats.
4) There is video and audio backing the story.
5) Dr. Reed's story is consistent throughout several interviews.
6) Dr. Reed is willing to present the negatives as evidence. (see above)
7) Dr. Reed took and passed a lie detector test.
8) Dr. Reed did not have anything to sell at the time of story release and does not seem interested in the money. He is giving most if not all of the information for free.
9) Dr. Reed expressed remorse for his actions in injuring the entity.
10) Dr. Reed claims his life has been ruined.
11) The publishers have been threatened not to publish this story.
12) Dr. Reed has an alien device as hard evidence.
13) Any photo analysis done so far has been done by unscientific means (pixel counting, high contrast etc..).
14) The graphic of the "obelisk" found on Norio's AREA 51 web site was posted after the release of the pictures on the Art Bell site. Norio has made a statement to this.
15) The forest pictures are very clear.
16) The two angles of the "obelisk" properly show the shift in terrain and the foliate can be identified in each photo.
17) The ET pictures are very clear.
18) Tissue analysis verifies the creatures's DNA makeup to be more dolphin like than human.
19) The "Artifact" defies reasonable explanation.
These cons only stand in the way of scientific analysis and conclusion.
1) The photos are only available in electronic format of medium resolution.
2) This story is fantastic and many will find it hard to remain objective.
3) Few have seen the video tape.
4) The photos in the forest are clear. This is a plus as well.
5) The ASA rating and manufacture of the film is unknown.
6) There are no living witnesses that have come forward.
7) There are no pictures of the dog's remains or the area into which the dog disintegrated. Nor were there any soil samples to date.
8) The photos are at least 3rd generation loosing much of the information. First generation is the medium in which the photo was taken, i.e negative, slide, Polaroid, etc.. Second generation is the print in this case. Third is the scan of the photo in electronic format. Jpeg files can be compressed and much of the information is missing. This is assuming the prints are from the original negatives and not a reproduction from a print. This would add two more generation levels.
9) No material sample from the "skin suit" has been presented.
10) The "Artifact" is unusual and the initial report needs further study.
The ET's head was not bashed in as one would expect. However, this is comparing the ET with our understanding with the "Human" anatomy. The ET was very underweight (51 pounds) compared to a human of the same size possibly indicating a lighter density.
The negatives have arrived and by our analysis, are genuine. The two specimens are of 35mm color quality and the subject matter is in the photos and not doubled or transposed.
The part about the ET looking blurred when it moved. Analysis of this is again made with our limited understanding with the possibilities of dimensions and our perspective with human optical processing of reflected lighting and color from objects. This effect has been reported by other witnesses and abduction cases.
As it stands at this writing, (12/28/99) this story has a very high probability rating. The time and date match the sunset in the area and the personal credentials are available on Dr. Reed. Our analysis indicates that the evidence thus far has passed and seems to be what it is presented to be.
CONTACT:
Brian Zerr at Washington UFO Watch for further discussion E-mail Here!