Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Hoax Claim Retracted on Canada UFO
The object was seen moving in and then appeared to fly off before disappearing
altogether in a brilliant light that bathed the entire countryside. Days after the incident, David Martin made the claim that he had been the perpetrator behind the incident and that it had been a hoax. But speculation that Martin may have actually made up the story of his Unidentified Flying Phony in order to enter the spotlight. He did give a vague idea of how he could have possibly created the effects described, but did not answer several fundamental questions he should have been able to answer about the incident.
And since then, Martin claims he was approached by individuals who told him to keep quiet about the whole thing. This new layer to the story is confusing as it suggests someone didn't want an official explanation for the story. The incident is now being both criticized as a hoaxers final claim to fifteen minutes of fame and considered as a valid point given the evidence, which is perplexing no matter which explanation you subscribe to.
And the unknown visitor also came to another individual, but this time suggested he should not talk about the incident either. Why are these witnesses coming forward claiming to have been silenced? And who is trying to silence both sides of the incident? Are there different parties at work here? It's hard to dismiss something as a hoax conclusively if the hoaxer then redacts their claim to the incident. And yet at the same time it seems almost too ridiculous to believe. Is this merely an attempt to discover the behavior of UFO enthusiasts?
And there is yet another explanation of ball lightning which has been proposed. With the official theory of ball lightning itself coming into question, some are suggesting that such an object would not ha ve been photographed, but rather would have been merely an illusion of the mind. Of course considering the object appeared under circumstances other than a thunderstorm. Ball lightning is a phenomenon which is poorly understood and whose very existence is under question.
Still, many who saw the object have held steadfast that the techniques of projection described by Martin could not have possibly resulted in what they eventually saw. The incident to this day remains entirely unexplainable. And the explanation itself is reminiscent of the Norway spiral which has a strong following for both of the mainstream arguments.