From your account, Stu Little seems plausible, but that would apply to every conman from the serpent in Eden onwards.
I'm not sure about that - it's probably some sort of "appeal to something or other" - since I find that I generally
see through the conmen I encounter in my life pretty much immediately. Though, to be fair, when I met The Serpent he had me going for a while.
Do we know if Stu Little is his real name? It sounded vaguely familiar, then I remembered there is a film called Stuart Little. The lead character of that name is apparently a mouse.
I met another Stuart Little once. Must have been a weird (awful?) feeling when they first came across the poster.
As ever we are left with a blurry, low information photo that can't be trusted to represent anything accurately. We are left with nothing to debunk.
And the good news is: you don't have to. Just wait and see what happens, whether the photographer or other witness are found or come forward, whether any other pics or significant new information comes out. There's no hurry - and plenty of other things to debunk in the meantime.
These 2 squares are colour in reality, are they the same colour or different? Which colours are they?
I think that's a point well made (for the curious, the top square is across-the-board between 55 and 62 in RGB and the bottom one 57 to 61, so I'm guessing impossible to tell what colours they actually are).
Still, as a fan of colourisation (every since watching Laurel and Hardy's Way Out West thirty years ago) I'd like to see a nice version of the Calvine photo with a bit of blue in the sky. And I think in this case there is something to go by if we assume that the photographers were looking away from any sunset colours and used, say, the Linlithgow skies (among others) I posted as a basis. I wasn't convinced by the pink one, but the blue/grey ones seemed all right to me.
With respect you seem to be arguing with me for the sake of arguing.
I understand where you're coming from Chelle, and also understand why being challenged on this doesn't feel so good and may seem mistaken and lacking comprehension.
On the other hand, it's kind of the rigorous nature on metabunk, where everything that is presented is challenged and tested until it's proven as, if not true, then acceptable. Kind of like science really, where the first thing the good scientist does is try to disprove their own hypothesis or find the flaws in their experiments and conclusions.
Definitely tough at times. But in the end what we're left with, ideally, is solid ground to stand on.
Why would the camera be panning to watch a plane when there's a UFO to look at? Sounds as if the photographer didn't see anything remarkable about the object.
No transcript available for that video (yet?) and I can't remember where this was talked about, but my impression from memory is that there was a slight movement in the photographer's position, meaning that the alignment and position of the trees/bush/fence was slightly (but not significantly) different.
I'd have to double check to confirm though.