Great stuff in yesterday's press. The Sun (registered at the Post Office as a comic) declared:
UFO Hits Wind Turbine
across its front page. The Daily Mail – which has got into the habit of reporting exactly what The Sun has, but a day later – has enhanced the story:
Unmanned stealth bomber could have been UFO responsible for destroying wind turbine
I love the way the most ridiculous explanation possible comes so readily and excitedly to these people.
When you consider that a sparrow is quite capable of bringing down a 747 if the two happen to meet unexpectedly you can't help but marvel at the technology which could smash into a 65ft wind turbine blade and then fly off unharmed. Even more so when you remember that the same technology wasn't quite so robust over Roswell in the 1940s.
I particularly like the 'definitive' photo of (the) UFO taken by a local village idiot. The crash happened at 4am (that's in the middle of the night – when it's dark) – the photo is clearly taken in broad daylight . The Mail reckons the crash happened 'hours later' – technically this is correct, but 'many hours later' would be a more appropriate claim given the position of the sun in that photo, and allowing for the fact that sunset is around 4pm this time of year.
So this photo was taken more than 12 hours earlier – probably more than 15 judging from the sun's elevation. Getting on for a whole day earlier, in fact. Not quite as neat and tidy as they'd have you believe.
But anyway, back to that photo.
Anyone heard of Sundogs? (Sorry to use Wikipedia as a reference, but it illustrates what Sundogs are all about. In any case, it's probably the primary research source for most journalists involved in this story anyway). Can anyone see the obvious similarities here?
Let's face it, the 'definitive UFO picture' isn't a UFO at all, is it? It's just an optical phenomenon caused by clear sky, low sun, very low temperatures, and a few clouds or even aircraft contrails.
It's a Sundog!
It even appears slap in the middle of a cloud or contrail – precisely the way it happens!
Yet the jackasses at both The Mail and The Sun aren't interested in facts, and behave as if the photo is actually of a UFO. Doesn't it occur to these people that the simplest and most logical explanations must be considered first?
And the official crazy guy… sorry: UFO Expert … Nick Pope, who follows all these things up said:
What's particularly exciting is that because there's been a collision, there will be residue of the object involved.
What's funny is that they haven't even found the missing turbine blade, let alone the Mothership it is apparently embedded in. So Mr Pope is perhaps a little premature in proclaiming:
Forensic science will enable this material to be recovered and analysed. This elevates this UFO case, because with most sightings all you have is eyewitness testimony or indistinct and shaky film footage taken on a mobile phone.
Yeah, it's a good job that photo of the UFO is so incontrovertible! It's got to be the funniest story for a long while.