Anybody think there are Aliens (UFO)?

I'm confused.

Even if we were to hypothesize for the purposes of discussion that no tampering or optical problems or anything of that ilk are occurring and just assume that the photos do accurately show us some things in the sky.

How do we get from there to aliens?
 
Last edited:
Stray Cat said:
That's a bit unfair... we can do better than that.

Photo 1:
http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/TrentPhoto1.jpg

Photo 2:
http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/TrentPhoto2.jpg

But should we start with this event or the French one?
Click to expand...

Let's start with McMinnville as that one triggered a memory. Ah. Here it is!

http://www.debunker.com/texts/trent1969.html

Conclusion: In light of the above, it is clear that the witnesses’ story of supposedly photographing a UFO cannot be accepted at face value. It is difficult to see what advantage would be gained in altering the alleged circumstances of the photographs, but the scientific investigator must guard against becoming an apologist. No serious researcher would contend that a photograph is of any value whatsoever in establishing the existence of an extraordinary object unless it is solidly corroborated by the testimony of one or more witnesses.


There exists no factual basis for rejecting the following hypothesis: at approximately 8:20 in the morning of May 11, 1950, a small asymmetrical model was suspended from overhead telephone wires by two very thin threads. It was photographed once, then reoriented either by hand or by its assumption of a pendulum-type motion, and photographed again.
Click to expand...

Next!
 
Let's not rush though...

TrentRouen.jpg


The McMineville and Rouen photo's side by side.

Now what is are the chances that two people on two continents, seven years apart managing to photograph an asymmetrical object (one from the ground and one from a flying aircraft) at EXACTLY the same angle?

The primary source for the supposed Rouen UFO photo was the... wait for it... Bolton Observer newspaper*
*Reference: JB Delair, E.Cox, R. Cox and R. Twine "Temporary Catalogue of UFO Photographs (Part One 1883-1957)".

The secondary source which appeared in the Flying Saucer Review had no mention of the actual event that is reported for the photo. It was simply used as an illustration of a UFO and it ran alongside a story about the supposed radar detection of a UFO by the RAF (not a French Pilot but the British Royal Air Force).

The third source for the photo was the Royal Air Force Flying Review with an article entitled 'Something in the Sky' by Geoffery Norris which again gave no detail of a french UFO sighting, gun camera photo, or radar detection.

The fog of time and the tendency for inaccurate recording, lazy journalism and the UFOlogists determination to spin information has lead to this photo becoming three different and totally unrelated events being woven together to make a compelling story for the UFO believers to enjoy.
The photo is actually a very bad reproduction of the original McMineville photo stored away as a stock UFO photo by a local newspaper.

Shall we discuss the McMineville case now?
​
 
Anyone interested in technical discussion can find it at physicsforums. They do an excellent job there of dissecting photos.

physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5

My emphasis here regards the entire concept of the use of photos to establish bonafides, not only of the subject of the photo, but of the person who took it, and the relevance to something possibly otherworldly.

I don't wish to derail the thread.
 
Fair enough. I respect your research, and your time to collate it here. I may be just guessing, but methinks you may have done this once or twice before.
 
It is exactly the 'fog of time' issue that has led me to consider photo evidence only, as that will not change over time.

I like the photos from pre 1970, as photo retouching had to be done by hand on the negative, and requires skill to do well.
 
SnidelyW said:
It is exactly the 'fog of time' issue that has led me to consider photo evidence only, as that will not change over time.

I like the photos from pre 1970, as photo retouching had to be done by hand on the negative, and requires skill to do well.
Click to expand...

Can I ask what your objective is?
 
SnidelyW said:
Fair enough. I respect your research, and your time to collate it here. I may be just guessing, but methinks you may have done this once or twice before.
Click to expand...
I've researched UFO's for about 20 years... of course I've looked at many of the famous cases. I even built a 3D model of the scene of the McMineville farmyard in Bryce to test the paralax of the camera movement between the two photos.

What a lot of UFO believers don't understand about real open minded sceptics is that they do actually take time to research. Just calling something fake out of hand is not being a sceptic. And why do I research UFO's... because I'm still looking for the one that is conclusive proof. So far, it hasn't shown up.
 
SnidelyW said:
So are you saying the Air Force touched up their own photo?
Click to expand...
No, you have presented only a photo... no background information. I have no idea about the story behind the photo, it's source or the reason for it's release. All I'm saying is that it looks like a typical developing artifact, found on a lot of photos that had to go through the manual process of developing and printing (and I speak from a position of being a photographic technician for two years back in the 80's).
If you have any more info that you could link to, I'll be happy to look into it.
 
SnidelyW said:
In the above reference one can see the analysis was done under contract to the U.S. Air Force.
I'm just wondering if that isn't like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
Click to expand...
Would you say the same if it had confirmed your belief in alien space craft?
 
Who would be better qualified to determine if something is an intelligently-designed flying machine than the Air Force?
 
Easy, Stray Cat. I think you may have called me a UFO 'believer'.

I am far from it.

Who I am is someone who has trouble fully comprehending the motivation for hundreds of people from all walks of life, over the last 50 years who have photos of UFO's, have no agenda, and generally wish anonymity, to present their photos with the full knowledge they may be the object of ridicule.

Given the current skepticism (as exhibited in the posts of people in this thread) of any photo evidence as true and correct, photos are still being submitted, month after month, to UFO sites worldwide. I suppose I refuse to accept folks can be obtuse enough to really believe hoax photos will not be unmasked.
 
The Edwards A.F.B. photo was sourced from the Mary Evans Picture Library.
 
Picture No 10017669

Date September 1957
Description UFOS/EDWARDS AFB

Details
At Edwards Air Force Base, a Martin B-47 a bomber is 'followed' by a mysterious object (see enlargement)

Credit Mary Evans Picture Library
 
My objective in all this is to make some sense out of the use of photos to establish or refute the existence of UFO's and subsequently, the inference that something or someone other than us is responsible.
 
SnidelyW said:
Easy, Stray Cat. I think you may have called me a UFO 'believer'.
Click to expand...
OK maybe a step too far, but I am right to think you don't disbelieve?

SnidelyW said:
Who I am is someone who has trouble fully comprehending the motivation for hundreds of people from all walks of life, over the last 50 years who have photos of UFO's, have no agenda, and generally wish anonymity, to present their photos with the full knowledge they may be the object of ridicule.
Click to expand...
There are millions of people in the world who believe that an omnipresent being magically sent his son to Earth to teach us something or other and we killed him for it... Despite the total lack of credible evidence to support any of it. We are a funny lot and to delve into the reasons for belief and the lengths people will go to, to bolster their beliefs with (supposed) physical evidence is littered throughout literature since people first started writing stuff down. Some of those legends and myths capture our imagination and provide a platform for what on the face of it could be seen as 'proof', but only if you have an invested blind faith belief in it to start with.
Robin Hood, King Arthur, The Lochness Monster, Bigfoot, UFOs, Crop Circles, Santa Claus are all a part of it.

SnidelyW said:
Given the current skepticism (as exhibited in the posts of people in this thread) of any photo evidence as true and correct, photos are still being submitted, month after month, to UFO sites worldwide. I suppose I refuse to accept folks can be obtuse enough to really believe hoax photos will not be unmasked.
Click to expand...
Along with the ease of publication on the internet and the ease of producing photos with digital cameras (and hoaxing using digital software) is the ease of anonymity which allows people the freedom to feed a belief.
And the crop circles really show us the extent people are willing to to, to provide whatever the believers want. ;)
 
Last edited:
SnidelyW said:
Gord_in_Toronto said:
Let's start with McMinnville as that one triggered a memory. Ah. Here it is!

http://www.debunker.com/texts/trent1969.html

In the above reference one can see the analysis was done under contract to the U.S. Air Force.

I'm just wondering if that isn't like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
Click to expand...

The analysis done on contract was for the Condon study by Dr. William Hartmann. He originally concluded that it had every indication of being an actual craft. It was Sheaffer's analysis (done on his own time and not in associationg with the USAF) that was forwarded to Hartmann that made him change his conclusions (after the Condon study had been published), which you can find him stating in "UFOs: A scientific debate".
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom