Anybody think there are Aliens (UFO)?

[Stray Cat]

The Edwards A.F.B. photo was sourced from the Mary Evans Picture Library.

Which maybe where the confusion lies.
As the photograph supposedly showing the Edwards AFB event is this one:

Which of course contains no frame of reference... so it's not unsurprising to find that the Martin B57 pic with a photo artifact has been labelled incorrectly so that the fog of time can do it's unique work and misdirect people.
Mary Evans' photo library is a disperate collection of stock photos for use in publishing. Does it give an original source for the photo?

 

[StevenCalder]

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.

I really wish this were the case.

Unfortuantly there appears to be quite an anti-sceptical market willing to propagate these images regardless if they have been debunked thoroughly many years ago. The scepticism found on a sceptical forum is not indicative in the slightest of the scepticism found in the general public, let alone Ufology circles.

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.

A worthy goal, however photograph's alone will not conclusively establish or 100% refute the alien origin of UFO's.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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.

Why? Do you disagree with the analysis?

Surely the evidence has to stand on its own?

 

[makaya325]

Why? Do you disagree with the analysis?

Surely the evidence has to stand on its own?

The website name itself is a red flag

 

[Blackwell]

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.

I don't think this is necessarily true; couldn't a print be retouched, and then rephotographed?

 

[Sledge]

The Special Editions of the Star Wars films show that an image can change over time. That restored scene in A New Hope with Jabba The Hutt didn't look like that originally.

 

[Tizzy]

A point worth considering is that not all of what we call "UFO's" are as the acronym suggests. Many, many are just "U's" in the sense that they aren't "flying" nor are they "objects" for all intents and purposes.

On another note, every time (I mean every time) we have had F-117's or B-2's fly in (for as long as I've been here) there have been UFO reports. Because of the layout of the city (in relation to the runways) they are almost always given RWY 36* (if the wind is playing nice) so they fly over the least amount of population as possible (for multiple reasons). The last time an F-117 flew in it got a tad messy because the pilot was given the Go-around* three times. These are both well-established aircraft, their existence hasn't been kept from the public in X many decades.

*RWY designations here are given by magnetic north (RWY 36 is 360 degrees; going the other way it becomes RWY 18 (180 degrees) or true north where the pole affects the compass. This is not true everywhere in the world.

*A "Go-around" is issued for multiple reasons, often for safety, and simply means to abort the landing and typically get back into the pattern or go to your alternate. It's both routine and can be frustrating.

 

[Akhenaten]

So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.​

​

​

- Eric Idle​

 

[Rramjet]

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".

There has been quite a deal of garbage floating around about the McMinnville UFO. Please view the research outlined at (http://brumac.8k.com/trent2c.html) and then COMPARE that with the "debunking" Sheaffer's effort. You will quickly discover what legitimate (Maccabee) v. illegitimate(Sheaffer) research looks like! And if Hartmann was "persuaded" by Sheaffer, then that simply shows his own lack of credential in, and understanding of, the nature of legitimate scientific research.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The website name itself is a red flag

So you are a fan of ufo-truth.info?

Care to make a sensible reply to my questions?

 

[Stray Cat]

There has been quite a deal of garbage floating around about the McMinnville UFO. Please view the research outlined at (http://brumac.8k.com/trent2c.html) and then COMPARE that with the "debunking" Sheaffer's effort. You will quickly discover what legitimate (Maccabee) v. illegitimate(Sheaffer) research looks like! And if Hartmann was "persuaded" by Sheaffer, then that simply shows his own lack of credential in, and understanding of, the nature of legitimate scientific research.

Why does Maccabee have to go all the way round the houses to find something that supports his belief though?
Something that is supposed to blind us with complexity...
...When a simple 3D model shows the object to be small and close to the camera?

 

[fuelair]

Who would be better qualified to determine if something is an intelligently-designed flying machine than the Air Force?

Love the Avatar!!!!!

 

[Sledge]

I've been trying to post as much as possible without spamming so I could get the avatar up. I felt naked without it.

I guess to try and stay vaguely on topic, I'll ask: what's wrong with the US Air Force analysing UFO photos? Who would be better qualified?

 

[Nonpareil]

I've been trying to post as much as possible without spamming so I could get the avatar up. I felt naked without it.

I guess to try and stay vaguely on topic, I'll ask: what's wrong with the US Air Force analysing UFO photos? Who would be better qualified?

Well obviously Rramjet and SnidelyW. Duh.

 

[Akhenaten]

<spicenip>

I guess to try and stay vaguely on topic, I'll ask: what's wrong with the US Air Force analysing UFO photos? Who would be better qualified?

The Navigators of the Spacing Guild, and possibly the Bene Tleilax.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Why does Maccabee have to go all the way round the houses to find something that supports his belief though?
Something that is supposed to blind us with complexity...
...When a simple 3D model shows the object to be small and close to the camera?

It's one of those micro-ufos. The ones with real tiny aliens.

 

[Stray Cat]

It's one of those micro-ufos. The ones with real tiny aliens.

That moves nowhere between the two photos (apart from making a slight rotation on the spot) and yet was traveling so fast that there was only time to take two photos before it disappeared behind the barn.

 

[Rramjet]

I find it extremely interesting that the "debunkers" in this place can find NOTHING WHATSOEVER rational to say about a comparison between the research of Maccabee and Sheaffer. Obviously they have neither the skill nor expertise to evaluate such research (otherwise they would have raised legitimate points about it). All they can fall back on is the type of derision and ridicule that all people who have no original ideas of their own resort to - as if THAT makes them experts! LMAO.

 

[Stray Cat]

I find it extremely interesting that the "debunkers" in this place can find NOTHING WHATSOEVER rational to say about a comparison between the research of Maccabee and Sheaffer. Obviously they have neither the skill nor expertise to evaluate such research (otherwise they would have raised legitimate points about it). All they can fall back on is the type of derision and ridicule that all people who have no original ideas of their own resort to - as if THAT makes them experts! LMAO.

Maccabees rather overly complex analysis method is specifically designed to be so confusing that it is rendered useless.
It has been addressed by Sheaffer in as much as it can be shown that a dirty lens can have exactly the same effect. Also when the negatives were rediscovered, they were in particularly poor condition as is obvious by the poor prints we see from them (compare to the pristine McMineville Farmyard photo I posted earlier).
But I don't think my question was derisive or ridiculing in any way:

Why does Maccabee have to go all the way round the houses to find something that supports his belief though?
Something that is supposed to blind us with complexity...
...When a simple 3D model shows the object to be small and close to the camera?

No original ideas of my own:

In my Bryce rendered 3D model, The UFO was about 10inches across and about 15 feet away from the camera position in both rendered pictures. It wasn't moved at all, but I changed the camera position to match as closely as possible to the original photos.

 

[SnidelyW]

A quote from the Condon report specifically addressing standards of credibility for a photo;

"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."

So let's get more than one witness, shall we?

"1956-Rosetta/Natal, South Africa. July 17. Photograph was taken by a well respected member of South African society. Her husband was a major in the South African Air Force, and Elizabeth worked for Air Force Intelligence. Seven photographs were taken in all. There were also two witnesses to the taking of the photos. Taken in the foothills of the Drakensburg Mountains, and so-dubbed the Drakensberg photos. If these are real, they are extremely impressive. She never changed her story. She died in 1994, at the age of 83."
About.com

I use this example to show that the standards of acceptable 'evidence' of something in a photo keep changing to suit the whims of skeptics, and I am afraid they always will. Below is the photo referenced above.