Anybody think there are Aliens (UFO)?

[LissaLysikan]

I think post 360 illustrates perfectly the entire debate in this thread. The misinterpretation of "I have only seen evidence of black crows, therefore require a bit more evidence than anecdote of white ones". A real skeptic (IMUO) stops there and does NOT say there are no white ones, and the majority of the skeptic posts in this thread have not said there are no white ones. Only that there is insufficient evidence to posit that there are any white ones. So all reasonable (my post, I define reasonable) people agree - there is not sufficient evidence to propose any non-mundane explanation for any UFOs, but that does NOT mean that the case is closed and non-mundane ruled out. It's just not a consideration at this time due to lack of evidence.

 

[StevenCalder]

So yes, you are right, I did not read your post carefully enough and that was negligent of me. I apologise to you accordingly.

I appreciate it. I have more respect for those who can put their hands up when they've erred than those who argue on regardless.

Essentially the only difference I can gather between our positions has always been you think it likely based on current evidence that Alien visitation is likely the cause for a lot or some of the UFO encounters (hence why people often mistake your position for "There must be white crows" in the same way you mistook mine), where as I think based on what I've seen it is unlikely.

I'd just ask you to be careful not to caricature people with an opposing view point to you as you've done a few times in this thread. Were not religious zealots out to make sure that we never find evidence, that's not scepticism.

 

[Rramjet]

No, it's not my only criticism at all. Maccabees research is flawed on many levels, but we were talking specifically about the analysis of these Trent photos.

You say Maccabee’s Trent photo analysis is “flawed on many levels”. For this to be anything other than an unfounded generalisation, a mere subjective opinion, you must provide examples of the flaws in the research. So… for example…?

For a scientific report it is not overly complex... as a misdirection from the truth of the McMinneville photos, it is unnecessarily complex and smacks of the same kind of 'find the test that gives the result that fits into our predetermined view' that is used by BLT in their crop circle research. When a more direct approach will do just fine.

Show me which “tests results” were misdirections or otherwise invalid? Until you can do that you are merely stating an unfounded generalisation based on opinion, not fact.

You don't see the smoke and mirrors approach... that's fine, the UFOlogists depend upon people like you.

SHOW me the smoke and mirrors. You keep on stating things for which you provide NO EVIDENCE. You seem to have some sort of double standard here Stray Cat, you want “UFOlogists” to supply sound evidence, but do not apply the same criteria to yourself.

(...)

The Bryce rendered 3D model of the Trent's farmyard was done to approximate the position of the UFO in relation to other recognisable objects in the two photos (some measurements were taken from the drawn plan of the yard as appeared in the Condon report). It is not meant to be an exact replica, it was an exercise to check the movement of the object between the two photos. The ONLY position I could get the same results as the photos was to leave the object in the exact same place. We know that Mr Trent moved to his right to take the second shot so I moved the Bryce modeling camera to the right in a similar fashion. If the UFO were REALLY a big object at some distance, it would not have been positioned in the place it appears on the second photo unless it was traveling directly away from him in which case it would appear a lot smaller in the second photo (and he reported it was traveling right to left). Originally when I did this exercise, I rendered an animation showing this, sadly since I did this initial work, the movie file has been backed up/misplaced. If I find it again, I'll be sure to post it.

But it is OBVIOUS from the photos that Trent has moved forward slightly and has also swung the camera to his left slightly to take the second photo! (just one or two steps would have done it – and Trent might not even have been aware that he took that (or those) steps). Did you test THAT scenario?

Moreover, the UFO is visibly (AND ACTUALLY) smaller in the second shot – so it MUST have been moving away from Trent – and his reporting of “right to left” movement IS also true! The UFO is moving from his right to his left DIAGONALLY at a relatively shallow angle, AWAY from him. That much is patently obvious.

…and moreover it is patently “disappearing” into the haze of the low cloud cover as it travels…

So again I ask you, given your patent failure to replicate the photos, in style or substance, what was the point?

 

[Rramjet]

Thanks Steven... despite appearances to the contrary, I do TRY to be reasonable and I understand your point. I would like to state however that (having now read back over your posts ) while YOU may not be a zealot, there ARE others here who ARE. Equally, while I am (or try hard) not to be a zealot on the other side of the coin, I understand that there are some who are.

Essentially the only difference I can gather between our positions has always been you think it likely based on current evidence that Alien visitation is likely the cause for a lot or some of the UFO encounters

But now you misrepresent my position. If you look back over my posts I have consistently, in (almost) EVERY post, denied that we can conclude ANYTHING from the "Unknowns". I have specifically and repeatedly and especially denied that we can conclude "aliens" from such reports.

I simply argue against the illogical position that because we have "explained" x number of reports, the explanation for the "unknowns" will be the same explanations. FROM THE RESEARCH (eg; Blue Book SR14 - but also Condon, COMETA, UAP...) we KNOW this not to be true - let alone the logical argument against such a conclusion.

Something is happening that is outside our current knowledge. WHAT that is I do NOT know - nor do I care to speculate. I simply understand that the ONLY way to resolve the issue is via research, but the implacability of skeptics on the matter is frustrating that objective.

Some skeptics, like I presume yourself, acknowledge that there exist reliable, scientifically researched, unknown category UFO reports, others persist in ridiculing or otherwise disparaging in turn either the witnesses or the reports, and it is THAT that is a position standing against the known research evidence. And THAT is a position I cannot tolerate. It is a mythology. "Woo, if you like, and I will argue against that position no matter who states it. (you may beg to differ, but that is your inalienable right )

 

[fuelair]

GeeMack – you overstate the case with your “millions” and Thousands”. As far as I am aware, there have only been a handful of properly constituted scientific analyses on the subject. These include the Blue Book Special report No. 14., The Condon Report, The French COMETA study and perhaps the British “UAP” report. Of these reports, the largest was of course the Blue Book SR14 where (initially) approximately 4000 reports were brought for preliminary analysis. Over 1000 were initially rejected because of their poor quality, and eventually, after rigorous scientific analysis, 22% of all reports analysed were categorised as “UNKNOWN”.

That is 22% GeeMack!
If we carry that out to your “Millions” that makes quite a significant number of “UNKNOWNS.

Now – no-one (at least not I) is claiming the “UNKNOWNS” are of “alien” in origin. They are simply “UNKNOWN”. It is disingenuous of you to imply that the UNKNOWNS are actually “alien space craft”. So you pose a question that has no answer. It is like me asking you to show me an UNKNOWN report that has been proven to be of non-alien origin. Sure, you might be able to cite cases where it has been speculated that an UNKNOWN report “resembles” something mundane…but that – as you know – is NOT PROOF. I can equally cite cases where it has been speculated that an UNKNOWN report “resembles” an alien encounter – but that too is NOT PROOF. In both cases it is mere post hoc subjective rationalisation.

So far from “ignoring” your question GeeMack, we have been providing you with the answer all along, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

And StevenCalder, aside from your repetition of the logical fallacy: “All the crows I have seen are black, therefore all crows are likely to be black - if you really want “aliens” to be true, then you would seek out the evidence. I suspect that because you DO NOT seek out the evidence – and strenuously argue against any that is presented to you, you actually DO NOT want to acknowledge the possibility of an alien presence. (again I reiterate – I DO NOT argue that there is “proof” or otherwise of an alien presence – All I am stating is that there are a significant number of UFO reports for which we have no mundane explanation and that these should be researched – indeed MUST be researched - before ANY conclusions can be drawn about their nature.)

How do you propose to research them?

 

[StevenCalder]

But now you misrepresent my position. If you look back over my posts I have consistently, in (almost) EVERY post, denied that we can conclude ANYTHING from the "Unknowns". I have specifically and repeatedly and especially denied that we can conclude "aliens" from such reports.

That's not what I was suggesting.

I too (and I'd wager every other sceptic reading this) would concur that you can't conclude anything based on the evidence so far. But conclusions are distinct from speculation, which is what I was referring to. Being that you obviously are quite involved in the subject it would naturally follow that you think there is at least a decent chance there is something to it.

I just thought it unlikely you picked the field of Ufology at random.

That's all I meant.

I simply argue against the illogical position that because we have "explained" x number of reports, the explanation for the "unknowns" will be the same explanations. FROM THE RESEARCH (eg; Blue Book SR14 - but also Condon, COMETA, UAP...) we KNOW this not to be true - let alone the logical argument against such a conclusion.

Yes, we cannot conclude that mundane events are the cause for all UFO's.
The natural assumptive position when we don't have evidence of anything more elaborate is simply that it is a mundane event (which we see happen all the time). That changes as soon as we have more evidence, and is not so be confused with a conclusive position.

Something is happening that is outside our current knowledge. WHAT that is I do NOT know - nor do I care to speculate. I simply understand that the ONLY way to resolve the issue is via research,

(bolding mine)
That is where we diverge, I would guess that some degree of speculation has occurred for you to pick the field of Ufology and not Psychics or Telekinesis or any other yet to be evidentially confirmed field. And additionally to assume that it is beyond our current knowledge, that's straight back to an argument from ignorance.

Without conclusive evidence you think it a worthy enough field that you devote time to investigation. I'm not criticizing that. If people didn't investigate things for which we don't have conclusive evidence we would never have any conclusive evidence. Just pointing out that it seems to me that you've made a speculative assessment based on the current evidence at some point and decided that there might be something to the UFO phenomena.

Obviously "Something is happening that is outside our current knowledge." is incorrect until we can actually say what it is. That's : I don't know, therefore they are something new.

but the implacability of skeptics on the matter is frustrating that objective.

I would argue the reason the Ufology movement has failed to please the sceptics so far is because the evidence has yet to support the hypothesis. As you've said your self we can't draw any conclusions from it yet.
We can hardly be faulted for that.

others persist in ridiculing or otherwise disparaging in turn either the witnesses or the reports, and it is THAT that is a position standing against the known research evidence. And THAT is a position I cannot tolerate.

That is not scepticism, that's just cynicism.
I'm not sure if they have forums for that.

 

[Stray Cat]

You say Maccabee’s Trent photo analysis is “flawed on many levels”. For this to be anything other than an unfounded generalisation, a mere subjective opinion, you must provide examples of the flaws in the research. So… for example…?

Why do you so regularly misinterpret people's words?
I said: "Maccabee's research is flawed on many levels but we were talking specifically about the analysis of these Trent photos."
Which I'm sure to most people reading would have meant that I was concentrating on the Trent photo analysis and ignoring the other flawed research he has done (in which he categorised a HOAXED photo of an optical mouse as a genuine UFO amongst other mistakes and inaccuracies in reporting and recording that he has been caught up in).

Show me which “tests results” were misdirections or otherwise invalid? Until you can do that you are merely stating an unfounded generalisation based on opinion, not fact.

The fact that he had to go all the way around the houses to find a single person who could validate his predetermined belief is evidence enough.

SHOW me the smoke and mirrors. You keep on stating things for which you provide NO EVIDENCE. You seem to have some sort of double standard here Stray Cat, you want “UFOlogists” to supply sound evidence, but do not apply the same criteria to yourself.

Yes, funny how I would like them to provide extraordinary evidence of their extraordinary claims isn't it?
The smoke and mirrors is the 'around the houses' method of trying to determine an objects distance from the camera by use of densitometric measurement, which can be effected by all manner of things including negative condition and camera lens cleanliness at the time the photo was taken. Apparently, by measuring the surface brightness of something we don't know against something that we do know on a photo taken by a camera we have no way of knowing was cleaned, from some negatives that had been neglected and damaged, we can determine what Maccabee believed to be true... to be true! Wow!!!!
Whilst other easier, less complex ways of interpreting data in a photo are ignored because they don't show what Maccabee wants to show.
Jim Dilettoso (amongst others) went to great trouble to share his 'expertise' to validate the 'Oliver's Castle UFOs making a crop circle' footage in a similarly contrived way... The experts who were shown that footage who said "Easy to Fake, Looks Faked, Video Artifacts prove it was SFX" never got their opnions published in the believer articles at the time.

But it is OBVIOUS from the photos that Trent has moved forward slightly and has also swung the camera to his left slightly to take the second photo! (just one or two steps would have done it – and Trent might not even have been aware that he took that (or those) steps). Did you test THAT scenario?

Of course he was aware that he had done that, it says so in his statement. It has been suggested that he moved to his right because he thought the object would too quickly disappear behind the garage roof. A few steps forward would have been more sensible but there is no mileage in making speculations about what he should have done. There is no dispute that he changed his position between the two photos and my reconstruction shows he did indeed take only a few steps to his right and swung the camera round to his left. Thereby altering the parallax relationships of the other fixed buildings and objects.

It is this parallax relationship however that clearly shows to me that the object can not have moved at all between the two photos, because it's position in relationship to the garage and the telegraph pole is wrong for a moving object.

Moreover, the UFO is visibly (AND ACTUALLY) smaller in the second shot – so it MUST have been moving away from Trent – and his reporting of “right to left” movement IS also true! The UFO is moving from his right to his left DIAGONALLY at a relatively shallow angle, AWAY from him. That much is patently obvious.

Excuse me... you were saying?
If it was moving in the direction you claim and at the speed Trent claimed, it wouldn't NOT be in the position we see it at in the second photo. If it was moving at the speed Trent claimed and the direction it would have to be moving in for it to appear in that position, it would be smaller. Granted it looks like it's further away because we see less of it because it's now showing a shallower profile, it's lighter in shading... this could be because we can no longer see the much darker underside (the top of the object shows much lighter than it's underside in photo 1), or that smudge on the lens effect or just the poor quality of the neglected, damaged negatives?

…and moreover it is patently “disappearing” into the haze of the low cloud cover as it travels…

Or just as I stated above?

So again I ask you, given your patent failure to replicate the photos, in style or substance, what was the point?

My point is that the representations in size and position are accurate enough for me to determine that the object was about 10 inches and about 15 feet away from the camera. No other configuration of size and direction of travel was compatible with what we see in the two photos.
It was not my mission to replicate the photos, but to build a 3 dimensional model that I could move around in to get the correct viewing angles. Yes, if I had the time or inclination I could build it more accurately to look exactly like the original, but that would just be cosmetic changes and would serve no purpose as it wouldn't make the readings, sizes or angles any more accurate.

Now even if we take Maccabees research as solid (which of course I don't but I can engage with the fantasy when the mood takes me)... the best we would have would be a dark grey crow... still waiting for evidence of that white one though and looking out in excited anticp............


...........pation.

 

[Akhenaten]

You win the thread, for my money.

 

[Correa Neto]

For obvious reasons, there is a general mythology perpetuated by the UFO “debunkers – that popular culture drives UFO experiences. While it may be true in some instances, generally this is not the case. For some instances, it may even be argued that UFO experiences have driven popular culture. But perhaps that is your point?

There is no doubt that UFOs are a shared experience of mankind. SnidelyW is correct that UFO typology presents as no respecter of national boundaries. Representations of UFOs go back centuries, even millennia. The most common representation is of the “classic” disc. THAT much has hardly altered over time. Kenneth Arnold’s Mt. Ranier sighting might have delivered “flying saucers” into popular culture – but he certainly was not the first to witness and describe UFOs. See http://www.ufoartwork.com/ for example.

This is incorrect. Kenneth Arnold's sight was not of disk-shaped objects.
Here he is, with an artistic render of one of the objects he claimed to have seen.

And here you have a close up of the rendering.

He said the objects had jerky movements, like saucers thrown in the water. Some journalist then used the "flying saucer" expression and BANG! Disk- or saucer-shaped objects became the classic trademark of the recently-borne UFO lore. But I must warn that the actual exchange between alleged eyewitnesses and the midia is a complex feedback process. For example, Adamsky "Venusian" scout ship was the obvious source for the "Invaders" saucer. So, here we have a case where imagery from the UFO lore influenced fiction. However, it was imagery from a hoax... Funny enough, the pic of an Adamsky-type saucer appeared at this very thread as a "grey scout ship".

Another possible example would be the 1966 Watshtenaw, Michigan UFO pic as a possible inspiration source for the "V" mothership in the 80s'.

Note that most pics and sighting reports back in the 50's and 60's pointed out at simple shapes with smooth surfaces. It changed after the release of "Star Wars" (taking the "guts-out"spaceship design approach to the limits) and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (I remember seeing it - it was an almost religious experience since I was deep in to UFOlogy back then - but kept thinking "that's not how UFOs actually look like"). The "Project UFO" AKA "Project Blue Book" TV series was also an example of the changing image of UFOs in the media. Multiple lights, complex surfaces then entered the UFOgical scene (check the Belgian UFO wave and pictures such as Gulf Breeze, 1987, Nashville, 1989 and the recent "drone"pics). Clear examples of media influences on UFO imagery.

Below you'll find a compilation of some flying saucers from the big and small screens from the 50s to the very early 70's. I'm pretty sure it'll ring many a bell. 100 nerd points for those who manage to identify to provenance of all the UFOs. Mind you, this is just a small sample. But a comparison between the dates of those movies/TV shows with the dates from the "best UFO pictures" from ufocasebook.com might be enlightening.

And this collage of UFOnaut renderings (by alleged eyewitnesses and artists) contain some UFOs. Can you spot the hoax and media influence signs? No, I'm not saying all UFO stuff is hoaxed.

The substantive point to make here is that SnidelyW is again correct. Invariably the “fame” you mention Sherman Bay is negative and harmful to the person’s interests. I challenge you to name instances where instant celebrity, offers of cash and endless spots on talk shows has been proffered and accepted by an “experiencer”. Moreover, it is never (no I can’t be so categorical, perhaps there exists a case I am unaware of…) the “experiencer” that makes anything out of it. If there IS anything to be made out of it, it seems to be by some egomaniac attention seeker trying – but again invariably failing - to create a substantive image for themselves. I am not saying that it NEVER happens, I am just saying that if it does – it invariably turns sour for the person in the spotlight.

Is it possible that a common motivation for photo hoaxes (apart from the spectacular cases such as Adamski where “guru” status is sought) are a “between mates” type of stunt.

Incorrect again. Adamsky was not the only one to try to reach the spotlights using the UFO phenomena. Don't forget about Meier, Villa, the Ummo case, Prophet Yaweh, Thomas Green Morton and the legion of contactees which appeared since the 50's. Of course, not all contactees had profit as motivation; some probably actually believed they had contacts with aliens, others just wanted some attention while some others just wanted to have some fun, etc. You might say its a short ill-fated fame, but remember the 15 minutes of fame line.

 

[BabyHeadedMan]

This is incorrect. Kenneth Arnold's sight was not of disk-shaped objects.
Here he is, with an artistic render of one of the objects he claimed to have seen.
[qimg]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/KArnold.jpg[/qimg]
And here you have a close up of the rendering.
[qimg]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/colagem4.jpg[/qimg]

From what I have read, Arnold claimed only one of the objects had a crescent shape. The rest supposedly had the shape of a disc which came to a point at one end.

Here is a letter which contains drawings Arnold made depicting how the disc-shaped objects looked from both the top and the side: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Arnold_AAF_drawing.jpg.

 

[Correa Neto]

Thanks but sorry, but that is not exactly saucer or disk-shaped. "D"-shape would be a better description. One could argue that the elipsoidal "flying saucer" from 1955 "This Island Earth" (not included in the collage) could have used it as an inspiration source, however. But I find the designs too contrasting. Looks more like some ships I remember seeing at some Japanese Kaiju movie. Will try to find a screenie.

 

[BabyHeadedMan]

Thanks but sorry, but that is not exactly saucer or disk-shaped. "D"-shape would be a better description. One could argue that the elipsoidal "flying saucer" from 1955 "This Island Earth" (not included in the collage) could have used it as an inspiration source, however. But I find the designs too contrasting. Looks more like some ships I remember seeing at some Japanese Kaiju movie. Will try to find a screenie.

The basic shape he drew looks like a disc to me. Arnold himself described them as being "saucer-like disks" (see http://www.project1947.com/fig/ka.htm).

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

From what I have read, Arnold claimed only one of the objects had a crescent shape. The rest supposedly had the shape of a disc which came to a point at one end.

Here is a letter which contains drawings Arnold made depicting how the disc-shaped objects looked from both the top and the side: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Arnold_AAF_drawing.jpg.

And how and when did he see them from above to see the top?

 

[BabyHeadedMan]

And how and when did he see them from above to see the top?

Arnold explains the drawings thusly:

From http://www.project1947.com/fig/ka.htm

Of course, when the sun reflected from one or two or three of these units, they appeared to be completely round; but, I am making a drawing to the best of my ability, which I am including, as to the shape I observed these objects to be as they passed the snow covered ridges as well as Mt. Rainier.

When these objects were flying approximately straight and level, they were just a black thin line and when they flipped was the only time I could get a judgment as to their size.

 

[Cainkane1]

Does anybody on this site think/believe/know if there have been ETs that have visited Earth? If not, do you think that all of the reports/photos, etc. have plausible explanations, even the ones that can't be explained due to a lack of data?

To be fair, I will go on record as saying that I think there is a more probable than not possibility that there were or are.

A good friend of mine does but i don't.

 

[Rramjet]

Why do you so regularly misinterpret people's words?
I said: "Maccabee's research is flawed on many levels but we were talking specifically about the analysis of these Trent photos."
Which I'm sure to most people reading would have meant that I was concentrating on the Trent photo analysis and ignoring the other flawed research he has done (in which he categorised a HOAXED photo of an optical mouse as a genuine UFO amongst other mistakes and inaccuracies in reporting and recording that he has been caught up in).

Ughhh… gee Stray Cat… We were talking SPECIFICALLY about the analysis of the McMinnville photo found at (http://brumac.8k.com/trent2c.html), so it was natural to assume you would speak to directly to that research when posting. You simply lead with “Maccabee’s research is flawed on many levels…” and one therefore assumes that you were ALSO referring to the McMinnville research that was the current topic under DIRECT discussion. The ending of your statement: “…but we are talking about…”, given the illogic of many posts here, I merely assumed was a confusion in the nature of your language and simply refrained to comment on it.

Actually – if you read through the information at (http://brumac.8k.com/LawtonTriangle/Lawtontriangle.html) you will see the how and the why Maccabee was drawn into a DELIBERATE DECEPTION by debunkers specifically designed to entrap him! Very few research scientists have to contend with this type of deception. One very famous case was of course “Piltdown Man” wherein a “skull” was composited and in 1912 delivered to researchers as a “fossil find” of early man – the “missing link”! This fraud stood for nearly 40 years (!) before being “found out”.

The point is that scientists are only human. They work within the constraints of our evolutionary psychology as do the rest of us. In other words, their work is not carried out within a moral or ideological vacuum.

That researchers in the UFO field must contend with the malign intent of “debunkers” trying whatever immoral method they can think to throw the world of UFO research into chaos says more about the way debunkers approach the world than it does about the scientists who have to try and deal “in good faith” with such idiocy.

The fact that he had to go all the way around the houses to find a single person who could validate his predetermined belief is evidence enough.

Now this says more about your own prejudices than Maccabee’s. You assign a “predetermined belief set” to Maccabee WITHOUT evidence – merely because the outcome of his analysis disagrees with your own belief set!

..and what on earth does “all the way around the houses” reference? It is a terminology I am unfamiliar with. Perhaps you could explain what you mean?

Yes, funny how I would like them to provide extraordinary evidence of their extraordinary claims isn't it?
The smoke and mirrors is the 'around the houses' method of trying to determine an objects distance from the camera by use of densitometric measurement, which can be effected by all manner of things including negative condition and camera lens cleanliness at the time the photo was taken. Apparently, by measuring the surface brightness of something we don't know against something that we do know on a photo taken by a camera we have no way of knowing was cleaned, from some negatives that had been neglected and damaged, we can determine what Maccabee believed to be true... to be true! Wow!!!!

Oh…I see…strange turn of phrase you have there Stray Cat, why didn’t you just say up front that you believed the use of densitrometric measurement methodology to be illegitimate? Typical debunker trickery to try and confuse the issue by not using straight talk?

But if you actually read the research report you would have noted that Maccabee was RESPONDING to earlier attempts - first by Hartmann and then by Sheaffer - to use the technique in their own analysis to support their own conclusion! Maccabee was merely pointing out the FLAWS in that methodology and then trying to correct those flaws to obtain what might be considered a more accurate measurement! THAT was the reason he used such an analytical technique and for you to imply Maccabee used it illegitimately (because of the nature of the potential errors involved) is misleading and disingenuous. You people cannot restrain yourselves from such gross misrepresentation can you?

Whilst other easier, less complex ways of interpreting data in a photo are ignored because they don't show what Maccabee wants to show.
Jim Dilettoso (amongst others…)

Okayyy…then SHOW me where this type of analysis has been applied to the MccMinnville photo and “don’t show what Maccabee wants to show”. Please Stray Cat…can we refrain from making unfounded, misleading generalisations? Stick to the FACTS.

Of course he was aware that he had done that, it says so in his statement. It has been suggested that he moved to his right because he thought the object would too quickly disappear behind the garage roof. A few steps forward would have been more sensible but there is no mileage in making speculations about what he should have done. There is no dispute that he changed his position between the two photos and my reconstruction shows he did indeed take only a few steps to his right and swung the camera round to his left. Thereby altering the parallax relationships of the other fixed buildings and objects.

My question was: Did you test a scenario where Trent moved forward? You say “there is no mileage” in making speculations about what he should have done”. Of course, but is not the object to find out what Trent actually DID do? Or are you just giving us results that match your own belief system? Any good researcher would assess ALL possibilities of Trent’s movement and camera position.

Moreover you are simply MISTAKEN (being polite) in your assessment of parallax movement.

If Trent moved to the right then the distance between the corner of the house and the pole increases.

If the UFO is stationary and Trent moves to his right, then the distance between the corner of the house (and the pole) and the UFO ALSO increases.

But the distance DECREASES, therefore the UFO IS moving from the right to the left in the field of view.

I therefore also think you MUST have Hoaxed your photo, because the images would be impossible to obtain, according to simple parallax calculations, if you had not moved YOUR UFO as WELL AS the camera angle!

ANYONE can check this by getting a pen and paper and creating a plan view of the scene and watching what happens to the (apparent) distances if you make the UFO (and all other elements) stationary and simply move the camera to the right. DID you not think we would discover YOUR HOAX Stray Cat?

Excuse me... you were saying?
If it was moving in the direction you claim and at the speed Trent claimed, it wouldn't NOT be in the position we see it at in the second photo. If it was moving at the speed Trent claimed and the direction it would have to be moving in for it to appear in that position, it would be smaller. Granted it looks like it's further away because we see less of it because it's now showing a shallower profile, it's lighter in shading... this could be because we can no longer see the much darker underside (the top of the object shows much lighter than it's underside in photo 1), or that smudge on the lens effect or just the poor quality of the neglected, damaged negatives?

Here again you mislead and confound!

The UFO IS PATENTLY smaller in the second photo. No amount of obfuscation by you can alter that MEASURABLE fact.

You SPECULATE as to WHY it might be smaller, but ignore the entirely obvious: “Because it was moving diagonally away from the observer! Excuse me…? You people are really something! Black is White and Red is Green.

My point is that the representations in size and position are accurate enough for me to determine that the object was about 10 inches and about 15 feet away from the camera. No other configuration of size and direction of travel was compatible with what we see in the two photos.

That is just RUBBISH Stray Cat. Pure Bunk! As I stated, ANYONE with a pen and paper, using a plan view, can EASILY falsify your statements. They DO NOT need “models” to do so. Talk about needless complexity! Did you really think people were NOT going to test your position on the matter?

…and why is YOUR UFO BIGGER in your second photo? You amaze me… it is OBVIOUS you DID NOT do what you have told us you did in your use of your “model… you did MORE than you are telling us, and what you did was to manipulate the elements and the image in order to force them into alignment with your own preconceived fundamentalist belief system.

 

[arthwollipot]

I am having some serious flashbacks to yesterday's tangle with Baby Nemesis. Same aura of condescending arrogance.

Oh, you noticed that too, huh?

I'm still trying to work out what Rramjets point actually is. He (I assume he is a "he", and my apologies if he is not) states repeatedly that he is only stating that some reports are unexplained, unknown, unidentified. Since we all agree that this is the case, I fail to see why he's pushing the point so freaking hard.

 

[Akhenaten]

Oh, you noticed that too, huh?

I'm still trying to work out what Rramjets point actually is. He (I assume he is a "he", and my apologies if he is not) states repeatedly that he is only stating that some reports are unexplained, unknown, unidentified. Since we all agree that this is the case, I fail to see why he's pushing the point so freaking hard.

That is exactly the nature of a ramjet. No throttle. You start them up and they only stop when they run out of fuel, unless they explode first.

 

[StevenCalder]

I therefore also think you MUST have Hoaxed your photo, because the images would be impossible to obtain, according to simple parallax calculations, if you had not moved YOUR UFO as WELL AS the camera angle!

Do you not see the work your going to to maintain your belief in a photo which doesn't prove anything?

Why are you being so angry and combative? with ALL the CAPS everyWHERE?

I would invite you to build your own 3d model and attempt to repeat the results.


I personally was quite impressed with Stray's model

 

[Stray Cat]

Actually – if you read through the information at (http://brumac.8k.com/LawtonTriangle/Lawtontriangle.html) you will see the how and the why Maccabee was drawn into a DELIBERATE DECEPTION by debunkers specifically designed to entrap him! Very few research scientists have to contend with this type of deception.

You're of course presuming that I haven't already read the lame reasoning and excuses given by Maccabee.

One very famous case was of course “Piltdown Man” wherein a “skull” was composited and in 1912 delivered to researchers as a “fossil find” of early man – the “missing link”! This fraud stood for nearly 40 years (!) before being “found out”.

So given the historical evidence that scientists can be exposed to such hoaxes (not that UFOlogy is a science), have they done anything to take this into account?
The answer is "yes" by the way. Only UFOlogists still don't seem to see this as a major issue and have learned nothing from the past 50 years in which hundreds of hoaxes have been classed as UFO/Alien space craft.

That researchers in the UFO field must contend with the malign intent of “debunkers” trying whatever immoral method they can think to throw the world of UFO research into chaos says more about the way debunkers approach the world than it does about the scientists who have to try and deal “in good faith” with such idiocy.

The FACT that people (what ever their motives are) can still today provide sketchy details and an ambiguous photo to a UFOlogist and have them claim it is a 'genuine event' shows the lack of due diligence on behalf of these UFOlogists and has consistently shown this to be the case for 50 years, with no sign from these so called 'experts' that they are going to start to buckle down and figure out a way to make their 'research' more watertight in order to be able to spot a 'hoax' when they see one.

Now this says more about your own prejudices than Maccabee’s. You assign a “predetermined belief set” to Maccabee WITHOUT evidence – merely because the outcome of his analysis disagrees with your own belief set!

So perhaps you can show me the list of other scientists and experts who agree with analysis?

..and what on earth does “all the way around the houses” reference? It is a terminology I am unfamiliar with. Perhaps you could explain what you mean?

Sorry Rramjet, I prefer using unoffensive, non aggressive terms like "all the way around the houses" (which I thought the meaning of quite common, but maybe that's only the case here in the UK) to colour up my posts than to use your errrrrr.... slightly uptight approach.
It means instead of getting at the root of the matter, he has gone a long way around, but I suspect you know this. Your posts are getting more and more irrational and making an issue out of statements like this is a typical trollers trick to make responding to such nonsense even more tedious than it is to start with.

Oh…I see…strange turn of phrase you have there Stray Cat, why didn’t you just say up front that you believed the use of densitrometric measurement methodology to be illegitimate? Typical debunker trickery to try and confuse the issue by not using straight talk?

Because I don't believe it to be illegitimate... I believe it's application in certain circumstances to be inappropriate and the results to be highly questionable.

But if you actually read the research report you would have noted that Maccabee was RESPONDING to earlier attempts - first by Hartmann and then by Sheaffer - to use the technique in their own analysis to support their own conclusion! Maccabee was merely pointing out the FLAWS in that methodology and then trying to correct those flaws to obtain what might be considered a more accurate measurement! THAT was the reason he used such an analytical technique and for you to imply Maccabee used it illegitimately (because of the nature of the potential errors involved) is misleading and disingenuous. You people cannot restrain yourselves from such gross misrepresentation can you?

So you're saying he tweaked the parameters so that it confirmed his pre determined belief.
I've seen that happen too many times.
But actually there are two different types of densitometric analysis, both were used. Maccabees shows one thing, Sheaffers another. When you have two opposing viewpoints, the truth is actually somewhere between the two.
They can not both be correct... but neither has to be completely wrong either.

Okayyy…then SHOW me where this type of analysis has been applied to the MccMinnville photo and “don’t show what Maccabee wants to show”. Please Stray Cat…can we refrain from making unfounded, misleading generalisations? Stick to the FACTS.

You're no doubt fully aware that Sheaffer did series of tests 'similar' to those done by Maccabee where he smeared petroleum jelly on a camera lens to demonstrate how inaccurate the method is.

My question was: Did you test a scenario where Trent moved forward? You say “there is no mileage” in making speculations about what he should have done”. Of course, but is not the object to find out what Trent actually DID do? Or are you just giving us results that match your own belief system? Any good researcher would assess ALL possibilities of Trent’s movement and camera position.

Yes I did. It is clear that he moved to his right.

Moreover you are simply MISTAKEN (being polite) in your assessment of parallax movement.

My assessment of parallax relationships is borne out by what we can all see on the original photos.

If Trent moved to the right then the distance between the corner of the house and the pole increases.

Which it does...
It's not the house, it's the garage.

If the UFO is stationary and Trent moves to his right, then the distance between the corner of the house (and the pole) and the UFO ALSO increases.

Unless the UFO is directly above the telegraph pole, it will appear to move more, or less depending on if it's closer or further away.

But the distance DECREASES, therefore the UFO IS moving from the right to the left in the field of view.

No

I therefore also think you MUST have Hoaxed your photo, because the images would be impossible to obtain, according to simple parallax calculations, if you had not moved YOUR UFO as WELL AS the camera angle!

No

ANYONE can check this by getting a pen and paper and creating a plan view of the scene and watching what happens to the (apparent) distances if you make the UFO (and all other elements) stationary and simply move the camera to the right. DID you not think we would discover YOUR HOAX Stray Cat?

I don't know who you think the "we" is that has apparently discovered my hoax.
I'd like to see you pen and paper drawn plan view to check you have everything positioned correctly though.
Like I already said, I originally made all this into an animation when I did the work years ago. The animation showed the scene from the plan view, the camera then moved to position one and then to position two. It then tried several other possibilities out and showed none of them to be able to match up the positions as seen in the Trent photos. As soon as I can find that full animation (the two screen grabs from the position one and two I have posted are the only two bits I still had kicking around on my hard drive) I will post it.

Here again you mislead and confound!

No

The UFO IS PATENTLY smaller in the second photo. No amount of obfuscation by you can alter that MEASURABLE fact.

It appears to be slightly smaller. The parallel lines show that the actual change in size is hardly consistent with an object flying at speed away from the observer.

You SPECULATE as to WHY it might be smaller, but ignore the entirely obvious: “Because it was moving diagonally away from the observer! Excuse me…? You people are really something! Black is White and Red is Green.

No, black is still black (though I'm sure Maccabees densitometric analysis would show otherwise in the right conditions)

That is just RUBBISH Stray Cat. Pure Bunk! As I stated, ANYONE with a pen and paper, using a plan view, can EASILY falsify your statements. They DO NOT need “models” to do so. Talk about needless complexity! Did you really think people were NOT going to test your position on the matter?

Then post your pen and paper drawings and let's have a look?
Or do we just take your word for it?

…and why is YOUR UFO BIGGER in your second photo? You amaze me… it is OBVIOUS you DID NOT do what you have told us you did in your use of your “model… you did MORE than you are telling us, and what you did was to manipulate the elements and the image in order to force them into alignment with your own preconceived fundamentalist belief system.

As soon as I find the time to look through my extensive collection of back up discs (I'm not the most organised person when it come to putting labels on back ups), I'll post the whole animation that clearly shows I did exactly what I've described doing.
Let's just hope I haven't got extremely tiered of your increasingly irrational posts before I find it eh?