UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Correa Neto said:
Have you ever studied Portuguese? Most people would not be aware of the similarities between those words...
Click to expand...

I have Portuguese friends and have spent many hours of fun watching them try to "pushar" out of buildings. I speak a few languages, Portuguese is one of them (Favela accent:p),

;)
 
Rramjet said:
I described above how we can determine the height of the camera in the original photos…and this assessment directly refutes your claims. You have done NOTHING to refute my analysis. ...If my assessment is mistaken in any way, then you need to SHOW WHY it is mistaken.

ETA: this was my original assessment:
If you look at the photos with a critical eye, you will note that the camera is only slightly below the level of the top of the fuel-oil tank! (That is we can almost see the top of the tank - and in photo 2 the line of the siding board on the house - which is almost level with the height of the top of the tank - forms a continuous line with the top of the tank. If the camera were much lower (like waist high) then that board line would be below the top of the tank).
Click to expand...
OK. Your assessment is rubbish, and here is why: The oil tank present in the original photographs is plainly not sitting vertically. It's tilted over. Compare the angle of its "vertical" edges with the building or land beyond. If you have difficulty finding a horizon, just compare the lie of the land with the later photo which has another building for comparison. If anything, the original photos have the horizon tilted very slightly to the left, and the tank is even more tilted than it immediately appears. If we can "almost see the top of the tank" that does not mean the camera was "almost" as high as the tank.

Here's my assessment: You don't see the building on the right in the original pictures as it would have made the fake UFO look less dramatic, and you might have been able to see the guy on the roof who just threw the hubcap.:D
 
Rramjet said:
I am stating that each print made from the same negative IS different, each from the other. You only have to compare both the P1s – (Covo with Olmos) to see that…

Not only are the pictures different between sources, but they are different within sources as well.
Click to expand...

They look the same to me. Because of the size of the negative (it was 120 film), getting a full frame 8X10 is difficult (if not impossible). As a result, Barauna printed many that were not cropped the same way. This is evident in the P4 shot. The P1 in the Olmos print is faded or was overexposed in the printing process and one can not see the background clouds. This is why he used the P1 Covo print. However, the same data is in the photographs. If you can demonstrate they are different, then feel free to do so. PROVE YOUR ARGUMENT. Are you suggesting that Barauna was manipulating the photographs and leaving out details? Is it possibly he was trying to hide evidence of hoaxing the images? I am not sure you are aware of it but nobody has ever seen the negatives and they were “lost”. The only images that have been preserved are these first generation prints that came from Barauna himself.

Rramjet said:
Not only THAT, if you compare like with like, then between P1 and P4 you will see precisely the SAME cloud pattern, but shifted to the left of the frame. In P1 (any batch) you can see (from the clouds mid-frame) that the wind is pretty strong and blowing from right to left of frame.
Click to expand...

Prove your point. Demonstrate these cloud patterns are the same between P1 and P4. How can you positively know that the wind is “pretty strong and blowing from right to left of the frame” in two frames? Let me know the wind speed. Oh that might require a calculation, which Mr. Science apparently does not know how to do.

Rramjet said:
Anyone with any sort of picture manager (that can manipulate brightness, contrast and midtones) can play with the various pictures (see source links below)to get P1 and P4 to MATCH on cloud patterns! If I (playing with the various pictures) can variously get a cloud match merely using Microsoft Picture Manager AND I can variously get a cloud mismatch using the same program, then Mori can do the same. That Mori presented ONLY one filtering “solution” (and that between batches) and then claimed a “mismatch” in cloud pattern borders on outright fraud.
Click to expand...

Again, show your match. Prove your point. A lot of UFOlogists better than you have tried to perform this “match” but were unable to do so satisfactorily. Show us how you were able to create a match and you still have not described the filter process Mori used and why you can CLAIM it is different.


Rramjet said:
I encourage ANYONE to download the pictures (from all THREE sources!) and play with them and see what happens. You will immediately note that Mori’s solution is a “manipulated” solution and NOT the only solution!
Click to expand...

I agree. I want everyone to download the images and see if they can create a match of any kind. I also would like to see your results. You are making a lot of claims but have produced nothing for everybody to see. It is a lot of hot air.


Rramjet said:
Yeah, like you have done with the photos (LOL) and like I am supposed to read every bit of literature on the web chasing down an obscure reference from you when you could just a easily post the link and have done with it. That you do not post your links when citing what other researchers have stated is simply being obstructionist and certainly not in the spirit of a truly open and scientific debate. It is therefore not I that is being “unscientific” Astrophotographer… it is demonstrably YOU who lays claim to that particular crown.
Click to expand...

What a joke. You do not inform yourself. You do not do any research. You parrot the websites that suit your point of view and do not look beyond them. If that is “scientific”, then you are really out of touch with your profession.
Many of my references are based on a working knowledge of the case. I THOUGHT you might have a similar level of knowledge but it now is obvious to everybody in this forum that it is not even close. Your opinion is uninformed and has little to do with research.

Feel free to produce:

1) Evidence that there is a significant cloud match in P1 and P4
2) Evidence that the winds are blowing from right to left (which is North or west to east or south in these photos).
3) Evidence that the wind is strong. Care to venture a wind speed for us?
4) Evidence that Mori used different filters on the images.

Until you can do so, you are all smoke with no fire.

Rramjet said:
You can’t be serious… in the photo you reproduce the camera is patently higher than either 37” or 42”… in fact the heights are represented on the photo itself and we are looking down on those heights from the position of the camera! So what IS your point? .
Click to expand...

My point is these values come from the 3D model of the area created by Carpenter in which he was able to determine the heights of the camera that took the photographs. They are well below the level one would expect for somebody taking a snapshot of a UFO that appeared in the sky (Unless Trent was a VERY SHORT person). This goes with the quote I provided earlier that these heights indicated the photographer was trying to get the maximum elevation on the UFO. This is possibly due to it being a model suspended by some fishing line.

Rramjet said:
IF you were able to show us a later photo(s) of the same perspective as the original photo(s), where it was also demonstrated that THOSE photos were taken at the height(s) you suggest, then you might have a stronger case… but as it stands, you got nothing!
Click to expand...

I am not going to try and reconstruct Carpenter’s website for you with the images. I suggest you falsify his 3D model with one of your own. Otherwise, your complaints are not based on scientific evaluation but wishful thinking and guesswork.

Rramjet said:
I described above how we can determine the height of the camera in the original photos…and this assessment directly refutes your claims. You have done NOTHING to refute my analysis. All you have done is merely claim that I have “no clue about what you are talking about” (sic)! If my assessment is mistaken in any way, then you need to SHOW WHY it is mistaken. Merely attacking me in derogatory terms does NOT make your case. …But of course, if you don’t have a case of your own, that is all you have left. LOL.
Click to expand...

It refutes nothing because you provide no measurements or modeling to back it up. It is your gut feel but it is not definitive in any way. Throwing a temper tantrum is not going to be satisfactory. I know Mr. Carpenter and you sir, are no Joel Carpenter. He is a UFO proponent who is very methodical. We have disagreed on several items in the past but the one thing he tries to be is accurate. I am pretty confident that his measurements are accurate and they stand until you can demonstrate they are not..

Rramjet said:
If you look at the photos with a critical eye, you will note that the camera is only slightly below the level of the top of the fuel-oil tank! (That is we can almost see the top of the tank - and in photo 2 the line of the siding board on the house - which is almost level with the height of the top of the tank - forms a continuous line with the top of the tank. If the camera were much lower (like waist high) then that board line would be below the top of the tank).
Click to expand...

Quantify the “critical eye”. What is its margin for error? Can you tell me what the height of the tank is? What is the angle at which the camera was pointed? All you are performing is guesswork and does not have any values to represent your claim. Mr. Carpenter created his 3D model of the terrain/yard and then reproduced the angle of the camera based on where the Condon study stated the photographs were taken (based on interviewing the witness and trying to orient the buildings). The only way he discovered that the image could be taken with the camera described is to have the height of the camera being 37” and 42”. Until you can demonstrate those numbers are false with some real data, then your “critical eye” is not that critical and subject to the problems of human error/perception. Do you do all your science by the seat of your pants?
 
Last edited:
To get to the stars it would be nice to travel at a good rate of speed. Just to make the math simple and still proving a point we will make the space ship travel right off at 50% the speed of light. To travel at 50% of the speed of light would take about 1/6 the mass of any object in energy. So for just 6 grams of mass it would take 1 gram of mass turned into energy, and that would be if the system you used was 100% efficient. Now 1 gram of mass turned into energy is one A-Bomb which is equal to about 20,000 tons of TNT. It of course gets much worse at 87% the speed of light where it is about a 1 to 1 ratio, 1 gram of energy for 1 gram of matter. Also, I haven’t talked about stopping, how to make this energy, the added mass of the energy needed to accelerate the fuel, etc. On the energy issue alone, interspace travel is a nightmare if one wants to get anywhere in a reasonable time.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Access Denied said:
Conceptually the only problem I see is at 1g acceleration you hit light speed after 1 year… at which point you’re done accelerating. :)
Click to expand...


Well, the idea is to feel comfortable, like home. Otherwise the poor travellers will arrive all crippled :).

Akhenaten said:
Yet another sow's ear/silk purse moment. Thank you.

:)
Click to expand...


Thanks for your comments, folks :)
 
Access Denied said:
Conceptually the only problem I see is at 1g acceleration you hit light speed after 1 year… at which point you’re done accelerating. :)
Click to expand...
One will never get to the speed of light, as one accelerates one's time slows down. Very slowly at slow speeds, but once one gets up close to the speed of light time slows down a lot. There is more too it, but you will never get to the speed of light, one can accelerate at 1g forever.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Astrophotographer said:
I am not sure you are aware of it but nobody has ever seen the negatives and they were “lost”. The only images that have been preserved are these first generation prints that came from Barauna himself.
Click to expand...

No kidding? Lost, you say?

When I started printing my own photographs as a kid, one of the first things I tried was making that kind of trick photo with double exposure or sandwiched negatives.

I printed a nice picture of our street at night being menaced by a massive, low-flying alien mothership from the planet "Casio FX-102". Sadly the negative is lost...
 
Jack by the hedge said:
No kidding? Lost, you say?

When I started printing my own photographs as a kid, one of the first things I tried was making that kind of trick photo with double exposure or sandwiched negatives.

I printed a nice picture of our street at night being menaced by a massive, low-flying alien mothership from the planet "Casio FX-102". Sadly the negative is lost...
Click to expand...


I don't have any negatives either, but this object buzzed my house last Spring.


UFO.jpg


It appeared to be about the size of a vegetable steamer, which was disappointing as I'd somehow always thought the aliens would be bigger and scarier than that.
 
Meh. Mines are better. And there's no tampering with the negatives.
IMG00084-20091014-1739.jpg

IMG00090-20091014-1742.jpg

I also have this picture of a flight of spiked spidery UFOs:
IMG_7180.jpg

Beware of the Shadows!
 
Correa Neto said:
Meh. Mines are better. And there's no tampering with the negatives.

I also have this picture of a flight of spiked spidery UFOs:

IMG_7180.jpg


Beware of the Shadows!
Click to expand...


Holy naughtypooword!

Brazil just fell completely off my list of places to visit.


ETA: I just noticed that you have over 5 000+ posts up. Well done, Mate.


Paulhoff said:
Speaking of scale.............



Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...


That's just so what I was thinking about when I posted my steamer alien spaceship.

Adams has left a rich legacy.

:)
 
Last edited:
Correa Neto said:
The problem is not the language barrier - Portuguese and Spanish are actually similar for those who are not familiar with them. The problem is Rramjet's modus operandi, pretending to master a number of subjetcs, making assumptions and empty claims.

Such a mistake coming from other posters would probably be ignored by me (or received a diferent reply). Mind you, its not even a matter of the position defended by the poster- had it been Snidley, I would consider it to be a honest mistake, since he AFAIK does not consider himself a scientist neither presents his posts as science.

But as soon as one presents him/herself as a scientist (and especially if this person consistently shows no evidence of mastering the scientific method), my tolerance level for errors and mistakes decreases drastically.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I have no formal science training beyond the high school level, and hope I have never given anyone the impression I have.

I freely admit that I have an abductive reasoning streak in me, as opposed to the rigourous inductive reasoning at work by the skeptics here. I am not a true empiricist, as you appear to be, preferring to examine a concept from all angles. Limiting myself to insight as well as a priori justification at times has coloured my perspective vis-a vis the UFO/alien phenomena.

I fully understand the reliability of a source of belief does not guarantee that the resultant belief is justified. Still, I can reflect on how concept possession guarantees reliability of judgments involving the application of concepts to hypothetical situations, and then know that these sorts of judgments are reliable. I can also claim this thinking is entirely justifiable.

I know we can debate the above on a philosophy thread, but I include it here in the hope that a greater understanding of each others approach can lead to a full appreciation of how each uses 'evidence'.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Akhenaten said:
I'm good with that, for what my opinion's worth. Thanks for an honest explanation of your position.

Now, where were we?

:jedi:
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was off topic, but in my world, understanding is never a bad thing.
For what my opinion is worth, anyway.
 
My respect for SnidelyW just shot up about 672% (<---actual empirical numbers measured by the "respect-o-calliper" I've installed in my PC).

Now if we could get Rramjet to explain his own position as one based on "no formal science training beyond the high school level", "abductive reasoning", a lack of empirical evidence, "a priori justification" and a "perspective coloured" by a personal belief system, then I'd feel some headway had been made in this thread.

I'll go ahead and start holding my breath... now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom