UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
GeeMack said:
I still say if Rramjet can't disprove the hypothesis that UFOs are manifestations of the gods, then that theory trumps aliens because gods were proposed as explanations for UFOs long before aliens were ever even considered.
Click to expand...

My Mr T theory is better, as we can prove Mr T exists and he's awesome.
 
Yes. We have mountains of evidence that people sometimes see things in the sky and don't know what they are.
 
Astrophotographer said:
Does this mean the Trent and Trindade photographs could be a hoax?
Click to expand...
Of course. Does it mean they are likely to be hoaxes? Based on the evidence, no.

Astrophotographer said:
Hmmm...does this mean the Stan Romanek, Ed Walters, and Billy Meier videos/films/photos should be considered valid evidence? They are supported by testimony from more than one individual. That must mean something. Are you ready to join the Meier cult?
Click to expand...
Ughh… when something is SHOWN to be a hoax, then that’s it… but if the evidence supports the veracity of the pictures, that’s another matter altogether.

Astrophotographer said:
Why not? You are a scientist. Why haven't you made a proposal of this kind? Why are you wasting your valuable time here when you could be making actual scientiific progress on UFOs?
Click to expand...
Oh how little you know…

Astrophotographer said:
It is my opinion that this kind of examination of the skies is already happening. Amateur and professional astronomers are operating all-sky video cameras trying to capture meteors and fireballs. They use these cameras to triangulate the path of the meteor in conjunction with visual observations and other camera systems. We also have weather cameras, security cameras (Many manage to record bright fireballs), volcano camears, action news camears, traffic cameras, etc. etc. The sky has never been so monitored and yet none of these collection of camears have yet to record a bonafide UFO event. The lack of any of these devices recording a "genuine" UFO of the type described by all of those MUFON/NUFORC reports (numbering the hundreds each month) indicates something.
Click to expand...
Show me how many of these pieces of equipment capture aeroplanes… (actually flying that is…). Huh…THAT should indicate something to YOU…

Astrophotographer said:
The instant I see Jaime Maussan, I begin to question the integrity of the video. His exploitation of the 2004 Mexican AF video and the 1991 solar eclipse videos are just the tip of the iceberg on his gullibility and desire to perpetuate any hoax with no investigation. To me they look like balloons being released out of a bag and staged to look this way. I am not impressed. There is nothing in these videos that indicate an alien technology. Is this your BEST CASE or is it just throwing things against the wall hoping something will stick?
Click to expand...
Yeah, right…attack the man rather than the evidence. LOL. How many “balloons” can that “bag” hold do you think. Perhaps you should calculate the dimensions of the released “balloons” and then the dimension of the “bag” and tell me the result. No? I thought not. …and “not impressed”? Yeah right!

Stray Cat said:
Yes, I did, I just can't be bothered finding the link... think what you like.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t just “think what I like”, I use evidence to support my assertions.

Stray Cat said:
Really, use which ever distances you want... If it's flying North West as Trent states, does that make it alien?
Click to expand...
No, I don’t use “which ever distances” I want, I use precise measurements and calculations to arrive at my conclusions. Does it make it alien? Good question, on the evidence of this one set of two photos alone, we cannot draw that conclusion. But let me ask you something, does it look mundane to you?

Stray Cat said:
So you're telling me if I enlarge one of the photos by 6%, there is a 10% difference in size of the object?
Click to expand...
No, I am telling you that because there is a 6% differential in picture size, the UFO in the second photo must be increased in size by 6% before we can accurately compare its size with the UFO in the first photo.

Stray Cat said:
You can't accurately measure the difference because it's a low res, highly compressed jpg file.
What you CAN see, it that it's not 10%.
Click to expand...
Unfounded assertion based on…? I provided a sound methodology to allow an accurate calculation of the size differential in the UFO between P1 and P2. You merely “had a look at the pictures”, did a little cutting and pasting, and gave an opinion…

Stray Cat said:
I know that's what you 'want'
Because you're willing to discuss and argue irrelevant points because that;s all you have... Irrelevance.
For all the calculations and petty arguments over exactly which direction the object was reportedly traveling in... what is the end result if an agreement is reached?
Does it suddenly become alien?
Click to expand...
By the way you are talking I gather you have checked over my calculations (perhaps even conducted some of your own) and finally realised I am correct? Even - dare I speculate – you found that 10% is an underestimate of the size differential! :) (that is why scientists offer conservative conclusions – because people checking back over their work will be startled to realise that the truth is an even stronger conclusion than stated might be warranted)

It does not “suddenly” become alien. It is a UFO. But it does beg the question. If not mundane, then what?

Stray Cat said:
Nope, I've just double checked... the ONLY versions of the phots I have on my computer apart form those I have altered and added labels to, are the full res pictures from Here and Here
Click to expand...
But why are the UFOs in your “overlay” different to those photos then? Mere compression from the originals cannot explain the “blurriness” and lack of detail… for example here is an 11Kb JPG file of UFO2 taken directly from those files. It is a MUCH more compressed and smaller image that yours. Notice any difference with yours?
picture.php


See the difference with yours. So your excuse that yours is a compressed JPG and that explains the loss of detail is …well…just a poor excuse.

Stray Cat said:
But again, I can't be bothered arguing over things that even if resolved, will not suddenly turn the event into proof of aliens.
Click to expand...
No indeed, but what then IS it a picture of?

Stray Cat said:
Another misrepresentation there.
It's not me that's claiming movement, it's Trent. And then after claiming movement, he wants us to believe that he was using the wrong viewfinder for the job. The viewfinder that made it much more difficult to focus, track and compose. I completely agree that he DID use the wiast level viewfinder, because the physical evidence of the photographs back it up.
what I dispute is that there was any movement from the object. See if Trent's claim was completely correct (moving rapidly between shots etc), he wouldn't have used the waist level viewfinder, it is fitted to cameras for a specific purpose, and this wasn't it.
Click to expand...
Trent DID NOT claim that it was “moving rapidly between shots”! No matter how much “misinformation” you pile on, I will keep coming back at you with the FACTS!

”… "[Witness II] elaborated, 'There wasn't any flame and it was moving fairly slow. Then I snapped the first picture. It moved a little to the left and I moved to the right to take another picture.'" (3). Plates 23 and 24 show the two photographs in the sequence taken. During this interval the object was moving quite slowly, apparently almost hovering…”​
(http://ncas.org/condon/text/case46.htm, p.608)

…and THIS is entirely consistent with:
” Witness II explained that he took the first picture, re-wound his film as fast as possible and then as the object gathered speed and turned toward the northwest, he had to move rapidly to his right to get the second picture. Both were snapped within thirty seconds, he estimated…”​

HE (the witness – Trent) moved “rapidly”, NOT the UFO. That it took about 30 seconds to take the two photos actually supports the contention (according to your own descriptions of it taking time to set up in the waist level view finder) that the waist level view finder was used. (Well, obviously also because of the apparent height of the camera in the two photos!)

Stray Cat said:
No obviously in all my 20 years of being a trained/qualified photographer and prior to that being a photographic technician at my local university, I never came across such equipment. Even though I have owned Bronica and Hasselblad professional medium format twin lens reflex cameras and am full aware of the limitations of the large waist level viewfinders on these models... I'm sure that using one that's smaller than a postage stamp to track an object is no problem for a backwater farmer.
Click to expand...
Exactly, no problem. He was the owner of the camera, and he knew how to operate it. It’s that simple. And that you also now impugn the farmers of the region is sinking to a new low (Should I inform the American Farmers Association of your comments here (or the AFB or the AFR perhaps)? I wonder what they might have to say about such slurs?

Stray Cat said:
And there would be reflection from the glass, distortion from the internal magnifier and all sorts of other negative aspects. Again you're splitting hairs for no other reason than because nearly everyone else has stopped playing with you. The representation clearly states "approximate size of image" nothing more.
Click to expand...
YOU are “playing”. LOL. And it is YOU who I am responding to. With all your alleged photographic “expertise” you cannot imagine how such a device could be effectively utilised? One wonders why the manufacturers persisted with such viewfinders for years into the future if no-one was competent enough to use them!
 
Stray Cat said:
For starters the video footage shown is actually not orientated correctly, The string of balloons is vertical, not horizontal.
Indeed, al you see in the video Rramjet provided is one of these being released:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOIUXsJa5HM

Agreed about Jaime Maussan, he also promoted the 07.07.07 Eastfield Crop Circle as a genuine event (supposedly filmed by a Crop Circle Researcher who claimed that the event took only minutes after a EMP flash of light)... all complete nonsense of course.
Click to expand...

Now you are just grasping at straws! Have another look: (http://vodpod.com/watch/2104507-ufo-giving-birth-to-baby-ships-in-mexico-may-2009)

The orientation is clearly horizontal. And just how many "balloons" can be fitted into the one small bag that is not much bigger than a single one of the "escaping balloons"? Take a close look...
 
Rramjet said:
Of course. Does it mean they are likely to be hoaxes? Based on the evidence, no. [Screed snipped.]
Click to expand...


Talk, talk talk. Prove it wasn't a manifestation of a god or gods. It's a better explanation than your wholly unsupported claim that it's evidence that aliens exist.
 
Rramjet said:
...............
But let me ask you something, does it look mundane to you?

Looks pretty dodgy but is dodginess a sign of alienness?



Rramjet:
"It does not “suddenly” become alien. It is a UFO. But it does beg the question. If not mundane, then what?"

No, it does not. If anything, you are the one begging the question and have been doing so all along.
Here is a nice definition of the expression which could have been written with you in mind.

To beg the question: "Base an argument upon the assumption of the truth of the very thing that has to be proved."

Frederick T. Wood Current English Usage (1981)
Click to expand...
 
Stray Cat said:
Sorry if my responses are getting shorter, it's just that I'm slowly losing the will to live... and banging my head against this brick wall isn't helping.
Click to expand...
No worries, I for one (and no doubt many others) have been enjoying your posts… especially your illustrations, nice work!

On the other hand, I know that elsewhere a number of folks in the “pro” ETH camp are not at all happy with Rramjet’s performance here and have gone into damage control mode as a result. Evidently he’s not doing anyone any favors… go figure.

Ah yes, I believe that’s what’s known as the law of unintended consequences… :)
 
Rramjet said:
:
No, I am telling you that because there is a 6% differential in picture size, the UFO in the second photo must be increased in size by 6% before we can accurately compare its size with the UFO in the first photo.


Unfounded assertion based on…? I provided a sound methodology to allow an accurate calculation of the size differential in the UFO between P1 and P2. You merely “had a look at the pictures”, did a little cutting and pasting, and gave an opinion…


By the way you are talking I gather you have checked over my calculations (perhaps even conducted some of your own) and finally realised I am correct? Even - dare I speculate – you found that 10% is an underestimate of the size differential! :) (that is why scientists offer conservative conclusions – because people checking back over their work will be startled to realise that the truth is an even stronger conclusion than stated might be warranted)
:
Click to expand...
Since both these image files indicate the photos were scanned in at 400 dpi they should have a common scale. No need to rescale either picture. Only the frame borders must match dimensions, which they appear to. If this object is far enough from the camera then a slight change in camera position between each shot will not change the image scale significantly. Besides we can't tell if the camera position moved closer to or farther from the object between shots.

Since the photos have a common scale we should be able to do a direct comparison of the images. If there is a difference then either the object moved farther from the camera or the camera moved farther from the object, or a combination of both. An object which is relatively close to the camera is greatly affected by a change in the camera's position. Otherwise, at "flying saucer" distances we can assume that the object did move away from the camera between photos.

Trent_photo_overlay.gif


It does look like the object moved ~10% farther from the camera between shots, but it does not indicate how far away from the camera the object is. So a relative change in size doesn't mean too much without knowing the distances from the camera, which can't be determined with these photos.
 
Access Denied said:
No worries, I for one (and no doubt many others) have been enjoying your posts… especially your illustrations, nice work!

On the other hand, I know that elsewhere a number of folks in the “pro” ETH camp are not at all happy with Rramjet’s performance here and have gone into damage control mode as a result. Evidently he’s not doing anyone any favors… go figure.

Ah yes, I believe that’s what’s known as the law of unintended consequences… :)
Click to expand...

Please see your message board.
 
What is that thing anyway? I liked the rear-vision mirror that someone proposed earlier, but Óðinn's pics above remind me more of a shower head.



ETA: Hi Dockie!
 
Óðinn said:
Since both these image files indicate the photos were scanned in at 400 dpi they should have a common scale.
Click to expand...
Well, that's only true if the prints which were scanned were printed at the same degree of enlargement from their negatives. Overlaying the distant hills suggests they're not quite matched.
... we can't tell if the camera position moved closer to or farther from the object between shots.
Click to expand...
The change in position of foreground objects like the oil tank suggest the camera moved a few feet further away for the second shot.
It does look like the object moved ~10% farther from the camera between shots, but it does not indicate how far away from the camera the object is. So a relative change in size doesn't mean too much without knowing the distances from the camera, which can't be determined with these photos.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I'm content to note that the camera move alone can completely account for the change in distance to the UFO, if the UFO is small, stationary and suspended from a wire.
 
Akhenaten said:
What is that thing anyway? I liked the rear-vision mirror that someone proposed earlier, but Óðinn's pics above remind me more of a shower head.
Click to expand...


Pedal car hubcap perhaps (approx size 4 - 5 inches)

http://images.google.co.uk/images?h...edal+toys+1940's&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&start=0

- kid grown out of it/broke a bit off, dad takes photos for hobby, dad has idea, "Hey son get on that ladder" and so on....


Mgiht even be possible to work out where string/line was pivoting based on the two photos of this swinging UFO
 
Seems like the god theory debunkers are choosing to remain ignorant. How about it, Rramjet and SnidelyW, can you prove that these unidentified flying things aren't gods?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom