UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Correa Neto]

Its A.S.S.

Its A.S.S.

Its A.S.S.

Its A.S.S.

Everything in this thread is all about the A.S.S.
see how simple my new system is yet

OK, but I need to know how Uranus fits in to this A.S.S. Of yours!
Sorry, too much wine at that last conspiratory NWO meeting...

 

[Marduk]

OK, but I need to know how Uranus fits in to this A.S.S. Of yours!
Sorry, too much wine at that last conspiratory NWO meeting...

when you see Uranus in the night sky let me know, I'll try to fit it into your A.S.S.

 

[Toke]

riiiight, these'll be the gods of yours that didn't make it to their 500th birthday before they got canned then,

Actually there are a few people trying to revive them.
As if one monotheist trinity was not enough.

 

[Marduk]

Actually there are a few people trying to revive them.
As if one monotheist trinity was not enough.

sames happening in Greece too, but they were only ever cheap copies of Mesopotamian deities anyway
aaaand, my Nominees uncle is the head of the pantheon of two of the worlds largest religions which means I can call on approx 54% of the worlds population as support

 

[Puddle Duck]

this is Bel Marduk on his flying dragon
[qimg]http://www.maravot.com/Marduk_Tiamat.gif[/qimg]
look hes holding a thunderbolt
and unlike your modern repro comic book, this is an original ancient world depiction
beat that

Poor Tiamat, she forgot to follow the first rule of Dragondom which is "Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and go well with ketchup!".
See what that got her for letting her little boy play horsey and ride on her back. That evil ungrateful child paid her back by practicing Matricide on her.

But not to worry, Coyote was on hand over 10K years ago to greet the first of the illegal aliens crossing the bridge. AAnd he is still here practicing his wily trickery.

 

[Marduk]

But not to worry, Coyote was on hand over 10K years ago to greet the first of the illegal aliens crossing the bridge. AAnd he is still here practicing his wily trickery.

Yeah I keep hearing that, but unfortunately no one wrote anything down, besides which, the experts would be the NA, and as far as I know they don't blame Coyote for A.S.S.

 

[Rramjet]

Clarification of Trent/Mcminnville case

There has been a lot of recent speculative talk about the McMinnville photos. I just need to clarify a couple of points.

First, the “it was a truck mirror” devolution. This was first proposed about 10 years ago by Joel Carpenter and was the result of a long search for something he could “hang” a hoax on.

1. There is no evidence that Trent even had such a mirror.
2. The edge outlines of the mirror and the UFO, while similar, are not identical.
3. The mirror has a central mount while the UFO’s “central pole” is off-centre.
4. The mirror is round while the UFO is not. (If you look carefully at the UFO in photo 1, you will note that the left edge is very slightly “V-shaped”. This is illustrated by Dr Maccabee here: (http://brumac.8k.com/trent2.html).

Second, careful analysis by Dr Maccabee has shown that the “sightlines” do NOT cross under the overhead wires as has been speculated by the UFO debunkers in this thread (specifically Stray Cat and his “diagram”): This has been demonstrated here (http://brumac.8k.com/trent2c.html - just after Appendix B) in the following scale diagram (something Stray Cat has not provided and also refuses to supply ANY of his calculations to show us how he worked out the dimensions not only of the UFO but of the scene and surroundings as well).

Dr Maccabee's calculations are provided on his website to show how he derived this image (http://brumac.8k.com/trent2c.html - just after Appendix B).

Anyone who reads the complete Trent2 document (http://brumac.8k.com/trent2.html) and understands it, will realize that this attempt to locate the SLC (sighting line crossover) relative to the wires, is basically a search for evidence pointing toward a hoax - since it would be a "suspicious coincidence" if a moving object and moving cameraman were to accidently have sighting lines that passed exactly beneath the overhead wires. The result is that there is no clear evidence of a hoax. However, this doesn't prove it is not a hoax. The object could be on a thread (color matched to the horizon) and swinging like a pendulum toward and away from the cameraman - or he could have slid the suspension point along the wires… but then, why would he bother to move between pictures?

As I have pointed out before, a mere photo a UFO does not make. At best it can act as an aide to the witness(es) recollection and our understanding of what was observed by the witness. At worst it can provide direct evidence of a hoax. The Trent/ McMinnville case ultimately has to be based on the circumstantial evidence. Given all the evidence, the probability that the Trents, of all people, would even think of a hoax, to say nothing of carrying one out seems remote.

 

[Marduk]

There has been a lot of recent speculative talk about the McMinnville photos. I just need to clarify a couple of points.

sorry RRRrrroger, we've all moved on, I don't see any evidence in your post that is not ruling out that God did it.

do you have any evidence that proves God didn't do it or not, because if not, youre style of posting has gone redundant in your absence

 

[GeeMack]

There has been a lot of recent speculative talk about the McMinnville photos. I just need to clarify a couple of points.

You have to prove it wasn't a manifestation of a god or gods. Really, keep up.

 

[Astrophotographer]

There has been a lot of recent speculative talk about the McMinnville photos. I just need to clarify a couple of points.

First, the “it was a truck mirror” devolution. This was first proposed about 10 years ago by Joel Carpenter and was the result of a long search for something he could “hang” a hoax on.

1. There is no evidence that Trent even had such a mirror.
2. The edge outlines of the mirror and the UFO, while similar, are not identical.
3. The mirror has a central mount while the UFO’s “central pole” is off-centre.
4. The mirror is round while the UFO is not. (If you look carefully at the UFO in photo 1, you will note that the left edge is very slightly “V-shaped”. This is illustrated by Dr Maccabee here: (http://brumac.8k.com/trent2.html).

1. There is no evidence they had a lot of things they probably had. This is a bad point. Do you have their trash pickup from that time period to prove they NEVER could have had a mirror?
2. Various trucks have various mirrors. Do you have all the mirrors possible that could be in existence at the time?
3. Varous trucks have various mirrors. Not all are center mounted.
4. Can you eliminate all mirrors in this examination. What about one with a dent or manufacturing defect in it?

All four of your points are invalid. They prove exactly nothing. You only eliminate what you desire and then declare it can not be a truck (or automobile) mirror without eliminating all possilbe mirrors.

Second, careful analysis by Dr Maccabee has shown that the “sightlines” do NOT cross under the overhead wires as has been speculated by the UFO debunkers in this thread (specifically Stray Cat and his “diagram”): This has been demonstrated here (http://brumac.8k.com/trent2c.html - just after Appendix B) in the following scale diagram (something Stray Cat has not provided and also refuses to supply ANY of his calculations to show us how he worked out the dimensions not only of the UFO but of the scene and surroundings as well)

Exactly why does the UFO have to be suspended directly underneath the power lines? Sure the power lines are unique and an easy method but Carpenter proposed a slightly different technique.



Is this how it was done? Maybe or maybe not. However, just because the sightlines do not cross directly beneath the wires, does not mean the wires could not be used in the process. Of course, there is always the stepladder approach. Say....wasn't there a photo of one of the kids on a step ladder???

 

[Astrophotographer]

Given all the evidence, the probability that the Trents, of all people, would even think of a hoax, to say nothing of carrying one out seems remote.

Are you stating that the Trents were stupid hicks that could not figure out how to photograph a suspended model???? Hmm.......Now you sound like Dr. Maccabee, who claims Ed Walters was not smart enough to conduct such a grand hoax that could fool him.

 

[GeeMack]

All four of your points are invalid. They prove exactly nothing. You only eliminate what you desire and then declare it can not be a truck (or automobile) mirror without eliminating all possilbe mirrors.

And he hasn't even begun to debunk the possibility that it was an incident created by a god who was pulling a prank for the simple purpose of hooking Rramjet many years in the future so he would make a fool of himself on an Internet forum. No evidence conflicts with that possibility, and some supports it. Gods, by definition, can do such things. Obviously that explanation is still on the table, and obviously it carries much more weight than the unsupported assertion that it was aliens.

God theory still kicking alien theory's ass.

 

[RoboTimbo]

So a vehicle's broken side mirror is Rramjet's best case? Did Rramjet ever mention what discipline he is a "scientist" in?

 

[Marduk]

So a vehicle's broken side mirror is Rramjet's best case? Did Rramjet ever mention what discipline he is a "scientist" in?

Proctology, from what I can see of his performance in this thread

 

[Access Denied]

Cheers for that Here's another one then:

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Attack-Poster.jpg[/qimg]

Damn, you’re good...

 

[Access Denied]

“Hey honey, a specimen is proof of a species, right”?
“What a silly question. Of course it is. Are these internet debates with believers damaging your brain?”

"No honey, sharpening it."

 

[Access Denied]

However, just because the sightlines do not cross directly beneath the wires, does not mean the wires could not be used in the process.

True, but I’m not convinced they don’t. Note that in typical saucer logical fashion Maccabee “assumes”…

“The other end of the wires, according to Mrs. Trent, went to the "middle" of the garage which, I assume, means the middle of the rear end of the garage.”

Huh?

Now, notice in his diagram here, if they actually went to the middle of the garage like she said…

http://brumac.8k.com/images/trent/TrntCF2ADD84B.gif

Voilà! The sightlines “magically” cross directly beneath the wires.

I wonder if the recently revealed Life photos of the property might offer a way to resolve this issue one way or the other?


ETA: These are the Life photos that appear relevant…

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/l?imgurl=ddadf1ce4f6eeef3
http://images.google.com/hosted/life/l?imgurl=dacafd5c58536f8e
http://images.google.com/hosted/life/l?imgurl=47873363a86d14f7

Turns out the lines do go to the rear end of the garage as Maccabee assumed. Still not sure how well his diagram and other estimates he made compare to these photos though.

ETA2: Is it just me or does there appear to be a third wire going from the middle of the house to the front of the garage (?) in this photo here...

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/l?imgurl=c94549c485dbfb12

...and the last one above?

ETA3: Third wire to front of garage visible here...

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/f?imgurl=3005e278fbf74521

...and second one above.

 

[Rramjet]

Are you stating that the Trents were stupid hicks that could not figure out how to photograph a suspended model???? Hmm.......Now you sound like Dr. Maccabee, who claims Ed Walters was not smart enough to conduct such a grand hoax that could fool him.

Your “trick” here of setting up negative association in the reader’s mind by utilising a “strawman” argument shows, in my opinion, the baseness to which members of the JREF are willing to sink to discredit anything or anybody associated with the topic of UFOs. Your “stupid hicks” comment is one that has sprung purely from associations within your own mind. Perhaps aided by Stray Cat, who first introduced this type of slur on the Trent’s status with his

…backwater farmer

comment. You did not question his use of such a term at the time (and now we know why). Yet when I referred readers of this thread to the analysis of Dr Maccabee here (http://brumac.8k.com/trent2.html) and stated

Given all the evidence, the probability that the Trents, of all people, would even think of a hoax, to say nothing of carrying one out seems remote.

, you immediately set up the strawman to the effect that I had somehow claimed a derogatory term in relation to the Trents (Is this enough to demonstrate hypocrisy on your part? In my opinion it is). I was actually referring to the results contained within Dr Maccabee’s analysis (which clearly you had not read): That is:

In many conversations (by phone) with Mrs. Trent I asked her questions which, I believe, she had never been asked before, at least not in relation to the UO photos. Some of these questions had to do with the daily activities of the Trents. Her answers were quite consistent during the three year period of our conversations. According to Mrs. Trent, she was "out feeding the rabbits in the yard alongside the garage" (9) just before she saw the object. (She said the same thing to Hartmann.) I therefore asked her, in several different conversations and in different contexts, when she fed the rabbits. She replied that she fed them in the morning before going to work (i.e. , before 8:00 AM) and in the evening. I also asked her what their usual morning and evening activities were "back in those days." She recalled that she and her husband would arise about 4:30 AM and take care of the animals in the barn (cleaning, milking, etc.). After finishing these chores and eating breakfast Mr. Trent would drive a truck from farm to farm collecting milk for transport to a local dairy. His "milk run" began between 5:30 and 6:30 AM, and he usually did not finish until after 10:00 AM, depending upon the number of farms he had to visit. Mrs. Trent pointed out that this milk run took place daily except under unusual circumstances (sickness, very cold weather). In the afternoon Mr. Trent worked at the Alderman berry farm . He would have been home in the evening after about 6:00 PM. (10,16,17,18)

Besides the farm chores, Mrs. Trent had to take care of her children (whom she left with her mother-in-law who lived several hundred feet west of them) before going to work at about 8:30 AM with a friend. She worked at a chicken cannery until late in the afternoon. Thus the daily schedule of the Trents strongly suggests that they would not have had time for perpetrating a photographic hoax in the morning. Moreover, their schedule indicates that Mr. Trent would not even have been home in the time frame suggested by Sheaffer.

Consider the following question: if it was a hoax, why did they do it at a very inconvenient time during the morning of a weekday when they had many other things to do in the morning? If it was a hoax they could have made the photos at any convenient time such as, for example, the evening.

Clearly the Paul and Evelyn were very busy people in those years. They had plenty to do besides thinking of ways to create a photographic hoax to "prove" the Mrs. Trent had actually seen "flying saucers" three times before, as suggested by Klass(2). (Note: her previous sightings might have been misidentifications, as are the bulk of UFO reports. She also said she had seen some UFOs in the years following the photos but they were much farther away. Of course, if the original sighting had been a hoax, a very successful one at that, they might have easily taken more photos in later years, but they didn't.) If the Trents had publicized their photos widely and had tried to capitalize on their success one might be tempted to think that they had created a hoax for monetary gain. However, as pointed out by Hartmann, there is no indication that the Trents ever received any money for their photos, nor is there any indication that ever even tried to capitalize on their photographs.”​

​

(http://brumac.8k.com/trent2.html)

The point is that given the honesty of character and lifestyle of the Trents, as derived from interviews and other information supplied by people who knew them well - or interviewed them (including Hartmann!), there is no evidence that the Trents would be likely to hoax anything, UFO sighting or otherwise. Of course supposedly "honest" people have been known to do foolish things, but that would definitely seem to be "out of character" for the Trents.

In my opinion, your own and other JREF member's resort to such "slurs" on the characters of (most likely) innocent people (including people who post opinions in opposition to your beliefs) actually reflects badly on the JREF and its members, and particularly on Randi, for implicitly countenancing such behaviour by not applying the requirement for "civility" as outlined in the JREF Forum rules.

 

[Stray Cat]

If Maccabee is so precise, how come both of his diagrams of the Trent's back yard are so different?

Coming soon - Showing how Maccabee has misrepresented the length of the garage (taken from same source as Maccabee, the aerial survey photo)

 

[Stray Cat]

Perhaps aided by Stray Cat, who first introduced this type of slur on the Trent’s status with his comment.

Was Mr Trent a farmer?
Is his farm somewhat in the backwaters of Oregon?

OK then.

Besides, as I already explained, my point was that a professional photographer would know more about photography than a 'back water farmer' which when you challenged me on the statement I clarified by saying that no doubt Mr Trent would know more about farming than a professional photographer.